Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40163733›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025

Quirks of cognition explain why we dramatically overestimate the size of minority groups.

Brian Guay, Tyler Marghetis, Cara Wong, David Landy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The cognitive underpinnings of minority overestimation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Reply to Kardosh and Sklar: Prioritizing domain-general explanations of misperception.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Quirks of cognition explain why we dramatically overestimate the size of minority groups.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Brian GuayDepartment of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794.ORCID 0000-0001-6734-1991
Tyler MarghetisDepartment of Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, CA 95343.ORCID 0000-0001-9649-6378
Cara WongDepartment of Political Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.ORCID 0000-0002-0152-037X
David LandyNetflix, Los Gatos, CA 95032.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Americans dramatically overestimate the size of African American, Latino, Muslim, Asian, Jewish, immigrant, and LGBTQ populations, leading to concerns about downstream racial attitudes and policy preferences. Such errors are common whenever the public is asked to estimate proportions relevant to political issues, from refugee crises and polarization to climate change and COVID-19. Researchers across the social sciences interpret these errors as evidence of widespread misinformation that is topic-specific and potentially harmful. Here, we show that researchers and journalists have misinterpreted the origins and meaning of these misestimates by overlooking systematic distortions introduced by the domain-general psychological processes involved in estimating proportions under uncertainty. In general, people systematically rescale estimates of proportions toward more central prior expectations, resulting in the consistent overestimation of smaller groups and underestimation of larger groups. We formalize this process and show that it explains much of the systematic error in estimates of demographic groups ([Formula: see text] estimates from 22 countries). This domain-general account far outperforms longstanding group-specific explanations (e.g., biases toward specific groups). We find, moreover, that people make the same errors when estimating the size of racial, nonracial, and entirely nonpolitical groups, such as the proportion of Americans who have a valid passport or own a washing machine. Our results call for researchers, journalists, and pundits alike to reconsider how to interpret misperceptions about the demographic structure of society.

Indexed as

CognitionMinority GroupsCOVID-19HumansUnited Statescognitionmisperceptionspolitical psychologyrace

Identifiers

PMID40163733
PMCPMC12002232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.