The false consensus effect (FCE) is a bias that arises when individuals overestimate their own similarity to referent others in terms of attitudes, behaviors, and personality traits. While the FCE may be extremely difficult to expose, it may also cause dramatic flaws in strategy and serious implications for sport managers and researchers alike (Roxburgh, 2003). In accordance with Marks and Miller (1987), the two domains that have emerged as contributing factors to FCE are cognitive and motivational.
The objective of this study was to discuss the FCE concerning issues in interscholastic athletics. Given that ADs and coaches are the primary individuals with power to control high school athletic issues, knowing their consensus or false consensus should be the first step in understanding interscholastic issues. Further, given that FCE independently predicts behavioral intentions regarding social issues (Bauman & Geher, 2002), it is highly likely that ADs and coaches who overestimate the degree to which others share their beliefs tend to make biased evaluations and poor decisions regarding interscholastic issues.
Twenty-two high school coaches and 34 high school ADs participated in this preliminary study. Subjects completed a questionnaire described as a survey of 10 high-school athletics issues which were generated from a panel of experts. This questionnaire measured (1) whether each respondent is in favor of or opposed to each issue and (2) estimates the percentage of peer groups who also favor each issue (on a scale from 0 to 100%). T-tests were carried out to reveal false consensus effects for each item. The results of the study found false consensus from 6 out of 10 issues (at the p < .05 level). Those issues were (1) drug testing, (2) academic eligibility, (3) coaches' performance evaluations, (4) student-athlete fundraising, (5) televising high school athletics, and (6) distribution of funds. Respondents perceived their own opinions as relatively common in the context of high-school athletics. In addition, consistent with the previous literature (e.g., Mullen & Hu, 1988), it was also found that the majority underestimated their consensus by 10.2% (t (9) = 2.22, p = .054) and the minority overestimated their consensus by 27.3% (t (8) = -7.07, p < .001) which yielded an overall false consensus effect of 17.1% (see Mullen & Smith, 1990). Additional managerial implications will be discussed.