A new study published in Political Psychology suggests that people who overestimate how many others share their political views are more likely to hold populist attitudes and mistrust democratic institutions. Using survey data from Germany, the researchers found that these “false consensus beliefs” are strongly linked to support for the idea that a unified “will of the people” should prevail over political elites. The results held regardless of respondents’ political orientation and remained consistent across different ways of measuring both beliefs and attitudes.
Populism is often framed as a response to dissatisfaction with democracy. Across many countries, growing numbers of voters feel that elected leaders are out of touch with the needs and preferences of ordinary citizens. This perception of a “democratic deficit”—a gap between what people want and what politicians do—has fueled the rise of populist movements. These movements argue that the true will of the people is being ignored or suppressed by corrupt elites.
But why do some people feel more strongly than others that democracy is failing to represent them? The researchers behind this study propose that one answer lies in the way people perceive public opinion. Many individuals assume that their own views are widely shared—even when that isn’t true. This tendency to project one’s own beliefs onto the broader population is known in psychology as the “false consensus effect.”
In this study, the researchers examined whether people who hold false consensus beliefs are more likely to embrace populist ideas. They reasoned that when individuals believe that their personal opinions reflect the views of a majority, they may interpret disagreement from political leaders as a sign of elite betrayal. If someone thinks “everyone agrees with me,” then any failure by politicians to act accordingly might feel like a direct rejection of the popular will.
“We initially became interested in people’s perceptions of public opinion because we wanted to investigate whether individuals are more likely to support referendums when they expect their preferred side to win,” said study author Nils D. Steiner, a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Johannes Gutenberg University (JGU) Mainz.
“Our data then revealed another intriguing pattern: people’s perceptions of public opinion often align with their own views. While this is a well-established phenomenon in social psychology, we recognized that it may have significant political implications. Specifically, citizens who strongly overestimate how many others share their views may be more likely to adopt a populist worldview—believing that political elites are unresponsive to what they perceive as the will of the people.”
The researchers analyzed data from the GESIS Panel.pop, a large and nationally representative survey of German adults. Around 3,500 participants were included in the final analysis. The researchers asked participants for their views on a range of controversial policy issues, such as lifting pandemic restrictions, increasing taxes on the wealthy, abolishing the right to asylum, and enforcing gender quotas. Participants were also asked to estimate how many other Germans shared their position on each issue.
This setup allowed the researchers to calculate how much each respondent’s belief about public opinion deviated from actual public opinion within the same survey. The more someone overestimated agreement with their views, the stronger their false consensus beliefs.
The researchers then measured populist attitudes using a widely accepted scale. This scale captures three elements of populist thinking: the belief that the people are a unified and morally good group (popular sovereignty), the view that elites are corrupt and self-serving (anti-elitism), and a tendency to see politics as a battle between good and evil (Manichean outlook).
The results showed a connection between false consensus beliefs and populist attitudes. People who believed that their views were widely shared were more likely to support the idea that government should directly enact the will of the people. They were also more likely to distrust elites and to view politics in moral, black-and-white terms.
This relationship held even when accounting for the specific policy positions participants held and where they placed themselves on the political spectrum. In fact, the link between false consensus beliefs and populism was found among both left-leaning and right-leaning individuals. However, it was strongest among those who identified with the far right.
People on the far right also showed the highest levels of false consensus beliefs. This suggests that a belief in widespread agreement with their views—despite evidence to the contrary—may help reinforce a populist mindset. In these cases, people may not only feel that their opinions are being ignored by elites, but also that the entire system is working against the supposed will of the people.
“People should be aware of a common psychological tendency: we often overestimate how many others share our own views,” Steiner told PsyPost. “Recognizing this can be a helpful reminder that society is more diverse in opinion than it may seem. By becoming more mindful of this bias, individuals may be less likely to fall for overly simplistic populist messages that frame politics as a battle between ‘the people’ and ‘the elite’ — as if these were unified, homogenous groups.”
To ensure their findings were not driven by the specific way they measured beliefs, the researchers tested several alternative approaches. In every case, the pattern remained the same: false consensus beliefs were consistently associated with stronger populist attitudes.
The researchers also examined how false consensus beliefs relate to other indicators of political discontent. People with stronger false consensus beliefs reported lower trust in political institutions and lower feelings of political efficacy—the belief that they can influence political outcomes. These individuals were also more likely to say they intended to vote for populist parties, particularly the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD).
One limitation of the study is that it is observational. While the findings show a strong association between false consensus beliefs and populist attitudes, they cannot determine whether one causes the other. It’s possible that people who already hold populist views are more likely to assume that others agree with them. Alternatively, both beliefs could stem from broader psychological traits, such as a need for certainty or a tendency toward black-and-white thinking.
“It’s difficult to establish the exact causal relationship between false consensus beliefs and populist attitudes,” Steiner noted. “While we suggest that overestimating public support for one’s political views may contribute to populist sentiment, it’s also possible that a populist mindset influences how people perceive public opinion in the first place. Additionally, elite messaging may play an important role: when politicians claim that a ‘silent majority’ supports their policies, their followers may adopt those narratives and further misjudge the actual level of support. These dynamics likely interact in complex ways, and more research is needed to untangle them.”
The study raises important questions about how people form beliefs about public opinion. In today’s fragmented media landscape, individuals often consume information that aligns with their views, leading to “echo chambers” or “filter bubbles.” Social media platforms, online communities, and partisan news outlets may all contribute to the illusion that one’s own opinions are widely held.
Future research could explore whether correcting false consensus beliefs might reduce populist attitudes. For example, would people change their views about democracy or elites if they learned that their opinions were not as common as they thought? The researchers suggest that survey experiments could help answer this question.
Another avenue for future work is to investigate how media environments shape public opinion perceptions. While some studies suggest that personalized online content increases political polarization and false beliefs, others have questioned the extent of such “filter bubbles.” More research is needed to understand how people form beliefs about what others think—and how those beliefs affect political behavior.
“Our longer-term goal is to deepen our understanding of the causal relationships between false consensus beliefs, populist attitudes, and elite messaging,” Steiner explained. “We are also interested in exploring why some individuals are more prone to false consensus beliefs than others, and whether evolving media environments— especially social media—contribute to these misperceptions. Ultimately, we hope this research will inform strategies to foster a more accurate understanding of public opinion and reduce the appeal of polarizing populist narratives.”
The study, “False consensus beliefs and populist attitudes,” was authored by Nils D. Steiner, Claudia Landwehr, and Philipp Harms.
