Pengembangan dan Validasi Instrumen Pluralistic Ignorance

Revani Eren; Nia Ramadhan Setiawati; Nabila Al-Hajj Arasy; Rafly Nazwan Fadillah; Nazhif Ezra Rambe

doi:10.31004/riggs.v5i2.11857

Authors

Revani Eren Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia
Nia Ramadhan Setiawati Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia
Nabila Al-Hajj Arasy Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia
Rafly Nazwan Fadillah Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia
Nazhif Ezra Rambe Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31004/riggs.v5i2.11857

Keywords:

Pluralistic Ignorance, Mahasiswa Aktif, Persepsi Sosial, Norma Sosial, Interaksi Sosial

Abstract

Pluralistic ignorance merupakan kondisi ketika individu memiliki persepsi yang keliru mengenai sikap, pandangan, atau perilaku orang lain dalam kelompok sosialnya. Fenomena ini dapat menyebabkan individu menyesuaikan perilakunya berdasarkan norma yang dianggap berlaku, meskipun norma tersebut belum tentu mencerminkan pandangan mayoritas anggota kelompok. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengukur serta memvalidasi instrumen Pluralistic Ignorance pada mahasiswa aktif di Indonesia berdasarkan dimensi importance, frequency, normalcy, dan intentions. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif yang melibatkan 165 mahasiswa aktif dari berbagai wilayah di Indonesia. Data dikumpulkan menggunakan kuesioner skala Likert 1–4 yang terdiri atas 24 item pernyataan. Hasil uji reliabilitas menggunakan aplikasi Jamovi menunjukkan nilai Cronbach's Alpha sebesar 0,796 yang mengindikasikan bahwa instrumen memiliki reliabilitas yang dapat diterima (acceptable). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya fenomena Pluralistic Ignorance pada mahasiswa yang ditandai oleh perbedaan antara pandangan pribadi dan persepsi terhadap pandangan kelompok sosial pada dimensi importance, frequency, normalcy, dan intentions. Selanjutnya, uji validitas konstruk dillakukan menggunakan Conirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Hasil pengujian CFA pada dimensi importance menunjukkan nilai CFI = 0.997, SRMR = 0.0272, RMSEA = 0.0305. Pada dimensi frequency CFI = 0.998, SRMR = 0.0282, RMSEA = 0.0171. Pada dimensi normalcy menunjukkan CFI = 0.995, SRMR = 0.0242, RMSEA = 0.0254. Kemudian pada dimensi intentions menunjukkan CFI = 1.00, RSMR = 0.00647, RMSEA = 0.00. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa Pluralistic Ignorance memiliki item yang baik, reliabel serta valid sehingga dapat digunakan untuk mengukur tingkat Pluralistic Ignorance pada mahasiswa aktif.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Abraham, M., Collischon, M., Grimm, V. et al. COVID-19, normative attitudes and pluralistic ignorance in employer-employee relationships. J Labour Market Res 56, 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-022-00325-4

2. Anggun Pramesti, M. (2024). KURANGNYA RASA PERCAYA DIRI MAHASISWA UNTUK AKTIF DALAM DISKUSI. Jurnal Pembelajaran, Bimbingan, Dan Pengelolaan Pendidikan, 4(7), 14. https://doi.org/10.17977/um065.v4.i7.2024.14

3. Baugh CM, Foster CA, Johnson BR, D’Lauro C.(2022) Pluralistic Ignorance as a Contributing Factor to Concussion Underreporting. Health Education & Behavior. 49(2):340-346. doi:10.1177/1090198121995732

4. Bleize, D. N. M., Anschütz, D. J., Tanis, M., & Buijzen, M. (2021). The effects of group centrality and accountability on conformity to cyber aggressive norms: Two messaging app experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106754

5. Bornschlegl M, Townshend K and Caltabiano NJ (2021) Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Identify Variables Related to Academic Help Seeking in Higher Education. Front. Educ. 6:738790. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.738790

6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

7. Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2022). Understanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 923464. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923464

8. Damanik, M. R., Rusli, R., Manik, R. L., & Khadafi, M. (2025). Metode penelitian kuantitatif: Konsep, jenis, tahapan dan kelebihan. Jurnal Intelek Insan Cendikia, 2(7).

9. Dumford, A.D, Miller A.L, Kevin Lee, C.H, Caskie Adam. (2023). Social media usage in relation to their peers: Comparing male and female college students' perceptions. Computers and Education Open.Volume 4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100121

10. Fatic, A. (2024). “Normalcy” in Behavioral Philosophy and in Spiritual Practice. Religions, 15(2), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15020205

11. Gavrilets, S., Karl, J., & Gelfand, M. J. (2026). The cultural evolution of pluralistic ignorance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(7),e2522998123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2522998123

12. Geiger, S. J., Imada, H., Maharja, C., Powdthavee, N., Vitale, V., Zhang, L., Rosa, C. D., Delabrida, Z. N. C., Nielsen, K. S., Essl, F., & White, M. P. (2025). Understanding the role of pluralistic ignorance in biodiversity conservation: A research agenda. Global Environmental Change, 95, 103043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103043

13. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

14. Glavin, P., & Schieman, S. (2025). The job satisfaction paradox: Pluralistic ignorance and the myth of the “unhappy worker”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 88(1), 22-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725241253252

15. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

16. Jiang, Y., Marcowski, P., Ryazanov, A. et al. (2023). People conform to social norms when gambling with lives or money. Sci Rep 13, 853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27462-1

17. Mata, A. (2025). Pluralistic ignorance for automatic and controlled expressions of prejudice: People believe that others can correct their automatic biases, but still overestimate others' prejudice. Social Psychology. https://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000553

18. McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument Development in the Affective Domain: School and Corporate Applications (3rd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6

19. Miller, D. T. (2023). A century of pluralistic ignorance: what we have learned about its origins, forms, and consequences. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 1, 1260896. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2023.1260896

20. Moojen, R., Gillebaart, M., & de Ridder, D. (2024). Correcting the misperceived social eating norm to dispel pluralistic ignorance and increase sustainable food choices: A field study. European Journal of Health Communication, 5(4), 77-93. https://ejhc.org/article/download/4501/7336/20068

21. Mulya, M. D., & Dewi, F. I. R. (2025). Dukungan Sosial dan Adaptasi Mahasiswa di Lingkungan Kampus. Jurnal Muara Ilmu Sosial, Humaniora, Dan Seni, 1, 125-136. https://doi.org/10.24912/jmishumsen.v9i1.27207.2025

22. Pinho, A.d., Molleman, L., Braams, B.R. et al. (2021). Majority and popularity effects on norm formation in adolescence. Sci Rep 11, 12884. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92482-8

23. Qu, Y., Khan, J., Su, Y., Tong, J., & Zhao, S. (2023). Impulse buying tendency in live-stream commerce: The role of viewing frequency and anticipated emotions influencing scarcity-induced purchase decision. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 10353 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103534

24. Rubio, D. M. G., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94

25. Rui, J. R., & Liu, S. (2021). How do social network sites influence workout intentions: A social norm approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 753189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753189

26. Saidi, S. S., & Siew, N. M. (2019). Investigating the validity and reliability of survey attitude towards statistics instrument among rural secondary school students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(4), 651–661. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.4.651⁠

27. Sparkman, G., & Weber, E. U. (2023). Beyond the single norm: How social perceptions connect in a norm network. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2023.1302029

28. Suarez-Rojas, C., Hernandez, M. G., & Leon, C. J. (2023). Segmented importance-performance analysis in whale-watching: Reconciling ocean coastal tourism with whale preservation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 233, 106453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106453

29. Umar, J., & Nisa, Y. F. (2020). Uji validitas konstruk dengan cfa dan pelaporannya. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia (JP3I), 9(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v9i2.16964

30. Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H., & Nikanfar, A.-R. (2015). Design and Implementation Content Validity Study: Development of an instrument for measuring Patient-Centered Communication. Journal of Caring Sciences, 4(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017

31. Zhao, M., Wu, J., Shao, Y., Chen, J., & Ling, L. (2025). Environmental perceptions and social support as predictors of continued participation in nighttime physical activity. BMC public health, 25(1), 4290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-25512-z

---