If you confidently think you’re right during a disagreement with a buddy or coworker, recent research indicates that you might be mistaken.
Researchers discovered that individuals often believe they have all the necessary information to make a decision or defend their viewpoint, even when they don’t.
The researchers termed this phenomenon the “illusion of information adequacy.”
“Our study showed that, generally, people don’t pause to consider whether there could be additional information that might help them make a more informed choice,” commented Angus Fletcher, a co-author of the study and an English professor at The Ohio State University, involved with the university’s Project Narrative.
“When people are provided with a few pieces of information that seem consistent, most tend to think ‘that seems correct’ and accept it as is.”
The findings of this study were published today in the journal PLOS ONE. Fletcher worked on this with co-authors Hunter Gehlbach, an educational psychologist at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Education, and Carly Robinson, a senior researcher at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education.
The research included 1,261 Americans who participated online.
The participants were divided into three groups, each reading an article about a fictional school facing water shortages. One group was given an article that solely outlined reasons for the school to merge with another that had sufficient water; the second group received an article that exclusively detailed reasons to stay independent and seek alternative solutions; and the third control group read about both merging and staying independent.
The results indicated that the two groups who only read part of the arguments—either just for or just against merging—remained convinced they had enough information to make a sound decision, Fletcher explained. Most of them expressed readiness to act on the suggestions provided in the article they read.
“Those who had incomplete information were actually more confident in their choice to merge or remain separate than those who had the complete overview,” said Fletcher.
“They were quite certain their decision was correct, despite lacking full information.”
Additionally, participants with only partial information thought that most others would likely make the same decision as they did.
There was a positive aspect to the findings, Fletcher noted. Some participants who initially only read one viewpoint later reviewed the arguments for the opposing side, and many of them were open to reconsidering their choices once they had all the information.
However, this openness might not apply universally, particularly on deeply held ideological issues, he cautioned. In such cases, individuals may be skeptical of new information or might reinterpret it to align with their existing beliefs.
“However, most interpersonal disputes are not about ideology but rather misunderstandings that arise in everyday interactions,” Fletcher commented.
These results complement existing research on naïve realism, the belief that people’s subjective perceptions of a situation represent the objective truth, Fletcher elucidated. Research on naïve realism often examines how individuals can have different interpretations of the same circumstance.
On the other hand, the illusion of information adequacy reveals that people might share a similar understanding if they both have sufficient information.
Fletcher, who studies the influence of narrative power, advised that individuals should ensure they grasp the complete picture of a situation before taking a position or making decisions.
“As we discovered in this study, there’s a tendency for people to believe they know all the important facts, even when they don’t,” he remarked.
“When facing disagreement with someone, your initial step should be to think, ‘Am I missing something that could help me better understand their viewpoint and stance?’ That approach can help combat the illusion of information adequacy.”
