Illusion of information: Why we think we know more than we do
People are often convinced of the correctness of their opinions, even when they don't have complete information. Recent studies indicate a phenomenon known as the illusion of information adequacy. Research suggests that the desire to gain a fuller picture of a situation is crucial for more thoughtful decision-making.
9:49 AM EDT, October 17, 2024
Recent studies cited by Prof. Angus Fletcher from Ohio State University draw attention to one of the most common problems in human thinking - the so-called illusion of information adequacy.
The scientist claims that although people often believe they know everything needed to make the right decision, they fail to consider that their knowledge may be incomplete. Prof. Fletcher, citing findings published in the journal "PLOS ONE," explains that although "we feel like we've gathered all the necessary information," this is not the case.
This illusion leads us to conclude that we have sufficient knowledge, even though the information available may be "partial or only fragmentary." However, as the researcher points out, this doesn't mean we lose confidence in our own correctness—on the contrary, such conviction often strengthens.
Experiment tested the behavior of 1,261 Americans
Prof. Fletcher points out that most people do not consider "whether more information is helpful in making a more informed decision." Because our information "comes together as a coherent whole," we often automatically assume that "it sounds quite reasonable" and stop there.
Researchers, including psychologist Hunter Gehlbach from Johns Hopkins University and Carly Robinson from Stanford University, conducted an online experiment involving 1,261 Americans.
Volunteers were divided into three groups, each of which was presented with different proposals regarding a hypothetical school's water shortage problem. The first group was offered a solution involving merging with another school that was not experiencing water issues. The second group considered seeking alternatives. Only the third group was presented with both options by the researchers.
"Those who received one-sided arguments were more convinced of the correctness of their decision regarding whether or not to merge with another school compared to those who had a full set of information on the matter," says Prof. Fletcher. Interestingly, these people were also confident that others would make the same decision.
Positive conclusion from the study results
However, the researchers emphasize a positive takeaway from the study results. When individuals initially given one-sided information later received the full picture of the situation, many changed their minds. This shows that people, initially inclined to rely on limited data, can reconsider their decisions and draw more accurate conclusions if they receive fuller context.
Prof. Fletcher also emphasizes that many conflicts between people arise from misunderstandings in everyday situations, not deeply rooted ideological differences. As the professor explains, this results from so-called naive realism—the tendency to regard one's own beliefs as objective truth while underestimating the fact that others may perceive reality in a completely different way.
"The most important thing, however, is that people can exhibit similar reasoning if they have the appropriate range of information," Prof. Fletcher emphasizes. He believes it's crucial "to ensure that we indeed know everything relevant in a given matter" before expressing an opinion or making a decision.
