The next time you find yourself in a heated argument, absolutely certain of your position, consider this: researchers have discovered that the more confident you feel about your stance, the more likely you are to be working with incomplete information. It’s a psychological quirk that might explain everything from family disagreements to international conflicts.
We’ve all been there: stuck in traffic, grumbling about the “idiot” driving too slowly in front of us or the “maniac” who just zoomed past. But what if that slow driver is carefully transporting a wedding cake, or the speeding car is rushing someone to the hospital?
The fascinating new study published in PLOS ONE suggests that these snap judgments stem from what researchers call “the illusion of information adequacy” — our tendency to believe we have enough information to make sound decisions, even when we’re missing crucial details.
“We found that, in general, people don’t stop to think whether there might be more information that would help them make a more informed decision,” explains study co-author Angus Fletcher, a professor of English at The Ohio State University and member of the university’s Project Narrative, in a statement. “If you give people a few pieces of information that seems to line up, most will say ‘that sounds about right’ and go with that.”
In today’s polarized world, where debates rage over everything from vaccines to climate change, understanding why people maintain opposing viewpoints despite access to the same information has never been more critical.
This research, conducted by Fletcher, Hunter Gehlbach of Johns Hopkins University, and Carly Robinson of Stanford University, reveals that we rarely pause to consider what information we might be missing before making judgments.
Tagged:
Science
