The illusion of knowledge: How incomplete info skews decisions
People are often certain of the righteousness of their opinions even when they lack complete information. Recent research highlights a phenomenon known as the illusion of information adequacy. Studies suggest that the key to making more thoughtful decisions is the willingness to understand the situation better.
The latest research, cited by Prof. Angus Fletcher from Ohio State University, highlights one of the most common issues in people's thinking – the so-called illusion of information adequacy.
The scientist argues that people often believe they know everything necessary to make the right decision without considering that their knowledge might be incomplete. Prof. Fletcher, citing findings published in the journal "PLOS ONE", explains that although "we seem to have gathered all the necessary information," in reality, this is not always the case.
This illusion arises when we mistakenly believe we have sufficient knowledge, even though the available information might be "partial or fragmented." As the researcher notes, this doesn't cause us to lose confidence in our perceived correctness – instead, such conviction often strengthens.
The experiment analyzed the behaviour of 1,261 Americans
Prof. Fletcher points out that most people rarely consider, "whether there is more information that could help in making a more informed decision". Once the information we have "comes together into a certain whole," we often assume it "sounds quite sensible" and stop further inquiry.
Researchers, including psychologist Hunter Gehlbach from Johns Hopkins University and Carly Robinson from Stanford University, conducted an online experiment with 1,261 Americans.
Volunteers were divided into three groups, each presented with different solutions for addressing the problem of water shortages in a hypothetical school. The first group received a proposal to merge with another school that didn't have water issues. The second group considered seeking an alternative solution. Only the third group received both alternatives.
Those provided with one-sided arguments were more confident about the correctness of their decision on whether to merge with another school or not, compared to those who had the full set of information," says Prof. Fletcher, as quoted by the Polish Press Agency. Interestingly, these individuals were also confident that others would make the same decision.
Read also: Works at Biedronka. Here's what Poles do at the registers. "Disgusting"
Positive conclusions from the research
However, scientists stress a positive takeaway from the research. When those given one-sided information later received a complete picture of the situation, many changed their minds. This indicates that people, although initially inclined to rely on limited data, can reconsider their decisions and draw more accurate conclusions when provided with a more comprehensive context.
Prof. Fletcher also notes that many conflicts between people arise from misunderstandings and everyday situations rather than deeply ingrained differences in worldview. As the professor explains, this is connected to the so-called naive realism – the tendency to view one's beliefs as objective truth, while underestimating that others may perceive reality differently.
"The most important thing, however, is that people can display similar reasoning if only they have access to appropriate information," emphasizes Prof. Fletcher. He believes it is crucial "to ensure we know everything about a particular issue" before expressing an opinion or making a decision.
