Illusion of knowledge: Why our confidence often outweighs reality
People are often convinced 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 the key to making more considered decisions is the willingness to understand the situation fully.
The latest research, cited by Prof. Angus Fletcher from Ohio State University, draws attention to one of the most prevalent issues in people's thinking—the so-called illusion of information adequacy.
The scientist observes that people, although often convinced they possess all the necessary details to make the correct decision, fail to consider that their knowledge may be incomplete. Prof. Fletcher, citing findings published in the journal "PLOS ONE", explains that although "we seem to have gathered all the essential information," this is not the case.
This illusion involves believing that we possess sufficient knowledge, even when the available information might be "partial or fragmented." As the researcher notes, however, this does not lead to a loss of confidence in our correctness – rather, such conviction often strengthens.
The experiment analysed the behaviour of 1,261 Americans
Prof. Fletcher points out that most people seldom consider "whether there is more information that could aid in making a more informed decision." Since our information "comes together into a certain 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 with 1,261 Americans.
Volunteers were divided into three groups, each presented with different propositions regarding solving the problem of water shortages in a hypothetical school. The first group was given a solution that suggested merging with another school that did not have water issues. The second group outlined a proposal to seek an alternative. Only the third group was presented with both alternatives by the researchers.
"Those who received one-sided arguments were more convinced of the correctness of their decision on whether to merge with another school, compared to those who had the full set of information on the matter," says Prof. Fletcher. Interestingly, these individuals were also certain that others would make the same decision.
Positive conclusion from the research results
However, scientists highlight a positive conclusion from the research results. When individuals initially given one-sided information later received a complete picture of the situation, many changed their minds. This demonstrates that people, although initially inclined to rely on limited data, can reconsider their decisions and draw more accurate conclusions if provided with a fuller context.
Prof. Fletcher also emphasizes that many conflicts between people arise from misunderstandings and everyday situations, not deeply ingrained differences in worldview. As the professor explains, this stems from so-called naive realism—the tendency to regard one's own beliefs as objective truth while simultaneously 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 an appropriate range of information," emphasizes Prof. Fletcher. He believes "to ensure we know everything about a given issue" is crucial before expressing an opinion or deciding.
