Arguing with strangers online or with family at the dinner table can feel like arguing against a brick wall. We’re probably all guilty of feeling right even when we don’t have all the facts. Recent psychological research shows that people tend to think they have all the information they need to make a decision or support their position, even when they don’t. This phenomenon, called the “illusion of information sufficiency”, is explained in detail in the following document: The study was published Oct. 9 in the journal PLoS ONE.
“Interpersonal conflict is on the rise, and anger, anxiety, and general stress are on the rise.” Angus Fletchersaid study co-author, a narrative theorist and neurophysiologist at Ohio State University. popular science. “We wanted to investigate these misconceptions and see if we could alleviate them.”
reading arguments
in studya team from Ohio State University, Stanford University, and Johns Hopkins University conducted an online survey of 1,261 Americans. All participants read an article about a hypothetical school that did not have an adequate water supply.
Group 1 read an article that simply stated why water should be merged with better schools. Group 2 read an article that simply stated why schools should remain segregated and expected a different solution to the problem. Group 3 was a control group who read all the arguments for integrating schools and maintaining segregation.
[Related: The biggest consumers of fake news may benefit from this one tech intervention.]
they are Found The majority of the two groups who read only the arguments for or against the merger still believed they had enough information to make a good decision about what to do. Most people said they follow recommendations from articles they read.
Those who read “pro-merger” articles were significantly more likely to recommend school mergers, whereas those who read “pro-separation” articles were significantly more likely to recommend keeping schools segregated. It was expensive. Approximately 55% of the control group recommended school consolidation.
Participants who had half the information said they thought most other people would make the same decision as them.
illusion of appropriateness
The research team calls the belief that we are right even if we don’t have all the information “belief.”illusion of appropriateness.
Fletcher explains the illusion of sufficiency as follows: As a result, we tend to jump to confident conclusions and definitive judgments, assuming we know all the important facts about a decision, when we lack the necessary information. ”
[Related: The real reason people share so much fake news on social media.]
These findings also complement the following research areas: simple realism. This is the belief that an individual’s subjective understanding of a situation is the objective truth. Research on naive realism typically focuses on how people can come to different understandings of the same situation. But the illusion of information sufficiency suggests that people can potentially share the same understanding if both parties have enough information.
Have you changed your mind?
of team found Some participants even changed their minds about their decisions after knowing all the facts. The mix of opinions after hearing both sides was similar to the control group, about 55 percent versus 45 percent.
“If you give people some information that seems consistent, most people will say, ‘That seems right,’ and go with it.” Fletcher says.
Timing also plays an important role. The main caveat is that the people who participated in the study changed their minds about recently formed opinions. These were not deeply ingrained ideas. For example, a second study conducted by this research group focused on capital punishment was abandoned.
According to Fletcher, one of the best ways to combat the illusion that information is relevant when you disagree with someone is to stop and ask. “Am I missing something that would help me see the other person’s point of view and better understand their position?”
“This eliminates unnecessary interpersonal conflict and allows you to focus your energy on overcoming substantive differences between yourself and others,” says Fletcher.
