Columbus, OH — People who incorrectly believe they have “all the facts” may remain overly confident in their beliefs or decisions, a recent study suggests.
Researchers divided nearly 1,300 participants into three groups. Each group read an article about a fictional school that didn’t have adequate water. One group read an article advocating a merger with a school that had adequate water. Another group read an article giving reasons to keep the schools separate and hoping for other solutions, while the third group read about arguments for both sides.
The participants who read the articles that were either for or against the merger “believed they had enough information to make a good decision,” study co-author Angus Fletcher, an English professor at Ohio State University, said in a press release. “Those with only half the information were actually more confident in their decision to merge or remain separate than those who had the complete story. They were quite sure that their decision was the right one, even though they didn’t have all the information.”
They also believed others would make the same decision. Some of those participants, however, later read the arguments for the other side, and many appeared willing to alter their outlook when they had more facts.
“Most interpersonal conflicts aren’t about ideology,” Fletcher said. “They are just misunderstandings in the course of daily life.
“Your first move when you disagree with someone should be to think, ‘Is there something that I’m missing that would help me see their perspective and understand their position better?’ That’s the way to fight this illusion of information adequacy.”
The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE.
