Confirmation bias and beyond: The psychology of belief

In their research, researchers discovered that individuals inherently assume they possess all the necessary information to support their stance or make a decision, even when they do not. The researchers referred to it as the "illusion of information adequacy."

"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," said study co-author Angus Fletcher, a professor of English at The Ohio State University and member of the university's Project Narrative.

"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."

The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE. Fletcher completed the work with co-authors Hunter Gehlbach, an educational psychologist at Johns Hopkins University's School of Education, and Carly Robinson, a senior researcher at Stanford University's Graduate School of Education. 1,261 Americans participated in the study via the internet.

They were divided into three groups and were instructed to read an article concerning a fictional school that was devoid of sufficient water. The article that was read by one group exclusively provided reasons for the school to merge with another that had sufficient water. The article read by a second group exclusively provided reasons for the school to remain separate and to pursue alternative solutions. The third control group read all of the arguments for the schools to merge and to remain separate.

The results indicated that the two groups who only read half of the story -- either the pro-merging or the anti-merging arguments - still believed they had sufficient information to make a well-informed decision, according to Fletcher. The majority of them expressed their intention to implement the suggestions outlined in the article they had read.

"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," Fletcher reported. "They were quite sure that their decision was the right one, even though they didn't have all the information."

Furthermore, participants who were provided with only half of the information expressed their belief that the majority of individuals would reach the same conclusion.

Fletcher reported that the study contained one positive finding. Some of the participants who had initially read only one side of the story subsequently read the arguments for the other side. Additionally, a significant number of those participants were amenable to reconsidering their decision after obtaining all pertinent information.

He stated that this approach may not be effective in all cases, particularly when dealing with deeply rooted ideological issues. In those instances, individuals may attempt to reframe new information to align with their preexisting beliefs or may be hesitant to trust it.

"But most interpersonal conflicts aren't about ideology. They are just misunderstandings in the course of daily life," Fletcher said. Fletcher elucidated that these discoveries provide a complement to research on naïve realism, which is the conviction that an individual's subjective perception of a situation is the objective truth. The study of naïve realism frequently concentrates on the disparities in individuals' perceptions of the same situation.

However, the illusion of information adequacy demonstrates that individuals may possess the same comprehension, provided that they possess an adequate amount of information. Fletcher, who conducts research on the impact of narratives on individuals, advocated for individuals to ensure that they possess the complete narrative of a situation prior to making a decision or taking a stance.

"As we found in this study, there's this default mode in which people think they know all the relevant facts, even if they don't," according to him. "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."

Fletcher reported that the study contained one positive finding. Some of the participants who had initially read only one side of the story subsequently read the arguments for the other side. Additionally, a significant number of those participants were amenable to reconsidering their decision after obtaining all pertinent information.

He stated that this approach may not be effective in all cases, particularly when dealing with deeply rooted ideological issues. In those instances, individuals may attempt to reframe new information to align with their preexisting beliefs or may be hesitant to trust it.

"However, the majority of interpersonal disputes are not motivated by ideology." Fletcher stated, "They are simply misunderstandings that occur in the course of daily life."

Fletcher elucidated that these discoveries provide a complement to research on naïve realism, which is the conviction that an individual's subjective perception of a situation is the objective truth. The study of naïve realism frequently concentrates on the disparities in individuals' perceptions of the same situation.

However, the illusion of information adequacy demonstrates that individuals may possess the same comprehension, provided that they possess an adequate amount of information.

Fletcher, who conducts research on the impact of narratives on individuals, advocated for individuals to ensure that they possess the complete narrative of a situation prior to making a decision or taking a stance.

"As we found in this study, there's this default mode in which people think they know all the relevant facts, even if they don't," according to him.

"When you are in disagreement with someone, your initial response should be to consider whether there is a missing piece of information that would enable you to better understand their perspective and position." This is the method by which to combat the illusion of information adequacy.