Often when writing or talking about a topic, a reader or listener who disagrees will tell me that I “need to get all the facts†before forming an opinion.
It is a valid point, because fact-based opinion has greater value in the public discourse than an opinion based on partial information.
But I’m not alone here. New research finds it is common for people to have the “illusion of information adequacy.â€
“We found that, in general, people don’t stop to think there might be more information that would help them make a more informed decision,†said study co-author professor Angus Fletcher at Ohio State University.
“If you give people a few pieces of information that seem to line up, most will say ‘that sounds about right’ and go with that,†he said.
The study involved 1,261 people divided into three groups. Two groups were given just half the story about an issue at a local school. The third control group was given all the information. The researchers found, “Those with only half the information were actually more confident in their decision ... than those who had the complete story.â€
And, notably, those with only part of the information believed that most people would agree with them.
The researchers say, because we too often do not pause to consider what we don’t know about a particular issue, we lock ourselves into naïve realism. We assume our conclusions are based on objective reality when, in fact, they are subjective conclusions.
Fletcher says this is our comfort zone: “There’s this default mode in which people think they know all the relevant facts, even if they don’t.â€
This helps explain disagreements on everything from your favorite sports team to who is best qualified to be president of the United States. Once we form these beliefs based on inadequate information, we seek reinforcement from others, ranging from the people we encounter to the media we consume.
No wonder there is so much conflict in our lives and polarization in our culture.
Fletcher suggests that, when disagreeing with someone, our first thought should be, “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.â€
This suggestion is reinforced by the research. Notably, the study found that, “Some of the participants who had read only one side of the story later read the arguments for the other side and many of those participants were willing to change their minds about their decision.â€
The key to breaking out of their naïve realism is that they had all the facts. That is not easy to do these days, because the very concept of objective truth is increasingly giving way to “my truth†and fungible facts.
Still, the research serves as a reminder — and one that can be quantified — that “curiosity about what information is lacking may help us better understand the perspective of others before we pass judgement on them.â€
