Why people think they are right even when they are not

The way a person reacts to arguments or opinions that differ from their own can have serious consequences. Perhaps everyone can recall a time when all parties to a dispute believed they were right and the quarrel did not lead to any positive outcome.

According to a new psychological study, this situation may be caused by a newly invented bias known as the "illusion of information adequacy." This occurs when a person tends to assume that they have all the information they need to decide on something or name an argument even when they don't, Ifl Science writes.

Researchers from Ohio State, Stanford University, and Johns Hopkins University have put forward an additional bias they call the "illusion of information adequacy." This new bias leads people to believe that they have enough information to understand a situation and make the right decisions even though they often cannot know what they do not know.

"From Socrates to Rumsfeld, people often acknowledge that there is much that they do not know, including a meta-awareness of 'unknown unknowns," the scientists explain in their study.

This failure leads people to navigate their social world confidently, assuming they have all the information they need. They form opinions and reinforce values and behaviors without thinking about how much they don't know.

To demonstrate this specific bias and how it differs from naïve realism, the team surveyed 1,261 Americans. Participants read an article about a water shortage in a fictional school. One group read an article that argued why the school should merge with another school, and the other group read an article that only discussed why the school should stay separate and hope for a solution. The control group then read all the arguments for the school to either merging or staying where it was.

The team found that most people in the first and second groups - pro-merging and pro-separate - felt they had enough information to make a decision about the school's future. In contrast, only about 55 percent of the control group believed that the school should merge. Those who had half the information were also more confident that other people would make the same recommendations as they did.

"his study provides convergent evidence that people presume that they possess adequate information – even when they lack half the relevant information or be missing an important point of view. Furthermore, they assume a moderately high level of competence to make a fair, careful evaluation of the information in reaching their decisions," the team explained.

Interestingly, the study also found that some participants were willing to change their recommendations when they learned about the other side of the argument. After these people were presented with it, the results were comparable to those of the control group: about 55 percent favored megring and 45 percent supported staying.

The results show that information sharing can lead to greater agreement. In addition, the study shows that the illusion of information adequacy can be overcome with a certain level of self-awareness.

"Although people may not know what they do not know, perhaps there is wisdom in assuming that some relevant information is missing. In a world of prodigious polarization and dubious information, this humility – and corresponding curiosity about what information is lacking – may help us better take the perspective of others before we pass judgment on them," the team concludes.

Only verified information is available on OBOZ.UA Telegram channel and Viber. Do not fall for fakes!