A new study illustrates the saying, “you don’t know what you don’t know.”
A recent study sheds light on the psychological reasons behind why some people are confidently wrong in arguments. The research, published in the journal Plos One, explores how individuals often believe they possess all the necessary information to form a conclusion, even when they don’t.
Angus Fletcher, a professor at Ohio State University and one of the study’s authors, explains that our brains tend to overestimate our ability to make reasonable judgments with very limited information. According to Fletcher, “People leap to judgments very quickly,” and this confidence in incomplete data leads them to believe they are right even when they aren’t.
To examine this, the researchers conducted an experiment involving nearly 1,300 participants, with an average age of about 40. Each participant was presented with a fictional story about a school running out of water due to a drying aquifer. Some participants read arguments in favor of the school merging with another, while others read arguments supporting the school staying independent. A control group read a balanced version that included both arguments.
After reading, participants were asked for their opinion on the issue and how confident they were that they had sufficient information to make their judgment. The results revealed that people who read only one side of the argument were more likely to agree with it and were often more confident in their opinion compared to those who had access to both sides.
In a second phase, half of the participants were given opposing information. The study found that, although many people were initially confident in their opinion after reading one-sided arguments, they were willing to change their views when presented with contradicting facts. After doing so, they were less confident in their ability to form a judgment, revealing that many fail to consider whether they have all the relevant information.
Fletcher noted that the study’s findings challenge the assumption that people will hold firm to their original views when confronted with opposing evidence. It highlights how limited information can lead to overconfidence and emphasizes the importance of being open to new perspectives when forming opinions.
