In a world filled with fast-paced information and snap decisions, a new study has highlighted a widespread human tendency: making judgments without having the full picture. Published in the journal PLOS ONE, the research sheds light on how people frequently assume they know enough to form opinions, even when they’ve only been exposed to one side of an argument. This revelation offers insights into why interpersonal conflicts often arise and provides clues on how to address them.
The Experiment: Assumptions in Decision-Making
Researchers at Ohio State University conducted an experiment involving nearly 1,300 Americans. The participants were divided into three groups, each presented with different versions of a fictional scenario involving a school suffering from inadequate water supplies.
- The first group read an article advocating for the school to merge with another that had enough water.
- The second group read an article arguing that the school should remain independent.
- The third group was presented with both sides of the argument, detailing the pros and cons of merging or staying separate.
The results were striking. Participants who only read one side of the story overwhelmingly believed they had enough information to make an informed decision. They also expressed high levels of confidence in their choice to either support or oppose the school merger. In contrast, the third group, which had access to both arguments, was more uncertain about the best course of action.
Overconfidence and Changing Perspectives
What the study revealed next was equally compelling. When participants were later exposed to the opposite side of the argument, many were willing to change their minds. Those who initially supported merging the schools, for example, reconsidered their position after reading about the benefits of staying separate, and vice versa.
This flexibility was notably absent in the groups who had only read one-sided arguments, suggesting that people are not just quick to make decisions but also quick to entrench themselves in their beliefs when they feel they have all the facts — even when they don’t.
According to Angus Fletcher, one of the study’s authors and a professor at Ohio State University’s Project Narrative, these misunderstandings often contribute to interpersonal conflicts. “We noticed that the tension between people — whether in politics or personal relationships — frequently stems from basic misunderstandings,” Fletcher told Yahoo Life. “People often jump to conclusions, believing they have all the necessary information, when in reality, they’ve only heard part of the story.”
Why People Make Snap Judgments
The researchers suggest that the tendency to jump to conclusions might have deep evolutionary roots. Fletcher points out that early humans, like cavemen, had to make rapid decisions for survival, often without the luxury of gathering comprehensive information. “In prehistoric times, you didn’t have time to ponder all the options. Quick decisions could mean the difference between life and death,” he explained.
While modern humans no longer face such dire situations on a daily basis, the urge to make quick, decisive judgments has persisted. This is often compounded by what psychologists call “confirmation bias” — the tendency to accept information that aligns with pre-existing beliefs and dismiss anything that contradicts them.
Hillary Ammon, a clinical psychologist at the Center for Anxiety & Women’s Emotional Wellness, adds that many people seek certainty in their lives and find it uncomfortable to dwell in uncertainty. “People like clear black-or-white options,” she said. “Gray areas make them uncomfortable, so they tend to avoid them, even when that means ignoring key information.”
Addressing Misunderstandings in Conflicts
So, what can be done to prevent these snap judgments, particularly when they lead to conflicts? Fletcher advises starting by checking your own openness to new information. “If you’re in an argument, step back and ask yourself if you’re willing to hear the other side,” he suggested. “It’s more productive to focus on opening your own mind first.”
In situations where arguments become heated, Fletcher recommends taking steps to calm the conversation. “People often become rigid in their thinking when they feel threatened. Anything you can do to make them feel more comfortable and relaxed will increase the chances of having a meaningful discussion.”
Dr. Gail Saltz, an associate professor of psychiatry at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, agrees that attacking someone’s beliefs head-on is unlikely to be effective. “Telling someone they’re wrong will only make them defensive,” she explained. Instead, she suggests engaging with curiosity and understanding, particularly when the disagreement involves deeply held beliefs or values.
Navigating Ideological Disagreements
For arguments rooted in ideological differences, such as politics or personal values, Ammon recommends a strategy of inquiry and empathy. “Try to understand where the other person is coming from and what shaped their beliefs,” she said. “This won’t necessarily result in agreement, but it can foster mutual understanding and respect.”
The study highlights the importance of staying open to new information, even when we feel certain about our stance. In a world where misunderstandings are all too common, taking the time to consider multiple perspectives may be the key to avoiding unnecessary conflict — and perhaps even changing minds.
Conclusion
The research offers a sobering reminder: no matter how much we think we know, there may always be more to the story. By staying open to new information and challenging our own assumptions, we can not only make better decisions but also foster healthier, more constructive dialogues with others.
