A recent study has revealed a psychological bias dubbed the “illusion of information adequacy”. 

This bias leads people to believe they have enough information to form opinions or make decisions, even when critical information may be missing. 

The findings, published by a team of researchers in the journal PLOS ONE, suggest that this tendency contributes to misunderstandings and conflicts in daily life.

The researchers, led by Hunter Gehlbach of Johns Hopkins University, conducted an experiment with over 1,000 participants. 

Each participant was asked to recommend whether two schools should merge. 

Some received only information supporting the merge, others received arguments against it, and a third group was given both perspectives. 

Despite the varying levels of information, participants in all groups believed they had sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision.

According to Gehlbach and his team, “people assume they possess adequate information, even when they lack key facts”. 

This phenomenon may have broad implications, contributing to personal, social, and even political conflicts. 

For instance, a person might honk at a car obstructing the road, assuming negligence, only to later discover that the driver had stopped for a pedestrian - an unforeseen piece of information that could have altered their initial judgement.

The study also found that when participants were later provided with the previously omitted information, many stuck with their initial decisions. 

This highlights the powerful influence of the first set of information people receive, a factor the researchers believe plays into the persistence of biased opinions.

This “illusion of information adequacy” adds to the existing concept of naïve realism, which assumes that one's subjective viewpoint represents an objective reality. 

Together, these biases shape how people interpret situations and interact with others, often preventing them from understanding different perspectives. 

The researchers suggest that encouraging people to ask themselves if they might be missing critical information could foster more balanced decision-making.

The study concludes that promoting intellectual humility - recognising that “we don't know what we don't know” - might reduce conflicts and improve social interactions.