Have you ever felt so convinced you were right about something, that the thought of anyone challenging your belief could only mean they didn’t know as much as you did? If you have, you’re not alone.
Here’s why, you may dig in your heels during heated debates, according to a new study published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE: You don’t have all the facts, but believe that you do.
“Most people on average do this,” study co-author Angus Fletcher, a professor of English at Ohio State University, tells Fortune.
Just half the facts, ma’am
In the study, 1,261 adults were split into three groups to read an article about a fictional school that lacked adequate water. One group read an article that only gave reasons why the school should merge with another that had adequate water; the second group’s article only gave reasons for staying separate and hoping for other solutions. The third control group read all the arguments for the schools merging and for staying separate.
Fletcher’s findings showed that the two groups who received only half the facts—either just the pro-merging or the just the anti-merging arguments—believed they had enough information to make a good decision.
He calls this phenomenon the “illusion of information adequacy,” where people rarely pause to think about what info they might be missing, and instead confidently assume the facts they do have are adequate enough to fully understand the situation.
What surprised Fletcher the most, though, was this: “People are willing to change their minds.”
Once everyone was given the other half of the argument, their opinions shifted to be equal to the control group who had both sets of facts from the beginning. Seeing how easily the participants shifted their thinking, Fletcher thinks the study’s findings can be helpful in everyday disagreements—big and small.
Stay curious
Curiosity about all sides of an argument can help dissolve conflicts naturally, Fletcher says—and the most consequential place to employ curiosity is in your interpersonal relationships.
“There’s a huge amount of unnecessary anger, aggression, irritation and resentment in those relationships based on complete misunderstandings,” Fletcher says. “If you feel yourself being irritated with someone, take a step back and say, how much do I really know about this situation?”
What led to greater understanding between the different groups in the study was access to all of the facts. Once each group independently reviewed the new information, they were able to come to a general consensus more easily—a lesson Fletcher hopes more people will apply to everyday disagreements.
He recommends that if you find yourself arguing with a loved one or coworker, to pause and get curious about why they are thinking the way they are.
“The odds are good that they’ll reveal something that would shift your perspective,” Fletcher says.
Arguing over laundry? It’s kinda like politics
While Fletcher thinks the majority of our conflicts arise from simple misunderstandings—like continually getting angry at your partner for doing laundry incorrectly—being able to employ curiosity during those small conflicts will help you during bigger, more difficult conversations.
“Take care of the misunderstandings that are causing you unnecessary stress,” Fletcher says. “That will put you in a better position to have real discussions about substantive disagreements.”
Those more substantive, deep discussions are often political in nature. If you practice being curious about why people think doing laundry one way is correct over another, or take the time to see that the car you’re honking at was stopped for a child crossing the road before assuming they weren’t paying attention, you might be more patient to ask why someone believes what they do on big issues—and then pause before arguing your perspective based on the facts only you had. By doing so, the people around you might be more inclined to learn your side, too.
“They can have more honest, deep conversations about politics…and they’re more likely to make gains on them,” Fletcher says. “It’s optimistic, but I think it’s also true.”
