The Illusion of Knowing Enough: How Assumptions about Information Adequacy Shape Decision-Making

Editor’s Note: This article provides insights from a recent study on the “illusion of information adequacy,” a cognitive bias in which individuals assume they have sufficient information to make informed decisions, even when critical data may be missing. While the study itself did not focus on cybersecurity, information governance, or eDiscovery, its findings apply to these areas where data gaps can lead to vulnerabilities, compliance issues, or legal challenges. Recognizing this bias could lead to more thorough investigations, improved threat detection, and greater data compliance. The findings underscore the importance of “information humility” and suggest a reevaluation of decision-making practices where data is assumed to be comprehensive.

Industry News – eDiscovery Beat

The Illusion of Knowing Enough: How Assumptions about Information Adequacy Shape Decision-Making

ComplexDiscovery Staff*

Do you know enough to decide? Most people think they do. But a recent study, The Illusion of Information Adequacy, from Johns Hopkins University, Stanford University, and The Ohio State University suggests a critical flaw in that confidence. Researchers Hunter Gehlbach, Carly D. Robinson, and Angus Fletcher argue that people often operate under the assumption that the information they have on hand is enough, failing to consider what they may not know. This bias, they found, shapes decisions in ways that could affect not only personal and professional relationships but also areas where the stakes are high—such as cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery.

The study, published in PLOS ONE, tested how partial information impacts decision-making by presenting 1,261 participants with a scenario involving a school merger. Control participants received comprehensive information about the benefits and risks of merging the school, while treatment participants saw only one side of the argument—either for or against the merger. Despite the disparity in information, participants in the limited-information groups overwhelmingly reported confidence in their decision-making capabilities and believed their information was adequate. The illusion of information adequacy was so strong that even after being shown the opposing arguments, many participants clung to their initial beliefs.

This tendency to believe we “know enough” has profound implications in fields where data gaps and limited insights can be costly. For instance, cybersecurity professionals often rely on limited threat intelligence when responding to security incidents. In such scenarios, the illusion of adequacy could lead to critical oversights, as professionals may prematurely conclude they have enough information to address the threat. Information governance teams, similarly, may unknowingly enforce policies based on incomplete data, potentially overlooking risks or compliance issues that could later compromise data integrity. Though the study did not specifically investigate cybersecurity, information governance, or eDiscovery, its findings highlight a common challenge in data-driven fields where confidence and partial data often go hand in hand.

The study also noted that the illusion of adequacy could be overcome for some participants. After reading a second article that provided the information they initially lacked, some participants revised their initial recommendations. This willingness to change indicates that with a more complete dataset, the illusion of adequacy can be countered, suggesting that access to diverse and comprehensive information could help professionals in high-stakes fields re-evaluate their decisions and address any unseen gaps.

To test the illusion of information adequacy, researchers divided participants into groups with varied information access. Participants who saw only pro-merger arguments, for instance, were almost as confident in their decisions as those who had the full spectrum of information. Similarly, participants believed others would largely agree with their perspective, reinforcing their confidence in their choices and diminishing their curiosity about alternate viewpoints.

This “false consensus effect” underlined the illusion’s pervasive influence. Even after reading opposing arguments in a second article, most participants remained convinced their initial viewpoint was correct. In cybersecurity and eDiscovery, such a bias could lead professionals to overlook potential threats, assuming consensus or common practices are “good enough” without considering that vital, unseen information might be missing.

The study’s findings on participant confidence were especially striking: despite having less information, those in the limited-information groups often expressed comparable or even greater confidence in their decisions compared to those with full information. This dynamic is relevant in data-reliant fields where professionals may feel secure in their assessments without fully understanding their limitations. In eDiscovery, for instance, legal teams might rely on partial datasets and assume they have a representative sample. This illusion of adequacy could result in missed evidence, leading to incomplete discovery phases, potential case biases, or adverse judgments. Likewise, cybersecurity teams working on incident response often act based on immediate, available intelligence, which might not include all factors in a rapidly evolving situation. Here, the illusion of knowing enough could result in serious vulnerabilities if critical but unavailable data is disregarded.

One way forward, the study authors suggest, is to foster “information humility,” or a recognition that some relevant information may be missing. Encouraging professionals to actively seek out information gaps could improve judgment, potentially mitigating risks in areas like cybersecurity. In high-stakes settings, simply questioning whether one has all the critical data may lead to better outcomes.

For decision-makers in cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery, acknowledging the illusion of information adequacy could pave the way for improved practices and better outcomes. Beyond merely accessing information, a culture of questioning its adequacy—actively considering what might be missing—could be essential for navigating today’s data-rich but insight-poor environments.

So, do you know enough to decide? Perhaps. But if the stakes are high, the answer may warrant a closer look. By questioning the information adequacy we perceive, professionals may discover insights that would otherwise remain hidden, leading to more informed and resilient decision-making.

News Source

• Gehlbach, H., Robinson, C. D., & Fletcher, A. (2024). The illusion of information adequacy. PLOS ONE, 19 (10): e0310216. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310216

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies

*Reported on with permission per Creative Commons (CC BY- 4.0).

Additional Reading

• The Dual Impact of Large Language Models on Human Creativity: Implications for Legal Tech Professionals
• AI Regulation and National Security: Implications for Corporate Compliance

Source: ComplexDiscovery OÜ