Jumping to fixations: jumping to conclusions is associated with less hypothesis generation and more fixation.
Saved in:
| Title: | Jumping to fixations: jumping to conclusions is associated with less hypothesis generation and more fixation. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Hillman, James G. (AUTHOR), Burrows, Brooke (AUTHOR), Jessen, Dana (AUTHOR), Hauser, David J. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Thinking & Reasoning. Aug2025, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p398-424. 27p. |
| Subjects: | Cognitive bias, Hypothesis, Decision making, Uncertainty (Information theory), Confidence, Behavioral research |
| Abstract: | People who score high in the jumping to conclusions bias (JTC) require relatively little evidence to reach highly confident conclusions. However, they often feel as though they have done ample research in informing their decisions. What factors could account for this discrepancy? The current research examines one potential factor: how individuals (with varying degrees of the JTC bias) generate hypotheses to explain uncertain events prior to searching for evidence. Study 1 demonstrated that high JTC participants generated fewer hypotheses but were more confident that one was right (compared to low JTC participants). Study 2 showed that, when given the choice between generating alternative hypotheses and supporting initial hypotheses, individuals high in JTC chose to support their initial hypotheses more often. Thus, while the JTC bias is associated with limited hypothesising for unexplained events, it also corresponds with "doubling down" and investing research efforts in confirming initial hunches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Thinking & Reasoning is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | People who score high in the jumping to conclusions bias (JTC) require relatively little evidence to reach highly confident conclusions. However, they often feel as though they have done ample research in informing their decisions. What factors could account for this discrepancy? The current research examines one potential factor: how individuals (with varying degrees of the JTC bias) generate hypotheses to explain uncertain events prior to searching for evidence. Study 1 demonstrated that high JTC participants generated fewer hypotheses but were more confident that one was right (compared to low JTC participants). Study 2 showed that, when given the choice between generating alternative hypotheses and supporting initial hypotheses, individuals high in JTC chose to support their initial hypotheses more often. Thus, while the JTC bias is associated with limited hypothesising for unexplained events, it also corresponds with "doubling down" and investing research efforts in confirming initial hunches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13546783 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/13546783.2024.2443149 |
