Do You Need Gullibility Insurance?

Source: Slidebot/Used with permission

If you are like most people, you have probably made some regrettable decisions. You may have overpaid while making an impulsive purchase, falsely assumed your partner was flawless, or expected to land a new job despite lacking some credentials. While sometimes these perceptions are associated with overzealousness or intuitive judgment, many questionable interpretations are based on gullibility. Being gullible is more than being overly trusting or cooperative, but instead means you were duped or misled because you used flawed reasoning or misguided logic to make an informed choice.

In my previous article ("You Are More Gullible Than You Think"), I described some reasons why gullible thinking plagues just about everyone. Now, I outline some research-based strategies to avoid unfortunate decisions and discuss how to protect ourselves from fake news, unjustified theories, and our own cognitive biases.

Evaluate the evidence

Most instances of gullibility occur for one of two reasons: not thinking the situation through or neglecting to use objective evidence for a decision. It is easy to suggest that we should have a buffer zone between our thoughts and actions, but the reality is that humans are cognitively lazy and do not want to engage in deep thought unless it is necessary (Kahneman, 2011). Thus, the first step to avoiding the gullibility trap is to defer acceptance of fact until there is sufficient evidence to justify your assumption. All too often, we strive to find reasons why we are right, sparking the potential for a gullible decision.

Instead of assuming truth or believing that your premises and inferences are correct, start by considering the probability that you are wrong. The challenge with the “could be wrong” approach is that we usually only gather evidence to support our position while ignoring everything that might refute our beliefs. Known as confirmation bias, this flawed thinking method fails to consider why our perspective may be mistaken.

When we discover confirming evidence, we should ask the question, “What might falsify my theory?” along with “How could my evidence interpretation be incorrect?” Based on the premises of Bayesian logic, we need to be sure the probability of being correct is based on both the strength of the premise and the likelihood that subsequent evidence is powerful. If there is a significant chance that either the prior belief or the data used to support your conclusion is flawed, then you are likely making the wrong choice (Galef, 2021).

Scrutinize the source

Perhaps the most important consideration is the source of your evidence. No surprise, some sources are more credible than others. The first step is to review the reputation of the organization or individual that is providing the evidence. Verification of online sources means there is public information about the organization, a website privacy policy, and usually a strong publication track record, including contributor biographies. If this basic information is mysterious, it is unlikely the source is credible.

However, when evaluating the credibility of a source, do not rely on credentials alone. Ask yourself if the person or organization has a financial, social, or personal benefit if you are persuaded to their side or endorse their product. If the answer is “yes,” proceed with caution.

Subsequently, consider if you unquestionably believe the idea or appeal because of who sends the message. We often become enamored with the source of a belief because we hold the person in high regard. However, even the best and brightest people have bad ideas and make mistakes.

The alternative is also true. We might intuitively reject an idea merely because of the message sender. Sometimes, unpopular opinions are the correct choice (remember, women’s rights and racial equality were frowned upon for thousands of years). Thus, although source credibility is an important step toward evaluating the accuracy of a claim or message, we should not unanimously accept or reject a proposal based on the source alone.

Critically evaluate the message

Plausibility, evaluating the potential truthfulness of a claim (Sinatra & Lombardi, 2020), is a deliberate process that determines if the perspective advanced can be literally possible. A message would be implausible when no evidence is provided, or the theory behind the evidence cannot be tested or refuted. In other words, implausible theories are those where any opposition to the idea is refuted by the originator, regardless of the rebuttal type. For example, some people contend that moon landings never occurred, but no evidence supports this position, while abundant evidence refutes the idea that moon missions were fabricated.

False Memories Essential Reads

Online Misinformation Produces False Memory

Why Some People Believe They've Been Abducted by Aliens

The refutation problem is typically addressed in two ways by those who harbor irrefutable beliefs. Too much evidence means a conspiracy theory is being advanced. Too little evidence means there is a cover-up. The conspiracy supporter can never be wrong!

When evaluating news, a good first step is to look beyond the headlines. Media companies want to grab your attention and appeal to your emotional side to cultivate outrage or support for their interpretation of a story (outrage or ardent support leads to social media sharing and “buzz"). In addition, publishers know that most people do not read an entire article.

To avoid distributing fake news, first, beware of unfamiliar websites. Every reputable provider will have tons of results from a quick Google search to verify the legitimacy of the organization. Next, know the difference between sponsored content and legitimate, newsworthy content. Sponsored content or “clickbait” is nothing more than disguised advertising.

Next, verify if the author is writing an opinion piece or basing claims on verifiable truth. Do not rely on photographs alone, because photographs may be retouched. Finally, do not be misled by fancy organizational names or author titles, which might just be a way to appear legitimate in the absence of credible scientific data.

Analyze your own motives

When you agree with someone or support their perspective, is your goal self-validation, feeling good about yourself, flattering someone else, or objective truth? One reason that judgments go awry is that gullible people make decisions based on the wrong reasons. When faced with a choice, we prefer to be correct because we feel better about our competency, which in turn builds our self-concept. Thus, you might agree to a questionable request because of your own personal motives, many of which operate unconsciously in your mind.

Most people want to be seen as reliable, competent, and agreeable. Acting resistant or confrontational may be self-perceived as a character flaw. The problem with egotistical motives is that the person who likes to feel competent or stroke someone else’s ego may fail to examine the facts and not scrutinize the recommendations being advanced. The alternative is to make a decision based on facts, likely probabilities, and logic, whether the outcome of that decision makes you feel warm and fuzzy or not.

Think logically, not emotionally

We often develop behavioral patterns based on emotional perceptions. If an initial experience was pleasurable, we tend to repeat the behavior. Likewise, negative emotions like anxiety, sadness, or failure can inhibit our future behavior and choices.

Surprisingly, the strength of emotional engagement at the time of a decision influences the likelihood that our emotions, not facts, will guide similar yet subsequent decisions (Rocklage, & Luttrell, 2021). Thus, any emotion-evoking appeal makes you vulnerable by shifting thoughts away from facts and evidence. Keep in mind that emotional decisions are almost always the ones most regretted!

In addition, we often defer to experience. We tend to compare thinking challenges to what we already know, and we are creatures of habit. While relying on experience has clear evolutionary value (don't swim with sharks), the types of evidence we consider should go far beyond our personal experience.

For example, just because you pet an unfamiliar dog once and did not get bitten, that does not mean that trusting random animals is the right approach. Therefore, we should always rely on the probability of the evidence being correct and not selective situations that might confirm our personal theories. The safest solution is to reflect deeply whenever personal preference or situational emotion might influence your decisions.

Calculate your confidence

The final anti-gullibility test is to assess the degree of confidence you have in the person, information, and validity of the information at hand. If you have pangs of doubt as you are contemplating a decision, think twice. There is usually a reason why you may not be convinced.

You can make a personal rule that you will only move forward when you are at least 80 percent certain you are making the right choice. Like insurance companies who base premiums on the probability of a catastrophe happening, you should take a similar risk-control approach. If the risk seems too high, but you still say “yes,” you are likely over-confident and prone to gullibility.