The illusion of explanatory depth is the tendency for people to believe they understand how something works, such as a mechanical device, natural phenomenon or policy, in far more mechanistic detail than they actually do, a mistaken confidence that is often revealed only when they are asked to produce a detailed, step-by-step explanation. The psychologists Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil documented the effect in a 2002 study, in which participants who initially rated their understanding of everyday devices such as a zipper or a flush toilet highly gave substantially lower self-ratings after attempting to write out a detailed causal explanation of how the device worked. The effect has since been extended to research on understanding of political policies, where merely attempting to generate a detailed explanation has been shown to reduce the extremity of a person's political attitudes by exposing the gaps in their actual understanding.
Facts
Core ClaimPeople often believe they understand how something works in much more mechanistic detail than they actually can explain when asked to try. 1 First Described Year Classification
Type of Phenomenon Connections
In Branch
Source Wikipedia: Illusion of Explanatory Depth
Sources
1. Wikipedia: Illusion of Explanatory Depth
Wikimedia FoundationWikipedia lead section, sentence 1
The illusion of explanatory depth (IOED) is cognitive bias or an illusion where people tend to believe they understand a topic better than they actually do.
Wikipedia lead section, sentence 2
The term was coined by Yale researchers Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil in 2002.
lead section, phenomenon-kind classification
The illusion of explanatory depth (IOED) is cognitive bias or an illusion where people tend to believe they understand a topic better than they actually do.
In Branch: Cognitive Psychology, Categories
Wikipedia article 'Illusion of explanatory depth' is filed under Category:Cognitive biases.
View the Source Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.