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.