Missing the trees for the forest: A construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth.
Abstract
An illusion of explanatory depth (IOED) occurs when people believe they understand a concept more deeply than they actually do. To date, IOEDs have been identified only in mechanical and natural domains, occluding why they occur and suggesting that their implications are quite limited. Six studies illustrated that IOEDs occur because people adopt an inappropriately abstract construal style when they assess how well they understand concrete concepts. As this mechanism predicts, participants who naturally adopted concrete construal styles (Study 1) or were induced to adopt a concrete construal style (Studies 2-4 and 6), experienced diminished IOEDs. Two additional studies documented a novel IOED in the social psychological domain of electoral voting (Studies 5 and 6), demonstrating the generality of the construal mechanism, the authors also extended the presumed boundary conditions of the effect beyond mechanical and natural domains. These findings suggest a novel factor that might contribute to such diverse social-cognitive shortcomings as stereotyping, egocentrism, and the planning fallacy, where people adopt abstract representations of concepts that should be represented concretely.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The strength of IOED depends on cognitive characteristics of participants, such as adopting a concrete or abstract construal style or the executive resources available to assess understanding.
“On the one hand, the strength of IOED depends on cognitive characteristics of participants, such as adopting a concrete or abstract construal style (Alter et al., 2010) or on the executive resources available to assess understanding (Gaviria & Corredor, 2025).”
From Overconfidence without Understanding: AI Explanations Increase the Illusion of Explanatory Depth (2025) · cites this paper as Alter et al., 2010
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding
Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612464058 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence
Cadario, R., Longoni, C., & Morewedge, C. K. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01146-0 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
I Think I Get Your Point, AI! The Illusion of Explanatory Depth in Explainable AI
Chromik, M., Eiband, M., Buchner, F., Krüger, A., & Butz, A. (2021) · 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3397481.3450644 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
The illusion of explanatory depth and endorsement of conspiracy beliefs
Vitriol, J. A., & Marsh, J. K. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2504 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Your Understanding Is My Understanding: Evidence for a Community of Knowledge
Sloman, S. A., & Rabb, N. (2016) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797616662271 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Known Unknowns: A Critical Determinant of Confidence and Calibration
Walters, D. J., Fernbach, P. M., Fox, C. R., & Sloman, S. A. (2017) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2580 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Reflecting on explanatory ability: A mechanism for detecting gaps in causal knowledge.
Johnson, D. R., Murphy, M. P., & Messer, R. M. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000161 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Harder Than You Think: How Outside Assistance Leads to Overconfidence
Fisher, M., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2021) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620975779 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationMechanistic versus Functional Understanding
Lombrozo, T., & Wilkenfeld, D. (2019) · Varieties of Understanding · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190860974.003.0011 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Uninformative photos can increase people's perceived knowledge of complicated processes.
Cardwell, B. A., Lindsay, D. S., Förster, K., & Garry, M. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.05.002 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Overconfidence without Understanding: AI Explanations Increase the Illusion of Explanatory Depth
Aslanov, I., Felmer, P., & Guerra, E. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8psgf_v1
- Authors
- Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Zemla, J. C.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Rice University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 436-451
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2125782830
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 4.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Charlotte Elizabeth Procter Fellowship
- Woodrow Wilson Society
- National Science Foundation (051811)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
- Keywords
- illusion of explanatory depth, construal level theory, conceptual understanding, concrete concepts, social cognition, stereotyping, self-centeredness, planning fallacy, electoral voting, metacognition
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cognition, Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Illusions, Male, Politics, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Behavior, Task Performance and Analysis, Observer Variation, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review