What's the difference between an assumption and an interpretation?

Two teams have been taking a lot more time than usual to respond to each other. A manager looked at this pattern and concluded that collaboration has weakened between the teams because they no longer trust one another. 

So, is “trust has weakened” an interpretation of the evidence or an assumption being presented as an interpretation?

But before getting to that question, it’s important to understand what an assumption and an interpretation refer to. For this article, an assumption is something being treated as true or even provisionally accepted, but the evidence in front of you hasn’t established it, whereas an interpretation is an attempt to explain what the evidence or observed cues might mean. 

However, an interpretation can contain assumptions. So interpretations aren’t just about what the data says because there’s a lot more involved in getting to them. One of those things is sensemaking.

Sensemaking involves extracting and interpreting cues, but cues are processed through existing schemas and frames. Frames can be understood as structures that guide information processing, while language may shape taken-for-granted ways of making sense (Whittle et al., 2023).

Thus, in the example, longer response times were the evidence and reduced trust was the meaning that was attached to that evidence. But another frame might make workload or changing priorities more noticeable. 

People often build explanations by connecting events into stories that seem to make sense. If there are gaps, it’s possible that they make assumptions to fill them. But if there are too many inconsistencies, confidence in the explanation may weaken and they may consider an alternative account (Klein et al., 2023). Hence, an assumption within an interpretation doesn’t invalidate it, but the concern begins when that assumption is no longer recognised as an assumption. 

Wickert (2025) discussed how we can develop possible explanations from what we observe, while also distinguishing between proposing one and establishing that it is supported. 

In the example, saying that poor trust explains slower responses can be a reasonable interpretation, but it should not be treated as a finding before evidence supports it. 

So coming back to the original question, assumptions and interpretations aren’t opposites but they also can’t be used interchangeably. The most important thing that I’ve understood from this is that assumptions should be seen as assumptions instead of being considered facts. It’s necessary to ask which parts of our conclusion came from the evidence and which parts we had to add to make sense of it.

One way to challenge this is through cognitive reflection. Criado‐Perez et al. (2024) described it as the ability to question an intuitive response and reconsider the available information. They also noted its association with considering alternative solutions.  

All in all, the aim is not to remove every assumption from an interpretation. Perhaps it’s to be aware of where the evidence ends and our interpretation starts. 

References

Criado‐Perez, C., Jackson, C., & Collins, C. G. (2024). Evidence collection and use when making management decisions. Applied Psychology, 73(4), 1652–1672. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12503

Klein, G., Jalaeian, M., Hoffman, R. R., & Mueller, S. T. (2023). The plausibility transition model for sensemaking. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1160132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1160132

Whittle, A., Vaara, E., & Maitlis, S. (2023). The Role of Language in Organizational Sensemaking: An Integrative theoretical framework and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 49(6), 1807–1840. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221147295

Wickert, C. (2025). Modes of Reasoning in management and Organization Studies: Promises and perils of Abduction and induction. Journal of Management Studies, 63(5), 2248–2256. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70056