Information avoidance
Deliberately choosing not to learn something, even when the knowledge is free and useful.
What it means
Information avoidance is the active or passive choice to remain ignorant of freely available, potentially relevant information, even at a cost to decision quality, because the information itself threatens to be unwelcome. People dodge facts that might cause emotional discomfort, force unpleasant action, contradict cherished beliefs, or impose responsibility, trading accuracy for protection of their feelings, self-image, or preferred course of conduct. It manifests as not reading test results, not checking finances, not opening a bill, looking away from charity appeals, or refusing feedback, and it is distinct from rational inattention because the avoided information is expected to be useful, not merely not worth its cost. The motives identified by Golman, Hagmann, and Loewenstein include avoiding negative feelings, dodging required behavior change, and preserving valued beliefs, often working through anticipated regret or dissonance. The 'ostrich effect' in finance, where investors check portfolios less in down markets, is a documented special case. It matters because it limits the reach of transparency and disclosure: simply making information available does not ensure people will let it in.
Examples
Many people at risk for a serious genetic condition decline a definitive, free test, preferring not to know rather than face a result they cannot change.
When markets fall, many investors log into their pension accounts far less often — the balance is the same whether or not they look, but looking hurts.
A manager never opens the anonymous team survey results, telling herself she is too busy; a bad score would oblige her to change how she runs the place.
First described in Golman, Hagmann & Loewenstein (2017).