Jerusalem, 25 December, 2025 (TPS-IL) — Most people like to think they want the truth, but daily life suggests otherwise. From unopened medical test results to investment accounts left unchecked during a market slump, people often choose not to know. New Israeli-Dutch research suggests that this instinct is not about denial or irresponsibility, but about managing emotional pain.
The study, led by Prof. Yaniv Shani of the Coller School of Management at Tel Aviv University and Prof. Marcel Zeelenberg of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences in the Netherlands, argues that avoiding information and actively seeking painful information are not opposite behaviors. Instead, both stem from the same emotional process: an effort to regulate distress in situations perceived as threatening.
“Our decisions about information are not only functional but often emotional,” the researchers wrote. “People constantly navigate between the desire to know and the instinct to protect themselves, weighing which option will hurt less — the painful truth or the uncertainty.”
Much of the existing research on so-called willful ignorance has focused on moral explanations, suggesting people avoid information primarily to escape responsibility or guilt toward others. The new study offers a broader and more personal account. According to the researchers, people often avoid information simply because they feel unable to cope with its emotional impact at a particular moment.
The study — published in the peer-reviewed Current Opinion in Psychology — is based on a broad review of recent empirical research alongside the authors’ own studies on information avoidance and on seeking information that serves no practical purpose. From this body of work, the researchers developed a simple framework built around two questions: “Can I bear uncertainty?” and “Can I bear the truth?”
The answers to those questions, they argue, determine whether a person avoids information or insists on knowing it. Importantly, the same individual may shift between the two strategies depending on circumstances and emotional capacity. “These behaviors are not opposites,” the researchers wrote. “They are two tools people use to regulate emotions and prevent psychological overload.”
The study points to common examples: individuals who postpone checking medical test results before a holiday, or investors who avoid reviewing their portfolios during periods of market volatility. “This behavior does not reflect indifference,” Shani said. “In many cases, people fully intend to face the information later. They are choosing when to confront the emotional burden.”
At the same time, the researchers identify an apparently contradictory pattern that arises from the same emotional mechanism. In situations dominated by uncertainty, people often seek out information they know will be painful, even when it offers no practical benefit. Consumers frequently check the prices of items they have already purchased to see whether they overpaid, despite knowing the decision cannot be reversed.
“In these cases, uncertainty itself becomes the greater source of distress,” Zeelenberg said. “Knowing may hurt, but not knowing can hurt more.”
This pattern was particularly evident in Israel following the October 7 attack, when many families sought definitive information about the fate of loved ones even when they understood the news could be devastating. The researchers note that prolonged uncertainty can generate ongoing emotional strain, while painful knowledge can sometimes bring a sense of closure.
“People are constantly weighing which emotional cost is easier to bear,” they wrote. “The truth, or the uncertainty.”
The study also examined moral situations, noting that people sometimes prefer not to know how their actions affect others in order to avoid guilt. However, when avoiding information risks serious harm, an inability to tolerate uncertainty may instead compel individuals to confront uncomfortable truths.
The study’s findings have practical applications across healthcare, public institutions, business, and digital communication. By showing that people’s decisions to seek or avoid information are driven by emotional coping, organizations can tailor how and when they deliver sensitive information.
In healthcare, test results or diagnoses can be shared with timing and support that reduce emotional overload. Governments and emergency services can structure updates during crises to balance urgency with people’s ability to cope. Businesses can present financial or product information in ways that acknowledge customers’ emotional responses, and digital platforms can design alerts or news feeds to prevent unnecessary stress.
“What matters is not only what information is conveyed, but how and when it is delivered,” Shani said.
Related Topics
