Why We Sometimes Avoid the Truth and Other Times Can’t Stop Looking for It
A new TAU study reveals the emotional logic behind how we choose what information to face and what to avoid
A new study 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 reveals a surprising insight into how we deal with information. Contrary to the common view that “willful ignorance” is primarily a way to avoid moral responsibility toward others, the study offers a much broader explanation: at times we avoid information — and at times we deliberately seek painful information — to regulate our own emotions and manage psychological overload.
According to the findings, many people delay receiving important information because they fear its emotional consequences. For example, many prefer not to check their medical test results before a vacation, or avoid looking at their investment portfolio during a market downturn. This avoidance does not stem from indifference, but rather from a desire to postpone the moment of emotional confrontation.
Why We Sometimes Seek Painful Information
But alongside avoidance, the study points to an opposite behavior that serves the same emotional regulation mechanism: in situations of uncertainty, people actively seek painful information, even when it offers no benefit. For instance, consumers often check the prices of products they have already purchased, just to know whether they lost money — despite the fact that their initial decision cannot be undone. This phenomenon was especially evident after the October 7 attack in Israel, when many families sought to learn the fate of their loved ones, even when they knew the information might be devastating. In such cases, the pain of uncertainty seemingly outweighs the pain of knowing.
The study was published in the journal Current Opinion in Psychology. It presents a broad literature review in which the researchers examine recent empirical studies, alongside their own research on avoiding useful information and seeking information that serves no practical purpose. By comparing these patterns, they constructed a simple model based on two questions: Am I able to bear uncertainty? and Am I able to bear the truth? Their findings show that both behaviors — avoidance of information and information seeking — stem from the same emotional mechanism that attempts to regulate and balance between the fear of knowing and the pain of not knowing.
Moral Choices, Responsibility, and the Cost of Not Knowing
The researchers emphasize that this dynamic arises not only in social contexts, but also in moral situations in which individuals have to confront themselves. Sometimes people prefer “not to know” how their actions affect others, in order to avoid guilt. However, when avoiding information risks causing serious harm to others, it is the very inability to bear uncertainty that compels them to confront the truth.
The study offers a new way to understand the decisions people make in an information-saturated world: the desire to know and the desire not to know are not opposing forces, but two psychological tools intended to help us emotionally cope with threatening situations. For healthcare systems, public institutions, and organizations, this insight underscores the importance of how information is delivered — not only what is conveyed, but also how and when. We constantly navigate between the desire to know and the need to protect ourselves, weighing which option will hurt less: the truth or uncertainty. In an era where information is always within reach, the study highlights that what we know is not the only thing that matters — equally important is how we feel when we choose to know, or decide to remain in the dark.
