An unopened email from the educational institution has been lying idle for three days now. The subject line of the email lacks any specific details apart from indicating that the results are accessible. The student has been checking the sender and subject for messages, and even hovering over the email, but hasn’t opened it yet. The same is done for bank accounts, hospital letters, and investment applications. Psychologists and economists explain this behaviour with the help of the ostrich effect, or the behaviour of an ostrich that hides its head in the sand upon seeing danger. Although ostriches do not do that in real life, this metaphor thoroughly describes a signature routine of people.
Where the Ostrich Effect Comes From
The term ostrich effect was coined in finance by Galai and Sade (2006). Karlsson et al. (2009) then built a model of the idea and tested it with portfolio data. They discovered that investors were less inclined to log in to view their retirement accounts following the market decline. A subsequent investigation of daily logins at a major retirement services provider found that the numbers fell by 9.5% after market downturns (Sicherman et al., 2016). These statistics reflect actual participant behaviour derived from their actions rather than their intentions. Not everyone follows the pattern. In research on portfolio monitoring, approximately 79% of investors exhibited the ostrich effect, whereas roughly 21% displayed the contrary behaviour (Gherzi et al., 2014).
Why People Look Away: Feelings and Expectations
People steer clear of unfavourable information due to the emotions it might arouse rather than a lack of awareness. According to Karlsson et al. (2009), information that is ignored has a lower emotional impact. Seeing one’s balance steadily deteriorate can be upsetting. Consequently, avoiding information reduces discomfort. Information avoidance, according to Sweeny et al. (2010), is any deliberate action done to prevent or postpone acquiring information that is deemed undesirable.
This can be understood through emotion regulation, the ways people influence which emotions they have and when they have them (Gross, 1998). Not looking is one way to do this: if the news is never seen, the painful feeling it would bring never starts. An associated concept is anticipated negative emotions, the unpleasant emotions a person expects to experience if the news turns out to be bad. When the anticipated feeling is powerful, it seems easier to avoid the information. Sweeney et al. (2010) reviewed the motivations that lead people to avoid information, which is one way to connect their work to this idea.
Linking the ostrich effect to emotion regulation is an interpretation of the research above, not something those studies tested directly. Research in the fields of economics and psychology demonstrates that information does more than just serve as a mechanism for deciding. Indeed, people may ignore information that could help them make a better decision (Golman et al., 2017). The inclination towards looking or turning away is affected by one’s expectations from an encounter. Persoskie et al. (2014) analysed a US national survey on cancer worry and avoiding doctor visits.
For those aged 50 or older, it was worry that predicted physician avoidance, while for those younger than 50, it was the fear of risk. The authors pointed out that the finding for those under 50 is consistent with the hypothesis that individuals might feel motivated to search for information when they perceive that it will be reassuring. On the other hand, they might avoid it when it seems likely to confirm their fears. That study concerned cancer worry and doctor visits, so exam results and loan documents are not direct evidence from it.
What it does illustrate is the role of anticipated outcomes: whether a person looks seems to depend on what they expect to find. The same reasoning may apply to someone facing exam results, a medical examination, or a loan document, though that is an extension of the finding, not a result from the study. While the envelope is closed, several outcomes remain possible, including good ones. Opening it replaces possibility with fact. This is one way to read the pattern described above.
Avoiding Information Versus Doubting It
People can interpret unwelcome information in ways that suit them. In the research by Ditto and Lopez (1992), participants were informed that they were undergoing a test for an enzyme deficiency and that a saliva test strip would indicate the effect through a colour change. In fact, the strip never changed colour. Participants who hoped it would turn green waited longer before accepting the result than participants who hoped it would not.
The authors called this pattern motivated scepticism: people seem to demand more evidence before accepting a conclusion they dislike. Motivated scepticism is one form of motivated reasoning, in which people reason their way toward the conclusion they prefer. It is reasonable to suppose that a student who dislikes a result may likewise look for reasons to doubt it, though the study did not involve exam results. Motivated scepticism (Ditto & Lopez, 1992) is different from information avoidance, where the ostrich effect is one example of such a larger behavior.
That is, information avoidance refers to the behaviour of avoiding acquiring unwanted information (Sweeny et al., 2010). Avoidance concerns whether a person gets the information at all: the email stays unopened. Motivated scepticism concerns what happens once the information is in front of them. They look at it, but judge it more critically when it contradicts the conclusion they prefer.
In Ditto and Lopez’s (1992) study, participants did take the test and watch for the result, so it shows scepticism, not avoidance. The two are related, because both can protect a preferred conclusion or a mood, and they may work in sequence: a person might put off opening the results and then, on reading something unwelcome, look for reasons to doubt it. That sequence is a possibility drawn from the research, not something these studies tested together.
The Cost of the Ostrich Effect and How to Make Looking Easier
The relief that the ostrich effect brings is short. As per Golman et al. (2017), there can be costs associated with the avoidance of information, such as the loss of opportunities to treat a serious illness early or gain knowledge regarding better ways to prepare financially for retirement. Decisions that require that particular information will then have to wait, regardless of whether it involves making an appointment, rescheduling tests, or getting rid of debts. Meanwhile, the underlying problem remains unresolved because we cannot address it until we know what it is.
There is nothing wrong with delaying some negative details for a while. The problem arises when avoidance creates more distress than the discomfort it was meant to help us avoid. Persoskie et al. (2014) suggested that automatic scheduling of appointments might help reduce doctor avoidance, and they recommended studies to test this. We can apply this concept in our daily lives to reduce the number of decisions we need to make. Accordingly, people may plan when to reveal their results and what the next course of action should be, and may communicate their experience to others.
Dividing up a large task is another possible strategy. When faced with a long list of results, letters, or a pile of bills, start by opening one envelope, reading its contents carefully, and considering what to do next. The same applies to social support: having a friend or family member nearby while doing something, or talking about what to do after, may help lighten the load. These strategies draw on the research discussed above, but researchers have not yet tested them as treatments.
Conclusion
People refrain from receiving information that can be undesirable for very obvious reasons. Engaging with bad news can cause emotional distress. Avoiding it may help people cope with difficult emotions. Before opening a message, they may still hope for a positive outcome. This makes the ostrich effect seem logical and understandable. Some people also find motive to doubt a result once it arrives, which is a different move from avoiding it but serves a similar wish.
However, the calm that avoidance brings does not last, and the decisions that rely on the news must wait. Taking smaller steps and having someone accompany you may make it easier. However, researchers have not tested these approaches as treatments. Seen this way, the ostrich effect is an understandable reaction to uncomfortable news. Unsealing the letter might be uncomfortable, yet it’s frequently where addressing the issue starts.
References +
- Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated scepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
- Galai, D., & Sade, O. (2006). The “ostrich effect” and the relationship between the liquidity and the yields of financial assets. The Journal of Business, 79, 2741–2759. https://doi.org/10.1086/505250
- Gherzi, S., Egan, D., Stewart, N., Haisley, E., & Ayton, P. (2014). The meerkat effect: Personality and market returns affect investors’ portfolio monitoring behaviour. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 107(Part B), 512–526.
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.07.013
- Golman, R., Hagmann, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2017). Information avoidance. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(1), 96-135. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20151245
- Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
- Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., & Seppi, D. (2009). The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-009-9060-6
- Persoskie, A., Ferrer, R. A., & Klein, W. M. (2014). Association of cancer worry and perceived risk with doctor avoidance: an analysis of information avoidance in a nationally representative US sample. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 37(5), 977–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-013-9537-2
- Sicherman, N., Loewenstein, G., Seppi, D. J., & Utkus, S. P. (2016). Financial attention. Review of Financial Studies, 29(4), 863–897. https://doi:10.1093/rfs/hhv073
- Sweeny, K., Melnyk, D., Miller, W., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021288
