This text has been translated from Norwegian with the assistance of GPT UiO.
?
This is highlighted in the research article titled "Unwillingly Informed: Prosocial Impact of Third-Party Informers,"?where economists Jo Thori Lind and Karine Nyborg from the University of Oslo are among the authors.
– The research literature within experimental economics indicates that many individuals prefer to avoid information that could reveal a conflict between their self-interest and the welfare of others, states Karine Nyborg. She explains that these experiments have predominantly been conducted in laboratory settings devoid of social relationships.
Many try to remain in ignorance
In a recent study, Nyborg and her fellow researchers sought to determine whether individuals remain equally inclined to avoid potentially uncomfortable information when they are aware that others may provide this information regardless. They questioned whether the discomfort of being confronted with information from others might induce individuals to seek out the information themselves.
– Our investigation finds that the answer is no: people tend to avoid potentially uncomfortable information, even when they know a third party could override their avoidance, Nyborg elaborates. Still, she emphasizes the crucial role played by the third party.
– Most of them actually choose to disclose the information. And, when we become aware that our choices may harm others, we are significantly more likely to abstain from making those choices. This holds true even when we have consciously tried to remain in ignorance.
Nyborg argues that the findings from the study could contribute to a deeper understanding of what is required for individuals to internalize significant yet potentially uncomfortable information regarding issues such as climate choices, animal welfare, or the true implications of consent.
Earn money depending on om their choices and those of others
In the study, Nyborg and her colleagues utilized online experiments, which are common in this realm of research. In economic experiments, participants earn money, but their earnings depend on their own choices and those of others. Such experiments are often repeated numerous times, with only minor variations between treatments in the hope of identifying factors that influence our behaviour – such as why we occasionally choose to share rather than simply act in our own self-interest.
As Karine Nyborg explains, experiments on information avoidance often consist of two players: a so-called dictator and a so-called receiver. The dictator holds all the power to decide. The dictator is presented with two options: option A is the most profitable for the dictator alone but provides very little to the receiver; option B is the "fair" alternative, in which both parties receive an equal share (though slightly less than what the dictator would obtain in option A). And as long as the consequences are known in advance, the vast majority of dictators tend to choose the fair option B.
Intriguingly, according to the economist, the dynamics shift when the dictator is initially unaware of which option will yield a high or low payoff for the receiver but can discover this information simply by pressing a button.
– Many, often around half, choose not to investigate the consequences – and now significantly fewer than before take the receiver's welfare into account when deciding between options A and B, she recounts.
Introducing a third party who imposes information
Most previous experiments do not consider that many choices occur within a social reality where others may choose to inform us of aspects, we would prefer to remain ignorant of.
Consequently, Nyborg and her co-authors advanced the experiment by introducing a third party, who could potentially provide the dictators with information they had not solicited themselves. The hypothesis was that dictators would dislike the prospect of being confronted with information and, as a result, would be more inclined to request it themselves. The surprising finding, however, was that the dictators exhibited no greater eagerness to obtain information than before.
Nevertheless, the third party proved to play an essential role: when they actively imposed information that the dictator had sought to avoid, the choices became significantly fairer.
– Two-thirds of those who were forced to confront information about the negative consequences of their choice for the receiver modified their decisions from being unfair to fair.
May have impact on our choices for the climate and consent to sexual encounter
The economics professor stresses that one cannot directly extrapolate conclusions from such experiments to real-world situations, yet she finds the results encouraging and, hopefully, somewhat generalizable.
– Such a study addresses only one small element, and many more factors come into play. However, what we find is that when you are presented with information against your will, even if you had actively avoided it, you would act upon that information. This isolated finding is indeed promising for information campaigns concerning issues that people generally prefer not to know about, she states.
Examples may include information regarding climate impacts, child labor, or environmental destruction linked to consumer choices.
– Many of us already sense this. When we are made aware of the extent to which a long-haul flight contributes to pollution and discomfort for both the climate and individuals, it is more likely that we will restrict our travel than if we had to seek out that information ourselves, says Nyborg.
She emphasizes that the same may be true for meat consumption and the extent of feed and agricultural land required to produce beef and hamburgers multiple times a week. Many of us might choose to consider the implications for people, animals, and nature if we are made aware that our actions significantly affect them.
Consent to sexual encounters can also serve as an example. For some, it may be tempting to assume that those who participated in a post-party gathering were inherently “on board” without asking for clarification – simply because they did not explicitly oppose the advances.
– With the caveat that such an experiment only studies one of many components, the results suggest that it may make a substantial difference if other party attendees intervene, pointing out apparently missing, states Karine Nyborg.