Download Information Behavior in Decision Theory

Information Behavior in Decision Theory: Selective Exposure, Bias, and Avoidance in Evidence
Searching
Rachael Clemens
INTRODUCTION
The ability to consider alternative possibilities is a fundamental component in Barron’s (2005) active
open-minded thinking which may fend off irrational behavior in decision making. Relying on heuristics
and prior beliefs is not sufficient, we should seek out and evaluate information/evidence in order to
identify, examine, and weigh viable options surrounding our decision. The ideal decision support system
might scan the environment for the most credible, timely, objective, and relevant information, quickly
identify all the options consistent with one’s particular set of values, calculate utilities and deliver an
executive summary to you of the top recommendations. However we most often rely on our own efforts
for decision support – gathering, evaluating and using information to make decisions. Examination of
human information seeking behavior is fairly abundant in the decision theory literature. Perhaps most
interesting are examinations of various preferences, biases and avoidance tendencies that we exhibit as
seemingly irrational behaviors. In the studies reviewed here, Leon Festinger’s dissonance theory is most
frequently cited as the underlying framework of these biases: we prefer agreement / consonance with and
among our beliefs – so we are likely to pursue information that supports our own predispositions.
Likewise we are apt to undervalue, discount or even avoid evidence that conflicts with our belief structure
– inclination to reduce/eliminate dissonance.
In this brief piece I will describe several factors that may influence these seemingly irrational behaviors
including:




Decision-focus vs. information-focus in search (Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey, & Thelen 2001)
(Jonas, Traut-Mattausch, Frey, & Greenberg 2008)
Screening (Beach 1993)
Strength or weakness of attitude (Brannon, Tagler, and Eagly 2007)
Information avoidance (Case, Andrews, Johnson, and Allard 2005)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Decision-focus vs. information-focus in search
Selective exposure to information that supports a decision maker’s initial inclinations has been
documented in numerous studies. Experiments typically describe a scenario and ask participants to make
a decision (e.g. should a hypothetical company renew a manager’s contract?) Researchers provide
prescribed and pre-labeled pieces of information (some supporting one possible outcome and some
supporting the other possible outcome). Previous studies offered the entire collection of evidence to study
participants at one time – described as simultaneous searching – and found patterns of information
selection bias that support the preferred outcome by participants. Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey, & Thelen
(2001) modified the experiment structure by presenting each piece of information separately –
sequentially – but still measuring patterns of selective exposure and confirmation bias (preference for
supporting information). An even greater incidence of confirmation bias than simultaneous search was
found. They postulated that the sequential interaction with information bits encouraged participants to
focus more on the decision itself – how does this one piece of evidence relate to my evaluation of the
scenario (consonance or dissonant)? Whereas examining several pieces of evidence promotes a more
information focus – allowing comparison and active evaluation.
Screening
Another way that confirmation bias may infiltrate decision making is in the initial identification of
options. Before actually considering and selecting a decision option, we must (or should anyway)
recognize what alternatives exist. However in real life situations there are typically limitations on the
quantity and depth of options that one can effectively analyze. Lee R. Beach (1993) describes the prechoice screening of options we actually put on the table as a way to ensure some degree of consistency
with our heuristics. This builds on the Image theory he developed to describe decision making from a
behavioral point of view. He identifies three components to decision making: 1) a person’s values and
belief system, 2) image of what is desired for his/her future – goals, 3) objectives or plans to achieve
goals. These three facets make up one’s decision standards. Decision making involves two actions –
screening of options and choice. As we determine potential options we measure the fit of each with our
internal (or organizational) standards. Some option candidates will be rejected outright (don’t meet the
“rejection threshold”). Those that make it to the table are in effect rated according to number and strength
of any “violations” of our standards.
Strength or weakness of attitude
Brannon, Tagler and Eagly (2007) investigated the role of attitude strength in mitigating selective
exposure to information and confirmation bias. Is someone with a stronger and more extreme attitude on
the topic more susceptible to prejudicial selection of supporting evidence? Experiments with university
students were configured to illicit each participant’s attitude to a traditionally contentious topic (abortion)
– the strength and extremity of his/her position. In a subsequent session participants were presented with
articles representing the prolife and the prochoice arguments and asked to rate its desirability and value to
read. The found that “attitude strength moderated selective exposure such that holding increasingly
stronger attitudes is associated with an increase in the desirability of attitudinally consistent article titles
relative to attitudinally inconsistent article titles” (Brannon, Tagler & Eagly 2007, p 614).
Information Avoidance
Case, Andrews, Johnson and Allard (2005) begin by drawing attention to a common implicit aspect of
information behavior research itself: the assumption of an innate impetus and natural momentum toward
information seeking. The authors then examine research from the fields of communication and
psychology charting the explicit and purposeful avoidance of information. Finally they explore meanings
and reasons for tendencies to disregard or evade distressing information.
The approaches are described primarily within the context of threatening health information, specifically
cancer and genetic testing. Tom Wilson’s model of “information behavior” and J. David Johnson’s
Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking (CMIS) are discussed and compared. Both models
include a point of opportunity for a person to drop an information pursuit. And both “incorporate the
concepts of anxiety and self-efficacy as motivating or inhibiting factors” (Case, et al. p 258).
In contrast to Barron’s (2008) warning against passive closed-mindedness, Case, et al. (2005) document
variables that may prompt a self-defense mechanism of information avoidance toward a threat which may
be a coping mechanism, not necessarily irrational behavior:





Perception of salience (is there any information that is relevant and applicable to my situation?)
Self-efficacy (to what extent do I think I can control the situation?)
Feelings of powerlessness
Treatment efficacy (do I believe that treatment will help?)
Proximity to the threat (did I receive the diagnosis, a close family member, or a more distant
relation/friend?)
The article concludes by recommending more research in the area of information avoidance - particularly
identifying and analyzing factors that may impact one’s reaction to disconcerting information and
resulting decision to seek / not seek / avoid additional information. These factors may range from
demographics to cognitive and behavioral aspects.
The Case et al. (2005) piece is cited by 25 other journal articles indexed within the Web of Science;
Google Scholar indicates 41 citations to it. Interesting but not surprising that citing authors represent
several fields of study including nursing, journalism, public health and policy, and of course information
science. Several of these studies revolve around appropriate/effective dissemination of health
information. Miles, Voorwinden, Chapman and Wardle (2008) found a correlation between the level of
cancer fear and information avoidance in older adults – those with “higher levels of cancer fear and
fatalism are less likely to learn about positive development made in the field of cancer control” (p 1872).
Disappointing however is the seeming absence of citations to this work from the psychology literature.
Through this and similar literature searches, I am puzzled by the lack of communication and collaboration
between psychology and information science in the area of information seeking and behavioral decision
theory.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER TOPICS
The empirical studies described here relate to information search processes that can support decision
making – asking questions such as “When and to what extent do we exhibit biased information
behavior?” The contributing factors of confirmation bias documented in these articles are surrounded by
many additional aspects within the scope of our course however. A more comprehensive inventory would
include irrational belief persistence, order of information encounter and primacy effect, neutral evidence
remaining neutral, confusion of expertise, and belief overkill.
References
Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Beach, L.R.(1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of
options. Psychological Science 4(4): 215–220
Brannon, L.A., Tagler, M.J. & Eagly, A.H. (2007). The moderating role of attitude strength in selective
exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43: 611-617.
Case, D.O., Andrews, J.E., Johnson, J.D., & Allard, S.L. (2005). Avoiding versus seeking: The
relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts.
Journal of the Medical Library Association 93(3): 353-362.
Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information
search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective
exposure to information. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 80(4): 557-571.
Jonas, E., Traut-Mattausch, E., Frey, D., & Greenberg, J. (2008). The path or the goal? Decision vs.
information focus in biased information seeking after preliminary decisions. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 44: 1180-1186.
Miles, A., Voorwinden, S., Chapman, S., & Wardle, J. (2008). Psychologic predictors of cancer
information avoidance among older adults: the role of cancer fear and fatalism. Cancer
Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 17(8): 1872-1879.