Kate Sweeny

Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why.

Although acquiring information can provide numerous benefits, people often opt to remain ignorant. We define information avoidance as any behavior designed to prevent or delay the acquisition of available but potentially unwanted information. We review the various literatures that examine information avoidance and provide a unique framework to integrate the contributions of these disparate areas of research. We first define information avoidance and distinguish it from related phenomena. We then discuss the motivations that prompt information avoidance and the factors that moderate the likelihood of avoidance. Finally, we discuss individual differences that predict preferences for information avoidance. We conclude by evaluating the current state of research on information avoidance and discussing directions for future research.

Is Optimism Always Best? Future Outlooks and Preparedness

Although people generally appear optimistic about the future, they shift from optimism under certain circumstances. Drawing from a recent review of the literature, we describe how both optimism and shifts from optimism serve the common goal of preparedness, which includes a readiness to deal with setbacks and a readiness to take advantage of opportunities. Shifts from optimism occur in response to available information and to the possibility that things may not turn out as hoped. People tend to shift from optimism when feedback is anticipated in the near future, when the outcome is important, when negative outcomes are easily imagined, and when the outcomes are uncontrollable. In addition, people with low self-esteem shift from optimism more readily than do people with high self-esteem. Finally, both optimism and shifts from optimism have unique benefits in terms of preparedness.

Being the Best Bearer of Bad Tidings

Giving bad news is an unpleasant task, and the medical literature provides numerous guidelines for giving bad news well. However, what people mean by “giving bad news well” is less clear. What should be the goal when communicating bad news? The authors suggest that the goal of news-givers should be to guide recipients toward a desired response and the authors propose a theoretical framework, the Bad News Response Model, for delivering bad news that draws from research in health and social psychology. The model is applicable to all forms of bad news and specifies that three characteristics of the news (controllability, likelihood, and severity) influence which response (Watchful Waiting, Active Change, or Acceptance) will most often lead to the best quality of life for the recipient.

Predictors of Genetic Testing Decisions: A Systematic Review and Critique of the Literature

Genetic testing is increasingly available in medical settings and direct-to-consumer. However, the large and growing literature on genetic testing decisions is rife with conflicting findings, inconsistent methodology, and uneven attention across test types and across predictors of genetic testing decisions. Existing reviews of the literature draw broad conclusions but sacrifice nuanced analysis that with a closer look reveals far more inconsistency than homogeny across studies. The goals of this paper are to provide a systematic review of the empirical work on predictors of genetic testing decisions, highlight areas of consistency and inconsistency, and suggest productive directions for future research. We included all studies that provided quantitative analysis of subjective (e.g., perceived risk, perceived benefits of testing) and/or objective (e.g., family history, sociodemographic variables) predictors of genetic testing interest, intentions, or uptake, which produced a sample of 115 studies. From this review, we conclude that self-reported and test-related (as opposed to disorder-related or objective) predictors are relatively consistent across studies but that theoretically-driven efforts to examine testing interest across test types are sorely needed.

Waiting is the hardest part: a model of uncertainty navigation in the context of health news

Abstract Waiting for any news can be a difficult experience, and waiting for health-related news presents additional challenges due to the potentially life-changing implications of diagnostic, prognostic or risk information. This paper introduces a model of uncertainty navigation as a novel theoretical framework of the strategies people use to mitigate the anxiety of waiting for health news. The model includes three overarching strategies for uncertainty navigation: consequence mitigation, reappraisal and emotion regulation. It also incorporates several factors that moderate the use of these strategies. Supportive empirical evidence for the use and effectiveness of these strategies is presented, and potential consequences, both good and bad, of using these strategies are described. Finally, some of the many future research directions that arise from this novel theoretical framework are discussed.

Predictors of interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing is an increasingly available option among individuals searching for information about their health risk factors and ancestry. This study is one of the first to examine predictors of interest in DTC genetic testing. Participants read one of the three types of information about DTC genetic testing (positive only, negative only or both) and reported perceptions of and intentions to pursue testing. The information which people read, their perceptions of the benefits of testing, their perceptions of the barriers to testing and anticipated regret predicted intentions to undergo testing. Interestingly, people who read both positive and negative information did not differ from people who read only negative information in their intentions to pursue testing. We discuss the implications of these findings for predicting interest in this relatively new type of genetic testing and for designing interventions to encourage (or discourage) testing.

Do People Brace Sensibly? Risk Judgments and Event Likelihood

Previous research has shown that people become pessimistic about potentially bad news to “brace for the worst.” Three studies examined whether people brace differently for rare and common negative events. Results reveal that people brace more for rare negative events than for common negative events (Studies 1-3a), but only when the event is self-relevant (Study 3b). Results also show that people brace more for rare events when feedback is imminent (Study 1), when negative outcomes are salient (Study 2), and when the outcomes are important or consequential (Study 3a). The authors discuss several possible explanations for the findings, including ignorance of the base rate, random responding, and anchoring and adjustment, and ultimately suggest that people may brace “enough.”

On Near Misses and Completed Tasks The Nature of Relief

What is the nature and function of relief? Relief has been studied little in psychological science despite its familiarity and pervasiveness. Two studies revealed that relief can result from two distinct situations: the narrow avoidance of an aversive outcome (near-miss relief) and completion of an onerous or aversive event (task-completion relief). Study 1 found that recollections of near-miss relief were marked by more downward counterfactual thoughts and greater feelings of social isolation than recollections of task-completion relief. Study 2 experimentally elicited the two types of relief and found mediational evidence that relief following near misses elicits feelings of social isolation via its stimulation of counterfactual thinking. That near-miss relief is characterized by counterfactual thinking suggests that it prompts people to contemplate how to avert similar experiences in the future, whereas task-completion relief may serve to reinforce endurance during difficult tasks.

Mapping individual differences in the experience of a waiting period.

Waiting for uncertain news, such as the outcome of a job interview or medical test, is a ubiquitous and difficult but little studied experience. We conducted a longitudinal examination, guided by the predictions of the uncertainty navigation model (Sweeny & Cavanaugh, 2012), to examine broad trends and individual differences in experiences during a consequential waiting period. Fifty students preparing for the California bar exam completed questionnaires at 6 time points: shortly before and after the exam, at 2 intermediate time points during the 4-month waiting period, and immediately before and after learning whether they passed. We identified key individual differences in the overall experience of a waiting period, such that dispositional optimists reported lower levels of anxiety and rumination on average, and defensive pessimists and people uncomfortable with uncertainty reported higher levels. Longitudinal growth curve modeling analyses suggested that waiting is most difficult at the start and end of a waiting period, although people maintained hope and optimism throughout the wait. These temporal trends were generally robust, although some individual differences emerged. These findings provide the first evidence regarding when and for whom waiting periods are most difficult and thus can serve as the basis for future investigations of waiting experiences.

Causes and Consequences of Expectation Trajectories “High” on Optimism in a Public Ballot Initiative

Although expectations are key theoretical antecedents of emotion and behavior, expectations are typically examined as static properties without deep consideration of their temporal dynamics. We surveyed residents of California over five time points, during the month preceding a public ballot initiative on cannabis legalization (California Proposition 19) and after the election, to examine both the causes and the consequences of residents’ expectation trajectories regarding the vote’s outcome. Our results point to the importance of changes in individuals’ expectations over time. Specifically, well-informed voters were likely to lower their expectations regarding the measure’s passage as the vote neared, in line with polling results, but being informed about the initiative had less impact on expectation trajectories among voters who favored the measure than among those who opposed it. Furthermore, supporters who maintained their optimism about the initiative’s outcome over time were more likely to vote and were more disappointed following the measure’s failure, compared with supporters who became more pessimistic. The findings suggest that temporal changes in people’s optimism and expectations play a unique role in social behavior.