Strategic ignorance of health risk: its causes and policy consequences

Nordström, Jonas; Thunström, Linda; Veld, Klaas van ’t; Shogren, Jason F.; Ehmke, Mariah D.

doi:10.1017/bpp.2019.52

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, our results are broadly supportive of research on strategic ignorance in the context of diagnostic testing and preventative medicine [5,21,22]. A growing literature on strategic ignorance suggests that people often ignore medical diagnoses or refuse testing despite being at risk [21,22].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

If you build it, will they come? Social, economic, and psychological determinants of COVID-19 testing decisions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The efficacy of testing and tracing programs to reduce COVID-19 transmission hinges not only on widespread access to testing, but also on the public’s willingness to participate in them. To the extent that testing intentions are patterned by social determinants of health, this constitutes an understudied mechanism of disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Design Using data from a representative household probability sample, the Person to Person Health Interview Study (n = 935), sociodemographic, economic, and psychological determinants of testing considerations were evaluated across six domains: treatment affordability, ability to work if positive, hospital effectiveness, symptom severity, proximity to infected, and risk of transmitting to others. Results Findings demonstrated significant differences in testing motivations across race/ethnicity, education level, socioeconomic status, and worry about self and loved ones. Notably, Black (p<0.01) and Latino (p<0.05) respondents and those experiencing financial strain (p<0.001) were disproportionately likely to indicate that resource factors would influence their decision to get tested. Desire to reduce transmission and concern about proximity to the infected were reported among those who expressed COVID-19 worries (p<0.001). Conclusion Public health efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic must address social, economic, and psychological factors that enable and constrain individual behavior. Increasing access to preventative interventions and technologies, including vaccines, is unlikely to markedly reduce morbidity and mortality without effective messaging and economic support to improve uptake in vulnerable populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

If you build it, will they come? Social, economic, and psychological determinants of COVID-19 testing decisions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study by Ganguly and Tasoff (2017) is particularly relevant: they observe people will avoid a costless test for herpes – a disease for which there is currently no cure, but for which information is useful in that it helps adjust behavior. People have also been found to willfully ignore health risk information, such as calories in food (Thunström et al , 2016; Woolley & Risen, 2018; Sunstein, 2019; Thunström, 2019; Nordström et al , 2020). Willful ignorance of health outcomes is likely to arise when people are torn between what they think they should do and what they want to do (Thunström, 2016; Woolley & Risen, 2018), or when ignorance allows them to form optimal expectations (downplay the probability of a bad health outcome; Oster et al , 2013; Nordström et al , 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People have also been found to willfully ignore health risk information, such as calories in food (Thunström et al , 2016; Woolley & Risen, 2018; Sunstein, 2019; Thunström, 2019; Nordström et al , 2020). Willful ignorance of health outcomes is likely to arise when people are torn between what they think they should do and what they want to do (Thunström, 2016; Woolley & Risen, 2018), or when ignorance allows them to form optimal expectations (downplay the probability of a bad health outcome; Oster et al , 2013; Nordström et al , 2020). For instance, a person may think she should eat healthy, but want to indulge in ice-cream—she might then choose to avoid learning about the exact amount of calories in the ice-cream in order to avoid either her inner pressure to reduce the ice-cream consumption or the guilt from consuming it despite being aware of the calorie content.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing for COVID-19: willful ignorance or selfless behavior?

Thunström

Ashworth

Shogren

et al. 2020

Behav. Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Widespread testing is key to controlling the spread of COVID-19. But should we worry about self-selection bias in the testing? The recent literature on willful ignorance says we should – people often avoid health information. In the context of COVID-19, such willful ignorance can bias testing data. Furthermore, willful ignorance often arises when selfish wants conflict with social benefits, which might be particularly likely for potential ‘super-spreaders’ – people with many social interactions – given people who test positive are urged to self-isolate for two weeks. We design a survey in which participants (n = 897) choose whether to take a costless COVID-19 test. We find that 70% would take a test. Surprisingly, the people most likely to widely spread COVID-19 – the extraverts, others who meet more people in their daily lives and younger people – are the most willing to take a test. People's ability to financially or emotionally sustain self-isolation does not matter to their decision. We conclude that people are selfless in their decision to test for COVID-19. Our results are encouraging – they imply that COVOD-19 testing may succeed in targeting those who generate the largest social benefits from self-isolation if infected, which strengthens the case for widespread testing.

show abstract

“…The study by Ganguly and Tasoff (2017) is particularly relevant: they observe people will avoid a costless test for herpesa disease for which there is currently no cure, but for which information is useful in that it helps adjust behavior. People have also been found to willfully ignore health risk information, such as calories in food (Thunström et al, 2016;Woolley & Risen, 2018;Sunstein, 2019;Thunström, 2019;Nordström et al, 2020). Willful ignorance of health outcomes is likely to arise when people are torn between what they think they should do and what they want to do (Thunström, 2016;Woolley & Risen, 2018), or when ignorance allows them to form optimal expectations (downplay the probability of a bad health outcome; Oster et al, 2013;Nordström et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People have also been found to willfully ignore health risk information, such as calories in food (Thunström et al, 2016;Woolley & Risen, 2018;Sunstein, 2019;Thunström, 2019;Nordström et al, 2020). Willful ignorance of health outcomes is likely to arise when people are torn between what they think they should do and what they want to do (Thunström, 2016;Woolley & Risen, 2018), or when ignorance allows them to form optimal expectations (downplay the probability of a bad health outcome; Oster et al, 2013;Nordström et al, 2020). For instance, a person may think she should eat healthy, but want to indulge in ice-cream-she might then choose to avoid learning about the exact amount of calories in the ice-cream in order to avoid either her inner pressure to reduce the ice-cream consumption or the guilt from consuming it despite being aware of the calorie content.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing for COVID-19: Willful Ignorance or Selfless Behavior?

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Widespread testing is key to controlling the spread of COVID-19. But should we worry about self-selection bias in the testing? The recent literature on willful ignorance says we shouldpeople often avoid health information. In the context of COVID-19, such willful ignorance can bias testing data. Furthermore, willful ignorance often arises when selfish wants conflict with social benefits, which might be particularly likely for potential 'super-spreaders'people with many social interactionsgiven people who test positive are urged to self-isolate for two weeks. We design a survey in which participants (n = 897) choose whether to take a costless COVID-19 test. We find that 70% would take a test. Surprisingly, the people most likely to widely spread COVID-19the extraverts, others who meet more people in their daily lives and younger peopleare the most willing to take a test. People's ability to financially or emotionally sustain self-isolation does not matter to their decision. We conclude that people are selfless in their decision to test for COVID-19. Our results are encouragingthey imply that COVOD-19 testing may succeed in targeting those who generate the largest social benefits from self-isolation if infected, which strengthens the case for widespread testing.

show abstract

Strategic ignorance of health risk: its causes and policy consequences

Cited by 18 publications

References 49 publications

If you build it, will they come? Social, economic, and psychological determinants of COVID-19 testing decisions

If you build it, will they come? Social, economic, and psychological determinants of COVID-19 testing decisions

Testing for COVID-19: willful ignorance or selfless behavior?

Testing for COVID-19: Willful Ignorance or Selfless Behavior?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About