Sunstein (this issue) offers a valuable essay on the issue of ‘deliberate ignorance’ (aka information avoidance), which he notes is “often fueled by a belief” that the information in question may be harmful, not useful, or may produce negative emotions (e.g., fear/sadness, shame/guilt). Sunstein suggests pathways for overcoming deliberate ignorance in the case of animal welfare, including a) increasing the perceived value of obtaining the information and b) decreasing perceived hedonic costs of receiving the information.

The topic of animal welfare is a significant social issue, of course, for the environment, for humans and their moral, mental, and physical health, and most of all, for the animals. Animal abuse, such as in animal experiments, for fur clothing, for sport (cockfighting/bullfighting/racing), and for food (animal flesh and products) has been documented for decades (Rich et al., forthcoming). As examples, Singer (1975, 2024) documents abuses of animals in psychology experiments (1975) and for factory farming (2024). In today’s industrialized nations, turkeys are reared on huge farms, with very cramped living space, and horrifically abused during their lives. To meet market high volume demand and timings, male turkeys are involuntarily masturbated, and females are effectively raped (a worker grabs about five females each minute, pins, forcibly opens, and inseminates them). Bred to be fat with large meaty breasts, their weak legs hurt while walking. Laying in faeces on the floor many develop sores, and many painfully get their beaks ‘trimmed’ and toes partly amputated (Singer, 2024).

The value of the ‘deliberate or wilful ignorance’ concept is that it encourages us to consider why persons are motivated, consciously or not, to avoid or ignore or not seek information about animals. Sunstein makes the helpful distinction between a) some people who simply “do not want to know” about animal abuses and see no instrumental, hedonic, or cognitive value in the topic, and do not have any interest in it, and b) other people who “want not to know” and actively active avoid this information: “they block their ears; they avert their eyes” to avoid guilt and shame. Indeed Gigerenzer and Garcia-Retamero (2017) argue that persons may avoid information, not only if it regards negative events (e.g., sadness/fear regarding death or divorce) but also regarding positive events (e.g., spoiling surprise/suspense about a prerecorded sport match). In some domains, perhaps wanting not to know, may be clearly evident- for instance, a reader beginning the recent mystery novel, Drive your plow over the bones of the dead by Nobel laureate clinical psychologist Olga Tokarczuk (2009), likely does not want to hear of plot spoilers from friends or reviewers in advance of finishing the excellent novel. In the case of animal welfare information, however, the information in question is likely negative, such as potentially learning troubling facts about animal maltreatment that challenge one’s moral beliefs and make one anxious or sad.

Reflecting on Sunstein’s rich essay, several directions for further consideration come to mind:

a) Future research ought to endeavor to integrate work on the relatively novel concept of ‘deliberate ignorance’ from economics/cognitive psychology, with the extensive existing research from clinical psychology on behavioral change and habit formation. In particular, it seems advised to consider the transtheoretical model (Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 2010) which aims to encompass several schools of psychology (e.g., learning theory, humanistic, psychodynamics) and critically, notes that effective interventions must operate at the level of, and in the context of, the person making the change. For instance, a person who knows nothing of the health benefits of a plant-based diet and is truly unaware of the horrors of factory farming, would be at the first, ‘precontemplative’ stage of this model, and would benefit from ‘consciousness raising’ such as brochures or public service announcements about the issue. In contrast, a person who has yet to change their behavior but would like to change, perhaps at the preparation stage of this model, may benefit from information about how to prepare healthy vegetarian meals and access environmentally friendly ingredients locally. Interventions that fail to address the background, context, and readiness of the individual often do not succeed.

b) Future research on deliberate ignorance ought also to further integrate extensive existing research from psychology on motivation. For instance, motivation is often described as extrinsic and/or intrinsic (Renniger & Hidi, 2019), and knowing how these types of motivations impact behavior regarding animal welfare is valuable. A person who can find eating a tasty healthy plant-based diet is fun and enjoyable may experience flow and intrinsic motivation, decreasing hedonic costs of learning the troubling animal welfare information. A person who finds eating a healthy plant based diet is rewarded by social praise from like-minded family, friends, religious and thought leaders may experience extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation may also factor in, if the person finds eating plant-based food is more affordable than feasting on factory farmed red meats. Optimized interventions must consider both motivation types.

c) Future research should not shy away from examining sensible elements of modern psychodynamic theory, such as the role played by unconscious/automatic processes and defense mechanisms including: massive denial (e.g., head in the sand about horrific scale of animal abuse), reaction formation (e.g., false arguments that animals, not humans, are more dangerous and lethal to the planet), displacement (e.g., placing all blame on large companies rather than taking responsibility for one’s own dietary choices), and rationalization (e.g., intellectualizing via convoluted mental twists and turns to avoid confronting the reality of animal abuse). Aligned with psychodynamic work, may be Sunstein’s suggestion that intervention approaches focused on the positive aspects of empathy for animals may be more likely to be received not ignored (e.g., providing information on animal capacities, such as fun facts, rather than a heavy focus on the distress and pain to animals or that potential vegetarian meals are not tasty).

d) Future research should explore how research on health appeals by health psychologists relates to the deliberate ignorance work. For example, health psychologists have found many women are reluctant to have breast exams, despite 1 in 8 women in the USA experiencing breast cancer during their lifetime. Research often finds that fear-only appeals- telling women that they can die from the condition- may result in women experiencing immobilizing fear and avoidance of the exam. In contrast, supportive health appeals that both raise awareness of the risks of breast cancer and then provide information about breast screenings that offers a feasible solution tend to be more effective (e.g., Taylor, 2017). Persons who worry that information cannot be utilized to improve one’s lot in life, may be inclined to ignore or refuse to hear it; psychologists can play a role in effective communication that is both factually accurate and supportive of emotional realities, such as conveying the instrumental health value of a client/society moving towards feasible, tasty plant-based diets.

e) Future research should be sure to engage diverse researchers, policy makers and constituents. The case of animal welfare deliberate ignorance needs and merits more attention beyond cognitive psychologists. For instance, with psychologists, legal scholars and policymakers can offer ethically appropriate evidence-based nudges towards desired behavioral goals. Amsterdam for example, has recently banned public adverts for meat and fossil fuels (Holligan, 2026). The humanities often offer perspectives that highlight key issues in ways often less possible in conventional psychology research (Tay & Pawelski, 2022); for example Nobel Laureate Coetzee (2019) wrote a thought provoking fictional novella on animal welfare, published in a volume with commentaries by notables from literature (Marjorie Garber), philosophy (Peter Singer), history of religions (Wendy Doniger) and biology (Barbara Smuts). Critically, psychologists seeking change should not be so arrogant or naïve as to ignore the role that religion plays in today’s world, where diverse billions look to their faith traditions in determining their beliefs and practices. For instance, research on understandings of religious concepts such as Judeo-Christian dominion and ahimsa in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist traditions likely will yield actionable results.

Positive social change can take time. Less than a century ago, in Owensboro, Kentucky, USA, 20,000 persons attended a public execution of a man found guilty after four and a half minutes of jury deliberation. Today the vast majority of Americans would likely be aghast at the event, and its festive, party-like picnic environment. One thinks too of the ubiquitous use of cancer-causing cigarettes, or the radioactive radium used in luminous watch-face paint and toothpaste of that era—practices long since abandoned as unhealthy. Perhaps someday in the future, maybe in our lifetime, as anthropologist van Voorst (2021) concludes, society will reflect back on its long history of animal eating and maltreatment as a problem from hell now solved, and openly tell younger generations true horror stories, all starting with the terrifying words: “Once Upon a Time We Ate Animals.”

References

Coetzee, J. M. (1999). The lives of animals. Princeton.

Gigerenzer, G., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2017). Cassandra’s regret: The psychology of not wanting to know. Psychological Review, 124(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000055

Holligan, A. (2026, May 4). Amsterdam bans public adverts for meat and fossil fuels. BBC.

Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (2010). Changing for good. William Morrow.

Renniger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (Eds.). (2019). Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning. Cambridge.

Rich, G., et al. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Psychological basis of human-animal interactions. Springer.

Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. Bantam.

Singer, P. (2024). Consider the turkey. Princeton.

Sunstein, C. R. (this issue). Deliberate ignorance. Applied Psychology Around the World (APAW). IAAP.

Tay, L., & Pawelski, J. O. (Eds.). (2022). Oxford handbook of the positive humanities. Oxford.

Taylor, S. (2017). Health psychology (10th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Tokarczuk, O. (2009). Drive your plow over the bones of the dead. Riverhead.

Van Voorst, R. (2021). Once upon a time we ate animals. HarperOne.