Heads in the sand

Governments and scientists around the world have been becoming increasingly frustrated at the apparent inability of the general public to accept the findings of recognised institutions, including the media concerning the conditions we are finding ourselves in regarding the health of the planet.

Do people really want to know how their actions affect others? Generosity has its own rewards, but it can also demand the sacrifice of time, money, effort and comfort. That may explain why wilful ignorance, the intentional avoidance of information about the potential harm of one’s actions, is so common.

Despite the plethora of scientific evidence for climate change, for instance, many people still avoid engaging with facts about global warming. Nor do they always want to know about the harsh living conditions of farm animals. And consumers often ignore the ethical origins of the products they purchase.

Recently data was pooled from multiple research projects that collectively involved more than 6,000 people. It was discovered that wilful ignorance is common and harmful, with 40 percent of people choosing “not to know” the consequences of their actions to free themselves of guilt while maximising their own earnings. But it was also found about 40 percent of people are altruistic: they seek out rather than avoid information about the consequences of their actions to increase the benefits to others. The remaining 20 percent? Well, she’ll be right.

People who sought information tend to make decisions that benefit others, even at a cost to themselves. That means information-seeking is at least partially motivated by the desire to do the  right thing. By the same token, choosing ignorance has value for people who want an excuse to be selfish.

It was found that some altruistic behaviours in life are done because people feel pressure to do what is expected of them. When the consequences of choices are made clear, people may feel obliged to make a small sacrifice and be generous to others. But when given a chance, people may want to ignore the consequences of their actions. Ignorance shields people from knowing how their actions harm others and makes them feel less like a bad person.

These findings hint at ways to combat wilful ignorance. Decision-making tends to occur within a moral framework: you could benefit yourself at the expense of your partner. This is fertile ground for wilful ignorance because it poses a threat to a person’s self-image, heightening the sense that—if you know what’s really going on—you will have to make harder choices to be a good person.

If we can avoid putting a strong moral emphasis on decisions, it may make people feel less threatened and, as a result, less wilfully ignorant.

For instance, we can present choices in ways that highlight ethical options first, such as making vegetarian menus the default, while still allowing people to opt out and choose meat, as part of an effort to encourage sustainable food choices. Or we could encourage people to think more positively about good deeds rather than guilt-trip them for what they have failed to do.

Highlighting recent global achievements, such as healing the ozone layer, for instance, can encourage people to keep up the good work rather than feel like the battle is lost and that it’s all gloom and doom even though we are now finding that the hole in the ozone is returning. However, most countries tried and are continuing to try. If we give up, we will cease to exist. We may not agree with our political leaders – but we put them there, so let’s support them.