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.

Although subjective optimism is generally regarded as adaptive, people show a sharp decline in optimism when they anticipate self-relevant feedback in the near future. The authors discuss moderators of the shift in future outlooks as well as reasons for the shift. The authors propose that the shift can reflect a response to new information or an attempt to brace for undesired outcomes. Both explanations represent a response to an adaptive need to prepare for uncertain states of the world. Finally, the authors discuss unanswered questions and directions for future research.

The self‐serving bias refers to a tendency for people to take personal responsibility for their desirable outcomes yet externalize responsibility for their undesirable outcomes. We review a variety of explanations for this attribution bias. Although researchers have historically pitted cognitive and motivational explanations for the self‐serving bias against one another, cognitive and motivation processes often work in tandem to lead people to conclude that they are responsible for the desirable but not the undesirable outcomes.

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.

Research suggests that optimism feels good. However, does it always feel good? We suggest that the benefits (and costs) of optimism and pessimism depend on their timing. A study of exam score estimates revealed that, after controlling for actual exam performance, optimistic expectations are unrelated to how people feel immediately before feedback, in contrast to the common wisdom that optimism "feels good." Furthermore, optimism has costs after feedback-participants who predicted higher scores before feedback felt worse after learning their scores. Finally, people seem to be aware of the potential costs of optimism-participants who predicted higher scores before feedback also anticipated experiencing greater disappointment should they perform poorly. These findings suggest that people may proactively manage their expectations to avoid the costs of optimism.

Waiting for uncertain news is often distressing, at times even more distressing than facing bad news. The goal of this article was to investigate strategies for "waiting well" during these periods of uncertainty. Specifically, we propose 2 definitions of waiting well. First, people can wait in such a way as to ease their distress during the waiting period. Second, people could wait in such a way as to ease the pain of bad news or enhance the thrill of good news. We conducted a longitudinal study of law graduates (N = 230) awaiting their result on the California bar exam. Participants completed questionnaires prior to the exam, every 2 weeks during the 4-month waiting period, and shortly after learning whether they passed or failed. Cross-lagged models revealed that participants were quite unsuccessful at waiting well by our first definition. That is, their coping strategies were ineffective for reducing distress associated with uncertainty, apparently even backfiring in some cases. However, multiple regression analyses examining relationships between waiting experiences and responses to good and bad news found that many participants were successful at waiting well according to our second definition: Participants who suffered through a waiting period marked by anxiety, rumination, and pessimism responded more productively to bad news and more joyfully to good news, as compared with participants who suffered little during the wait. These findings substantiate the difficulty of enduring a stressful waiting period but suggest that this difficulty may pay off once the news arrives.

Although people's outlook on the future tends to be characterized by hope and optimism, over time this outlook often becomes more dire. We review multiple theoretical accounts of this tendency to "sober up" as feedback about outcomes draws near, and we explicate factors critical to promoting these temporal declines in expectations. We then meta-analytically test the impact of these factors on temporal shifts in people's expectations about self-relevant outcomes. The findings reveal a robust and ubiquitous tendency to lower one's expectations as the moment of feedback draws near and implicate multiple contributing processes (declining control, changing accountability pressures, construal level changes, and affect management concerns) as important for this shift. Furthermore, the results reveal important differences in the methodological approaches used to examine temporal shifts in predictions and suggest that timing of predictions relative to outcomes and feedback plays a critical role in the nature of the phenomenon. Overall, the analysis reveals an important exception to positive illusions about the future and suggests that a time-sensitive turn toward pessimism has adaptive functions.

We conducted a preregistered multilaboratory project ( k = 36; N = 3,531) to assess the size and robustness of ego-depletion effects using a novel replication method, termed the paradigmatic replication approach. Each laboratory implemented one of two procedures that was intended to manipulate self-control and tested performance on a subsequent measure of self-control. Confirmatory tests found a nonsignificant result ( d = 0.06). Confirmatory Bayesian meta-analyses using an informed-prior hypothesis (δ = 0.30, SD = 0.15) found that the data were 4 times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. Hence, preregistered analyses did not find evidence for a depletion effect. Exploratory analyses on the full sample (i.e., ignoring exclusion criteria) found a statistically significant effect ( d = 0.08); Bayesian analyses showed that the data were about equally likely under the null and informed-prior hypotheses. Exploratory moderator tests suggested that the depletion effect was larger for participants who reported more fatigue but was not moderated by trait self-control, willpower beliefs, or action orientation.