Too much information Understanding what you don't want to know

Harvard Law School professor Sunstein (Conformity) considers the legal, social, and psychological implications of government-mandated information disclosures in this nuanced account. Contending that nutrition labels, restaurant menu calorie counts, credit card bill late fees, and other mandated disclosures should be evaluated on whether they "increase human well-being," rather than simply provided as part of the public's "right to know," Sunstein parses the "hedonic value," or pleasure, people take in knowing--or not knowing--something, and the "instrumental value" people assign to information based on how they can use it. He compiles data on consumers' "willingness to pay" for tire safety rankings and the potential side effects of pain medication; contends that the positive and negative feelings associated with such disclosures should be given more weight than they currently are; and outlines potential benefits and limitations to a system of "personalized disclosure,"in which the government mandates certain basic information, but makes further details available to those who want it through apps and other technologies. Readers with a background in the social sciences and moral philosophy will have an easier time engaging than generalists, though Sunstein writes in clear, accessible language throughout. This balanced and well-informed take illuminates an obscure but significant corner of government policy making. (Sept.)

A former presidential adviser considers the complexities of information disclosure. Sunstein, a legal scholar who, in the Obama White House, oversaw federal regulations that required disclosure about such matters as nutrition and workplace safety, opens his latest book by asking, "When should government require companies, employers, hospitals, and others to disclose information?" His short answer: whenever doing so makes people happier or helps them make decisions. But as he notes, "Whether it's right to disclose bad news depends on the people and the situation. One size does not fit all." In these essays, Sunstein addresses key questions policymakers should consider when deciding whether to disclose or request information. Topics include the reasons people might or might not want information (a friend joked that he "ruined popcorn" after the FDA finalized a regulation that movie theaters and restaurants had to disclose caloric content); the psychological factors to consider when designing disclosures, such as that some people don't read them, especially when, as with software downloads, they're long; and the value people place on social media, an essay in which he notes a paradox: "the use of Facebook makes people, on average, a bit less happy--more likely to be depressed, more likely to be anxious, less satisfied with their lives," yet many people "would demand a lot of money to give it up." Despite the use of jargon such as "hedonic loss" and "availability heuristics," the narrative is clear and relatable. Sunstein even delivers a few zingers, as when he notes in the chapter on "sludge," the term for the excessive paperwork people wade through to cancel magazine subscriptions or sign up for free school meals: "The Department of the Treasury, and the IRS in particular, win Olympic gold for sludge production." An accessible treatise on the need to ensure that information improves citizens' well-being. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

You might not much care to learn the number of hairs on the heads of people sitting at the next table at a restaurant, or the precise metals that were used to make your automobile, or whether the coffee beans at the local store came from Brazil, Colombia, Budapest, or somewhere else. You might not want to know whether you will get Alzheimer's disease, whether you have a genetic susceptibility to cancer and heart disease, what all of your colleagues really think about you, and the year of your likely death. You might not want to know about the health risks associated with consumption of beer, coffee, pizza, and ice cream--products that offer immediate pleasure but may create future harm. If your mind is full of those risks, consumption might produce fear, guilt, or shame. Ignorance might be bliss. (This very morning, I weighed myself. Doing that was not good for my mood.) The general phenomenon of "information avoidance" suggests that people often prefer not to know and will actually take active steps to avoid information. But what steps? And at what cost? I have said that the most fundamental question is whether receiving information increases people's well-being. That proposition argues in favor of a case-by-case approach, asking whether information would have that effect for the relevant population (even if it is a population of just one). True, we have to say something about the meaning of well-being. Economists like to work with the idea of willingness to pay (WTP), insisting that it is the best measure we have of whether people will gain or lose from obtaining things--clothing, food, sporting goods, laptops, automobiles, or information. I will have a fair bit to say about the willingness to pay criterion, much of it negative. What matters is human well-being, not willingness to pay. An obvious problem is that if people lack money, they will not be willing to pay much for that reason. But let's bracket that point and work with willingness to pay for now, seeing it as a way of testing whether people really do want something and how much. One of its advantages is that at least in principle, it should capture everything that human beings care about--everything that matters to them. In some cases, people are willing to pay a lot for information. In other cases, people are willing to pay exactly nothing for information. In other cases, they are willing to pay not to receive information. As we shall see, it is important to ask whether people's willingness to pay, or not, is informed and rational. Crucially, people might lack the information to decide how much they are willing to pay for information. If so, their willingness to pay might depend on an absence of information about the importance of that information. People's willingness to pay might also depend on deprivation and injustice, leading them to lack interest in information that could greatly improve their lives. Excerpted from Too Much Information: Understanding What You Don't Want to Know by Cass R. Sunstein All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.