Page 162 - Journal of Library Science in China 2020 Vol.46

161
Extended English abstracts of articles published in the Chinese edition of Journal of Library Science in China, Vol.46, 2020 161

methods played in the research of information avoidance?
This study adopted systematic review to analyze, synthesize, and present previous studies
of information avoidance. Different from narrative review, systematic review emphasizes the
transparency and replicability of literature search and selection. This study conducted search
with the keyword “information avoidance” in a number of major databases and created detailed
literature elimination and evaluation criteria, which led to accurate identification of related studies
of high quality.
The systematic review was conducted on 59 studies falling into the domain of information
avoidance. They were published between 2004 and 2019. 83.1% of them are journal papers,
and 76.3% involve specific topics of information. They were distributed widely in a number of
disciplines, including psychology, library and information science, communications, medicine, and
so on. These studies were built upon a series of theories, including Uncertainty Reduction Theory,
Uncertainty Management Theory, Theory of Motivated Information Management, and Stress/
Coping.
Major findings include: 1) Information avoidance and selective exposure are two different
phenomena and should be distinguished from each other. Information avoidance refers to the
avoidance of potentially “unwanted” information when people are uncertain of its content.
2) Existing studies focused on the mechanisms of information avoidance behavior. The reasons
of avoiding information include individual differences (socio-economic variables, personality
traits, and world view), cognitive factors (perceived control, perceived coping resources, perceived
threat/risk, and efficacy), and emotional factors (positive/negative emotions and discrete emotions).
Specific strategies of avoiding include avoiding information sources, controlling attention,
deferring acquisition, forgetting, and denying. Information avoidance mainly leads to negative
consequences. 3) Information avoidance researchers preferred to use research approaches that
were either qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative data was usually collected with interviews and
diaries and analyzed with grounded theory and content analysis; and quantitative data was mainly
collected with questionnaire surveys and experiments and analyzed with traditional statistical
methods. 4) Future research should dive deeper into the mechanisms of information avoidance
behavior based on richer theories. Researchers need to see beyond the health and medicine contexts
and pay more attention to mixed methods.
The originality of this study mainly consists in: 1) The differences between information avoidance
and selective exposure were identified and specified for the first time, which engendered clear
boundaries for the domain of information avoidance. 2) A comprehensive domain map describing
the mechanisms of information avoidance behavior was established based on the systematic
review of 59 studies. 3) A refined definition of “information avoidance” was engendered from
the perspective of the stress/coping and emphasizing the need to increase cognitive uncertainty
and reduce emotional uncertainty. 4) Constructive suggestions were provided for future studies of
information avoidance in terms of theory development, research focus, method, and context.