Disclosure and the Dog That Didn’T Bark: Consumers Are Too Forgiving of Missing Information

Abstract

A central premise for information disclosure is known as unraveling: service providers that can provide information credibly should disclose it, otherwise receivers should interpret the missing information to be the worst possible information. Contrary to the unraveling prediction, across four experiments, we show that (1) providers typically withhold information, and (2) receivers are unresponsive to the missing information, demonstrated by their tendencies to (a) judge providers as average, rather than the worst possible, on the missing information, and (b) select these providers as much as they select providers who disclose all information. Receivers’ reactions are due to both not deliberating on the absent information (salience hypothesis) and interpreting the absence of information in an unduly positive light (charitable hypothesis). Receivers also respond differently to various types of nondisclosures that are theoretically equivalent. These findings suggest a different equilibrium for voluntary dis...