Participants acted as loan officers deciding whether to approve real $10,000-loans issued by a private U.S. lender using an AI’s default-risk predictions. When explanations revealed that the AI penalized non-White or female borrowers, participants were more likely to override the AI’s profit-maximizing recommendation. When their bonuses depended on repayment, however, they sought predictions but avoided explanations, consistent with willful ignorance; this effect faded when explanations were framed as purely financial or demographics were hidden. A secondary experiment reveals a novel bias: participants failed to reason contingently and undervalued explanations even when these complemented private information and improved decision accuracy.