Why so many people are biased to ignore the risks of COVID-19, according to a psychology professor

• Dennis Proffitt is an author and the commonwealth professor of psychology emeritus at the University of Virginia.
• He examines the reasoning behind why, despite the rapid and serious spread of COVID-19, so many US leaders are failing to issue stay at home orders - and even more citizens are ignoring social distancing restrictions.
• It comes down to personal biases, he says: "In the face of uncertainty, we are biased to perceive the world as we would like it to be."
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

On April 2, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country's top infectious disease expert and lead member of the White House coronavirus task force, said that he did not understand why every state had not yet issued stay-home orders. At the time, about a dozen states had not implemented such restrictions. The previous day, the Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, finally announced a shelter-in-place order, explaining that until the day before, he was unaware that people without symptoms could spread the disease.

How could he not know? Dr. Fauci began warning us about asymptomatic transmission over two months ago. Why should people disagree about what to do during a pandemic? It is not due to a dearth of facts, but rather its people's biases in seeking, perceiving, and reasoning about facts that can explain this.

One can learn a great deal about human nature by watching - or being - a sports fan. When I watch my Virginia Cavaliers basketball team play a home game against the dreaded Duke Blue Devils, I become incensed at both the fouls that the refs fail to call against Duke, and those that are unjustly called against Virginia. Moreover, I am not alone. Thousands of fans in the arena agree with me as is evident by the boos, which highlight each of the refs' egregious errors. I am, of course, unaware of the thousands of Duke fans watching the game at home whose views about the refs' calls are exactly opposite my own. Psychologists have studied phenomena like this and the findings are clear: We are biased to see what we want to see. This is not to say that we are apt to hallucinate our desires - looking in the mirror, I still see that I've gone bald - but when there is room for uncertainty, we are biased by our beliefs and desires.

With the coronavirus epidemic, there is uncertainty galore, providing at least three opportunities to exercise our biases.

First, we select our informational sources.

Cable news channels, newspapers, radio pundits, all present biased perspectives meant to please the like-minded. The overlap between those who regularly watch Fox News' Sean Hannity and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is virtually nil. Some extreme pundits have suggested that Dr. Fauci is an agent of a "deep state" conspiracy trying to prevent Trump's reelection. Dr. Fauci now requires protective services.

Second, in the face of uncertainty, we are biased to perceive the world as we would like it to be.

My watching a Virginia basketball game is an illustrative example. With respect to the virus, we really don't know the future of the pandemic, how many people will be infected, how many will die, who, where, and how fast? There is lots of room to exercise biases. Believing that people, who do not show symptoms, are not contagious is pretty easy to accept when you are surrounded by healthy people and are not yourself getting sick. Uncertainty abounds when the enemy is invisible.

Third, our intelligence abandons us when we try to reason about facts that conflict with our personal biases.

Studies show that people's political leanings can interfere with their abilities to do simple arithmetic. Consider, for example, the following hypothetical problem, which has no political implications: In August 2018, 480 people went to a hospital's emergency room and 24 of them had dengue fever. The following year, everyone received a vaccine for dengue fever and in August 2019, 720 people went to the ER, 36 of whom had the fever. Was the vaccine effective? The answer - which most people are able to derive - is no. In both years, the rate of dengue fever was the same, 5% (24/480 = 36/720).

Now, suppose that the same problem is presented with this politically relevant twist: In August 2018, there were 480 violent crimes and 24 of them involved handguns. Following a gun control intervention, in August 2019, 720 violent crimes were committed, of which 36 involved handguns. Was the gun control intervention effective? Same problem, same negative answer. However, with this second phrasing of the problem, the study found that people who believed in gun control had a devil of a time solving this problem, whereas those who were opposed to gun control could more easily derive the right answer. Studies like this show how we become flummoxed and reason poorly when confronted with facts that threaten our preconceptions. If someone is inclined to believe that the press is exaggerating the coronavirus threat, then imagine how difficult it is for them to understand why they should shelter-in-place in order to "flatten the curve?"

The aphorism "know thyself" cautions us to be aware of our own biased view of things. Yes, I cannot help but see that the Duke Basketball team gets all of the breaks from the refs, but that is my perspective as a Virginia Basketball fan. Duke fans see things differently. Yes, I hold Dr. Fauci in high regard and believe what he says, but that is also my perspective. Others clearly differ. As a psychologist, I should not be baffled that some turn a blind eye to science, but baffled I am.

Dennis Proffitt is the Commonwealth Professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of Virginia. He is author with Drake Baer of "Perception: How the Body Shapes the Mind," which will be published in July, 2020, and from which this essay was adapted.

And get the latest coronavirus analysis and research from Business Insider Intelligence on how COVID-19 is impacting businesses.