Summary: Despite repeated public-health warnings, many people continue to ignore social-distancing guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Influential figures sometimes downplay the virus’s risks, persuading others to treat coronavirus as less serious than experts advise. Researchers explore why some people remain skeptical and hold onto false beliefs despite substantial contradictory evidence.
Source: UC Berkeley
In recent weeks, several conservative media personalities, political and business leaders, and other influencers have publicly downplayed the danger of the novel coronavirus, comparing it to the seasonal flu or calling it overblown. Some have since softened their remarks as cases and deaths have risen globally and across the United States, but many followers continue to believe the outbreak is exaggerated or “fake.” Young adults have sometimes ignored the recommended six-foot social-distancing guideline, and reports from Kentucky and elsewhere show gatherings that contributed to viral spread. These behaviors highlight how beliefs and social influence can undermine public-health responses.
To understand why some people persist with these beliefs despite strong evidence to the contrary, Berkeley News spoke with Celeste Kidd, a UC Berkeley computational cognitive scientist who studies false beliefs, curiosity, and learning. Here is her perspective.
Berkeley News: So, why do some people ignore scientific evidence and instead follow authoritarian rhetoric or their own preconceptions?
Celeste Kidd: Human beings are inherently social learners. Our capacity to rely on others’ information is one of the strengths that built modern medicine, technology, and science. We naturally pay attention to authority figures and majority opinion, and we tend to place extra weight on the views of people we like. That makes leaders and public figures especially influential: their words are more likely to become widespread beliefs than those of ordinary individuals.
Because of that influence, leaders have a particular responsibility to speak carefully. If they use their platform responsibly, they can help protect public health; if they spread misinformation, the consequences can be severe. For example, President Trump repeatedly suggested that chloroquine, an antimalarial compound, could treat COVID-19 without solid scientific evidence. He called it “safe” and “a game changer,” even after experts corrected him. Following those statements, a man in Arizona ingested an aquarium product containing a chloroquine compound and died. This tragic case shows how authority-driven misinformation can lead to deadly outcomes.
Why do we end up believing some things and not others?
Most people like to think they make rational, evidence-based decisions, but the world is too large for any single mind to examine every claim. We use a strategy scientists call sampling: we sample information from others and from our environment, and use that to form beliefs that are “good enough” for everyday life. We’re also driven to investigate uncertainty—questions we feel unsure about—because resolving uncertainty helps us learn. Once we feel certain about an issue, we usually stop seeking new information and move on, which is an efficient strategy until our certainty is misplaced.
The real problem occurs when early or misleading evidence creates a false sense of certainty. When people become convinced they already understand an issue, they stop looking for new data and discount subsequent, contradicting evidence. That’s how false beliefs persist despite clear scientific information to the contrary.
Who and what shape our beliefs the most?
Belief formation is highly social. If everyone around you seems to accept an idea, you’re more likely to accept it too. This social feedback loop is particularly powerful early in the learning process: the first pieces of evidence you encounter tend to have an outsized effect on what you ultimately believe. For example, if the first search results or social posts you see about a trending health fad support it, you are likely to adopt that view quickly—even if those sources are pseudoscientific.
Consider an activated-charcoal diet. If a friend endorses it and your quick online search turns up several wellness blogs making the same claims, you may adopt that belief with high confidence. Later, when stronger evidence contradicts it, you may be resistant to change because your early positive feedback created lasting certainty. That resistance can lead people to miss out on effective, evidence-based alternatives and in some cases risk their health.
Are some personality types more likely to cling to false beliefs?
Everyone holds some beliefs that don’t match reality; no one is immune. Our research shows that feelings of certainty do not always align with the quality of evidence. In experiments led by Louis Martí in our lab, participants’ confidence was influenced more by early feedback than by the true strength of the evidence. If someone guesses correctly early on—sometimes by chance—their confidence remains high even when later answers are wrong. That initial boost of certainty can make people less responsive to corrective information.
A certain level of uncertainty is healthy because it keeps people open to updating. But persistent uncertainty can also paralyze decision-making. Striking a balance between openness and decisiveness is difficult and varies across individuals.
What kind of leadership is needed now?
We need leaders who model intellectual humility and recognize the limits of individual certainty. People should understand that how certain they feel is not a reliable indicator of how certain they should be. Leaders must amplify qualified scientific voices and help the public access accurate, evidence-based guidance. The media and platforms that distribute information also carry responsibility: repeated reposting and recycling of content can distort perceptions of consensus and create false impressions of widespread agreement. Content curators and platform managers should be mindful of their role in shaping beliefs, especially during a public-health crisis.
Can people be taught to be more open-minded?
Possibly. Beliefs are not fixed; we continuously take in new information and can update our views. Social influence works in both directions—people are sensitive to the beliefs of those around them, so meaningful conversations and visible changes in expert public messaging can prompt reconsideration. Cognitive and behavioral scientists are investigating whether tendencies to cling to dubious beliefs can be reduced through training or intervention. If people become more aware of their own fallibility, they may be more willing to moderate their confidence and seek reliable evidence. That is an empirical question researchers are actively testing.
Source:
UC Berkeley
Media Contacts:
Yasmin Anwar – UC Berkeley
Image Source:
The image is in the public domain.