The COVID-19 pandemic has induced an epidemic of anxiety all around the world. Everyone has been itching to find some answers amidst this unprecedented state of chaos and uncertainty. In the absence of clear answers, the brain relies on heuristics, cognitive tools used to make judgements under uncertainty, to solve complex problems. Essentially, heuristics are defense mechanisms we use to give ourselves some semblance of an answer and thereby, peace. Thus, the current pandemic is exactly the kind of situation which would warrant the use of heuristics in our decision-making processes.
However, owing to incomplete information and our fickle emotions, heuristics can lead to systematic errors in thought processing causing cognitive biases. A dangerous aspect of cognitive biases is not succumbing to them, but rather, not knowing we are succumbing to them since heuristics and biases are reflexive, intuitive thoughts that govern our behaviour, often without our own awareness. Suboptimal decision making, especially during a pandemic, can jeopardize not only the individual, but also communities at large. A recent study (which is yet to go through peer review) examined COVID-19 data from Italy and found that many smaller towns outside of Milan contracted the virus due to the recklessness of one or two individuals, or “COVIDiots” thereby indicating that even individual behavioral decisions such as those pertaining to the choice to stay at home can have a huge impact on societal battle plans to fight this pandemic.
It is, therefore, beneficial to know the various biases, effects, and theories that can drive our decision-making processes in times of uncertainty so that, the next time we are about to make a rash decision, such as leaving our homes or not wearing our masks, we can take a moment to rationalize our thoughts, because emotions can often cloud judgement and lead to irrational decision-making.
Optimism bias leads to the view that adverse events are more likely to happen to others than to oneself. A recent preprint by Kuper-Smith et al. (2020) found that, in the context of COVID-19, this bias leads one to estimate the probability of getting infected with the virus, and of infecting others if infected themselves, as lower for themselves than for someone similar to them.
A skewed perception of time arising from myopia, which is the tendency to focus on overly short future time horizons when appraising immediate costs, also impacts in-the-moment decision making. This leads to hyperbolic discounting, which is the tendency to have a stronger preference for more immediate payoffs relative to later payoffs due to which, people make choices today that their future selves would prefer not to have made, despite using the same reasoning. A recent paper in the field of Behavioral Economics discusses hyperbolic discounting in the context of COVID-19 and suggests that the short term benefits of going out and socializing seems to outweigh the long term and uncertain benefits of protection.
Another significant bias is the normalcy bias or planning fallacy is the belief that things will continue to function in the future as they have in the past, leading to an underestimation of the probability of a disaster occurring and its potential effects. Correlated is an unwillingness to plan for or react to unforeseen circumstances. Hence, the unprecedented disruption caused by COVID-19 was did not garner the reaction that was required and people refused to let it interfere with their plans.
Status quo bias or inertia, another important factor, is the tendency to maintain the status quo or resist change when there is uncertainty about the potential benefits of investing in alternatives. In the case of COVID-19, the alternatives are protective measures like staying at home.
Finally, caution fatigue or the wearing off of caution after prolonged periods of cautiousness and anxiety explains why it might have been easier to rationalise thoughts and stay at home earlier during the pandemic. During the current pandemic, as described in a study, that is in the preprint stage, by Sheehan et al. (2020), individuals, especially 18-29 years of age, were more cautious during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic but now the fear of loss of control over their lives is outweighing their fear of contagion and they are socialising more.
Once these biases, doubts, and thoughts take seed within our minds, psychological reactance theory is what compels us to act on them and, for example, make the decision to leave the house. Coined by Jack Brehm in 1966, psychological reactance is the tendency for one to react or push back when their behavioural freedoms are threatened, reduced, or taken away. In order to regain those freedoms, one might react against any rules or regulations curtailing their freedom. In the case of COVID-19, being repeatedly told to stay at home could motivate an individual to do the exact opposite.
India’s total COVID-19 cases are now the second highest in the world and therefore, smart individual decision-making is essential. Staying at home and taking other precautionary measures is what will help us reduce the rate of spread in the world’s current COVID-19 hotspot. So, the next time you lose the will power and self-control to stay at home, remember that emotions and intuition do not make for good decision making during periods of uncertainty.
Riya Sirdesmukh
