News of disease outbreaks can warp our brains in strange and subtle ways 21%

By David Robson0%

7/3/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 267 hits. Analysis detected 2,170 faulty-reasoning hits from 997 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.4% and a BS Rank of 21% (16,181 of 20,371 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.40% of the article peer group.

Disease and death are back in the headlines. 
The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo is currently outpacing response efforts, and concerns about hantavirus linger, as new patients test positive for the infection. 
Most of us will never come into contact with these pathogens, and so we should have no need to protect ourselves from the infections  but the news stories about them may nevertheless be influencing our minds in surprising ways. 
As I first described for the BBC in April 2020, we are hardwired with a "behavioural immune system" that can shape our psychology at the merest suggestion of illness. 
Reminders of infection can lead us to become more conformist and risk-averse, less open-minded towards those who break social norms. 
There are even signs that it can contribute to xenophobia. 
A prehistoric protection from infection 
The body's immune system includes some incredible weapons to strike infection once a pathogen enters our bodies  from the macrophages that engulf pathogens to the B-cells and T-cells that create specialised antibodies that can provide us with later immunity. 
Activating this army requires a huge amount of our energy, however  leaving us depleted at the end of the illness. 
We have therefore evolved a set of psychological responses  named the behavioural immune system by Mark Schaller at the University of British Columbia  that should reduce our contact with pathogens in the first place. 
Its most basic mechanism is disgust; we naturally avoid anything that looks or smells like it might put us at risk of infection. 
It's the reason we retch when we smell rotting food. 
Alongside this visceral response, the behavioural immune system involves subtler mechanisms that ensure we follow social norms. 
This would have been important, since cultures would have typically evolved certain rules  such as the hygienic preparation of food, or the disposal of waste  to reduce the spread of diseases that were common in their area. 
And in times of an outbreak, it would have been especially important that people stick to those protocols. 
As a result, reminders of illness can make us more conformist. 
That's the theory, at least  and a host of studies lend some support to the idea. 
In one experiment, Schaller asked participating students to vote on a proposed change to the school's grading system. 
He found that they were far more likely to vote in line with other students' opinions  a sign of conformity  if they had just recalled a time when they had been sick. 
To prevent diseases from spreading between groups, our fear of contamination can also decrease our trust of outsiders 
Scientists from the University of Hong Kong, meanwhile, asked participants to evaluate some modern art, alongside an indication of how other viewers had rated them. 
Once again, a reminder of infection just beforehand  this time from graphic pictures of open wounds and writhing maggots  encouraged them to follow the herd rather than coming to their own conclusion. 
Participants who viewed images of car or train accidents  distressing events that do not carry the threat of infection  did not show the same level of conformity. 
Later studies have shown that we become harsher in our moral judgements following reminders of illness. 
Participants were more likely to judge a couple harshly for having sex on the man's grandmother's bed, for instance. 
From the perspective of the behavioural immune system, this tendency to police others' behaviours would have helped ensure that the group, as a whole, took the necessary precautions to contain an outbreak. 
Pandemic psychology 
If the theory of the behavioural immune system is true, you might have expected to see notable shifts in people's social attitudes during real-world outbreaks like Covid-19, with one review noting changes in "social trust, interpersonal wariness, xenophobia, moral vigilance and political ideology" during the worst months of the pandemic. 
Consider a survey of 685 Italians in April and May 2020. 
Giulia Fuochi at the University of Padova in Italy and colleagues found a significant correlation between people's fears of the virus and their views of various minorities, including immigrants, drug-using adults and foreign nationals, by expressing a weaker sense of shared identity and destiny. 
More like this: 
 How the plague rewired our immune system 
 What the next pandemic could be 
 The disease that lurks for decades 
These findings from real-world surveys have not always replicated, however, which may not be so surprising. 
Unlike the carefully controlled laboratory experiments, studies that attempt to respond to news events are messy, and cannot fully account for the many issues that may have been influencing people's political opinions at the same time. 
The truth is that our behaviours will depend on a host of different factors: our education, our profession, our family, our friends, our personality, and an uncountable number of personal experiences that feed into our broader personalities and worldviews. 
That's not to mention the whims of our moods. 
It's also worth noting that the effects can vary from person to person. 
Some people are naturally more fearful of disease, meaning that they react more strongly to cues of infection. 
Others will be less easily swayed. 
The next time we read about a new disease outbreak, then, it's certainly worth considering how the behavioural immune system might be sharpening our judgements of rule-breakers and outsiders  but it is unlikely to have the final say in our decisions. 
* David Robson is an award-winning science writer and author. 
He is @davidarobson on Instagram and Threads and writes the 60-Second Psychology newsletter on Substack. 
-- 
For trusted insights on health and wellbeing, sign up to the Health Fix newsletter by senior health correspondent Melissa Hogenboom who also writes the Live Well For Longer and Six Steps to Calm courses. 
For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and Instagram. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.8%David Robson: 3.5%BBC: 3.0%Confirmation Bias26.8%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.4%BBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%David Robson: 3.8%BBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic14.0%This article: 4.4%David Robson: 2.0%BBC: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.6%BBC: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%David Robson: 4.0%BBC: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 9.7%David Robson: 2.6%BBC: 4.7%Framing Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.1%BBC: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.8%David Robson: 0.8%BBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.1%BBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%David Robson: 3.2%BBC: 3.6%Optimism Bias4.2%This article: 5.4%David Robson: 0.5%BBC: 0.9%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 17.5%David Robson: 3.0%BBC: 4.4%Negativity Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.4%BBC: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%David Robson: 0.3%BBC: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 1.8%David Robson: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 1.0%BBC: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.5%BBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%David Robson: 1.8%BBC: 4.6%Halo Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%David Robson: 0.8%BBC: 1.1%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 0.8%David Robson: 0.1%BBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.8%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.3%BBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.9%David Robson: 5.0%BBC: 5.5%Appeal to Authority15.9%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 1.1%BBC: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 1.8%David Robson: 0.1%BBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope1.8%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.6%David Robson: 5.5%BBC: 5.5%Hasty Generalization8.6%This article: 0.9%David Robson: 0.2%BBC: 0.1%Red Herring0.9%This article: 3.4%David Robson: 0.2%BBC: 0.7%Bandwagon3.4%This article: 9.5%David Robson: 2.1%BBC: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion9.5%This article: 8.2%David Robson: 1.3%BBC: 0.5%Begging the Question8.2%This article: 22.0%David Robson: 6.0%BBC: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.6%BBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.7%David Robson: 1.5%BBC: 0.6%Appeal to Nature3.7%This article: 3.9%David Robson: 0.3%BBC: 0.4%Composition/Division3.9%This article: 2.9%David Robson: 2.2%BBC: 3.5%Anecdotal2.9%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.4%David Robson: 1.3%BBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.4%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%David Robson: 0.9%BBC: 1.2%Unattributed Quote2.9%This article: 3.4%David Robson: 0.6%BBC: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 2.9%David Robson: 1.5%BBC: 5.8%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 4.2%David Robson: 2.2%BBC: 1.4%Indoctrination4.2%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Robson: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%David Robson: 3.8%BBC: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.1%

997 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers17%attributed speech828writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMark Schaller • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Hong Kong • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGiulia Fuochi • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Robson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMelissa Hogenboom • 34 words • 100.0% coverageBBC • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Giulia Fuochi

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words26% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Giulia Fuochi: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Giulia Fuochi: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Giulia Fuochi: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Giulia Fuochi: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.