How Either-Or Thinking Can Sustain a Pandemic

Source: torstensimon/Pixabay

Many people naturally gravitate to simplistic thinking. It’s fast, it feels like common sense in the moment, and can sometimes be captured by slogans that use alliteration, rhymes, or parallel structure like “love it or leave it,” “you’re either with us or against us,” “silence is violence,” or “freedom over Faucism.”

These slogans are just a few examples of either-or thinking, also known as false dichotomies, false dilemmas, false choices, black-and-white thinking, dichotomous thinking, all-or-nothing thinking, binary thinking, bifurcation fallacy, and splitting. It’s probably not a coincidence that there are so many labels for it: The more common a phenomenon, the more labels that may develop.

Either-or thinking is a top-10 cognitive distortion, according to cognitive therapists (Burns, 1999). The potential consequences of this type of thinking are not only for those who speak the slogan but also for those who are persuaded or comforted by it. A serious case in point is the current pandemic. A long-term crisis can increase people’s need to control and simplify (Whitson and Galinsky, 2008).

"Either Vaccines Work or They Don’t"

Several high-profile politicians have argued that if vaccinated people can get infected, then there's no point in getting vaccinated (Bice, 2021). An organizer of a recent protest in Washington similarly argued that “since the vaccines do not stop people from getting sick, why should we impose them as a requirement?” (Corse, 2022).

The idea that either vaccines work or they don’t is one of the clearest examples of a false dichotomy because percent effectiveness is automatically on a zero-to-100 continuum, and so the either-or position essentially ignores the 99 possibilities in between. As we know, the vaccines’ effectiveness lies in the upper half of that continuum, which translates into saving hundreds of thousands of lives (Greenwood, 2021). Being persuaded by what’s-the-point arguments can increase the number of hospitalizations and deaths.

“Freedom Over Faucism”

Either you want to live in a free society or you want to follow Dr. Fauci, right? No. Even if we were to equate Dr. Fauci’s recommendations with mayors’ or governors’ mandates, the “free society” in which we live already has numerous laws that prevent us from carrying out some actions.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has argued that "we can either have a free society or we can have a biomedical security state" (Hains, 2021). The potential persuasiveness in such either-or talking points lies in the fact that the majority of listeners don’t want the worse-sounding option of the two (“biomedical security state”), and so they may become cognitively trapped or reinforced in wanting the other option (“a free society” without mandates). Following such slogans can also represent a test of political loyalty, which further complicates the fight against the pandemic.

Source: Keira Burton/Pexels

"Either You’re Right or You’re Wrong"

When you make a general prediction, you’re either right or wrong. It’s either true or false. That makes sense, doesn’t it? Yes, and that’s the trap. It feels like common sense in the moment, but it may actually be a false dichotomy. It’s like getting hearsay from a trusted friend. In a dichotomous world where there are only liars and truthtellers, of course my friend must be telling the truth—my friend wouldn’t lie to me—and so rumors can falsely spread because my friend may have misheard, misinterpreted, or misremembered something (Stalder, 2015). Or maybe my friend is accurately sharing a website’s misinformation about COVID-19.

In the New York Times, David Leonhardt (2022) recently praised an epidemiologist for admitting she was wrong about her prediction of a surge in cases when the Texas mask mandates were lifted. There was apparently no “surge.” Although I agree that scientists should acknowledge a mistake or revise their statements as new information arises, it’s not as simple as being right or wrong. Below the headline, Leonhardt noted the beyond-right-or-wrong complexity, that masks still do help and that there still may have been a moderate increase in cases. If the Texas mandates had stayed (which would be the non-existent control group), cases might’ve even decreased.

Cognition Essential Reads

Left-Handedness and Cognition: New Insights

Men and the Hidden Costs of Overthinking

Even thoughtful assessments like Leonhardt’s can slip into a false dichotomy, at least in a headline. A concern here is that anti-mask or anti-vaccine groups can use the headline about a scientist being “wrong” to promote their behavior. (In fairness to Leonhardt, the epidemiologist herself did use the word “wrong,” and I know that writers don’t always get to choose their headlines.)

"Vaccinate or Meet Your Fate"

If pro-vaxxers were to apply the same simplistic-slogan false-dichotomy approach as in “freedom over Faucism,” they could maybe say something like “vaccination over termination” or “vaccinate or meet your fate.” Pro-maskers could say “mask up or check out.” I don’t have a team of speechwriters—forgive me for the crassness of some of these phrases—but the crassness or exaggeration is of course the point I’m trying to make about either-or thinking.

Not vaccinating doesn’t mean you’re going to die. Being silent doesn’t mean you’re violent (Stalder, 2020). And trusting Fauci doesn’t mean you’re against a free society. There are in-between positions here. Anyone who says any different is a liar—no, sorry; that’s another false dichotomy.

Beyond a False Dichotomy

In fairness to both sides and those in between, I know many make vaccine or mask decisions based on more than a slogan from a politician. But the either-or thinking spurred by high-profile speakers can still play a role. You can disagree with mandates without believing that mandates make our society unfree. You can choose not to vaccinate without believing that vaccines are ineffective. Such an approach can reduce the political conflicts that have worsened the pandemic.