When two things are true at once: Examining the public's reaction to the shooting of UnitedHealth CEO

News of the shooting of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson spread quickly across international and Australian media, prompting a remarkably diverse range of public responses. Many offered empathy and grief for what was ultimately a shocking and tragic event. Others took a more sardonic approach, treating the suspect as a kind of vigilante and circulating his image across social platforms with evident admiration. Examining the psychological underpinnings of these reactions offers something useful: a way of understanding how we process moral complexity, and why our responses are so often messier than we expect.

The role of cognitive biases

Cognitive biases shape how we interpret and react to situations by influencing our perception, decision-making, and emotional responses. They develop through our cultural background, personal experiences, and the values we hold, which helps explain why reactions to the same event can diverge so dramatically. Those who have personally watched a loved one suffer because an insurer refused to cover necessary treatment are likely to view this event through a very different lens to those who have no such experience. That is not irrationality; it is context. Even without direct personal experience, confirmation bias and group thinking play powerful roles, particularly on social media, where dominant opinions can crowd out more considered perspectives. Recognising these biases does not mean abandoning your response; it means holding it more honestly, with an awareness of what has shaped it.

Desensitisation and the weight of tragedy

There is also the matter of how much tragedy we are now exposed to, and how regularly. We scroll past news of crime, war, natural disasters, and shootings with a frequency that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. Desensitisation is a real and well-documented psychological response to repeated exposure. It is not callousness; it is a nervous system adapting to an environment saturated with distress. The specific details that circulated about this case are also worth noting. Most people could tell you very little about the victim other than his title and company. By contrast, extensive reporting covered the suspect's background, his academic record, and the internet's reaction to his appearance. Media framing shapes what we feel, and the coverage of this event was not balanced. That framing, combined with widespread and visible anger toward the American healthcare system, meant many people simply did not have the emotional bandwidth to extend full empathy to the CEO of a company that had become a symbol of systemic failure. Emotions are data, and the data here pointed to something long-simmering.

Holding multiple truths at once

It is possible, and in this case necessary, to hold more than one truth simultaneously. The American healthcare system is deeply and genuinely flawed, causing real harm to real people. And the targeted assassination of Brian Thompson is a violent act that has been significantly underplayed in public discourse. Both things are true. The difficulty is that our brains tend to seek clean moral narratives, and this situation resists them. Our psychological defences are designed to reduce cognitive discomfort, which means we often reach for the version of events that feels most emotionally coherent, even when the full picture is more complicated.

Final thoughts

Whenever a major news event generates intense and contradictory public reactions, it is worth pausing to ask what biases might be shaping your response. Multiple perspectives can be true at once. By examining those biases honestly and making space for moral complexity, we can navigate difficult emotional territory with greater awareness and compassion. If you find yourself struggling to process contradictory feelings about events like this, our team at Contemporary Psychology in St Kilda is here to help.