Yves here. This article’s focus on “misinformation,” which is a trigger word in right-leaning circles, may fatally undermine readers giving it a fair hearing. After all “misinformation” is particularly strongly associated with Biden-era efforts to enforce Covid orthodoxies, like “If you are vaccinated, you won’t get or spread Covid” as well as masking, which actually is sound but then Rochelle Walensky undercut that by depicting masks as a scarlet letter demonstrating that you had not been vaxxed. Of course, the PMC that loves to attack opponents as purveyors or victims of misinformation has abundant blind spots of their own, starting with the fact that many still believe in Russiagate.
Nevertheless, the study in question does seem to have limited itself to seriously factually-challenged positions to test how participants react to misinformation. The article has an awfully wordy formulation, but it seems to amount to finding that those who rejected Covid directives as “Don’t tell me what to do” were also willing to accept dodgy information claims, as a form of proof of their independence. This does align with the very weird resistance to masking by some, as if it were a personal affront. But that isn’t even remotely the case in Asia, where masking is seen as polite and just about everyone was on board with Covid interventions, in large measure to SARS-1 having been deadly (10% mortality rate) and the official actions then seen as effective.
However, one has to question if these findings are generally true. The official Covid response including substantial quarantines and other restrictions, so its scope went well beyond a messaging campaign. Would the conclusions be different on topics where there was not history of marked government restriction on individuals
And in addition, is this misinformation reflex peculiar to America? Per the discussion of SARS-1 and Covid in Asia, are Americans more tetchy about muscular official action?
By Randy Stein, Associate Professor of Marketing, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and Abraham Rutchick, Professor of Psychology, California State University, Northridge. Originally published at The Conversation
Why do some people endorse claims that can easily be disproved? It’s one thing to believe false information, but another to actively stick with something that’s obviously wrong.
Our new research, published in the Journal of Social Psychology, suggests that some people consider it a “win” to lean in to known falsehoods.
We are social psychologists who study political psychology and how people reason about reality. During the pandemic, we surveyed 5,535 people across eight countries to investigate why people believed COVID-19 misinformation, like false claims that 5G networks cause the virus.
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
This factor outweighed how people felt about COVID-19 in general, their thinking style and even their political beliefs.
Our survey measured it on a scale of how much people agreed with sentences including “Following coronavirus prevention guidelines means you have backed down” and “Continuous coronavirus coverage in the media is a sign we are losing.” Our interpretation is that people who responded positively to these statements would feel they “win” by endorsing misinformation – doing so can show “the enemy” that it will not gain any ground over people’s views.
When Meaning Is Symbolic, Not Factual
Rather than consider issues in light of actual facts, we suggest people with this mindset prioritize being independent from outside influence. It means you can justify espousing pretty much anything – the easier a statement is to disprove, the more of a power move it is to say it, as it symbolizes how far you’re willing to go.
When people think symbolically this way, the literal issue – here, fighting COVID-19 – is secondary to a psychological war over people’s minds. In the minds of those who think they’re engaged in them, psychological wars are waged over opinions and attitudes, and are won via control of belief and messaging. The U.S. government at various times has used the concept of psychological war to try to limit the influence of foreign powers, pushing people to think that literal battles are less important than psychological independence.
By that same token, vaccination, masking or other COVID-19 prevention efforts could be seen as a symbolic risk that could “weaken” one psychologically even if they provide literal physical benefits. If this seems like an extreme stance, it is – the majority of participants in our studies did not hold this mindset. But those who did were especially likely to also believe in misinformation.
In an additional study we ran that focused on attitudes around cryptocurrency, we measured whether people saw crypto investment in terms of signaling independence from traditional finance. These participants, who, like those in our COVID-19 study, prioritized a symbolic show of strength, were more likely to believe in other kinds of misinformation and conspiracies, too, such as that the government is concealing evidence of alien contact.
In all of our studies, this mindset was also strongly associated with authoritarian attitudes, including beliefs that some groups should dominate others and support for autocratic government. These links help explain why strongman leaders often use misinformation symbolically to impress and control a population.
Why People Endorse Misinformation
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
For example, President Donald Trump incorrectly claimed in August 2025 that crime in Washington D.C. was at an all-time high, generating countless fact-checks of his premise and think pieces about his dissociation from reality.
But we believe that to someone with a symbolic mindset, debunkers merely demonstrate that they’re the ones reacting, and are therefore weak. The correct information is easily available, but is irrelevant to someone who prioritizes a symbolic show of strength. What matters is signaling one isn’t listening and won’t be swayed.
In fact, for symbolic thinkers, nearly any statement should be justifiable. The more outlandish or easily disproved something is, the more powerful one might seem when standing by it. Being an edgelord – a contrarian online provocateur – or outright lying can, in their own odd way, appear “authentic.”
Some people may also view their favorite dissembler’s claims as provocative trolling, but, given the link between this mindset and authoritarianism, they want those far-fetched claims acted on anyway. The deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, for example, can be the desired end goal, even if the offered justification is a transparent farce.
Is This Really 5-D Chess?
It is possible that symbolic, but not exactly true, beliefs have some downstream benefit, such as serving as negotiation tactics, loyalty tests, or a fake-it-till-you-make-it long game that somehow, eventually, becomes a reality. Political theorist Murray Edelman, known for his work on political symbolism, noted that politicians often prefer scoring symbolic points over delivering results – it’s easier. Leaders can offer symbolism when they have little tangible to provide.
Seems to be they are having great trouble discovering the sky is blue.
First the weird idea that there are symbolic thinkers and non-symbolic ones. People are all symbolic creatures, there’s no other kind, and the symbolic overrides every other part of our makeup. People are willing to die, be tortured and outcast, and suffer all sorts of other nasty things for their symbols, be that their religion, country, friends, family, honour, principles, or whatever. And then there is someone surprised that someone would refuse a mask that is pushed by your sworn political enemy to take care of an abstract threat on which the pusher cannot even get their story straight. No shit, no Sherlock.
When you walk up to someone, and tell them they are wrong about something, they will go into defence mode. The harder you insist, the harder they defend.
This is multiplied by having any emotions at play.
And again multiplied by having a group identity at play. And group identity is a very base thing, people are tribal at core, and will go to great lengths to belong. And a big part of group identity is believing the right things. And more often than not those right things are if not necessarily incorrect, then at least not correct either. Any of us will find this to be true in our own groups, too, if we only care to take a look. Because anyone can believe the correct thing, you cannot tell a friend from foe based on that. But to maintain and actually believe an incorrect thing solves that problem. It also works as a handicap principle, and maybe most importantly, collective suffering in the name of shared belief builds group solidarity like nothing else.
Now the end result is, if someone gets attached enough to some idea, they will ride it all the way, and any confrontation is only going to reinforce that idea. Search your experience, you will find you have done the same. People will go to the greatest lengths to maintain their worldview. Almost no amount of rationalization is too much to keep holding on. Because the further in you are, the deeper and hollower the abyss feels under you, should you even think about letting go. It is only when life kicks you from a completely unexpected angle and sends you flying, or when at some point you discover a sheer weight of nonthreatening facts have found their way in and unbalanced your scales, that you find you have to start again.
There’s mis and dis-information aplenty
What’s absent from every discussion since year zero, is the ‘missing’ information
As in results of trials and studies both before and since mandates, or heaven forbid, side effects and inexplicable increases in long term averages for many illnesses……
Some might wonder how social psychologists, marketing and psychology professors in particular, manage to ignore the obvious!