In today’s complex information landscape, the concept of misinformation has gained significant attention, especially in political discourse. This piece explores the nuances surrounding beliefs in misinformation and their psychological implications. By examining recent research, we can better understand why some individuals cling to easily disproven claims, often viewing them as a form of resistance against perceived influences. The findings shed light on deeper societal attitudes and their impact on public behavior and belief systems.
Yves here. The term “misinformation” can evoke strong reactions in right-leaning circles, potentially leading readers to dismiss this article prematurely. Its association with Biden-era Covid directives, such as the assertion that “If you are vaccinated, you won’t get or spread Covid,” alongside mask mandates, raises concerns. Although masking was based on sound reasoning, conflicting messages from figures like Rochelle Walensky—who suggested masks indicated one was unvaccinated—further complicated public perception. Moreover, the professional managerial class (PMC) often critiques misinformation, yet they, too, harbor significant blind spots, exemplified by ongoing beliefs in the Russiagate narrative.
Nonetheless, the research discussed seems to focus on clearly false claims to examine how individuals respond to misinformation. While the writing is a bit dense, it suggests that those who dismiss Covid-related guidelines under the banner of “Don’t tell me what to do” tend to embrace dubious information to assert their independence. This aligns with the peculiar resistance to masking by some individuals, perceiving it as an affront to their autonomy—a stark contrast to attitudes in Asia, where masking is regarded as a courteous act, largely due to the stark memory of SARS-1, which boasted a significant mortality rate (10%). This collective experience led to widespread acceptance of Covid interventions.
However, it is prudent to question the generalizability of these findings. The comprehensive Covid response involved significant quarantines and restrictions, extending well beyond mere messaging. Would the conclusions differ regarding issues devoid of historical government-imposed limitations on personal freedoms?
Furthermore, does this propensity for misinformation reflect an American characteristic? Looking to Asia’s response to SARS-1 and Covid, one wonders if Americans are particularly sensitive to authoritative government actions.
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 individuals champion claims that are easily disproved? Believing in false information is one thing, but clinging to an obviously incorrect assertion is another matter. Our recent research, published in the Journal of Social Psychology, reveals that some individuals perceive it as a “win” to embrace known fallacies.
We are social psychologists studying political psychology and how individuals navigate reality. During the pandemic, we surveyed 5,535 people across eight nations to explore the reasons behind beliefs in COVID-19 misinformation, including false claims linking 5G networks to the virus.
The most significant predictor of belief in COVID-19 misinformation and associated vaccine concerns was whether individuals viewed virus prevention efforts through the lens of symbolic strength and weakness. In essence, this group gauged whether a particular action would project an image of defiance or capitulation.
This mindset proved more influential than general attitudes about COVID-19, individual reasoning styles, and even political beliefs. Our survey asked respondents to agree with statements such as “Following coronavirus prevention guidelines means you have backed down” and “Continuous coronavirus coverage in the media is a sign we are losing.” Those agreeing with these statements often felt they achieved a “win” by endorsing misinformation, viewing it as a stance against perceived adversaries.
When Meaning Is Symbolic, Not Factual
Rather than evaluating issues based on objective facts, individuals with this mindset prioritize independence from external influence. This allows for justification of nearly any assertion—the more easily disproven the claim, the more powerful it may seem to pronounce it, reflecting a willingness to take risks.
This symbolic perspective prioritizes a psychological struggle over tangible issues, such as combating COVID-19. These individuals perceive themselves as engaged in a battle for opinions and beliefs, wherein control over messaging signifies victory. Historically, the U.S. government has invoked the concept of psychological warfare to diminish foreign influence, suggesting that actual conflicts are less critical than psychological sovereignty.
Consequently, vaccination, masking, and other COVID-19 prevention strategies may be interpreted as symbolic threats that could “weaken” one’s psychological standing, despite offering real-world benefits. Although this viewpoint is extreme and not widely held among participants in our studies, those who did maintain it were notably more inclined to believe in misinformation.
In additional research focused on cryptocurrency attitudes, we found participants often viewed crypto investments as signals of independence from traditional finance. Similar to COVID-19 beliefs, this group prioritized showing symbolic strength, leading to higher likelihoods of endorsing other misinformation and conspiracies, including claims of governmental concealment regarding alien encounters.
Throughout our studies, this mindset also correlated strongly with authoritarian beliefs, such as the belief in dominance by certain groups and support for autocratic governance. This connection elucidates why authoritarian leaders frequently employ misinformation symbolically to manipulate and control the populace.
Why People Endorse Misinformation
Our findings illustrate the challenges in addressing misinformation directly. For some individuals, factual accuracy is secondary. For instance, President Donald Trump incorrectly asserted in August 2025 that crime in Washington D.C. had reached record levels, spawning countless fact-checks and analyses addressing his claims.
However, for symbolic thinkers, those challenging their assertions simply reveal their own vulnerabilities. Access to accurate information becomes irrelevant to someone who values a show of symbolic strength. What becomes crucial is the ability to demonstrate that one is impervious to outside influence.
Indeed, for individuals adhering to symbolic thinking, nearly any assertion may appear justifiable. The more outrageous or easily disprovable a statement is, the more powerful it might seem to endorse it. Being an edgelord—a contrarian provocateur—can paradoxically appear “authentic.”
Many may interpret the claims from their preferred figures as provocative trolling, but given the correlation with authoritarianism, there exists a desire for far-fetched claims to manifest into reality. For instance, the deployment of National Guard troops to Washington could serve as a desired end goal, regardless of the transparent absurdity of the stated rationale.
Is This Really 5-D Chess?
It is conceivable that symbolic beliefs, even if not entirely accurate, could yield benefits, such as serving as negotiation tactics or loyalty tests—an idea akin to a “fake-it-till-you-make-it” approach that may eventually solidify into reality. Political theorist Murray Edelman, known for his work on political symbolism, noted that politicians often prioritize symbolic victories over tangible outcomes—it’s simpler. Leaders can utilize symbolism when substantial deliverables are lacking.
In conclusion, the complex relationship between misinformation and belief systems requires careful examination. The interplay of psychological motivations can make addressing misinformation a formidable challenge. Understanding these dynamics may be essential as we navigate an increasingly polarized landscape, shaping our conversations and responses in meaningful ways.
