Yves here. This article\u2019s focus on \u201cmisinformation,\u201d which is a trigger word in right-leaning circles, may fatally undermine readers giving it a fair hearing. After all \u201cmisinformation\u201d is particularly strongly associated with Biden-era efforts to enforce Covid orthodoxies, like \u201cIf you are vaccinated, you won\u2019t get or spread Covid\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cDon\u2019t tell me what to do\u201d 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n
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 <\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Why do some people endorse claims that can easily be disproved? It\u2019s one thing to believe false information, but another to actively stick with something that\u2019s obviously wrong.<\/p>\n Our new research, published in the Journal of Social Psychology, suggests that some people consider it a \u201cwin\u201d to lean in to known falsehoods<\/a>.<\/p>\n We are<\/a> social psychologists<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cgive in\u201d to untoward influence.<\/p>\n This factor outweighed how people felt about COVID-19 in general, their thinking style and even their political beliefs.<\/p>\n Our survey measured it on a scale of how much people agreed with sentences including \u201cFollowing coronavirus prevention guidelines means you have backed down\u201d and \u201cContinuous coronavirus coverage in the media is a sign we are losing.\u201d Our interpretation is that people who responded positively to these statements would feel they \u201cwin\u201d by endorsing misinformation \u2013 doing so can show \u201cthe enemy\u201d that it will not gain any ground over people\u2019s views.<\/p>\n When Meaning Is Symbolic, Not Factual<\/b><\/p>\n 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 \u2013 the easier a statement is to disprove, the more of a power move it is to say it, as it symbolizes how far you\u2019re willing to go.<\/p>\n When people think symbolically this way, the literal issue \u2013 here, fighting COVID-19 \u2013 is secondary to a psychological war over people\u2019s minds. In the minds of those who think they\u2019re engaged in them, psychological wars<\/a> 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<\/a> to try to limit the influence of foreign powers, pushing people to think that literal battles are less important than psychological independence.<\/p>\n By that same token, vaccination, masking or other COVID-19 prevention efforts could be seen as a symbolic risk that could \u201cweaken\u201d one psychologically even if they provide literal physical benefits. If this seems like an extreme stance, it is \u2013 the majority of participants in our studies did not hold this mindset. But those who did were especially likely to also believe in misinformation.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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> a population.<\/p>\n Why People Endorse Misinformation<\/b><\/p>\n Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.<\/p>\n For example, President Donald Trump incorrectly claimed in August 2025 that crime in Washington D.C. was at an all-time high, generating countless<\/a> fact-checks<\/a> of his premise and think pieces<\/a> about his dissociation from reality.<\/p>\n But we believe that to someone with a symbolic mindset, debunkers merely demonstrate that they\u2019re 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\u2019t listening and won\u2019t be swayed.<\/p>\n 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> \u2013 a contrarian online provocateur \u2013 or outright lying can, in their own odd way, appear \u201cauthentic.\u201d<\/p>\n Some people may also view their favorite dissembler\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Is This Really 5-D Chess?<\/b><\/p>\n 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<\/a>, noted that politicians often prefer scoring symbolic points over delivering results \u2013 it\u2019s easier. Leaders can offer symbolism when they have little tangible to provide.<\/p>\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n