Anyone who values facts as the foundation of rational opinion will quickly grow frustrated trying to reason creationists out of their infantile beliefs with information. The problem, according to a paper recently published in the *Journal of Social Psychology*, is that creationists—like antivaxxers, conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers, flat-earthers, and those who believe Donald Trump will “make America great again”—see it as a *weakness* to ‘give in’ to reason. For them, it is a sign of *strength* to resist facts and cling defiantly to beliefs that can be easily disproven.
This reflex stems from an underlying sense of vulnerability in the face of complex information and a perception that science is attempting to manipulate them into conforming to mainstream knowledge. For such individuals, the priority is not to hold factually correct, verifiable beliefs—anyone can do that—but to assert symbolic strength by being contrary.
And what better evidence of that superior strength is there than persuading someone else to agree with you - by any means available?
Unfortunately, the full journal article is behind a paywall. However, two of the four authors have also written an accessible article in The Conversation, which is reprinted here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:
Winning with misinformation: New research identifies link between endorsing easily disproven claims and prioritizing symbolic strength
For some symbolic thinkers, an independent mind is paramount.
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.
Attempts to debunk misinformation look weak to someone who values a symbolic show of strength, while standing by a disprovable statement seems powerful.
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.
Randy Stein, Associate Professor of Marketing, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and Abraham Rutchick, Professor of Psychology, California State University, Northridge
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ABSTRACT
To some, measures to curb COVID-19 were reasonable and prudent; to others, they were unacceptable signs of losing a more symbolic battle. We propose that such symbolic thinking is key to how people perceive reality. We report three studies (total N = 5535 across eight countries, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic) linking what we term Symbolic Show of Strength (SSS) in the context of COVID (SSS-COVID) with several important outcomes. Across countries, SSS-COVID was the strongest predictor of perception of COVID-19’s danger, attitudes toward vaccines, and belief in COVID-related misinformation in multiple regressions taking into a host of other reasoning and sociopolitical variables. In a fourth study (N = 430) we adapt the concept to attitudes toward cryptocurrency, with SSS-Crypto uniquely predicting perceived risk of cryptocurrency, general conspiracy beliefs, and preferences for autocratic government. Our results also suggest that SSS shapes perceptions of products, marketing ethics, and symbols more broadly.
Stein, R., Rutchick, A. M., Sin, A. Y., & Jarrin Rueda, L. F. (2025).
Symbolic show of strength: a predictor of risk perception and belief in misinformation.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2025.2541206
© 2025 Informa UK Limited (Taylor & Francis Group).
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This research suggests that creationists — and those who endorse other demonstrably false claims, such as antivaccine conspiracy theories, climate change denial, or flat-earth beliefs — are not simply misinformed. Rather, they may actively resist information as a means of affirming strength and defiance. According to the study in the Journal of Social Psychology, such individuals perceive yielding to evidence as a sign of weakness. Clinging to easily disproven beliefs becomes a symbolic act, demonstrating personal resilience in the face of what they perceive as external pressure from science, experts, or institutions.
This resistance is often rooted in feelings of vulnerability. Confronted with complex information they may not fully understand—or perceive as elitist or manipulative—they interpret scientific consensus as an attempt to control them. Rejecting it, then, feels empowering. Belief in falsehoods is not necessarily about the content of those beliefs, but about the *stance* they represent: “I will not be told what to think.” This makes reasoned debate and evidence-based persuasion largely ineffective.
In this context, holding an easily disproven belief becomes a form of identity signalling. It separates “us” from “them”, projecting strength and autonomy. It also creates a psychological shield: conceding to facts would mean admitting error, undermining the very image of strength the individual is trying to maintain. This helps explain why even overwhelming scientific evidence often fails to dislodge such beliefs—because their purpose is not to explain reality, but to protect a fragile self-concept from perceived threats.
Advertisement
What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You
How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.
Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It
This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.