Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds and Beliefs Are so Hard to Change for 2026?

by Imed Bouchrika, PhD

Co-Founder and Chief Data Scientist

Share

When some people have already formed beliefs in their minds, these tend to stick and it goes for various topics. Even when faced with facts and logical reasoning, they would persistently push on with their beliefs. In fact, social media was weaponized due to this behavior, with a number of PR firms driving narratives that highlight propaganda rather than facts. Why do a lot of people think this way?

This article will explore the various reasons why facts don’t change our minds. By recognizing our own biases and knowing how our brain responds to stimuli, one can avoid falling into the trap of faulty thinking patterns and assess information objectively. In addition, students can avoid the habit of denying facts to truly learn, which enables them to truly learn in their general education courses.

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Mind 2026: Table of Contents

1. Science Denial: Some Harmful Examples for 2026
2. Belief Perseverance
3. Confirmation Bias
4. Avoidance of Complexity
5. Causality and the Ignorance Gap
6. Emotions and Assessing Risk
7. Convincing Others to Change Their Minds
8. Can self-reflection and emotional regulation enhance cognitive flexibility?
9. How can digital literacy enhance fact-checking and counteract misinformation?
10. How can expert research offer innovative strategies to counter persistent misinformation?
11. How does social media amplify belief perseverance and confirmation bias?
12. Can advanced academic research translate theory into effective practice?
13. Can fast track degree programs accelerate cognitive skill development?
14. How Can Understanding Cognitive Biases Improve Decision-Making?
15. The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in Upholding False Beliefs
16. Can formal education transform critical thinking and reduce misinformation?
17. Can practical, skill-based education reduce susceptibility to misinformation?
18. Clinging to and Changing Beliefs

Science Denial: Some Harmful Examples for 2026

In 2015, misconceptions about the Ebola virus led to an Ebola hysteria in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ebola mainly spreads through direct contact with the blood or body fluids or objects contaminated with the body fluids of an infected person (CDC, n.d.).

Yet, people often react to epidemic threats in ways that are not supported by scientific evidence, driven by fear, misinformation, and a lack of clear risk communication. Research on how infodemics accompany infectious disease outbreaks shows that fear and uncertainty can fuel rumors, false beliefs, and distrust in public health guidance, leading individuals and communities to take unwarranted actions or stigmatize others without basis in epidemiology (Alim et al., 2025).

These dynamics can distort public perception of actual risk, resulting in behavior that diverges from what would be recommended by experts. Such patterns were observed historically in responses to outbreaks like Ebola, where misinformation spread widely despite low likelihood of transmission in many settings, highlighting the importance of effective risk communication to counteract fear‑driven reactions.

Another example is the anti-vaccine movement. Parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated believe that it causes autism in addition to other medical risks. However, multiple studies with large sample sizes show the vaccines used to prevent measles, mumps, and rubella do not cause autism. The CDC also confirms this, saying that vaccines are continuously monitored for safety and have side effects that are minor (CDC, n.d.).

In 2014, anti-vaccine sentiment proved to be a health hazard, as the U.S. reported 600 cases of measles, the highest number that the CDC has reported in 20 years (CDC, n.d.). The outbreaks were caused by unvaccinated people who contracted the disease abroad, then spreading it to communities with relatively low vaccination rates. With the COVID-19 vaccines being rolled out, anti-vaccine sentiment is on the rise once again and threatens to hamper vaccine distribution. For instance, a survey from The Vaccine Confidence Project revealed that there was a drop by 6.4% and 2.4% among United Kingdom and U.S. respondents, respectively, after being exposed to misinformation about a potential COVID-19 vaccine.

Moreover, denying science and fact can affect students’ academic achievements. After all, school subjects are centered on knowing and applying facts instead of loose theories.

Why Facts Don’t Change Minds

There are a number of phenomena that researchers have uncovered that help explain why we cling steadfastly to our beliefs, or more commonly known as false beliefs that cannot be changed by facts. These include belief perseverance, the well-known phenomenon of confirmation bias, the illusion of explanatory depth, avoidance of complexity, filling in the ignorance gap with false causality, and a poor understanding of risk. One of the primary goals of psychology is to control unhealthy behaviors and in the case of fact denial, knowing the causes is important.

Belief Perseverance

One explanation of why facts don’t change our minds is the phenomenon of belief perseverance. This refers to people’s tendencies to hold on to their initial beliefs even after they receive new information that contradicts or disaffirms the basis for those beliefs.

A study on belief perseverance was done by Anderson, Lepper, and Ross (1980) where they asked participants to examine the relationship between the risk preference of firefighters to their success on the job. One group was given responses supposedly from firefighters that were manipulated to establish a positive relationship between risk-taking and success as a firefighter. The other group was given made-up responses, which established a negative correlation between risk-taking and success as a firefighter. One group was debriefed that the information given to them was fictitious and that the experimenters did not know whether there was a positive or negative correlation between risk-taking and success as a firefighter.

Results showed that for the group that received a debriefing, presentation of discrediting evidence did little for them to abandon their position that there was a positive or negative relationship between risk-taking and firefighting ability. According to the researchers, the subjects’ theories were “virtually intact," which strongly supported the hypothesis that even after initial evidence was shown, which disproved the basis for their beliefs, people still will not change their minds about those beliefs.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is a person’s tendency to accept information that confirms their views or prejudices while ignoring or rejecting contradicting information. This prevents them from seeing things objectively.

In their book Enigma of Reason, Hugo Mercier and Daniel Sperber refer to this as “myside bias." According to them, rationality is less about making decisions based on logic but providing justifications for decisions one has already made. The ability to justify actions also has a social aspect. When one is able to successfully do so, one receives a boost in status and prestige within his social group. Because of this, there is a motivation to prove that one’s belief is the correct one by downplaying evidence and arguments that support opposing beliefs.

Mercier and Sperber further argue that human cognition is made up of modules, one of which is the reasoning module. But again, the reasoning module is more about intuition and less about logic, which according to them, only plays a “marginal role." Instead of forming major premises, minor premises, and conclusions, we turn to stories to justify our reasons, which are really just after-the-fact rationalizations.

If you’re interested in understanding confirmation bias and related cognitive processes, you might consider pursuing a psychology degree to delve deeper into the subject.

Illusion of Explanatory Depth

Another reason why beliefs are so hard to change is the illusion of explanatory depth. According to this concept, people think they understand an issue well enough to be able to have an opinion about it. The only time they become aware of their ignorance is when they are asked to explain about it and they fumble in doing so.

One study about the illusion of explanatory depth was done by U.K. researcher Rebecca Lawson. Lawson asked a group of psychology students from the University of Liverpool to rate their knowledge of how bicycles work and draw the pedals, chain, and extra frame onto a sketch of a bicycle. There was also a multiple-choice task that required them to identify the usual position of the frame, pedals, and chain.

The study found that over 40% of the participants who were not experts in bicycles made at least one mistake in the drawing type and the multiple-choice task. This is despite the fact that almost all participants learned how to ride a bike, that almost half of them owned a bicycle, and despite bicycles being common, everyday objects. One striking comment from a participant was “I never knew how little I knew about things until I had to draw them." Thus, the results suggest that people have a vague, incomplete, and often inaccurate understanding of how everyday objects function.

Another type of cognitive bias that leads to faulty thinking patterns is the so-called Dunning-Kruger Effect. In 1999, Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. They administered tests on logic, grammar, and sense of humor. The results showed that people who scored in the lowest percentile also tended to overestimate how well they perform. For example, people who had actual test scores in the 12th percentile (meaning they tested better than 12% of the test takers) estimate that their performance would put them in the 62nd percentile. This is because poor performers lack metacognition or the ability to assess one’s self objectively. As a result, they suffer from the double curse of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Not only do they perform poorly but they also miss out on opportunities for growth because they lack the self-awareness to judge their skills accurately (Psychology Today, n.d.).

Avoidance of Complexity

In their book Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us, Sara and Jack Gorman point out that one of the causes of science denial is that making decisions based on science is complicated and requires a great deal of mental energy. Intimidated by difficult concepts they struggle to understand, people resort to simplistic explanations even though they may not be that accurate.

The psychology of changing one’s mind is deeply rooted in how the brain processes information and integrates emotional and cognitive signals. Recent neuropsychological research shows that belief change involves complex interactions between multiple brain systems, including circuits that process emotional salience, cognitive control, and reward‑based learning, which together influence how new information is evaluated and accepted. Studies in 2025 emphasize that belief updating depends not only on cognitive deliberation but also on how the brain’s motivational and affective systems respond to information, affecting whether beliefs shift or remain stable (Hoffman et al., 2025). This work underlines that regions such as the prefrontal cortex—responsible for higher‑order reasoning and executive function—interact with other neural networks to support flexible thinking and adaptive belief revision.

Behavioral research indicates that more primitive brain regions, such as the amygdala, are limited in processing complex or abstract information. In contrast, the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is capable of evaluating long-term consequences and supporting rational decision-making, but such deliberation can be cognitively demanding. As a result, individuals often rely on quicker, heuristic-based decisions rather than engaging in sustained analytical thinking (Hoffman, Subramaniam, & Hartley, 2025).

Moreover, recent neuroimaging research indicates that maintaining a strongly held belief activates the nucleus accumbens, a key region associated with reward and positive affect. In contrast, updating or changing a belief engages the insula, a brain region linked to discomfort, anxiety, and conflict processing. This neural pattern helps explain why beliefs are often resistant to change: the brain is wired to experience pleasure when holding firm, while belief revision triggers negative emotional responses, making it inherently more challenging (Hoffman, Subramaniam, & Hartley, 2025).

Causality and the Ignorance Gap

Research indicates that humans are uncomfortable with uncertainty or gaps in knowledge, often referred to as the “ignorance gap.” The brain, which is naturally attuned to detect patterns in the environment, tends to infer causality even when relationships are coincidental. This pattern-seeking behavior explains why people often draw causal connections between sequential events, a tendency that can reinforce existing beliefs or misconceptions (Hoffman, Subramaniam, & Hartley, 2025).

For example, let’s say Student A uses a fountain pen to answer a math exam and aces the exam. Student A also uses the same fountain pen to answer his English exam where he got good marks. Even if it’s probably just coincidence, the thought that the fountain pen is a lucky pen will cross the mind of Student A because of the brain’s tendency to establish causality. In reality, the student might just have studied well for both exams but nevertheless, the student believes that what caused his good grades is the pen and not his good study habits. This example shows that the intense desire to find causality can make people abandon rational thinking.

Researchers note that assuming causality likely offered an evolutionary advantage to early humans, helping them respond effectively to their environment when tools to distinguish coincidence from real causal connections were limited. Over time, humans developed more systematic approaches to understanding causality, with empirical and scientific methods providing structured ways to test and validate cause-and-effect relationships (Hoffman, Subramaniam, & Hartley, 2025).

To prove causality, one must observe the counterfactual, the condition of what would have happened that would make an experiment yield different results. But since this is impossible to observe, scientists approximate counterfactual conditions by setting up controlled, randomized trials. This is why establishing causality can take years of research. For example, it took decades before scientists were able to conclude that cigarettes cause cancer. The difference between how scientists establish a cause and the intuitive way in which the human brain connects random events together explain why there is a disconnect between the average person’s and scientist’s approach to causality, and why sometimes the public expresses doubts on scientists’ knowledge.

Emotions and Assessing Risk

Yet another reason why people jump into faulty thinking patterns is a lack of understanding of risk and probability. People tend to dismiss the risk of doing everyday activities like taking a bath or driving while underestimating large ones that are unfamiliar and they don’t have control over like vaccines or nuclear radiation. Psychologists, behavioral economists, and neuroscientists call this tendency the nonlinear estimation of probability.

In theory, estimating risk as a probability would produce a straight-line relationship: the higher the likelihood of a negative event, the greater the perceived risk. However, empirical research shows that human risk perception is often nonlinear. People tend to overestimate the risk of rare events and underestimate the risk of more likely events. Recent studies in 2025 highlight that affective and emotional factors strongly influence how individuals evaluate risk, leading to judgments that deviate from the objective, numerical assessments typically used by professional risk analysts (Hoffman, Subramaniam, & Hartley, 2025).

People’s assessment of risk is also influenced by the endowment effect, a behavioral phenomenon in which losses are perceived as more significant than equivalent gains. Neuroeconomic research shows that when individuals evaluate possessions or potential losses, brain regions such as the insula, the nucleus accumbens, and the mesial prefrontal cortex are differentially activated. Activation of the insula, in particular, is associated with the anticipation of loss and the emotional weight of parting with something one owns. This pattern extends to beliefs: people often treat their perspectives as “mental possessions,” finding it difficult to revise or relinquish them even when presented with contradictory evidence or superior alternatives (Hoffman, Subramaniam, & Hartley, 2025).

Convincing Others to Change Their Minds

Now that we know why people fall into faulty thinking patterns, how do we go about changing other people’s minds?

According to Tali Sharot, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London and author of The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals About Our Power to Change Others, we must align ourselves with other people using seven core elements.

The first core element of prior beliefs involves seeking common ground. Find out the beliefs of the other person you are in agreement with, instead of bombarding him or her with facts and figures about a debatable topic that supports your argument.

The second core element of emotions involves framing our views positively rather than negatively. This is because positive framing is easier to process and broadens one’s thoughts and actions.

Thirdly, it is more effective to present an immediate positive reward than subsequently giving a threat. To influence others, they must be given a sense of control or “agency," otherwise they will feel angry, frustrated, and resist attempts at being persuaded. One can likewise gain others’ trust by having them gain control of the choices presented to them.

The fifth core element is “curiosity" or a desire to know. Before giving information to others, we must point out the gap in their knowledge and show them how they can benefit from the information given to them. Responsibly disseminating information about health and well-being, community safety, etc., are community activities examples that can help bridge knowledge gaps.

As for the sixth element, one must assess the other person’s mental and emotional state. People who are calm and relaxed are more receptive to being influenced versus people who are in stressful or in a threatening situation.

Lastly, Sharot cautions against group conformity or the “knowledge and acts of other people," which comprises the seventh component. She states that in some situations, we must be wary of being influenced by other people, especially in social media or political campaigns when the truthfulness of the information cannot be verified.

Can self-reflection and emotional regulation enhance cognitive flexibility?

Regular self-reflection combined with effective emotional regulation can sharpen cognitive flexibility by enabling individuals to identify and adjust ingrained biases. By engaging in structured introspection and mindfulness techniques, one can objectively assess personal thought processes and mitigate knee-jerk emotional responses that further entrench false beliefs. This practice not only improves openness to constructive feedback but also supports adaptive thinking when presented with new or challenging information. For those seeking an accelerated educational route to develop these critical self-assessment skills, consider pursuing the quickest associate's degree as a means to quickly gain practical insights into cognitive and emotional strategies.

How can digital literacy enhance fact-checking and counteract misinformation?

Digital literacy has become a critical asset for discerning credible information in an era marked by rapid digital dissemination. With the proliferation of misleading content, individuals who excel in digital skills can more effectively evaluate source credibility, verify details through cross-referencing, and utilize reputable fact-checking tools to identify inaccuracies. This analytical approach enables a more nuanced understanding of online narratives and mitigates the risk of inadvertently reinforcing false beliefs. For professionals and lifelong learners alike, honing digital literacy is essential for navigating complex media landscapes and fostering informed decision-making. Additionally, acquiring formal training through programs tailored to modern work environments, such as the best degree to work from home, supports the development of robust strategies for evaluating and countering misinformation.

How can expert research offer innovative strategies to counter persistent misinformation?

Expert research plays a critical role in uncovering the underlying psychological and neurological mechanisms that shape belief perseverance. Researchers across cognitive science, neuroscience, and behavioral economics have developed data-driven approaches that inform practical interventions for reducing misinformation. These strategies include refined experimental designs, quantitative risk assessments, and simulation models that capture the complexity of cognitive biases. Advanced research also contributes to developing targeted educational programs and public policies that are both scalable and adaptable to diverse populations. For individuals interested in pursuing deeper academic investigations into these phenomena, obtaining qualifications through programs like the easiest doctorate can be a strategic step toward contributing to evidence-based solutions.

How does social media amplify belief perseverance and confirmation bias?

Social media plays a significant role in reinforcing belief perseverance and confirmation bias, making it even harder for individuals to change their minds. In the modern digital landscape, social media algorithms and content personalization contribute to the amplification of pre-existing beliefs and the selective exposure to information.

• Algorithms favoring personalized content: Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram use algorithms to show users content that aligns with their interests and previous interactions. This content personalization encourages users to engage with posts that confirm their beliefs, thereby reinforcing confirmation bias. Users are less likely to see opposing viewpoints or factual corrections, as the algorithm prioritizes engagement over exposure to diverse information.
• Echo chambers and filter bubbles: Social media creates "echo chambers," where individuals only encounter information that supports their views. This effect is magnified by filter bubbles, which further isolate users from opposing perspectives. As a result, people become entrenched in their beliefs, reinforcing belief perseverance. When users are constantly surrounded by like-minded individuals and content, it becomes increasingly difficult for facts to break through the barriers of their existing beliefs.
• Viral misinformation: False information spreads quickly on social media platforms, often going viral before it can be fact-checked or corrected. This misinformation is particularly dangerous for those who already hold strong beliefs, as they are more likely to accept and share it without questioning its accuracy. The speed and scale of misinformation on social media can perpetuate false beliefs and hinder factual correction.
• Emotional engagement and cognitive biases: Social media posts that elicit strong emotional reactions—such as anger, fear, or outrage—are more likely to be shared and engaged with. This emotional engagement further cements beliefs, as users prioritize emotionally charged content over rational discourse. Cognitive biases, such as the Dunning-Kruger effect and the illusion of explanatory depth, are exacerbated when users are driven by emotion rather than critical thinking.

Can advanced academic research translate theory into effective practice?

Advanced academic research plays a pivotal role in transforming theoretical insights into actionable interventions that mitigate misinformation. By conducting rigorous studies in cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, and psychology, researchers can uncover the precise mechanisms behind persistent false beliefs and develop empirically supported strategies. These strategies inform targeted educational programs, communication campaigns, and policy interventions that foster critical thinking and reduce cognitive biases. For scholars dedicated to this field, engaging in high-level research not only advances academic understanding but also promotes practical applications that can adapt to evolving digital landscapes. Interested individuals may consider pursuing PhD programs designed for cutting-edge research in this domain.

Can fast track degree programs accelerate cognitive skill development?

Contemporary accelerated education models, such as undergoing a fast track degree, offer a condensed yet rigorous framework that integrates critical reasoning with practical application. These programs streamline the acquisition of interdisciplinary knowledge and expose learners early to diverse research methodologies, thereby enhancing their ability to identify and counteract cognitive distortions. By fostering experiential learning and promoting reflective practice, fast track degree programs can cultivate adaptive thinking skills that are essential for navigating complex informational landscapes and mitigating the persistent impact of false beliefs.

How can understanding cognitive biases improve decision-making?

Understanding cognitive biases is key to improving decision-making, especially in situations where beliefs are difficult to change. Cognitive biases, such as the Dunning-Kruger effect or confirmation bias, skew our perception of reality, leading us to make choices based on faulty reasoning rather than objective facts. The Dunning-Kruger effect, for example, leads individuals with lower skill levels to overestimate their abilities, making them more resistant to learning from experts or new information. Similarly, confirmation bias encourages individuals to seek out information that supports their existing views, ignoring contradictory data.

By recognizing and mitigating these biases, people can make better, more informed decisions. Education plays a critical role in this process. For instance, by pursuing degrees in fields like psychology, individuals can better understand how their brains work and learn strategies to correct distorted thinking patterns. Online education programs offer an accessible way for people to gain this knowledge. If you're interested in developing skills to assess information more critically, you might consider looking into the cheapest online master's programs, which provide an opportunity to explore cognitive science and decision-making.

Developing awareness of these biases can not only enhance personal decision-making but also improve how we interact with others in debates and discussions, making it easier to persuade others to see different perspectives and ultimately change their minds.

The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in Upholding False Beliefs

Cognitive dissonance is another critical psychological phenomenon that plays a significant role in the persistence of false beliefs. This term refers to the mental discomfort individuals experience when they are confronted with evidence or ideas that contradict their existing beliefs, values, or behaviors. To reduce this discomfort, individuals often rationalize or dismiss conflicting information rather than alter their beliefs. This process helps them maintain a sense of internal consistency, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For example, someone who strongly believes in a scientifically debunked theory may encounter contradictory data that challenges it. Instead of revising their worldview, they might question the legitimacy of the data itself or label the sources as biased. This behavior ensures they avoid the psychological strain associated with changing their long-held views. Cognitive dissonance, thus, creates a psychological barrier that prevents individuals from embracing new insights, further embedding belief perseverance and confirmation bias.

Interestingly, the tendency to experience cognitive dissonance can be particularly pronounced in scenarios where individuals have invested substantial time, effort, or emotion into a specific belief. Researchers have observed that the more effort or resources someone dedicates to a belief, the harder it becomes for them to let go, as doing so would not just challenge their ideas but also invalidate their past decisions and actions.

Addressing cognitive dissonance requires thoughtful strategies. For one, framing new information in a way that diminishes perceived threats to one's self-identity can ease the discomfort. Open, judgment-free discussions that promote curiosity rather than confrontation have also been shown to help individuals re-examine their stances. Techniques like socratic questioning or presenting alternative explanations tactfully can guide individuals through their dissonance without triggering defensive reactions.

For those seeking to make a career in understanding such human cognitive and behavioral dynamics, an accelerated bachelor degree might offer insights into how societal, psychological, and neurological factors interplay in belief formation and change. With proper educational tools and awareness, it is possible to foster an environment conducive to growth and learning, both on an individual and collective scale.

Can formal education transform critical thinking and reduce misinformation?

Integrating formal education into professional and everyday settings can significantly enhance critical thinking and foster resilience against misinformation. Structured curricula that emphasize scientific inquiry, media literacy, and evidence‐based reasoning enable individuals to identify and counter cognitive biases more effectively. Advanced training programs, such as direct entry MSN online, offer targeted strategies to interpret complex data, challenge preconceived notions, and reinforce analytical skills. This educational approach not only supports informed decision-making but also contributes to a culture of continuous learning and critical engagement with rapidly evolving information landscapes.

Can practical, skill-based education reduce susceptibility to misinformation?

Research suggests that hands-on and vocational education can complement traditional academic methods by reinforcing evidence-based decision-making in real-world contexts. Practical training encourages learners to approach challenges with a problem-solving mindset that relies on empirical verification rather than anecdotal proof. This practice not only cultivates analytical skills but also instills a disciplined approach to questioning unverified claims. Learners exposed to these methods develop better techniques for evaluating sources and discriminating between fact and opinion. For further exploration of alternative educational pathways that emphasize applied learning, refer to our guide on online trades schools.

Clinging to and Changing Beliefs

There are a number of reasons why facts don’t change our minds, a phenomenon that researchers have called belief perseverance. One of them is the well-documented confirmation bias, in which the person only seeks out information that affirms his beliefs and ignores and downplays contradicting information. There is also the illusion of explanatory depth where people don’t realize how ill-informed they are about an issue unless they are asked to explain it. People also tend to avoid complicated explanations, so they seek out simple ones while sacrificing accuracy. Rigorous scientific processes mean that it takes multiple studies to establish causality and in the meantime, the human brain’s discomfort with not knowing leads it to establish causality when there is only coincidence. Lastly, people discount how emotions play a part in their assessment of risk, which causes them to overestimate small risks and underestimate huge risks.

Why do facts sometimes not change our minds? It is often difficult to convince people with fixed beliefs. Despite these obstacles, it’s still possible to change other people’s minds with some strategic persuasion skills. These include establishing common interests, framing perspectives in a positive light, and paying attention to their mental or emotional state.

If you’re interested in exploring this topic further, consider enrolling in online MSW programs affordable to youfor instance, one online psychology degree Florida provides has low tuition. Armed with a degree, you gain a deeper understanding of human behavior and cognitive biases.

Key Insights

• Belief Perseverance: People tend to stick to their initial beliefs even when faced with new, contradicting information due to belief perseverance. This psychological phenomenon demonstrates how deeply ingrained beliefs can resist change despite evidence.
• Confirmation Bias: Individuals often accept information that aligns with their existing beliefs and dismiss information that contradicts them. This bias prevents objective assessment of facts and reinforces preexisting views.
• Illusion of Explanatory Depth: Many people believe they understand complex issues better than they actually do. When asked to explain these issues, they often struggle, revealing gaps in their understanding.
• Avoidance of Complexity: The human brain prefers simple explanations over complex ones, even if the simple explanations are less accurate. This avoidance can lead to the acceptance of misinformation.
• Emotional Influence on Risk Assessment: People’s assessment of risk is often influenced by their emotions rather than logical evaluation. This can lead to the overestimation of small risks and the underestimation of significant ones.
• Causality and Ignorance Gap: The brain’s discomfort with uncertainty leads it to establish causality where there may only be coincidence. This tendency can result in the formation of false beliefs based on perceived patterns.
• Strategies for Persuasion: Changing someone’s mind requires strategic approaches such as finding common ground, framing information positively, offering immediate rewards, providing a sense of control, and considering the other person’s emotional state.

References:

• Anderson, C.A. (n.d.). Belief perseverance. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, pp. 109-110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Anderson, C., Lepper, M., & Ross, L. (n.d.). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39 (6), 1037-1049.  https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0077720
• Carroll, R. (n.d.). US has seen nearly 600 measles cases this year, CDC says. The Guardian.
• CDC (n.d.). Transcript for CDC Telebriefing: Measles in the United States, 2015. CDC Newsroom. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• CDC (n.d.). Transmission. Ebola (Ebola Virus Disease). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• CDC (n.d.). Possible side effects from vaccines. Vaccines & Immunization. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Cherry, K. (n.d.). The Dunning-Kruger Effect. Very Well Mind.
• Dunning-Kruger Effect. (n.d.). Dunning-Kruger Effect. Psychology Today.
• Heshmat, S. (n.d.). What is confirmation bias? Psychology Today.
• James, T. (n.d.). “The Enigma of Reason" by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. Medium.
• Lawson, R. (n.d.). The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work. Memory & Cognition, 34 (8), 1667-1675. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195929
• Mozes, A. (n.d.). Possession is nine-tenths the perceived value. HealthDay News.
• Wright, A. (n.d.). Chapter 6: Limbic System: Amygdala. Neuroscience Online. Houston, TX: UTHealth.
• Yuhas, A. (n.d.). Panic: the dangerous epidemic sweeping an Ebola-fearing US. The Guardian.
• Alim, M., Chen, J., López‑Molina, E., & Smith, J. (2025). When infodemic meets epidemic: Understanding the role of misinformation and fear in public responses to disease outbreaks. Journal of Medical Internet Research – Public Health and Surveillance, 11(1), e55642.https://publichealth.jmir.org/2025/1/e55642
• Hoffman, B., Subramaniam, A., & Hartley, K. (2025). It’s time to reconsider: The neuropsychology of belief change. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 40, 100261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2025.100261