Author: alaskaadmin

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.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

For decades, federal shutdowns have mostly been budget fights. The 2025 one has become bigger than that: It’s turned into a messaging war.

Official government communications, including website banners, out-of-office email replies and autogenerated responses that denounce “Senate Democrats,” “the Radical Left” or “Democrats’ $1.5 trillion wishlist” for closing the government, mark a sharp break from past practice.

These messages are more than rhetorical escalation. Many may violate the Hatch Act, the 1939 statute that limits partisan political activity by federal employees and agencies. They also represent new tests for how far a White House can push the bounds of campaign-style messaging while also claiming to govern.

In any democracy, power lies not only in who writes the laws or signs the budgets but in who shapes the story. Communication is not an afterthought or byproduct of governance. It is one of its essential instruments. Political narrative helps citizens understand who’s responsible, who’s acting in good faith and who’s to blame.

The 2025 shutdown has turned that truth into strategy. Federal communication systems – agency websites, automated emails and public information portals – are being used to persuade rather than inform. It’s a move that is both politically risky and legally perilous.

Serve the public, not a party

The Hatch Act was passed during the Great Depression, after years of concern that federal agencies were being used improperly as political machines. Its goal was simple: to ensure that public servants worked for the American people, not for the party in power.

At its core, the Hatch Act prohibits executive branch federal employees – except for the president and vice president – from engaging in partisan political activity as part of their official duties or under their official authority. Government workers may not use their positions or public resources to influence elections, coerce individual behavior or engage in political advocacy.

The law requires federal agencies to avoid the partisan fray and focus on serving the public rather than political agendas.

The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the law, has been clear on this point. “The purpose of the Act,” says an Office of Special Counsel guide written for federal employees, “is to maintain a federal workforce that is free from partisan political influence or coersion.” Government communication can inform, but it cannot campaign.

Yet the shutdown has already produced multiple potential violations:

• The Department of Education, according to a lawsuit, altered employees’ email auto-responses – without consent – to say things like “the Democrats have shut the government down.” Such changes do more than convey impartial information. They compel employees to align themselves with institutionally imposed scripts.

• Likewise, agencies including Health and Human Services and the Small Business Administration reportedly distributed or directed staff to adopt partisan out-of-office auto-replies assigning blame to Democrats.

• The Department of Housing and Urban Development posted a banner on its official website stating that the “Radical Left are going to shut down the government.”

Taken individually, each incident might provoke a Hatch Act complaint. Collectively, they amount to a systematic campaign to transform nonpartisan federal agencies into partisan political messengers.

Why this is unprecedented

What sets the 2025 messaging apart isn’t just its volume – it’s the scale, the coordination and the brazenness of its political targeting.

In past shutdowns, partisan spin lived mostly in press conferences and campaign talking points. Agencies themselves, even under pressure, stayed neutral.

This time, the administration is using the machinery of government to deliver partisan blame.

The timing and similarity of messages across departments seems coordinated. Housing and Urban Development posted a banner blaming Democrats the day before the shutdown began. Within hours, other agencies followed using nearly identical language.

More troubling are the reported changes to federal employees’ auto-replies without their consent.

These missives forced career civil servants, many of them furloughed, to become unwilling messengers for partisan ends. Federal agencies and their workers are supposed to serve everyone, not only those who support the party in power.

And because the watchdogs who could enforce the legal boundary are also sidelined – the Office of Special Counsel is furloughed – complaints have nowhere to go, at least for now. They simply land in unattended email inboxes.

Legal challenges and limits

Whether shutdown communications truly violate the Hatch Act – or related laws – is not yet clear. The administration could argue that it’s not campaigning but merely explaining why services are suspended. As a scholar of political communication and American democracy, I believe that defense weakens when official messages explicitly assign partisan blame or name a political party.

And not every political statement is a Hatch Act violation. The law allows employees to express views off duty or in private contexts, so long as they use their own phones and computers.

Even if the Office of Special Counsel later finds violations, harm will likely persist. Once messages are posted or auto-replies sent, their effects can’t always be undone. And because ethics officials are furloughed, too, accountability will be delayed, if it comes at all.

Some employees are likely to claim their speech rights were violated by being forced to send partisan messages. This is an argument already at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees against the Education Department.

Why this matters

Federal agencies exist to administer laws impartially and to do so on behalf of the people.

When the government uses its own infrastructure for partisan messaging, the very neutrality on which democratic governance depends erodes. It dilutes public trust in the idea of a neutral state.

The damage also extends into the future. If the current administration succeeds in turning its administrative machinery into a political weapon, without consequence, a precedent will be created. Future presidents may be tempted to follow suit, making acceptable the use of taxpayer-funded systems as campaign tools.

And because enforcement bodies such as the Office of Special Counsel also are sidelined during a shutdown, accountability has to wait. That creates an asymmetry of power: One side gets to amplify its message through government channels in real time, while its opponents must wait for the system to restart just to file a complaint. By the time they can, the moment will have passed and the political narrative is likely to have already hardened.

Crises demand explanation, even blame. Citizens expect their leaders to tell them what went wrong. But they also expect honesty and fairness in how that story is told. The administration’s messaging strategy during this shutdown tests whether government communication remains a public service or becomes another instrument of political power.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation