We often change our minds about things, sometimes because of the indoctrinating influence of others. Throughout the 1960s there were a variety of conspiracy theories that some people accepted. Marylyn Monroe died in 1962 of a drug overdose, but a few believed she was murdered by the government because of her ties to Jack and Robert Kennedy. Another belief grew that because of the counterculture, antigovernment movement of the 1960s, the government flooded the food and water supply with LSD to pacify the population. Among the current theories: the government is manipulating the weather; there were three or four doubles who filled in for Biden because he slept most of the time; the 2020 election was rigged; vaccinations cause autism.
From a psychological perspective, what’s fascinating about people who come to accept a conspiracy theory, no matter how bizarre or irrational, is how they hang on to the new belief in the face of contradictory evidence. Once they make a decision, they are resistant to changing their mind because they want to see themselves as consistent, and appear that way to others. Also, the more emotional involvement they have in the decision, the more resistant they are to changing their mind because their identity becomes tied-up with the belief. It is truly remarkable how people can justify and rationalize just about any decision, and do so without feeling guilt, regret, shame, or remorse, even if circumstances suggest they made a bad decision. Social psychologist Albert Bandura called this process Moral Disengagement. People can justify virtually any decision or action they take, even self-destructive actions that are also hurtful to others. Shame is irrelevant. You may think that shaming someone will encourage them to change their belief, but it won’t. In fact, it is likely to raise their defensive shields more strongly to resist facts that speak against their belief.
Challenging someone’s irrational beliefs—Democrats are communists; Jews are conspiring to replace white Americans and Europeans with Asians and Africans—can also lead them to verbal, even physical, violence. Imagine this conversation: “Sir, why did you hit that school board member?” “Because she voted to require my kids to wear a mask in school. She is evil and trying to harm my kids.” “But, sir, she says she wants to protect the children.” No matter what the attacker replies, he is thinking, “She is evil because I’m attacking her. I only attack evil people who threaten me and my family.” Note how he merges his belief and identity with his actions. The board member is evil because, “I am threatening her.”
Moral disengagement is a lousy way to cope with stress because the process ignores the importance of personal values in the coping process. When you divorce what you say, do, and believe from the ethics, standards, and morals of society, your stability, social conscience, and autonomy are sacrificed. The damage to self-empowerment and your ability to cope with your stressors is significant. You discard critical thinking, ignore the advice of experts, and blindly follow the misinformed herd. Your honor, dignity, self-esteem, autonomy, and self-sufficiency are all sacrificed on an altar of dependency on others. You must constantly live in a world of denial to avoid facing your inability to control how you live; you are now vulnerable to feelings of helplessness, followed by depression, followed by chronic self-damaging actions that rob you of your ability to cope with your stressors—all because your life is not guided by a stable set of personal values, which you have cast aside to cover up your inadequacies and insecurities.
Psychology and Stress 