Within Mythcraft
Why Trusted People Make Myths Stick
People often judge claims through trust, community and identity as much as through evidence alone.
On this page
- Trust before evidence
- Community signals and belonging
- Correcting without attacking identity
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Trusted people make myths stick because belief is social as well as factual. People rarely assess every claim from first principles; they use shortcuts such as “Who is saying this?”, “Do people like me believe it?” and “What would accepting or rejecting this claim say about my loyalty, intelligence or values?” That is why a doubtful health tip from a parent, a classroom myth from a teacher, a rumour from a community leader, or a misleading claim from a favourite influencer can feel more persuasive than the same words from a stranger.
This does not mean people are irrational or indifferent to evidence. It means source trust is part of how evidence is weighed. Research on misinformation shows that people attend to credibility, expertise, reliability and group identity when deciding what to believe, and that corrections can fail when they appear to come from an untrusted or hostile out-group. The practical lesson is clear: myths are not only corrected by better facts, but by better routes for those facts to reach people without threatening belonging. [SSRN]papers.ssrn.comSource details in endnotes. [UCL Discovery]discovery.ucl.ac.ukUCL Discovery Belief updating in the face of misinformationUCL Discovery Belief updating in the face of misinformation
Trust before evidence
When a claim arrives from someone trusted, it does not arrive as a bare proposition. It carries a history of relationship. A doctor may carry professional authority; a parent may carry affection and early learning; a teacher may carry institutional legitimacy; a religious leader, coach or local organiser may carry shared identity; an influencer may carry intimacy built through repeated exposure. These signals help people navigate a world where no one can personally verify every medical, scientific, historical or political claim.
Source credibility usually has two parts: perceived expertise and perceived trustworthiness. Expertise asks whether the source is likely to know; trustworthiness asks whether the source is likely to tell the truth. A surgeon and a neighbour may both be trusted, but in different ways. A surgeon may be trusted on surgery because of expertise; a neighbour may be trusted on local events because of proximity and shared experience. Myths exploit this distinction when a familiar source speaks confidently outside their actual expertise.
Recent work on belief updating suggests that people are sensitive to source reliability in ways that can be reasonable. If a reliable source makes a claim and a less reliable source later corrects it, people may not fully update because, from their point of view, the correction has not earned enough weight. Studies on source reliability and misinformation correction argue that the continued influence of false information can partly reflect this comparison between the original source and the correcting source, rather than a simple refusal to learn. [UCL Discovery]discovery.ucl.ac.ukUCL Discovery Belief updating in the face of misinformationUCL Discovery Belief updating in the face of misinformation
This matters for everyday misconceptions. A child who learns an oversimplified science claim from a beloved teacher may not abandon it after seeing a dry correction online. A patient who hears a false health claim from a long-trusted clinician may discount a later social media fact-check. A voter who receives a rumour from a leader they see as defending their community may read official correction as damage control. In each case, the belief is anchored not only in content but in the credibility relationship that delivered it.
The same mechanism works online. UNESCO reported in 2024 that many digital content creators had become important information sources for audiences, yet 62% did not carry out rigorous and systematic fact-checking before sharing information. The risk is not simply that creators have large audiences; it is that followers may treat familiarity, personal experience, popularity and perceived authenticity as signs of credibility. [UNESCO]unesco.orgOpen source on unesco.org.
Community signals and belonging
Myths become especially durable when they become group signals. A claim can start as a factual statement and then acquire social meaning: believing it marks someone as sensible, loyal, sceptical, patriotic, spiritual, independent, compassionate or “awake”. Rejecting it may then feel less like changing one’s mind and more like betraying one’s people.
This is the logic behind identity-protective cognition: people may selectively credit or dismiss evidence in ways that protect their standing in a valued group. Dan Kahan’s work describes this as a tendency to process information in line with beliefs that predominate in one’s cultural group, especially on decision-relevant science and public issues. The important point is not that identity always overwhelms evidence, but that evidence is often interpreted through identity. [SSRN]papers.ssrn.comSource details in endnotes.
Community signals can make myths feel safer than uncertainty. If everyone in a group repeats a claim, questions it only privately, or treats doubters as naive, the claim gains social reinforcement. The myth becomes part of the local common sense. This can happen in families, workplaces, classrooms, fandoms, political groups, wellness communities and professional subcultures. The claim may be false, but the social cost of doubting it is real.
Several signals strengthen this effect:
- Similarity: people often give more weight to those who seem to share their background, values or experiences.
- Prestige: high-status figures can lend borrowed credibility to claims, even outside their field.
- Consensus cues: repeated agreement from peers can make a claim feel settled.
- Moral framing: myths tied to loyalty, harm, purity, freedom or fairness can feel like ethical commitments rather than factual guesses.
- Risk of exclusion: people may avoid visible disagreement when correction threatens relationships or group standing.
Research on trust, political identity and information processing describes how identity and trust shape what people attend to, which sources they treat as legitimate and how they respond to competing claims. The same pattern helps explain why some myths persist even after public correction: the correction may answer the factual claim while ignoring the social role the claim now plays. [PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govPMCTrust in information, political identity and the brainPMCTrust in information, political identity and the brain
Health communication offers a clear example. Vaccine attitudes, for instance, can become signals of political, religious or community identity. Evidence reviews on vaccine communication note that in polarised settings the messenger can matter as much as the message, because out-group institutions may be discounted regardless of the strength of the evidence. Healthcare providers often remain highly trusted, but local clinicians, faith leaders, educators and civic organisations may be crucial where distant authorities are mistrusted. [Nature]nature.comOpen source on nature.com. [PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govPMCTrusted messengers and trusted messagesPMCTrusted messengers and trusted messages
This does not mean “use someone from the same group” is a magic solution. Trusted messengers can spread myths as well as correct them. A charismatic in-group figure with poor evidence standards can make misinformation more resilient precisely because the audience feels seen and respected. The real mechanism is relational trust; whether it improves belief depends on whether that trust is connected to accuracy, accountability and willingness to correct mistakes.
Why corrections can feel like attacks
A correction is often written as if the only problem is missing information. But when a myth is tied to identity, the listener may hear something else: “Your people are gullible”, “Your parents were wrong”, “Your community is backward”, “Your leader lied to you”, or “People like you are the problem.” Even a technically accurate correction can fail if it sounds like status loss.
This is why tone and source matter. A correction from a hostile out-group may be processed as an attack, while the same correction from a trusted in-group figure may feel like care. The factual content has not changed, but the social meaning has. Research on source credibility effects in misinformation has found that credibility is not a simple switch; studies vary in how they define credibility, how they measure effects, and whether the source is the original claimant, the correction provider or the platform presenting the cue. [Advances.in]advances.inSource details in endnotes.
Corrections also affect how people judge the original source. Work on the continued influence effect suggests that corrections reduce belief partly by changing perceptions of the misinformation source. If a correction makes the original source seem less credible, the myth loses support. But if the original source is loved, prestigious or identity-defining, lowering that source’s credibility may be psychologically difficult. [Springer]link.springer.comOpen source on springer.com.
This is why blunt debunking can be socially clumsy even when it is factually right. Saying “your doctor is wrong”, “your community is spreading nonsense” or “only idiots believe this” may win an argument while losing the person. It asks the listener to accept not only a new fact, but a humiliating reclassification of someone they trust. Many people will defend the relationship before they evaluate the evidence.
Better correction separates the person’s dignity from the claim’s accuracy. It makes room for sentences such as: “I can see why that sounded convincing”, “Lots of careful people heard the same thing”, “The evidence has changed”, “That source is strong on some things but not this one”, or “Here is the part that was true, and here is where the myth adds something unsupported.” These moves do not soften the evidence; they reduce the identity threat around hearing it.
Trusted messengers can correct myths, but only with guardrails
The idea of trusted messengers is now common in public health, crisis communication and misinformation response. The basic principle is sensible: people are more likely to consider information when it comes through someone they already recognise as legitimate. Community-based organisations, local clinicians, faith leaders, youth workers, educators and peer networks can translate abstract evidence into familiar language and local concerns. [PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govPMCDon't believe them! Reducing misinformation influencePMCDon't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence [ScienceDirect]sciencedirect.comOpen source on sciencedirect.com.
But “trusted” should not be confused with “accurate”. A trusted messenger strategy works only when trust is paired with evidence discipline. Otherwise it simply moves misinformation through more intimate channels. A local leader repeating a false rumour may be more damaging than a distant anonymous account because the audience has fewer reasons to doubt them.
Useful trusted-source correction has three features.
First, the messenger has the right kind of credibility. A person may be trusted as a community advocate but still need scientific support to answer technical questions. In health contexts, partnerships often work best when local messengers are supported by clinicians, public health teams or trained communicators rather than expected to improvise expertise.
Second, the message preserves belonging. The correction should make it possible for someone to change their mind without feeling expelled from their group. This is why “people like us check before sharing” can be stronger than “people like you are wrong”.
Third, the messenger can acknowledge uncertainty without surrendering accuracy. Many myths grow in the gap between overconfident official statements and lived experience. A trusted source can say what is known, what is still uncertain, and what would change the assessment. That kind of transparency can build credibility because it does not ask for blind trust.
Evidence from public health communication repeatedly points to the importance of existing relationships. CDC-related guidance on vaccine confidence has urged communicators to identify community leaders and trusted messengers, while practical health-rumour guidance stresses that partnerships are best built over time rather than invented during a crisis. [CDC Stacks]stacks.cdc.govStacks COVID-19 Vaccine ConfidenceStacks COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence
The same principle applies outside health. After violent incidents or public emergencies, rumours can spread quickly when official information is delayed, incomplete or mistrusted. Analysis cited in UK reporting on post-incident misinformation has argued that non-government voices such as community leaders, local councillors and police can be more effective when they share accurate information in a coordinated way, especially where public trust in institutions is low. [The Guardian]theguardian.comSource details in endnotes.
The influencer problem: intimacy without verification
Influencers complicate belief formation because they can feel like friends while operating as media channels. A follower may see an influencer daily, learn their routines, hear personal stories, and develop a sense of emotional familiarity. This “relational” feeling can make a claim seem less like broadcast information and more like advice from someone known.
That intimacy can be useful when creators take accuracy seriously. It can help good information reach audiences who avoid traditional institutions. But it also creates a credibility shortcut: “I trust this person” becomes “this claim is probably true.” UNESCO’s work on digital content creators highlights the concern that many creators do not systematically verify information before sharing it, even as audiences increasingly rely on them as information relays. [UNESCO]unesco.orgOpen source on unesco.org.
The Reuters Institute’s 2025 Digital News Report describes a wider shift away from traditional news brands towards social media, video platforms and online personalities in many markets. That does not automatically make audiences less informed, but it changes how trust is built. Institutional news brands usually ask for trust through editorial standards, professional routines and public accountability. Influencers often ask for trust through authenticity, consistency and perceived personal connection. [reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk]reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.ukdigital news reportdigital news report
For myths and misconceptions, this difference matters. A newspaper correction may be visible but emotionally distant. An influencer’s mistaken claim may be casual, repeated, and embedded in a broader identity package: what to buy, who to admire, which experts to distrust, what counts as common sense. The myth is not just a claim; it is part of a lifestyle script.
A useful reader habit is to separate trust in the person from trust in the claim. Someone may be sincere, funny, kind or politically aligned and still be wrong about medicine, history, finance, crime, climate or law. The stronger the personal attachment, the more important it is to ask: What is their source? Is this their field? Have they corrected mistakes before? Are they selling something? Would I believe the same claim from someone I did not like?
Correcting without attacking identity
The best corrections do not ask people to choose between truth and belonging. They create a path for revising the belief while keeping dignity intact. This is especially important when the myth came from a loved person, respected professional or identity-defining group.
A good correction usually does four things.
It starts with the shared value. If a parent shares a false health claim because they want to protect their family, begin with protection. If a community repeats a rumour because it fears being ignored, begin with safety and fairness. The correction then becomes a better way to serve the value, not a rejection of it.
It distinguishes the source from the claim. A trusted person can be mistaken without being malicious. This distinction helps people update without feeling forced to denounce someone they care about.
It explains the mechanism of the myth. People are more willing to let go of a false claim when they understand why it seemed plausible. For example: “That story spread because early reports were incomplete”, “That statistic leaves out the comparison group”, or “That video cuts away before the relevant moment.”
It offers a replacement explanation. Removing a myth leaves a gap. A correction should give the listener a better account to use in conversation, not just a negation.
Social correction can work, but it has risks. Experiments across the UK, Italy and Germany found that corrective cues from other social media users reduced perceived accuracy of false news posts, but also that incorrect corrections could reduce trust in true posts. In other words, peer correction is powerful enough to help and powerful enough to harm. [Nature]nature.comVaccine communicationVaccine communication
This is why correction should be careful, specific and proportionate. The aim is not to perform superiority in front of the group. It is to reduce the myth’s credibility while preserving the relationships through which better information can travel.
How to judge a trusted source without becoming cynical
The answer to misplaced trust is not universal mistrust. People need trusted sources. The realistic goal is calibrated trust: confidence that matches the source’s knowledge, incentives, track record and accountability.
A practical test is to ask five questions:
- What kind of expertise does this source actually have? A person can be expert in one field and unreliable in another.
- How do they know? First-hand experience, professional training, data, documents and rumours are not equivalent.
- What happens when they are wrong? Reliable sources correct errors visibly; unreliable ones move on, blame critics or double down.
- What incentives shape the claim? Money, status, politics, attention and group approval can all affect what gets said.
- Would this claim survive outside the group? If the evidence only sounds strong among people who already agree, identity may be doing more work than proof.
This approach avoids two common mistakes. One is naive trust: believing a claim because it comes from “our” person. The other is blanket cynicism: assuming all authorities, experts or institutions are equally corrupt. Both make myths easier to spread. Naive trust lets false claims ride on relationships; blanket cynicism leaves people vulnerable to whoever performs anti-establishment authenticity most convincingly.
A healthier stance is earned trust. Doctors, teachers, journalists, scientists, community leaders and creators can all be valuable sources, but their claims still need proportionate scrutiny. The more consequential the belief, the more important it is to check whether the trusted source is also a well-placed source.
Why this mechanism matters
Identity and trust explain why some myths survive repeated correction. They also explain why the same correction can work in one community and fail in another. The issue is not only whether the evidence is strong, but whether the person hearing it can accept it without losing face, loyalty or belonging.
This has practical consequences. Schools need to correct old classroom myths without undermining trust in teachers. Health systems need to work through clinicians and community organisations, not only national announcements. Journalists and fact-checkers need to understand which sources audiences already trust. Families need ways to challenge false claims without turning every conversation into a loyalty test. Platforms need to recognise that misinformation spreads not only through content, but through relationships and status.
The most durable myths are often protected by people, not just by arguments. That makes them harder to dislodge, but not impossible. Corrections become more effective when they combine accurate evidence with credible messengers, social respect and a replacement story that people can carry back into their own communities.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why Trusted People Make Myths Stick. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me) Third Edition
Explores self-justification and belief persistence.
The Righteous Mind
First published 2012. Subjects: Political psychology, Social psychology, Ethics, Religious Psychology, nyt:combined-print-and-e-book-nonf...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Example marketplace items related to this page. Use the search link to explore similar finds on eBay.
Endnotes
-
Source: papers.ssrn.com
Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973067 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-021-00006-y -
Source: sciencedirect.com
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002865 -
Source: unesco.org
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/2/3-digital-content-creators-do-not-check-their-facts-sharing-want-learn-how-do-so-unesco-survey -
Source: unesco.org
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/digital-content-creators -
Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Title: PMCTrust in information, political identity and the brain
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7935065/ -
Source: nature.com
Title: Vaccine communication
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-026-01487-9_reference.pdf -
Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Title: PMCTrusted messengers and trusted messages
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9932688/ -
Source: advances.in
Link: https://advances.in/psychology/10.56296/aip00028/ -
Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Title: PMCDon’t believe them! Reducing misinformation influence
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11345350/ -
Source: link.springer.com
Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-023-01402-w -
Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10939007/ -
Source: sciencedirect.com
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25007716 -
Source: stacks.cdc.gov
Title: Stacks COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence
Link: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/104372/cdc_104372_DS1.pdf -
Source: unesco.org
Link: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-trains-digital-content-creators-become-trusted-voices-online -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: digital news report
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025 -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: dnr executive
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025/dnr-executive-summary -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00057-w -
Source: sciencedirect.com
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725000307 -
Source: sciencedirect.com
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X25002453 -
Source: sciencedirect.com
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625006033 -
Source: sciencedirect.com
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X23002312 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-42329-x -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57560-7 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-021-00380-x -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30883-7 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-48330-8_reference.pdf -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-06419-x -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-01735-1 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/aps201728 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01655-5 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11247 -
Source: nature.com
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50591-6 -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: Digital News Report 2025
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-06/Digital_News-Report_2025.pdf -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: mapping news creators and influencers social and video networks
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news-creators-influencers/2025/mapping-news-creators-and-influencers-social-and-video-networks -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/our-podcast-digital-news-report-2025-episode-4-how-people-check-if-information-real-or-fake -
Source: reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk
Title: types sources and claims covid 19 misinformation
Link: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/types-sources-and-claims-covid-19-misinformation -
Source: link.springer.com
Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-025-01760-7 -
Source: link.springer.com
Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-025-23470-0 -
Source: discovery.ucl.ac.uk
Title: UCL Discovery Belief updating in the face of misinformation
Link: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10206076/2/Sanna_1-s2.0-S0010027725000307-main.pdf -
Source: theguardian.com
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jul/28/community-leaders-can-help-curb-false-claims-online-after-attacks-in-uk-say-researchers -
Source: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu
Link: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021nsf….2117694W/abstract -
Source: science.org
Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254 -
Source: science.org
Link: https://www.science.org/toc/sciadv/11/35 -
Source: science.org
Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg1199 -
Source: theguardian.com
Title: online influencers need urgent fact checking training warns unesco
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/26/online-influencers-need-urgent-fact-checking-training-warns-unesco -
Source: europeanjournalists.org
Link: https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2024/12/06/unesco-report-highlights-urgent-need-for-media-literacy-training-for-digital-content-creators-who-report-the-news/ -
Source: informalscience.org
Link: https://informalscience.org/identity/dan-kahan/ -
Source: vtechworks.lib.vt.edu
Link: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/eb23e02a-cff8-4cd8-8f84-62f975214dff/content -
Source: journalqd.org
Link: https://journalqd.org/article/view/2550
Additional References
-
Source: oecd.org
Link: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/03/facts-not-fakes-tackling-disinformation-strengthening-information-integrity_ff96d19f/d909ff7a-en.pdf -
Source: youtube.com
Title: Trust, Expertise, and Misinformation: A Psychologist’s Perspective
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY6g0P0R7y0Source snippet
How to Talk to People Who Believe Conspiracy Theories...
-
Source: govinfo.gov
Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117shrg53086/html/CHRG-117shrg53086.htm -
Source: researchgate.net
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330710636_Fighting_misinformation_on_social_media_using_crowdsourced_judgments_of_news_source_quality -
Source: ofcom.org.uk
Link: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/media-use-and-attitudes/attitudes-to-news -
Source: almendron.com
Link: https://www.almendron.com/tribuna/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/belief-echoes-the-persistent-effects-of-corrected-misinformation.pdf -
Source: scispace.com
Link: https://scispace.com/pdf/misconceptions-misinformation-and-the-logic-of-identity-mpc3ka7t6o.pdf -
Source: dco.org
Link: https://dco.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Online-Misinformation-in-the-Era-of-Digital-Economy.pdf -
Source: immunizationmanagers.org
Link: https://www.immunizationmanagers.org/content/uploads/2022/03/Vaccine-Confidence-Guide-Chapter-3_033022.pdf -
Source: instagram.com
Link: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNDvvtKAkBi/?hl=en
Topic Tree