On controversial issues from abortion to vaccination, we frequently know that millions disagree with us, yet remain firmly rooted in our beliefs. What enables this capacity to sustain controversial beliefs amid societal disagreement? To answer this question, we connect insights across the social sciences to develop the paths to persistence model (PPM). The PPM outlines four causes of persistence amid societal dissent: People may perceive disagreeing others as more ignorant, biased, or unintelligent than themselves or those who agree (informational path), consider the issue to be subjective or unknowable (ontological path), expect changing their beliefs to have bad social or personal consequences (functional path), or fail to deploy the cognitive resources to update their beliefs (computational). We explain how the PPM integrates previous theories across disciplines into interacting "paths" that jointly explain persistence. We then present a preregistered study with a sample quota-matched to the U.S. census on race and sex (N = 1,250) investigating responses to societal disagreement on 96 issues spanning science, politics, morality, and religion. We find that most participants persist in their beliefs amid controversy-even when they learn that they vastly underestimated the extent of societal dissent. Moreover, we find that the paths jointly predict whether people persist and are associated with important social outcomes, such as people's willingness to befriend disagreeing others. Four additional preregistered open- and close-ended studies (N = 1,921) support these findings and our theoretical model. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Oktar et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: