Donald Trump’s outrageous claims about immigrants, voter fraud and more seem preposterous to many of us, especially those on the left — outright fabrications that no reasonable person could believe. But new research conducted with our colleagues reveals something unsettling: Credulity and delusion are not limited to Trump supporters, opponents, or any specific group. The fight for truth is about recognizing that everyone, including the educated and well-informed, can fall prey to misinformation. This is especially important now, as incorrect voter beliefs can play a decisive role in elections.

That is why we must be aware of the power of misinformation and know how to combat it. But our research suggests that our understanding of the attack on truth—and strategies to counter it—is hampered by three blind spots.

Although it may seem surprising, there are doubts about the extent of the effects of misinformation on the general population. Many scientists believeThe problem is relatively minor, and that most errors of judgment are logical mistakes not motivated by partisanship. This implies that misinformation may not deepen political divisions.

Our research tells a different story.

We presented real and fake news to American voters that either supported or challenged their political beliefs. We found a strong party versus reality bias: Participants were twice as likely to believe and share inaccurate stories that supported their political views than to share news that was factually accurate but challenged their ideologies. This bias persisted even when the headlines were blatantly false. For example, conservative voters were more likely to accept the fabricated story “Donald Trump, ‘serious contention’ at Nobel Prize in Economics,” while liberal voters were more likely to accept a fabricated story with the headline “Trump Attended Gala private Halloween with sex. Organs dressed as pope.” Political support overshadowed the truth.

We are blind not only to the power of disinformation, but also to its broad appeal. Many of us tend to believe that others are more gullible because of their partisan leanings or lack of education or intelligence. However, our research shows that anyone, regardless of party affiliation, education level or cognitive ability, can easily fall victim to misinformation. Even people with advanced degrees and strong reasoning skills exhibited a party-versus-reality bias. In fact, participants who excelled at reasoning often used this skill selectively, examining false stories only when they contradicted their political beliefs. When the misinformation aligned with their views — such as supporting their favorite presidential candidate — they shut down their critical thinking and accepted the falsehood as truth.

The third blind spot is the misconception that the attack on truth comes only from external misinformation. Many mistakenly believe that the problem could be solved by controlling the flow of misinformation through fact-checking and establishing policies that would reduce fake news. While these measures can help, they are insufficient because our own minds also contribute to the problem. Even if all misinformation from traditional and social media were removed, our cognitive filters would still lead us to oppose truths that challenge our beliefs.

Indeed, our study found that the tendency to disbelieve and avoid sharing accurate news that contradicts our political views was stronger than the tendency to accept and promote fake news that confirms our views. In other words, the problem is not just belief in misinformation. It is the resistance to the truth.

This means that the problem goes beyond the supply of lies. It also comes from our willingness to believe them—and our reluctance to accept uncomfortable truths. We often seek news that reassures us that we are right, and this need for validation is at the root of our own contributions to the disinformation machine.

So what can be done? Intellectual humility is an antidote. The small number of respondents in our study who prioritized truth over politics were more likely to admit that their political side is just as vulnerable to misinformation and propaganda as the opposing side. Recognizing this danger seemed to allow them to question their perceptions and check their biases. Our research also found that those who prioritized truth consumed less media that was politically biased.

The real difference seems to be between those who think they know the truth and those who remain open to the possibility that they could be wrong. To address our role in this problem, we can encourage people to become critical media consumers, starting with the practice of being critical of their own thinking. A key part of this is diversifying our news consumption and disconnecting from the media echo chamber.

Another solution is community cultivation. When people feel connected to each other in ways outside of partisanship, they are less likely to accept false political narratives, even ones that confirm their beliefs, and are more open to information that challenges long-held ideas.

It’s ironic that shared needs—for certainty and tribal connection—separate us. Recognizing and addressing these needs and the prejudices they trigger will help us overcome the divisions our own minds conspire to create.

Geoffrey Cohen is the author of Belonging: The Science of Creating Connection and Bridging Divides, professor of organizational studies in education and business, and professor of psychology at Stanford University. Michael Schwalbe is a postdoctoral scholar in Stanford’s psychology department.