This paper investigates the phenomenon of unwarranted perseverance of social theories through two experiments involving 130 participants who were presented with case studies about the relationship between risk-taking and success in firefighting. The findings reveal that even after participants were thoroughly debriefed about the fictitious nature of the case studies, their personal beliefs about the relationship remained unchanged, indicating that social theories can persist despite being discredited by weak evidence. The research explores the cognitive processes involved in forming causal explanations and discusses normative issues and potential techniques to mitigate this persistence of unsupported beliefs