If we're absolutely certain something is the case, we're apt to call it a fact - an objective truth. If we assume something is true and other people don't recognize that truth, we may think something in their head is preventing them from seeing what is so obviously out there.
You can tell a lot about what some research psychologists assume is true by looking at their research agendas. What do they think calls for psychological explanation? What they consider to be human folly and error. For instance: why so many people are skeptical about climate change. What is preventing them from seeing the truth?
However, why people "see the truth" is also an interesting question. Given that few members of the public are scientists who understand the climate models upon which climate projections are made, what leads so many people to accept human-caused climate change as real and scary? I'm assuming that, like me, they are relying on mental shortcuts: biases and heuristics. The bare-bones explanation of climate change (greenhouse effect) makes sense to them. They trust certain sources of information and not others. They scrutinize some assertions and accept others on face-value (e.g., the "consensus"). They embrace some analogies as pertinent (e.g., climate change deniers as the modern version of flat-earthers) and deny the relevance of others (e.g., previous environmental false-alarms). So who's studying the biases and heuristics that enable people to accept anthropogenic climate change? Darned if I know.
There's something about psychologizing that's invalidating. As if psychology were the science of human error. But does it have to be so? Humans are pretty good at tracking reality, thanks to biases and heuristics that work well most of the time. Error can be an ally in the search for truth.
Study that!