Â鶹ÊÓƵ

The spread of misinformation is increasingly an issue in our tech-connected and polarized societies, especially when it leads to violence or the threat of violence. In Springfield, Ohio, where unsubstantiated rumors of Haitian immigrants harming local animals and pets have proliferated following former President Trump’s comments during the September 12th presidential debate, with bomb threats.

SIS professor Sumitra BadrinathanÌýfocused her recent research article, co-authored with Simon Chauchard and Niloufer Siddiqui, on vigilante violence against religious minorities stemming from misinformation in India and Pakistan. The article, published in the prestigious journal, examines whether correcting misinformation and reducing the credibility of rumors decreases support for vigilantism. To learn more, we asked Badrinathan some questions about her research, the research process, and her findings.

What made you pursue this project on misinformation and vigilantism?

There’s been a lot of research trying to figure out what makes people believe misinformation and another big area of study on how we can fight it. But there's a lot less work looking at the consequences of believing misinformation. What actually happens when people buy into false stories? What are its consequences? These are really important questions, especially given recent events, like the violent that were triggered by false information spread online. Many people have assumed that misinformation can fuel polarization or increase support for violence, but until now, we’ve lacked strong evidence to back that up. That’s what led us to dive into this paper.

What methodology did you utilize for this research? How did you decide to focus your research on Punjab and Uttar Pradesh?

We conducted simultaneous, in-person experimental studies in Punjab, Pakistan, and Uttar Pradesh, India—regions where media reports have linked misinformation to brutal public lynchings. To ensure privacy and sensitivity in these volatile settings, we used an audio-based methodology: respondents listened through private headphones to professionally produced newscasts describing acts of vigilantism, modeled on real events. In the main treatment group, we provided corrective information, explaining that investigative reporting had found the rumors to be baseless. In the control group, respondents did not receive this corrective information. This approach allowed us to examine whether correcting misinformation, and thereby reducing the credibility of rumors, impacts support for vigilante violence.

What were the key takeaways from this article?

Our results showed that correcting misinformation can actually reduce support for vigilante violence and make people more likely to want to hold vigilante groups accountable. What’s especially interesting is that these corrections worked even for people who were already polarized or had strong biases against minorities—those who are usually the hardest to sway. It's a big deal that accurate information can push people to want to punish vigilante groups, especially when those vigilantes are part of the respondents' own communities. And the fact that we saw these effects in environments filled with disinformation and targeted anti-minority rhetoric makes the findings even more striking. What’s also noteworthy is that we found the same patterns in both India and Pakistan, despite their different political landscapes. As people around the world become more polarized and attached to their in-groups, our study shows that hostility toward out-groups doesn’t have to lead to violence. While past research has suggested that partisanship and identity often override civic values, our data offer hopeful signs that credible information can weaken antidemocratic attitudes significantly.

Can you talk about how this research connects to your started over the summer?

In this project, we focus on identifying the consequences of believing misinformation. Through the Bihar Information and Media Literacy Initiative, we aim to counter misinformation by implementing a sustained classroom-based media literacy program. This initiative is designed to help teenagers become more discerning consumers of information, equipping them with the skills to critically evaluate the news and media they encounter.

Did your findings with this research lead you to any new research questions? What’s next for your research?

Since we've identified that correcting misinformation can reduce support for vigilante violence, we now want to explore whether there are broader effects on other democratic norms. One of our upcoming projects will examine the relationship between misinformation and support for protest, free speech, the rule of law, and democratic backsliding in general. Although the connection between misinformation and democracy seems obvious, there is still no solid causal evidence to prove the link.

Another area we're focusing on is finding ways to correct rumors that aren't easily fact-checkable. In our research on vigilantism, we noticed that many instances of vigilante misinformation are based on stereotypes about groups, relying on tropes and broad generalizations rather than specific, fact-checkable content. This pattern shows up in other contexts as well. For example, a of JD Vance discussing Donald Trump’s unfounded claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were killing and eating people’s pet cats illustrates this point. Vance defends Trump by suggesting that even if the specific claim isn’t verified, the larger "truth" behind it still holds merit. This highlighted for us how specific claims can be corrected, but the broader narratives based on stereotypes and generalizations are much harder to debunk. Our next project will focus on developing ways to counter these larger, more entrenched narratives that often fuel misinformation claims.