What are documented effects of repeated political falsehoods on public opinion and voter behavior?

1. Erosion of institutional trust and belief in elections

A consistent finding across recent reporting and studies is that sustained campaigns of misinformation corrode public confidence in democratic processes: coordinated false allegations and amplified rumors about voting have undermined trust in elections and increased belief that fraud occurred, with surveys showing large shares of the public accepting baseless claims about the 2020 U.S. election (for example, 57% of white Americans report some belief in fraud) — a dynamic highlighted by Brookings as a driver of diminished confidence and heightened social division ^[1].

2. Polarization, echo chambers, and offline division

Repeated falsehoods interact with social media environments and partisan networks to harden opinions: research documents that misinformation circulates preferentially within polarized clusters and amplifies opinion homogeneity, translating online falsehoods into offline factionalization and a “spiral of silence” that suppresses dissenting views and intensifies polarization ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

3. Behavioral impacts: turnout, disengagement, and populist shifts

On behavior, the literature points to several documented pathways: distrustful citizens are more likely to abstain or shift toward populist candidates (cited as a risk in longitudinal and survey research), and exposure to fake news correlates with lower trust in mainstream media and altered political participation patterns—though whether misinformation alone decisively flips votes in broad electorates is contested ^{[2] [7] [3]}.

4. When repeated lies stick: the mechanics of persistence

Frequency and elite repetition matter: political elites’ repeated cues make false narratives cognitively easier to accept and longer-lasting, and studies show that accusations repeated by trusted partisan leaders can shield politicians from reputational damage even when falsehoods are debunked, helping explain why repeated political lies can persist in supporters’ beliefs ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Heterogeneous effects and limits of the evidence

Scholars caution that effects are uneven: meta-analyses and systematic reviews find robust associations between misinformation exposure and misperceptions or reduced trust, but the magnitude and behavioral translation vary by audience, context, and content; some research finds limited or mixed direct effects on vote choice, and other studies show strategic targeting, algorithm dynamics, and pre-existing partisan identity mediate impacts ^{[10] [3] [11]}.

6. Indirect harms: perceived influence and legitimacy loss

Beyond direct persuasion, misinformation produces important indirect harms: the “presumed influence” mechanism shows that people’s belief that others have been affected by election falsehoods reduces their satisfaction with democracy and may lower long-term commitment to democratic processes—effects that can erode perceived legitimacy of winners and increase polarization even without mass belief in the original lies ^{[7] [1]}.

7. Practical implications and contested remedies

Reporting and scholarship converge that systemic responses—platform accountability, targeted counter-messaging, media literacy and structural interventions—are needed because leaving users to individually counter falsehoods is unrealistic, especially for younger voters who increasingly rely on social platforms for political news; yet evidence on exactly which remedies scale best remains an active research frontier ^{[12] [3] [5]}.

Limitations of this synthesis: the sources document associations, mechanisms, and plausible causal pathways but vary in scope, method, and context; where studies disagree, the dominant pattern is heterogeneity by audience, source credibility, and political context, not a single uniform effect ^{[10] [3]}.