Political Alignment or Information Deficit? Understanding Endorsement of Russia- And LGBTQ-Related Falsehoods in Eastern Europe

The widespread circulation of political misinformation poses a growing challenge to democratic politics. A common response has been to emphasise media literacy and information-based interventions, premised on the assumption that misperceptions primarily stem from lack of knowledge or insufficient exposure to reliable news. However, an alternative perspective suggests that belief in false claims may be driven less by informational deficits than by political–ideological alignment, with individuals selectively accepting claims that resonate with their existing worldviews. Distinguishing between these explanations is crucial for understanding both the sources of misinformation and the limits of current policy responses. Against this backdrop, this paper addresses three interrelated research questions. First, are misperceptions primarily associated with information-related factors, such as education and patterns of news consumption, or with political–ideological alignment? Second, do political attitudes and voting behaviour predict endorsement of ideologically aligned falsehoods more strongly than general factual inaccuracy? Third, are these relationships consistent across national contexts, or do they vary across Poland, Romania, and Serbia? To address these questions, the paper draws on original survey data from Poland, Romania, and Serbia (N = 2,440), collected in summer 2025. The survey combines batteries of true/false statements with detailed measures of political attitudes, democratic evaluations, and voting behaviour, focusing on two highly salient and politically polarising issue domains in contemporary Eastern Europe: Russia’s war in Ukraine and LGBTQ rights. Importantly, the false statements included in the survey are not ideologically neutral. Russia-related falsehoods reflect narratives commonly associated with pro-Russian and anti-NATO positions, while LGBTQ-related falsehoods reproduce widely circulated anti-LGBTQ claims. This design allows endorsement of falsehoods to be analysed as a politically meaningful outcome rather than a generic factual error. Empirically, the paper distinguishes between general informational deficits and ideologically aligned misperceptions. It examines overall error rates across true/false items as an indicator of knowledge-related inaccuracy, alongside indices capturing endorsement of ideologically charged false claims. Using regression models with country-fixed effects, the analysis compares the relative explanatory power of knowledge-related predictors – such as education and patterns of news consumption – and political/ideological predictors, including issue-specific attitudes toward Russia and LGBTQ rights, evaluations of democratic governance, institutional trust, and vote choice. The paper further explores whether the relationships between political alignment and misinformation endorsement are consistent across the three countries or vary by national context, shedding light on the role of political environments in shaping belief formation. By assessing whether misperceptions are better understood as a function of information scarcity or political alignment, this paper speaks directly to debates on democratic resilience and the rise of illiberalism in Eastern Europe. More broadly, it has important implications for policy responses to misinformation. If belief in falsehoods is primarily rooted in ideological worldviews rather than lack of knowledge, strategies focused solely on increasing media literacy or information supply may have limited effectiveness. Understanding the political foundations of misinformation is therefore essential for developing more realistic and sustainable responses to its spread.