Moral justification for misinformation: Evidence from a survey experiment during the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign

In this study, I examine the extent to which voters apply consistent moral and democratic standards to political misinformation, and how these standards interact with perceived misinformation in the campaign. Drawing on an original survey experiment during the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, I randomly assigned respondents to read one of ten fact-checked misleading statements made by either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump in a nationally televised debate. I found that individuals were more likely to justify, excuse, and downplay the democratic harm of misinformation when it came from their preferred candidate. While this tendency was evident across both partisan groups, the tendency to downplay the democratic harm of co-partisan misinformation was particularly noticeable among Trump supporters. Moreover, the main effect was stronger among respondents who perceived misinformation as widespread during the campaign. Finally, I demonstrate that willingness to accept misinformation varies by policy area, with greater justification for misleading statements on immigration, abortion and gun rights among Trump supporters, and trade and tax among Harris supporters. These findings highlight how partisan loyalty can distort moral judgment and underscore the challenges misinformation poses for democratic accountability.