Why does fake news surge in some countries while remaining marginal in others? A study spanning 65 countries applies a theory borrowed from criminology to answer this question. It shows that beyond laws and mobile infrastructure, an unexpected factor weighs heavily in the balance: how happy citizens are.
Every crisis now brings its own epidemic of misleading information. The Covid-19 pandemic provided a striking illustration: miracle cures, political rumours, conspiracy theories and false alerts circulated at unprecedented speed. Yet this wave did not hit every country with the same intensity. Why are some societies better at resisting fake news than others?
Anuragini Shirish, Professor of Information Systems at Institut Mines-Télécom Business School (IMT-BS), has been investigating this question for several years. In spring 2026, her work led to a new paper in the European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS), co-authored with Shirish C. Srivastava (HEC Paris) and Shalini Chandra (SP Jain School of Global Management), with whom she has been analysing the conditions that allow fake news to spread since 2020.
Using the same dataset covering 65 countries [see box below], the three researchers had already shown in past studies that fake news does not depend on mobile connectivity alone. Economic freedoms reduce its circulation, while greater political freedom can, paradoxically, encourage it by multiplying opportunities for expression. Another study led by the IMT-BS researcher on an even larger corpus subsequently highlighted the influence of complex interactions between technological, social, economic and institutional factors.
The new paper builds on these findings by applying a new theoretical framework to the data. Most importantly, it brings into the equation a factor that research on fake news has so far largely overlooked: citizens’ well-being and happiness.
Fake news under the magnifying glass of criminology
For this analysis, the team borrows a new interpretive framework from criminology: situational crime-prevention theory. “Fake news is not a serious crime,” Anuragini Shirish points out, “but rather what criminologists call ‘folk deviance’: a behaviour that comes to seem normal because so many people take part in it, by producing, sharing or consuming them.”
According to this approach, a crime — or a deviance — does not occur at random: it depends on immediate circumstances that make it more likely. The aim is therefore to identify these factors and act upstream, rather than punish the behaviour after the event.
Applying this framework to fake news, the researchers identify three drivers. On the supply side are technological resources that create opportunities to produce and disseminate misleading content. On the demand side are the psychosocial environment and the way in which individuals perceive their situation, which increases their vulnerability to this content. Finally, the quality of the legal framework can curb propagation.
Local content: the other side of the coin
The first structural factor is therefore mobile supply. The more locally produced mobile content and services a country has, the greater its propensity for fake news.
This abundance is not a problem in itself. Local media, applications developed within a country and content published in national languages serve a democratic purpose: they bring information closer to realities on the ground and diversify viewpoints.
“But just like a service of transportation is important, when you’re in a crowded train, crime can happen,” Anuragini Shirish explains. The same principle applies to local digital content: the more active the ecosystem, the more opportunities it creates for misleading information to be produced and shared. The issue, therefore, lies neither in mobile infrastructure itself nor in the availability of local services, but in the possibility that these resources may be misused.
The statistical analyses confirm this: regardless of GDP, education levels, healthcare infrastructure or civil liberties, neither mobile connectivity nor its cost is at issue. What influences the opportunities for fake news to spread is how mobile technology is used locally. The study therefore provides a more nuanced picture than the general mobile-development indicators used until now.
The happy few against fake news
At the same time, the researchers demonstrate that a high level of life satisfaction significantly reduces a country’s propensity for fake news. Their hypothesis is that these news gains ground when emotions take over.
“Fake news plays on fear and polarization. Citizens’ well-being and happiness allow them to be strong in the face of uncertainty,” Anuragini Shirish explains. Especially during a crisis, anxiety prompts people to seek answers quickly and everywhere, increasing their exposure to misleading content, particularly when the local supply is abundant.
Conversely, well-being fosters resilience. Shirish cites the Nordic countries, where levels of happiness, institutional trust and legal-system quality are high. Despite highly developed mobile and digital environments, less fake news circulated there during the pandemic.
Like Japan gives an example of how collective disaster preparedness helps limit panic in a crisis: “A prepared and confident population is less vulnerable to manipulation. Well-being reduces the risk of citizens becoming victims of fake news.”
The law, guardian of the system
The third pillar of the model is institutions. A strong rule of law moderates the effect of the opportunities created by the digital environment. This ‘legal guardianship’ relies on effective law enforcement, judicial independence, checks and balances, and the fight against corruption. “A high-quality legal system is like a police presence in your crowded train. The opportunity is still there, but the safeguards limit the likelihood of people acting on it,” Anuragini Shirish explains.
The researcher nevertheless adds a caveat: “The answer is not simply to impose tougher penalties. We also need to understand why some people produce fake news and create the conditions in which they no longer have an incentive to do so.”
Interviews with eight policymakers, digital specialists and civil-society representatives support this cautious approach. Regulatory measures must remain proportionate and be accompanied by preventive action.
Better to prevent than debunk
Several avenues emerge from these discussions. The first concerns digital literacy. Existing programmes mainly teach people how to use digital tools, but still devote too little attention to identifying manipulation, checking sources or understanding how fake news works. The interviewees recommend designing this training jointly with educational institutions, the media, digital platforms, associations and public authorities.
The second avenue is to strengthen collective well-being. Feelings of injustice, perceived inequalities and distrust of institutions weaken societies. As Anuragini Shirish stresses, this is not only about narrowing economic gaps, but also about guaranteeing equal access to public services, information and justice.
Lastly, the study highlights an often-overlooked resource: local communities. Local journalists, associations and creators of content already have a relationship of trust with their audiences. “When reliable information is conveyed by people whom the public trusts, seeking alternative answers becomes less appealing.”
These recommendations extend the systemic analyses developed in the previous work of Anuragini Shirish and her peers. Dissemination platforms are only one part of the equation: resilience to fake news also depends on a country’s democratic and social health. Strengthening information literacy, preserving the balance between regulation and freedom of expression, consolidating institutions and fostering collective well-being are complementary levers. The fight against fake news therefore begins well before a rumour goes viral, by building a society that is more resilient in the face of uncertainty.
Public, harmonised datasets
To test this new research framework, the team adopted a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative analysis with qualitative research. In particular, it drew on a dataset compiled from seven independent sources and covering 65 countries, from Russia to Rwanda or Kazakhstan.
For each country, the number of fake news recorded by an international fact-checking agency as of 9 June 2020 — the study’s reference date — was compared with the various factors thought to facilitate or curb their circulation. These included mobile-infrastructure data supplied by the GSMA, the global organisation representing mobile operators, and the happiness indicator defined by Gallup’s World Happiness Report. Control variables, including national wealth, education and healthcare quality, were used to isolate the accurate effect of these factors.
