Resilience and Vulnerability to Misinformation and Disinformation in Political Information Environments: A Comparative Review of Ten Indexes

The report evaluates ten distinct indexes designed to diagnose the resilience or vulnerability of political information environments to mis- and disinformation. It develops a typology of these tools—categorizing them as advertising-oriented, policy-driven, academically oriented, or public outreach—and analyzes their conceptual foundations, data collection methods, and scoring architectures. The review finds that most indexes rely on proxy indicators (such as institutional trust or media freedom) rather than direct measurement of false content. Comparative case studies reveal that while some indexes converge on structural constants in advanced democracies, others diverge sharply due to different operational definitions of 'resilience,' such as distinguishing between reactive mobilization and long-term structural capacity. The document concludes that current measurement is fragmented and recommends a more unified architecture that integrates structural, behavioral, and platform-specific dynamics.

• Indexes of mis- and disinformation rarely measure the actual volume of false content; instead, they operationalize risk through proxy indicators that capture the structural, perceptual, or psychological conditions that make a society susceptible or resilient.
• The reviewed indexes can be classified into four distinct groups based on their funding, target audience, and purpose: Advertising- and Funding-Oriented (e.g., GDI), Policy-Driven/Security-Oriented (e.g., GVI, GPI), Academically Oriented (e.g., ROD, EV), and Public Outreach (e.g., MLI, MVI).
• Vulnerability is conceptualized as the susceptibility of a political information environment to harmful information, driven by political and societal weaknesses, media-system fragility, and external pressures like foreign malign influence.
• Resilience is defined as the capacity of an information environment to absorb, adapt to, and recover from manipulative forces, depending on societal trust, institutional/legal strength, and the health of the media ecosystem.
• There is a significant geographic bias in current indexing, with strong representation of Europe and North America but persistent gaps in the Global South, Central and South America, and East and Southeast Asia due to data scarcity and institutional priorities.
• Comparative analysis shows that indexes using the same label, such as 'resilience,' can produce contradictory results because they measure different things; for example, the DRI captures reactive mobilization while the FIMI index captures long-term structural capacity.
• Most existing indexes fail to integrate the role of large online platforms, ignoring the impact of algorithms, recommendation ecosystems, and platform-specific governance on the amplification of disinformation.
• Methodological transparency is inconsistent across the ten indexes, with frequent gaps in documentation regarding indicator weighting, aggregation choices, and the handling of missing data.

APA

Esser, F., Solis, J., Chan, M., van Aelst, P., Madrid-Morales, D., Bosch, T., Botan, M., Humprecht, E., Labarre, J., Santini, R. M., Schulz, A., Seim, B., Wack, M., Howard, P., & Valenzuela, S. (2026). Resilience and Vulnerability to Misinformation and Disinformation in Political Information Environments: A Comparative Review of Ten Indexes. International Panel on the Information Environment. https://www.ipie.info/research/tp2026-1-misinformation-disinformation-resilience-index-review

Chicago

Esser, F., J.A. Solis, M. Chan, P. van Aelst, D. Madrid-Morales, T. Bosch, M. Botan, et al. Resilience and Vulnerability to Misinformation and Disinformation in Political Information Environments: A Comparative Review of Ten Indexes. International Panel on the Information Environment, 2026. https://www.ipie.info/research/tp2026-1-misinformation-disinformation-resilience-index-review.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Esser |first1=F. |last2=Solis |first2=J.A. |last3=Chan |first3=M. |last4=van Aelst |first4=P. |last5=Madrid-Morales |first5=D. |last6=Bosch |first6=T. |last7=Botan |first7=M. |last8=Humprecht |first8=E. |last9=Labarre |first9=J. |display-authors=etal |title=Resilience and Vulnerability to Misinformation and Disinformation in Political Information Environments: A Comparative Review of Ten Indexes |publisher=International Panel on the Information Environment |date=2026 |url=https://www.ipie.info/research/tp2026-1-misinformation-disinformation-resilience-index-review |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{esser2026resilience, author = {Esser, F. and Solis, J.A. and Chan, M. and van Aelst, P. and Madrid-Morales, D. and Bosch, T. and Botan, M. and Humprecht, E. and Labarre, J. and Santini, R. M. and Schulz, A. and Seim, B. and Wack, M. and Howard, P.N. and Valenzuela, S.}, title = {{Resilience and Vulnerability to Misinformation and Disinformation in Political Information Environments: A Comparative Review of Ten Indexes}}, institution = {International Panel on the Information Environment}, year = {2026}, url = {https://www.ipie.info/research/tp2026-1-misinformation-disinformation-resilience-index-review}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }