The 2020 presidential election and beliefs about fraud: Continuity or change?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This dynamic may have contributed to the sizeable number of candidates in 2022 who endorsed the conspiracy of 2020 electoral fraud.
“This dynamic may have contributed to the sizeable number of candidates in 2022 who endorsed the conspiracy of 2020 electoral fraud (Enders et al., 2021).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Enders et al., 2021
Cites
Understanding Conspiracy Theories
Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12568 · Cited by 1,511 · see citing works
Self-citationGoertzel, T. (1994) · Political Psychology · doi:10.2307/3791630 · Cited by 1,094 · see citing works
Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225 · Cited by 1,049 · see citing works
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2011) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x · Cited by 261 · see citing works
The effect of conspiratorial thinking and motivated reasoning on belief in election fraud
Edelson, J., Alduncin, A., Krewson, C., Sieja, J. A., & Uscinski, J. E. (2017) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912917721061 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Enders, A. M., Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C. A., Premaratne, K., Seelig, M. I., Wuchty, S., Murthi, M. N., & Funchion, J. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Louisville (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- Corresponding author
- Uscinski, Joseph E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Electoral Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-08
- Volume
- 72
- Pages
- 102366
- ISSN
- 0261-3794 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3173638897
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 8
- FWCI
- 26.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Electoral Studies (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Miami
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
- Keywords
- 2020 presidential election, electoral integrity, partisan motivated reasoning, conspiracy beliefs, anomie, Dark Triad personality traits, denialism, partisanship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
