CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationMisinformation and Its ImpactsPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

Donald Trump and the Lie

Open access
Arceneaux, Kevin, Truex, Rory·2023·Perspectives on Politics
DOI 10.1017/s1537592722000901
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The legitimacy of democratically elected governments rests in part on widespread acceptance of the outcome of elections, especially among those who lost. This “losers’ consent” allows the winners to govern, and when the incumbent is the losing party, it allows for a peaceful transition of power. What happens in a democratic system when one side not only refuses to concede but also actively perpetuates lies about the outcome? This article studies the evolution of public opinion about Donald Trump’s “big lie” using a rolling cross-sectional daily tracking survey, yielding 40 days of polls and more than 20,000 responses from US voters from October 27, 2020, through January 29, 2021. We find that the lie is pervasive and sticky: the number of Republicans and independents saying that they believe the election was fraudulent is substantial, and this proportion did not change appreciably over time or shift after important political developments. Belief in the lie may have buoyed some of Trump supporters’ self-esteem. In reaction to the lie and the threat it brought to the transition of power, there was a significant rise in support for violent political activism among Democrats, which only waned after efforts to overturn the election clearly failed. Even if these findings merely reflect partisan cheerleading, we nonetheless find significant and potentially long-term consequences of the lie. A conjoint experiment shows that Republican voters reward politicians who perpetuate the lie, giving Republican candidates an incentive to continue to do so in the next electoral cycle. These findings raise concerns about the fragility of American democracy.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article uses a 40-day rolling cross-sectional survey of US voters to show that belief in Donald Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election was pervasive, sticky, and electorally consequential. It finds that the lie did not shift after major political events, was rewarded by Republican voters in a conjoint experiment, and coincided with rising Democratic support for radical anti-state action before waning after the transition of power.

Key findings

  • Belief in the lie was widespread and stable: roughly one in four Americans did not believe the election result was legitimate or identify Biden as the winner, while Republican proportions hovered around 50%; only three out of four registered voters believed Biden legitimately won. Perceptions barely moved after the Electoral College vote, the Capitol insurrection, or Biden’s inauguration.
  • Among voters who denied the outcome, 28.7% said they would believe Biden won if Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell said so, 31.0% if the Electoral College awarded him a majority, 42.9% if the Supreme Court decided so, and 45.2% if Trump conceded; about 33% named no event that would change their mind.
  • A conjoint experiment found that Republican respondents favored a candidate who said Trump won by 5.7 percentage points over one who said Trump lost. Among Republicans who said the election was legitimate, a candidate admitting Trump lost was favored by 17.9 points; among those who said it was not legitimate, a candidate insisting Trump won was favored by 25.3 points.
  • Support for radical and violent political action against the state rose among Democrats after the election, peaked before the Electoral College met on December 14, and waned after efforts to overturn the election failed, though it remained higher than the preelection baseline. Republicans showed net increases in self-esteem over the election period, and mean Trump identification among Republicans remained 3.62 out of 5 at the end.

Methods

  • The Election Legitimacy Tracking Survey (ELTS) was an online rolling cross-sectional survey administered by Qualtrics to US citizens registered to vote from October 27, 2020, through January 29, 2021. It collected 500 new respondents daily from October 27 to November 20, then samples on Tuesdays and Fridays, yielding 20,000 responses over 40 daily samples.
  • Daily poststratification weights were calculated using entropy balancing on gender, age, race, partisanship, education, and region. The questionnaire measured election legitimacy perceptions, hypothetical events that might change beliefs, the Radicalism Intention Scale, Rosenberg self-esteem, Trump identification, and support for democratic norms.
  • A paired conjoint experiment beginning January 12 asked Republican and Independent respondents to choose between two hypothetical Republican congressional primary candidates across three pairs, with randomly assigned attributes including profession, age, ethnicity, gender, and position on the big lie. Analysis used descriptive time trends, linear probability models, and average marginal component effects from the conjoint with standard errors clustered at the respondent level.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the conjoint design was “a bit heavy-handed” because the candidate’s stance on the election was the only policy stance, possibly priming respondents, and that it could have included a third option where a candidate declines to say who won. It also notes that results may reflect “expressive responding” rather than sincere belief, and that the sample skews younger and more educated than the registered-voter population, with Black voters slightly overrepresented, though weighted and findings are not sensitive to weighting.
  • The paper states that low political interest could explain the lack of updating, though the authors favor motivated reasoning, selective exposure, and expressive responding as explanations.
  • Evident from the text: the design is observational and cannot establish causal effects of the lie or political events on beliefs, violence support, or self-esteem; it relies on self-reported attitudes and does not directly measure private beliefs.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1537592722000901

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 93 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Republicans were much more likely to say that they believed the lie that Donald Trump won the election.

    “First, and least surprisingly, we corroborate other research teams and news reports in finding that Republicans were much more likely to say that they believed the lie that Donald Trump won the election.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Americans' perceptions of the election outcome were largely fixed by mid-November.

    “Americans' perceptions of the election outcome were largely fixed by mid-November.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Nine days after Joe Biden was sworn in as president, roughly 25% of unaffiliated voters did not view the election as legitimate.

    “Nine days after Joe Biden was sworn in as president, roughly 25% of unaffiliated voters did not view the election as legitimate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Voters who are older, less educated, and categorize themselves as having lower social status are less likely to perceive the Biden win as legitimate.

    “Voters who are older, less educated, and categorize themselves as having lower social status are less likely to perceive the Biden win as legitimate.”
    • Also stated in: § Who Is Most Likely to Believe the Big Lie? · plain
      “We observe that voters who are older, less educated, and categorize themselves as having lower social status are less likely to perceive the Biden win as legitimate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    Even the most salient events like Biden's inauguration did not increase acceptance of the outcome.

    “But even the most salient events like Biden's inauguration did not increase acceptance of the outcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 35
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    This willingness abated after Trump's attempts to overturn the election failed, but support for radical political action remained higher among all voters than the preelection baseline.

    “This willingness abated after Trump's attempts to overturn the election failed, but support for radical political action remained higher among all voters than the preelection baseline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Even though many respondents said they would update their opinion in the direction of the truth if particular events happened, belief in the lie did not shift at the aggregate level when these events occurred.

    “Second, even though many respondents said they would update their opinion in the direction of the truth if particular events happened (e.g., Biden is inaugurated), belief in the lie did not shift at the aggregate level when these events occurred.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Republican voters increasingly identified Biden as the winner as the results came in, but this proportion plateaued at around 40% and remained relatively stable thereafter.

    “Republican voters increasingly identified Biden as the winner as the results came in, but this proportion plateaued at around 40% and remained relatively stable thereafter.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Republican voters largely continued to link their identity to Trump as the loss became apparent and displayed net increases in self-esteem.

    “Third, Republican voters largely continued to link their identity to Trump as the loss became apparent and displayed net increases in self-esteem, suggesting that believing the lie helped “cut off reflected failure” (Hirt et al. 1992; see also Boen et al. 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Shortly after the initial election results came in on the evening of November 3, most Democrats identified Joe Biden as the winner and perceived the outcome as legitimate.

    “Shortly after the initial election results came in on the evening of November 3, most Democrats identified Joe Biden as the winner and perceived the outcome as legitimate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For Republicans, the proportions saying they do not believe the election result was legitimate or identify Biden as the winner hover around 50%.

    “For Republicans, these proportions hover around 50%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    As President Trump's attempts to overturn the election became more aggressive in early December, more Democrats expressed a willingness to engage in radical violent action aimed at the state.

    “Fourth, as President Trump's attempts to overturn the election became more aggressive in early December, more Democrats expressed a willingness to engage in radical violent action aimed at the state.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Fewer voters in the aftermath of the 2020 election saw the outcome as legitimate compared to the 2000 election, even though Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by a comfortable margin in both the Electoral College and the popular vote.

    “In contrast, fewer voters in the aftermath of the 2020 election saw the outcome as legitimate, even though Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by a comfortable margin in both the Electoral College and the popular vote.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Voters who identify as independent or members of other parties increasingly accepted the legitimacy of a Biden win as the results came in from different states, but again, this proportion plateaued.

    “Voters who identify as independent or members of other parties increasingly accepted the legitimacy of a Biden win as the results came in from different states, but again, this proportion plateaued.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Roughly one in four Americans say that they do not believe the election result was legitimate or identify Joe Biden as the winner.

    “Roughly one in four Americans say that they do not believe the election result was legitimate or identify Joe Biden as the winner.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    When it was unclear whether attempts to overturn the results of the election would work, many of those who did not support Trump expressed support for radical violence aimed at attacking the state apparatus.

    “In turn, when it was unclear whether attempts to overturn the results of the election would work, many of those who did not support Trump expressed support for radical violence aimed at attacking the state apparatus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Identification with Trump dropped by 0.28 points just after the Capitol insurrection and then rebounded shortly thereafter.

    “This obscures some important temporal variation, including the noticeable drop in identification (-0.28 points) with Trump just after the Capitol insurrection and then a rebound in identification with him shortly thereafter.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The 5.7 percentage point effect is in line with and smaller than a similar conjoint experiment independently implemented by Bright Light Watch (2021) a week after ours was completed as well as one conducted by Noble and Carlson (N.d.) a year after the election.

    “This effect is in line with and is smaller than a similar conjoint experiment independently implemented by Bright Light Watch (2021) a week after ours was completed as well as one conducted by Noble and Carlson (N.d.) a year after the election.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bright Light Watch (2021)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Noble and Carlson (N.d.)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Our study systematically documents that roughly one-fourth of the country and half of the Republican Party rank and file say that they buy into the idea that the election was stolen from President Trump.

    “Our study systematically documents a new feature of American political life: roughly one-fourth of the country and half of the Republican Party rank and file say that they buy into the idea that the election was stolen from President Trump.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    We observe higher levels of support for radical action among partisans and a noticeable increase in support for radical action against the state among Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the election.

    “We observe higher levels of support for radical action among partisans and a noticeable increase in support for radical action against the state among Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the election.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    These relationships hold for both Republican and Independent voters, although they are more pronounced among Republican respondents.

    “These relationships hold for both Republican and Independent voters, although they are more pronounced among Republican respondents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The two measures have a phi coefficient of .663, indicating a positive association of moderate strength.

    “The two measures have a phi coefficient of .663,indicating a positive association of moderate strength.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Social media allow "fake news" to spread rapidly through partisan networks and "echo chambers."

    “Social media allow “fake news” to spread rapidly through partisan networks and “echo chambers” (Del Vicario et al. 2016;Guess and Lyons 2020), and lies about politics are more likely to spread than the truth (Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Del Vicario et al. 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Guess and Lyons 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A cornerstone assumption in American free speech jurisprudence is that in a "marketplace of ideas," truth wins out over falsehood.

    “A cornerstone assumption in American free speech jurisprudence is that in a “marketplace of ideas,” truth wins out over falsehood (Brazeal 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brazeal 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Such claims are uncommon in consolidated democracies, making Donald Trump's blatant lies all the more noteworthy and abnormal.

    “Such claims are uncommon in consolidated democracies, making Donald Trump's blatant lies all the more noteworthy and abnormal (Anderson et al. 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Anderson et al. 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even established democracies are fragile, and the strategic decisions made by elites have potentially dire consequences.

    “Even established democracies are fragile, and the strategic decisions made by elites have potentially dire consequences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Based on this estimate, as well as the data from the hypothetical scenarios shown in table 1, we would have expected about 585 of those voters to have come around by Inauguration Day, yielding an overall acceptance rate of the Biden win among Republican voters at around 76%.

    “Based on this estimate, as well as the data from the hypothetical scenarios shown in table 1, we would have expected about 585 of those voters to have come around by Inauguration Day, yielding an overall acceptance rate of the Biden win among Republican voters at around 76%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings raise concerns about the fragility of American democracy.

    “These findings raise concerns about the fragility of American democracy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Black voters are slightly overrepresented in the sample.

    “Black voters are slightly overrepresented.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Exposure to regime messaging dissuades dissent and sends a strong signal that the government can maintain order.

    “As Huang (2015) shows, exposure to this sort of messaging does not necessarily increase support of the regime, but it does dissuade dissent and send a strong signal that the government can maintain order.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Huang 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many democracies are experiencing an increase in polarization and the loosening of the universal commitment to democratic norms.

    “Many democracies are experiencing an increase in polarization and the loosening of the universal commitment to democratic norms (Przeworski 2019), stimulating studies of the conditions that foster “democratic backsliding” (Bermeo 2016;Carey et al. 2019;Gandhi 2019;Graham and Svolik 2020;Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018;Svolik 2019;Waldner and Lust 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Przeworski 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    We observe many of these dynamics in the contemporary Republican Party, both at the elite and mass levels, and show how a big lie can be used strategically by a charismatic leader to capture a party and push it in an authoritarian direction.

    “We observe many of these dynamics in the contemporary Republican Party, both at the elite and mass levels, and show how a big lie can be used strategically by a charismatic leader to capture a party and push it in an authoritarian direction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample matches the population of registered voters with respect to turnout, gender, and partisanship, but it skews younger and more educated than the population.

    “The sample matches the population of registered voters with respect to turnout, gender, and partisanship, but it skews younger and more educated than the population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Given that the RIS taps a willingness to engage in state-targeted violent action, it makes sense that younger men would be more likely to contemplate such behavior.

    “Given that the RIS taps a willingness to engage in state-targeted violent action, it makes sense that younger men would be more likely to contemplate such behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    People are behaving 'as if' they believe and choosing to 'live within the lie.'

    “To borrow from the authoritarian politics literature, people are behaving”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Havel 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wedeen 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Radicalism Intention Scale (RIS) assesses a respondent's readiness to participate in violent or illegal political action against the legal authorities to achieve their political goals.

    “The ELTS core questionnaire included the Radicalism Intention Scale (RIS), which assesses a respondent's readiness to participate in violent or illegal political action against the legal authorities to achieve their political goals (Moskalenko and McCauley 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moskalenko and McCauley 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The conjoint experiment's design is heavy-handed because the text about the candidate's stance on the election is the only policy stance, which may prime respondents to think about that dimension more than they otherwise would.

    “First, the design is a bit heavy-handed in that the text about the candidate's stance on the election is the only policy stance.It stands out from the demographic and professional attributes on the survey and perhaps primes respondents to think about that dimension more than they otherwise would.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Voters could accept the big lie and deny the election loss altogether, rejecting the failure and preserving their self-concept.

    “Alternatively, they could accept the big lie and simply deny the election loss altogether, rejecting the failure and preserving their self-concept (Boen et al. 2002;Hirt et al. 1992;Lyons et al. 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Boen et al. 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hirt et al. 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lyons et al. 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Across the 40 days of our study, acceptance of the big lie was pervasive, sticky, and consequential.

    “Across the 40 days of our study, acceptance of this big lie was pervasive, sticky, and consequential.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings show how the big lie could be a polarizing issue among Republican voters and how potential candidates must navigate substantial uncertainty, because they might not know the distribution of the two types in their districts.

    “These findings show how the big lie could be a polarizing issue among Republican voters and how potential candidates must navigate substantial uncertainty, because they might not know the distribution of the two types in their districts (Broockman and Skovron 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Broockman and Skovron 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The conjoint experiment did not include a third option whereby the candidate declines to say who won the election at all.

    “Second, our conjoint experiment could have included a third option, whereby the candidate declines to say who won the election at all.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Partisan political violence is tightly woven into US history from the American Revolution through the Civil War and Jim Crow eras.

    “Partisan political violence is tightly woven into US history from the American Revolution through the Civil War and Jim Crow eras (Kalmoe 2020), and the 2020 election may have caused many Republicans to justify using violence to prevent Joe Biden from being elected (Bright Line Watch 2020;Mason and Kalmoe 2021;Pennycook and Rand 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kalmoe 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    After observing their team win, fans have higher levels of self-esteem and enhanced performance on certain cognitive tasks.

    “In a related set of experiments, Hirt et al. (1992) show that, after observing their team win, fans have higher levels of self-esteem and enhanced performance on certain cognitive tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hirt et al. (1992)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many Republican lawmakers at the federal and state levels have embraced the big lie, while most stay silent about what they believe.

    “Many Republican lawmakers at the federal and state levels have embraced the big lie (Rutenberg, Corasaniti, and Feuer, 2021), while most stay silent about what they believe (”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rutenberg, Corasaniti, and Feuer, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites "Where Republicans in Congress" 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    Avoiding the issue of the big lie is a form of self-censorship.

    “This is a form of self-censorship (Shen and Truex 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shen and Truex 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    The RIS is related to, but distinct from, measures of partisan violence.

    “The RIS is related to, but distinct from, measures of partisan violence, such as Kalmoe and Mason's (2021) measure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kalmoe and Mason's (2021)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Disputes over election legitimacy in consolidating democracies sometimes lead partisans of the losing side to attempt to overthrow the government through violent means.

    “Disputes over election legitimacy in consolidating democracies sometimes lead partisans of the losing side to attempt to overthrow the government through violent means (Przeworski 1991;2005), and we included the RIS on the survey because it focuses on one's willingness to target state agents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Przeworski 1991;2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the Three (Football) Field Study, students had a greater tendency to wear their school's apparel after a football team victory than a defeat and were more likely to use the word 'we' when describing a win than a loss.

    “In the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cialdini et al. (1976)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    As a result, it is difficult for Republican leaders to take a stand against the big lie and requires them to at least pretend that the foundation of American democracy-its electoral apparatus-is corrupt and broken.

    “As a result, it makes it difficult for Republican leaders to take a stand against the big lie and requires them to at least pretend that the foundation of American democracy-its electoral apparatus-is corrupt and broken.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The ELTS questionnaire included the 10-question battery for the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale.

    “The ELTS questionnaire included the 10-question battery for the Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rosenberg (1965)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    To ensure some balance in the data, quotas on gender and partisanship were instituted in the collection process.

    “To ensure some balance in the data, we instituted quotas on gender and partisanship in the collection process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    If claims of fraud become a regular feature of American elections in the future, they could stoke violence and undermine support for the democratic system.

    “Fourth, if claims of fraud become a regular feature of American elections in the future, they could stoke violence and undermine support for the democratic system (Albertson and Guiler 2020;Kingzette et al. 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Albertson and Guiler 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kingzette et al. 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is no widespread agreement on when a democratic system becomes 'consolidated.'

    “Although there is no widespread agreement on when a democratic system becomes”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schedler 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Trump identification index was adapted from Huddy, Mason, and Aarøe's (2015) measure of expressive partisan identity and was constructed by taking the mean agreement score on a 5-point scale on two questions.

    “This index was adapted from Huddy, Mason, and Aarøe's (2015) measure of expressive partisan identity and was constructed by taking the mean agreement score on a 5-point scale on two questions:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Huddy, Mason, and Aarøe's (2015)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisecitation

    The 'two-turnover test' presumes democracy to be established after two uncontroversial alternations in power among political parties.

    “The”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moehler and Lindberg 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The big lie provides a rationale for limiting voting rights and for enacting 'reforms' that would make it easier to jettison ballots, in turn accelerating democratic backsliding in states controlled by Republican leaders who either believe or feel pressure to behave as if they believe the big lie.

    “Second, it provides a rationale for limiting voting rights and for enacting”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grumbach 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.
51 of 51

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

    “Candidates who bucked the lie stated that they would have voted to certify the election for Joe Biden”
    “the big lie”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Authoritarian regimes typically feature a charismatic leader who creates blatant falsehoods to justify his hold on power and requires everyone to behave as if those lies are true.

    “This echoes a dynamic typically observed in authoritarian regimes, in which a charismatic leader creates blatant falsehoods to justify his hold on power and requires everyone to behave as if those lies are true.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Donald Trump did not step aside and pledge support to his opponent once the results were no longer in doubt to any reasonable observer.

    “Donald Trump eschewed the long democratic tradition of stepping aside and pledging support to his opponent once the results were no longer in doubt to any reasonable observer.”
3 of 3

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?

  • Trump supporters reward politicians who perpetuated misinformation about election fraud.

    “Such supporters also reward politicians who perpetuated misinformation about election fraud (Arceneaux & Truex, 2023).”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Arceneaux & Truex, 2023

  • If MS effects using essay primes are only effective in these samples under those conditions, the explanatory power of this method may be more limited than is often presented.

    “Although this slice of the population can disproportionately inflict harm when faced with perceived threat [112–115], if MS effects using essay primes are only effective in these samples under those conditions, the explanatory power of this method may be more limited than is often presented.”

    From Not so terrifying after all? A set of failed replications of the mortality salience effects of Terror Management Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [115]

    The cited paper’s sections on violent political action and its conjoint experiment do not discuss mortality-salience (MS) essay primes or the explanatory limits of that method. I searched for mortality salience, essay primes, and perceived threat. In the printed sentence, the citation also precedes the quoted claim rather than following it. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Capitol insurrection is dated January 6 and January 7

    Minor

    The figure notes date the Capitol insurrection January 7, whereas the text refers to the same events as occurring on January 6.

  • Self-esteem results are attributed to the conjoint figure

    Minor

    The text directs readers to the bottom panel of figure 7 for self-esteem, but figure 7 is captioned as the conjoint experiment. The self-esteem figure is captioned figure 6.

  • Six weighting characteristics are called five

    Minor

    The weighting scheme lists six characteristics, but the next sentence calls them five.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Rosenberg, 1965, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE): Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Measures Package, 61, 18
  2. Grumbach, 2021, Working Paper
  3. Kalmoe, 2021, Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, What It Means for Democracy
  4. Levitsky, 2018, How Democracies Die

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Arceneaux, K., & Truex, R.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives on Politics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2022-03-29
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
863-879
ISSN
  • 1537-5927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0986
DOI
10.1017/s1537592722000901
OpenAlex
W4220943511
Semantic Scholar
5028f365d3ce3dc26f4ffbc31d48ca3ba64bc4de
Cited by
97
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2
FWCI
63.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Perspectives on Politics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Princeton University
  • Temple University
  • University Center for Human Values, Princeton University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
Donald Trump, election fraud claims, 2020 US presidential election, transfer of power, public opinion, political violence, Democratic voters, Republican voters, electoral incentives, democratic fragility

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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