The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract Around the world, citizens are voting away the democracies they claim to cherish. Why are they voting against their own values? In this article, we provide evidence that this behavior is driven in part by fear that their opponents might dismantle democracy first. In an observational study (N=1,973), we find that US partisans who most fear the other party’s willingness to subvert democracy are also those most willing to support subverting democracy themselves. In an experimental study (N=2,543), we use an intervention to reduce these often exaggerated fears. With these fears reduced, partisans become more committed to upholding democratic norms. They also become more willing to vote against candidates of their own party who break these norms. The findings suggest that we can foster democratic stability by strengthening trust in opposing partisans’ commitment to democracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In the contemporary United States, partisans vastly misperceive outpartisans' antidemocratic attitudes and support for partisan violence.”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Braley et al. (2023)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Richards, J. W. (1915) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.42.1074.161 · Cited by 13,941
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400820740 · Cited by 12,946
mediation : R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis
Tingley, D. H., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L. J., & Imai, K. (2014) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v059.i05 · Cited by 4,216
A general approach to causal mediation analysis.
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0020761 · Cited by 4,143
Rationalist explanations for war
Fearon, J. D. (1995) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300033324 · Cited by 3,995
The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · Cited by 3,603
Bermeo, N. (2016) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0012 · Cited by 2,331
The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of the Law
Weingast, B. R. V. (1997) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2952354 · Cited by 1,760
A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?
Lührmann, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2019) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029 · Cited by 1,528 · cited 1×
“Consistent with the theory, aspiring autocrats during the current “third wave of autocratization” 62 have accused their opposition of subverting democracy in countries throughout the world 3,6,63,64 .”
GRAHAM, M. H., & SVOLIK, M. W. (2020) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055420000052 · Cited by 1,044
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Broockman, D., Kalla, J. & Westwood, S. Does affective polarization undermine democratic norms or accountability? Maybe not. Amer. Jour. Pol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.1271 (2022). · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M., Chu, J., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/y79u5 · Cited by 174
Self-citationMegastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J. Y., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L. G., et al. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh4764 · Cited by 174
Self-citationThe Normalization of the Radical Right
Valentim, V. (2024) · doi:10.1093/9780198926740.001.0001 · Cited by 146
Uncommon and nonpartisan: Antidemocratic attitudes in the American public
Holliday, D. E., Iyengar, S., Yphtach Lelkes, B., & Westwood, S. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2313013121 · Cited by 61
Misperceptions about out-partisans’ democratic values may erode democracy
Pasek, M. H., Ankori-Karlinsky, L.-O., Levy-Vene, A., & Moore‐Berg, S. L. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-19616-4 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Braley, A., Lenz, G. S., Adjodah, D., Rahnama, H., & Pentland, A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- MIT Media Lab (US)
- Corresponding author
- Braley, Alia
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2023-05-22
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1282-1293
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4377225348
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 12
- FWCI
- 98.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of California Berkeley (NA)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (NA)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Keywords
- democratic backsliding, democratic norms, partisanship, democratic stability, authoritarianism, voting behavior
- MeSH terms
- Democracy, Humans, Politics
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
