The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms
Open accessAbstract
Democratic stability depends on citizens on the losing side accepting election outcomes. Can rhetoric by political leaders undermine this norm? Using a panel survey experiment, we evaluate the effects of exposure to multiple statements from former president Donald Trump attacking the legitimacy of the 2020 US presidential election. Although exposure to these statements does not measurably affect general support for political violence or belief in democracy, it erodes trust and confidence in elections and increases belief that the election is rigged among people who approve of Trump's job performance. These results suggest that rhetoric from political elites can undermine respect for critical democratic norms among their supporters.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“repeated exposure to President Trump's claims of electoral fraud in 2020 led Trump supporters to lose trust and confidence in elections (Clayton et al., 2021)”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Clayton et al., 2021
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate
Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/93.3.491 · Cited by 3,228
Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda
Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592704040472 · Cited by 3,184
THE NATURE OF BELIEF SYSTEMS IN MASS PUBLICS
Converse, P. E. (2004) · Aarhus University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/jj.35529187.18 · Cited by 2,497
Lakens, D. (2017) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617697177 · Cited by 2,161
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
Freeman, A. M. (2001) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.v62n1112 · Cited by 1,667
The Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market∗Preprint
Zeckhauser, R. J. (2016) · Cited by 1,454
The Generalizability of Survey Experiments
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Jeremy Freese, A. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2015.19 · Cited by 1,248
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: 2
- 10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9 · DOI
- C. Kennedy , Assessing the Risks to Online Polls from Bogus Respondents (Pew Research Center, 2020).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
Support for liberal democracy in times of crisis: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic
Arceneaux, K., Bakker, B. N., HOBOLT, S. B., & Vries, C. E. D. (2025) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1017/s1475676525100145 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Clayton, K., Davis, N. T., Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Ryan, T. J., & Wood, T. J.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- University of Alabama (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- George Washington University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Clayton, Katherine
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2021-06-02
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 23
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC8201918
- OpenAlex
- W3164851731
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 114.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Keywords
- elite rhetoric, democratic norms, 2020 US presidential election, Donald Trump, electoral legitimacy, public trust in elections
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Language, Leadership, Politics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sociology, United States, Violence
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
