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
Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005) · doi:10.1093/0199276382.001.0001 · Cited by 848
How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It
Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12357 · Cited by 800 · cited 1×
“As a result, we greatly reduce the risk of posttreatment bias due to differential attrition between conditions, which otherwise plagues survey experiments of this type (38).”
BackgroundSelf-citationNorms in the Wild: How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms
Bicchieri, C. (2016) · Cited by 677
Follow the Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians' Policies and Performance
Lenz, G. (2012) · Cited by 603
Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy
Anderson, C. J. (2005) · Cited by 571
Hudson, P. (2011) · British Journal of Guidance and Counselling · doi:10.1080/03069885.2010.550798 · Cited by 526
Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach
Coppock, A. (2019) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2018.10 · Cited by 515
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. F. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003263562-14 · Cited by 442
Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects
Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00582.x · Cited by 360
Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does
Joyner, C., & Lane, R. E. (1963) · The Western Political Quarterly · doi:10.2307/444784 · Cited by 284
Political Ideology: Why The American Common Man Believes What He Does.
Lerner, D., & Lane, R. E. (1964) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2094652 · Cited by 283
Unwritten Rules: Informal Institutions in Established Democracies
Azari, J. R., & Smith, J. K. (2012) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592711004890 · Cited by 281
Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity
Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. S. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Political Science · doi:10.1017/xps.2014.7 · Cited by 251
Social proximity and the erosion of norm compliance
Bicchieri, C., Dimant, E., Gächter, S., & Nosenzo, D. (2021) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2021.11.012 · Cited by 214
Carey, J. M., Clayton, K., Helmke, G., Nyhan, B. J., Sanders, M. S., & Stokes, S. C. (2020) · Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2020.1790577 · Cited by 193
Self-citationSearching for Bright Lines in the Trump Presidency
Carey, J. M., Helmke, G., Nyhan, B., Sanders, M., & Stokes, S. (2019) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s153759271900001x · Cited by 159
Self-citationScandals and Congressional Elections in the Post-Watergate Era
Basinger, S. J. (2012) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912912451144 · Cited by 154
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-51 · Cited by 140
Mail-In Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation CampaignPreprint
Benkler, Y. R., Tilton, C., Etling, B., Roberts, H., Clark, J., Faris, R., Kaiser, J., & Schmitt, C. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3703701 · Cited by 114
Conspiracy theories, election rigging, and support for democratic norms
Albertson, B. L., & Guiler, K. (2020) · Research & Politics · doi:10.1177/2053168020959859 · Cited by 108
“It’s Largely a Rigged System”: Voter Confidence and the Winner Effect in 2016
Sinclair, B., Smith, S. S., & Tucker, P. (2018) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912918768006 · Cited by 101
Minnite, L. C. (2019) · Cornell University Press eBooks · doi:10.7591/9780801459061 · Cited by 87
Social Proximity and the Erosion of Norm CompliancePreprint
Bicchieri, C., Dimant, E., Gächter, S., & Nosenzo, D. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3730462 · Cited by 50
The Meanings of Democracy among Mass Publics
Davis, N. T., Goidel, K., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-020-02517-2 · Cited by 44
Self-citationSocial Proximity and the Erosion of Norm CompliancePreprint
Bicchieri, C., Dimant, E., Gächter, S., & Nosenzo, D. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3355028 · Cited by 42
Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 Presidential ElectionPreprint
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/szdgb · Cited by 40
Partisan Disagreements Arising from Rationalization of Common Information
Lauderdale, B. E. (2015) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.51 · Cited by 32
Identifying Media Effects Through Low-Cost, Multiwave Field Experiments
Gross, K., Porter, E. V., & Wood, T. (2018) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2018.1514447 · Cited by 15
Self-citation
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
Current research overstates American support for political violence
Westwood, S. J., Grimmer, J., Tyler, M., & Nall, C. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2116870119 · Cited by 221
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-citationCorrecting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence
Mernyk, J. S., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N., & Willer, R. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2116851119 · Cited by 146
The Normalization of the Radical Right
Valentim, V. (2024) · doi:10.1093/9780198926740.001.0001 · Cited by 146
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
