Cited by 3Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsRisk Perception and Management

Partisan risk tolerance for in‐person voting during the pandemic: Survey evidence from the U.S. 2020 election

Whitt, Sam, Yanus, Alixandra B, McDonald, Brian, Kifer, Martin·2024·International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Abstract

To what extent will people turn out to vote under high-risk, high-cost circumstances? We examine the impact of risk tolerance on willingness to vote in person in the U.S. 2020 election during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Our results are based on pre- and postelection surveys that indicated partisan Republicans were more willing to vote in person than Democrats or Independents, who preferred voting by mail. Using behavioral measures of risk-taking, we find that Republican in-person voting is predicted by greater generalized and pandemic-related risk tolerance compared with Democrats and nonpartisans. To explain risk tolerance, we employ prospect theory to illustrate how Republicans’ fear of electoral loss, alongside conservative elite and media efforts to downplay COVID-19 severity, likely influenced Republican readiness to assume risks of in-person voting during the pandemic. We urge scholars to consider the implications of risk tolerance for models of electoral behavior under high-risk and high-cost voting conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ijpor/edad046

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Iyengar and Westwood (2015) use trust and dictator games to show people discriminate against those from other parties more than they do toward people of different races.

    “Iyengar and Westwood (2015) use trust and dictator games to show people discriminate against those from other parties more than they do toward people of different races (also see Carlin & Love, 2013, 2018;Whitt et al., 2024).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Whitt et al., 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whitt, S., Yanus, A. B., McDonald, B., & Kifer, M.
Affiliations
High Point University (US)
Corresponding author
Whitt, Sam
Venue
International Journal of Public Opinion Research
Published
2024-01-03
Volume
36
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0954-2892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6909
OpenAlex
W4390600835
Cited by
3
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Public Opinion Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
High Point University’s Survey Research Center
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
risk tolerance, in-person voting, mail-in voting, 2020 US presidential election, COVID-19 pandemic, Republican voters, prospect theory

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