Cited by 205Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsSocial Media and Politics

American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti‐Establishment Orientations

Uscinski, Joseph E., Enders, Adam M., Seelig, Michelle I., Klofstad, Casey A., Funchion, John R., Everett, Caleb, Wuchty, Stefan, Premaratne, Kamal +1 more·2021·American Journal of Political Science

Abstract

Contemporary political ills at the mass behavior level (e.g., outgroup aggression, conspiracy theories) are often attributed to increasing polarization and partisan tribalism. We theorize that many such problems are less the product of left‐right orientations than an orthogonal “anti‐establishment” dimension of opinion dominated by conspiracy, populist, and Manichean orientations. Using two national surveys from 2019 and 2020, we find that this dimension of opinion is correlated with several antisocial psychological traits, the acceptance of political violence, and time spent on extremist social media platforms. It is also related to support for populist candidates, such as Trump and Sanders, and beliefs in misinformation and conspiracy theories. While many inherently view politics as a conflict between left and right, others see it as a battle between “the people” and a corrupt establishment. Our findings demonstrate an urgent need to expand the traditional conceptualization of mass opinion beyond familiar left‐right identities and affective orientations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajps.12616

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • An antiestablishment scale correlates with acceptance of political violence, time spent on extremist social media platforms, and belief in misinformation.

    “They show that it correlates with the acceptance of political violence, time spent on extremist social media platforms, and belief in misinformation.”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Uscinski et al. (2021)

  • Conspiracy beliefs can contribute to backsliding by leading people to accept misinformation and develop antiestablishment orientations.

    “Conspiracy beliefs can contribute to backsliding by leading people to accept misinformation and develop antiestablishment orientations (Uscinski et al., 2021).”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Uscinski et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uscinski, J. E., Enders, A. M., Seelig, M. I., Klofstad, C. A., Funchion, J. R., Everett, C., Wuchty, S., Premaratne, K., & Murthi, M. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Uscinski, Joseph E.
Venue
American Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-07-15
Volume
65
Issue
4
Pages
877-895
ISSN
  • 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5907
OpenAlex
W3183527329
Cited by
205
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 6
FWCI
109.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
left-right ideology, political polarization, conspiracy theories, populism, antisocial personality traits, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, misinformation beliefs, mass opinion

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