Democratic Norms, Social Projection, and False Consensus in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Author(s):  
Aaron C. Weinschenk ◽  
Costas Panagopoulos ◽  
Sander van der Linden
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316802095985
Author(s):  
Bethany Albertson ◽  
Kimberly Guiler

Under what conditions does conspiratorial rhetoric about election rigging change attitudes? We investigated this question using a survey experiment the day before and the morning of the 2016 US presidential election. We hypothesized that exposure to conspiratorial rhetoric about election interference would significantly heighten negative emotions (anxiety, anger) and undermine support for democratic institutions. Specifically, we expected that Democrats who read conspiratorial information about interference by the Russians in US elections, and that Republicans who read conspiratorial information about interference by the Democratic Party in US elections would express less support for key democratic norms. Our evidence largely supported our hypotheses. Americans exposed to a story claiming the election would be tampered with expressed less confidence in democratic institutions, and these effects were moderated by prior partisan beliefs about the actors most likely responsible for election meddling.


Author(s):  
Alexander P. Landry ◽  
Elliott Ihm ◽  
Spencer Kwit ◽  
Jonathan W. Schooler

Author(s):  
Kenneth M. Roberts

Although Donald Trump’s brand of exclusionary right-wing populism finds parallels in Europe and other parts of the world, his presidential election was a singular triumph for this type of populism in a major Western democracy. Societal resistance to Trump’s presidency is heavily conditioned by the grafting of his populist leadership onto the ideological agenda of a Republican Party transformed by the steady infusion of right-wing movement currents into its ranks. In a context of acute partisan polarization and increasingly flagrant transgressions of basic democratic norms and practices, this Resistance is necessarily a multilayered process—that is, it combines mobilization around policy issues with varied forms of “metaresistance” aimed at safeguarding democratic checks and balances.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630511984363
Author(s):  
Gina Masullo Chen ◽  
Martin J. Riedl ◽  
Jeremy L. Shermak ◽  
Jordon Brown ◽  
Ori Tenenboim

This study examined how comments posted on news stories about the 2016 presidential election reflected the disruptive discourses of the campaign itself. A quantitative content analysis and a qualitative textual analysis of user-generated comments ( N = 1,881) showed that while incivility was less frequent than impoliteness, overall there was ample evidence of the violation of democratic norms of political talk in these comment streams. Findings also showed that comments posted on stories in The New York Times were less uncivil than those posted on either Fox News or USA TODAY stories. However, comments posted on USA TODAY stories were more impolite than those posted on stories on the Times’ or Fox News’ websites. Norms of political talk that ascribe to some aspects of deliberative discourse were more frequent in comments posted later in the campaign, except among comments posted on Fox News stories.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Landry

The present research identifies social psychological factors threatening American democracy. Namely, we identify metadehumanization, the perception that another group dehumanizes your own group, as a robust predictor of Americans’ support for anti-democratic norms. Both immediately before and after the 2020 US Presidential Election, American political partisans perceived that their political opponents dehumanized them more than was actually the case. Partisans’ exaggerated metadehumanization inspired reciprocal dehumanization of the other side, which in turn predicted their support for using anti-democratic means to hurt the opposing party. Along with extending past work demonstrating metadehumanization’s corrosive effect on democratic integrity, the present research also contributes novel insights into our understanding of this process. We found the most politically engaged partisans held the most exaggerated, and therefore most inaccurate, levels of metadehumanization. Moreover, despite the socially progressive and egalitarian outlook traditionally associated with liberalism, we found that the most liberal Democrats actually expressed the greatest dehumanization Republicans. This suggests that political ideology can at times be as much an expression of social identity as a reflection of deliberative policy considerations, and demonstrates the need to develop more constructive outlets for social identity maintenance.


Author(s):  
Richard Johnston ◽  
Michael G. Hagen ◽  
Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document