No abstract

In the experiments, each candidate was described using eight characteristics: name, partisanship, positions on policies toward taxation and racial discrimination, and four positions reflecting democratic values. The characteristics of the candidates were randomly generated from the following sets of alternatives:• Name (gender and race/ethnicity): Each candidate was assigned a name from a list of 123 names designed to signal both gender (man or woman) and race/ethnicity (either white, black, or Hispanic) (see Butler and Homola 2017). • Partisanship: Democrat or Republican. • Policy positions: The surveys included two attributes reflecting salient party differences over policy-one on taxation, the other on racial discrimination (see Bartels 2018). -Taxation * Wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. * Wants to lower taxes on everyone, including the wealthy. -Racial discrimination * Believes the government should do more to prevent discrimination against racial minorities. * Believes discrimination against racial minorities is less of a problem now than in the past. • Democratic values: The surveys included four attributes related to core democratic values. -Judicial deference * Said elected officials must obey the courts even when they think that the decisions are wrong. * Said elected officials should not be bound by court decisions they regard as politicized. -Impartial investigations * Said law enforcement investigations of politicians and their associates should be free of partisan influence. * Said elected officials should supervise law enforcement investigations of politicians and their associates. -Compromise * Promises to work for compromise across party lines. * Promises to stand up to the other party.A-1 * Opposes new legislation to require voters to show state-issued ID at the polls. * Supports new legislation to require voters to show state-issued ID at the polls.

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.

No abstract

In recent years, concerns about misinformation in the media have skyrocketed. President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that various news outlets are disseminating ‘fake news’ for political purposes. But when the information contained in mainstream media news reports provides no clear clues about its truth value or any indication of a partisan slant, do people rely on the congeniality of the news outlet to judge whether the information is true or false? In a survey experiment, we presented partisans (Democrats and Republicans) and ideologues (liberals and conservatives) with a news article excerpt that varied by source shown (CNN, Fox News, or no source) and content (true or false information), and measured their perceived accuracy of the information contained in the article. Our results suggest that the participants do not blindly judge the content of articles based on the news source, regardless of their own partisanship and ideology. Contrary to prevailing views on the polarization and politicization of news outlets, as well as on voters' growing propensity to engage in ‘partisan motivated reasoning,’ source cues are not as important as the information itself for partisans on both sides of the aisle.