In a new paper in the Election Law Journal, PRL researchers look more closely at who election skeptics are and why they are skeptical. Using a nationally representative survey from around the 2022 midterm election (N = 5,244) and beyond (N = 77,325), we show that skeptics are demographically closer to the broader electorate than not, and the self-reported underpinnings of skepticism are more mundane than conspiratorial. Over half of skeptics claim they are skeptical because of how elections are run and nearly one-in-five skeptics claim they are skeptical because of the other party’s performance in recent elections, which we…

The scholarly literature suggests that, as elections approach, political tensions intensify, and, as they pass, tensions return to pre-election levels. Using a massive new dataset of 66,000 interviews (cross-sectional and panel), we find that animosities are durable and consistent over the course of the 2022 US election. Individuals with more exposure to the campaign tend to be more polarized, and this sentiment endures post-election. Contrary to expectations, partisans who voted for the winning candidate are no less polarized post-election than those on the losing side. In closing, we note that the durability of polarization has important implications not only for…

New in PNAS Nexus by researchers Nicholas C. Dias, Laurits F. Aarslew, Kristian Vrede Skaaning Frederiksen, Yphtach Lelkes, Lea Pradella, and Sean J. Westwood: Correcting misperceptions of partisan opponents is not effective at treating democratic ills. Many warn that the United States is on the brink of democratic collapse, because partisan animosity, support for partisan violence, and support for undemocratic practices are on the rise. Quelling some fears, scholars have offered interventions that use messages to correct misperceptions about citizens’ partisan opponents (the “out-party”). In this article, we provide evidence that the effects of these interventions are not as robust or consistent as hoped. First,…

A few elected officials spend their time creating conflict, and it’s a problem for democracy  Americans of both parties are increasingly concerned about democratic backsliding and a loss of trust in our institutions. They have a negative view of Congress, with only a quarter expressing a positive opinion of the chambers, according to recent Pew data. This pessimistic sentiment is not surprising, as we are constantly exposed to news of partisan gridlock and politicians blaming the other side. The reality is that we hear the same clips of the same lawmakers replayed by the media, but we know very little…

At the Polarization Research Lab we take the pulse of American democracy every week by interviewing 1,000 Americans. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say we are more divided as a nation than ever and a quarter see the other side as evil or bad. We also track communications and social media from elected officials in real time so we’re able to identify the connection between the attitudes of elected officials and the attitudes of citizens. There is a clear pattern: When politicians become more negative, citizens become more negative. We’ve created a dashboard that allows Americans to figure out what their…

In a new working paper, we examine whether the attempted assassination of Donald Trump led to an escalation in support for political violence among U.S. partisans. While some politicians pleaded for Americans to unite against political violence and “turn down the temperature” on partisan hostility, others continued to engage in inflammatory rhetoric and blame. Using a national survey in the field at the time of the assassination attempt, we take the temperature of America’s partisans before and after the event. We exploit the natural variation induced by the assassination attempt and large daily survey coverage (pre-attempt: 3,572; post-attempt: 703; and…