Uncommon and nonpartisan: Antidemocratic attitudes in the American public.

Democratic regimes flourish only when there is broad acceptance of an extensive set of norms and values. In the United States, fundamental democratic norms have recently come under threat from prominent Republican officials. We investigate whether this antidemocratic posture has spread from the elite level to rank-and-file partisans. Exploiting data from a massive repeated cross-sectional and panel survey ([Formula: see text] = 45,095 and 5,231 respectively), we find that overwhelming majorities of the public oppose violations of democratic norms, and virtually nobody supports partisan violence. This bipartisan consensus remains unchanged over time despite high levels of affective polarization and exposure to divisive elite rhetoric during the 2022 political campaign. Additionally, we find no evidence that elected officials' practice of election denialism encourages their constituents to express antidemocratic attitudes. Overall, these results suggest that the clear and present threat to American democracy comes from unilateral actions by political elites that stand in contrast to the views of their constituents. In closing, we consider the implications of the stark disconnect between the behavior of Republican elites and the attitudes of Republican voters.

Current research overstates American support for political violence.

SignificanceRecent political events show that members of extreme political groups support partisan violence, and survey evidence supposedly shows widespread public support. We show, however, that, after accounting for survey-based measurement error, support for partisan violence is far more limited. Prior estimates overstate support for political violence because of random responding by disengaged respondents and because of a reliance on hypothetical questions about violence in general instead of questions on specific acts of political violence. These same issues also cause the magnitude of the relationship between previously identified correlates and partisan violence to be overstated. As policy makers consider interventions designed to dampen support for violence, our results provide critical information about the magnitude of the problem.

Persistent polarization: The unexpected durability of political animosity around US elections.

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 our understanding of the scope of partisan divides but also for efforts designed to ameliorate polarization.

Effects of a US Supreme Court ruling to restrict abortion rights.

Previous research focused on popular US Supreme Court rulings expanding rights; however, less is known about rulings running against prevailing public opinion and restricting rights. We examine the impact of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion, which overturned Roe v. Wade's (1973) constitutional protection of abortion rights. A three-wave survey panel (5,489 interviews) conducted before the leak of the drafted Dobbs opinion, after the leak, and after the official opinion release, and cross-sectional data from these three time points (10,107 interviews) show that the ruling directly influenced views about the constitutional legality of abortion and fetal viability. However, personal opinions were not directly influenced and perceived social norms shifted away from the ruling, meaning that individuals perceived greater public support for abortion. We argue that extensive coverage of opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade supported this shift. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization also caused large changes, polarized by party identification, in opinions about the Supreme Court.

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, we use panel data ( n = 9,810 ) to show that perceptions of the out-party are highly variable. This suggests that these perceptions are weakly held and thus unlikely to be a significant cause of hostile attitudes. The oscillation of perceptions over time also suggests that, for many, any effect of corrections would likely be overwhelmed in just 1 month. Second, in a meta-analysis of 67 statistical tests from 12 studies in eight papers, we document that current evidence on the efficacy of corrections is weak. Third and finally, in pre-registered experiments ( n = 2,846 ), we find that changing Americans' perceptions of the out-party's demographics, policy attitudes, and support for undemocratic practices has no consistent effect on partisan animosity, support for partisan violence, or support for undemocratic practices. These observations suggest that correcting misperceptions of the out-party is not a panacea for our democratic ills.