In the age of weaponized disinformation, the question for democracies is not merely who will win an election, but whether the outcome will be accepted as legitimate. To assess the challenge faced by U.S. electoral officials in convincing the public of the security of election procedure we conducted a survey experiment on a national sample of 4987 U.S. adults in the lead-up to the 2020 election. Subjects were exposed to claims about voter fraud as well as crisis communication counter-messaging attributed to election officials. We find that regardless of the messaging strategy, subjects were unmoved by the counter-messaging with partisanship being a clear predictor of increased skepticism towards election security. Our findings illustrate the difficulties election officials face in convincing the publics about election legitimacy and highlight the systemic dangers posed by electoral disinformation.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. W. (2018). Negative partisanship: Why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology, 39, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12479
2.
AhlquistJ. S.MayerK. R.JackmanS. (2014). Alien abduction and voter impersonation in the 2012 US general election: Evidence from a survey list experiment. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 13(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2013.0231
3.
AlbertsonB.GuilerK. (2020). Conspiracy theories, election rigging, and support for democratic norms. Research & Politics, 7(3), 205316802095985. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168020959859
4.
AlbuO. B.FlyverbomM. (2019). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 58(2), 268–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316659851
BailardC. S.PorterE.GrossK. (2022). Fact-checking Trump’s election lies can improve confidence in US elections: Experimental evidence. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
7.
BeaulieuE. (2014). From voter ID to party ID: How political parties affect perceptions of election fraud in the US. Electoral Studies, 35, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2014.03.003
8.
BenklerY.FarisR.RobertsH. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
9.
BenklerY.TiltonC.EtlingB.RobertsH.ClarkJ.FarisR.KaiserJ.SchmittC. (2020). Mail-in voter fraud: Anatomy of a disinformation campaign (pp. 2020–2026). Berkman Center Research Publication.
10.
BensonJ. F. (2016). State secretaries of state: Guardians of the democratic process. Routledge.
11.
BergerM.ChretienC.ConleyC.D’AmatoJ.Davis TaveraM.FehstC.FeinblumJ.KothariK.KreyA.KuzmaR.MaciasR.ManstedK.MillerH.NamJ.PerumalZ.PevarnekJ.SahaA.SpecterM.StarrS., et al. (2018). Defending digital democracy project: The state and local election cybersecurity playbook. Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
12.
BerlinskiN.DoyleM.GuessA. M.LevyG.LyonsB.MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2021). The effects of unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud on confidence in elections. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2021.18
13.
BoudreauC.MacKenzieS. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12054
14.
BovetA.MakseH. A. (2019). Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature Communications, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2
15.
BrandtzaegP. B.FølstadA. (2017). Trust and distrust in online fact-checking services. Communications of the ACM, 60(9), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122803
16.
BrashierN. M.PennycookG.BerinskyA. J.RandD. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(5), e2020043118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118
17.
BullockJ. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105, 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000165
18.
BundyJ.PfarrerM. D.ShortC. E.CoombsW. T. (2017). Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1661–1692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316680030
ChristensenL. T.CheneyG. (2015). Peering into transparency: Challenging ideals, proxies, and organizational practices. Communication Theory, 25(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12052
21.
ClaeysA. S.CaubergheV. (2014). What makes crisis response strategies work? The impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.10.005
22.
ClaytonK.BlairS.BusamJ. A.ForstnerS.GlanceJ.GreenG.KawataA.KovvuriA.MartinJ.MorganE.SandhuM.SangR.Scholz-BrightR.WelchA. T.WolffA. G.ZhouA.NyhanB. (2020). Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior, 42(4), 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0
23.
ClaytonK.DavisN. T.NyhanB.PorterE.RyanT. J.WoodT. J. (2021). Elite rhetoric can undermine democratic norms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(23), e2024125118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024125118
CohenG. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808
26.
CoombsT.HolladayS. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331802237233
27.
CoombsW. T. (2015). The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research. Business Horizons, 58(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.003
28.
CoppockA.McClellanO. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1), 205316801882217. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018822174
29.
CraftS.HeimK. (2008). Transparency in journalism: Meanings, merits, and risks. In The handbook of mass media ethics, pp. 231–242. Routledge.
30.
DruckmanJ.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000500
31.
CraigC.NgondoP. S.FlynnM. A. (2016). How firm is your digital handshake?: Mission statements and transparency. Public Relations Review, 42(4), 692–694.
EdelsonJ.AlduncinA.KrewsonC.SiejaJ. A.UscinskiJ. E. (2017). The effect of conspiratorial thinking and motivated reasoning on belief in election fraud. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 933–946. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917721061
34.
EndersA. M.UscinskiJ. E.KlofstadC. A.PremaratneK.SeeligM. I.WuchtyS.MurthiM. N.FunchionJ. R. (2021). The 2020 presidential election and beliefs about fraud: Continuity or change?Electoral Studies, 72, 102366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102366
35.
FreezeM.BaumgartnerM.BrunoP.GundersonJ. R.OlinJ.RossM. Q.SzafranJ. (2021). Fake claims of fake news: Political misinformation, warnings, and the tainted truth effect. Political Behavior, 43(4), 1433–1465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09597-3
36.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl008
37.
GuessA.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign.
38.
HaleK.BrownM. (2020). How we vote: Innovation in American elections. Georgetown University Press.
39.
HollandD.KrauseA.ProvencherJ.SeltzerT. (2018). Transparency tested: The influence of message features on public perceptions of organizational transparency. Public Relations Review, 44(2), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.12.002
40.
HollandD.SeltzerT.KochiginaA. (2021). Practicing transparency in a crisis: Examining the combined effects of crisis type, response, and message transparency on organizational perceptions. Public relations review, 47(2), 102017.
41.
HolmanM. R.LayJ. C. (2019). They see dead people (voting): Correcting misperceptions about voter fraud in the 2016 US presidential election. Journal of Political Marketing, 18(1–2), 31–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2018.1478656
42.
HumprechtE. (2020). How do they debunk “fake news”? A cross-national comparison of transparency in fact checks. Digital Journalism, 8(3), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1691031
43.
JamesO. (2011). Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq057
44.
JeritJ.BarabasJ. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381612000187
45.
JinY.LiuB. F.AustinL. L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on publics’ crisis responses. Communication Research, 41(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211423918
46.
JustwanF.WilliamsonR. D. (2022). Trump and trust: Examining the relationship between claims of fraud and citizen attitudes. PS: Political Science & Politics, 55(3), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096522000221
KundelieneK.LeitonieneS. (2015). Business information transparency: Causes and evaluation possibilities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 340–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.548
49.
McKayS.TenoveC. (2021). Disinformation as a threat to deliberative democracy. Political Research Quarterly, 74(3), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920938143
NorrisP. (2019). Do perceptions of electoral malpractice undermine democratic satisfaction? The US in comparative perspective. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118806783
54.
NyhanB. (2021). Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912440117
55.
PennycookG.BearA.CollinsE. T.RandD. G. (2020). The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Management Science, 66(11), 4944–4957. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
56.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2021). Research note: Examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 Presidential Election. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
57.
PetersenM. B.SkovM.SerritzlewS.RamsøyT. (2013). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1
58.
RawlinsB. (2008). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of public relations research, 21(1), 71–99.
59.
SchnackenbergA. K.TomlinsonE. C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784–1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525202
SissonD. C. (2017). Inauthentic communication, organization-public relationships, and trust: A content analysis of online astroturfing news coverage. Public relations review, 43(4), 788–795.
TsetsuraK.AzizK. (2018). Toward professional standards for media transparency in the United States: Comparison of perceptions of non-transparency in national vs. regional media. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 180–190.
65.
WardleC.DerakhshanH. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (27, p. 1-pp. 107). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
66.
ZimmermannF.KohringM. (2020). Mistrust, disinforming news, and vote choice: A panel survey on the origins and consequences of believing disinformation in the 2017 German parliamentary election. Political Communication, 37(2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1686095
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
