A longitudinal study looking into election conspiracy beliefs and attitudes towards democracy found that people who support authoritarianism tend to endorse stronger conspiracy beliefs. There was no evidence of the reverse effect (conspiracy beliefs fostering antidemocratic views). The research was published in Political Psychology.
Conspiracy beliefs are explanations that attribute significant events to secret plots by powerful, hidden groups. They tend to arise in situations of uncertainty, threat, or lack of trust in institutions. Such beliefs can provide a sense of order and meaning by simplifying complex realities. Psychological factors like cognitive biases, the need for control, and heightened pattern perception contribute to their appeal. Social factors, including group identity, marginalization, and online echo chambers, can further reinforce them.
Conspiracy beliefs are not limited to any single political ideology or cultural context. While some conspiracies have historically turned out to be true, people holding conspiracy beliefs typically do not base such beliefs on evidence available to them. They also tend not to change their beliefs when evidence that their beliefs are not true appears. Also, strong endorsement of conspiracy beliefs tends to be associated with distrust of experts and a reduced willingness to engage in collective action.
Study author Emma F. Thomas and her colleagues wanted to test the relationships between election conspiracy beliefs and critical attitudes toward democracy in general. More specifically, they looked into attitudes towards representative democracy, direct democracy, and authoritarianism. They note that elections are a central institution of democratic representative governments, and conspiracy beliefs that question the fairness and legitimacy of elections could be especially important for understanding diminished support for democracy.
Study participants were 609 citizens or permanent residents of the United States and 605 citizens of New Zealand. Both groups were recruited through Dynata Panels and compensated for their participation with points that were accrued to purchase gift cards.
The average age of U.S. participants was 50 years, while it was 48 for New Zealand participants. Around 50% of participants in both groups were female. 41% of U.S. participants and 33% of participating New Zealanders identified as conservative. 34% of U.S. participants identified as liberal, while 44% of participants from New Zealand identified as progressive.
The study was conducted during the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election (for U.S. participants) and around the time of the 2020 New Zealand General Election (for New Zealand participants). Participants completed study assessments approximately two weeks before the election results, on the day the election results were announced, and two weeks after the election results were announced. The study authors chose this time period because there were many election conspiracy stories being circulated in the media and on social networks at those times.
Study participants completed assessments of election conspiracy beliefs (e.g., “Widespread voter fraud is undermining this election” or “The election is being influenced by powerful people, who are altering the outcome”), attitudes towards democracy (e.g., “Democracies are indecisive and have too much squabbling” or “Democracy may have problems but it’s better than any other form of government”).
They also completed measures of support for authoritarianism, representative democracy, and direct democracy (using items such as “Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with a Congress or elections,” “Having a democratic political system where representatives elected by citizens decide what becomes law,” and “Having a democratic political system where citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues to decide what becomes law”).
The study authors used a methodological approach called random intercept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPM). This examines associations between measures taken at different times to draw inferences about the causal paths between them—in this case, whether conspiracy beliefs affect attitudes towards democracy or vice versa. This approach leverages the fact that causes produce consequences in the future but not in the past, and therefore a cause would be more strongly associated with future measures of its consequences than with their past measures.
Results showed that it is authoritarian and antidemocratic beliefs that support beliefs in election conspiracies, and not vice versa.
“There was little evidence that conspiracy beliefs temporally preceded changes in attitudes toward democracy or support for any specific form of government. Instead, people who supported authoritarianism more subsequently endorsed stronger conspiracy beliefs. The results suggested that, in the context of electoral contests (e.g., elections), antidemocratic people are more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs rather than conspiracy beliefs fostering antidemocratic views,” the study authors concluded.
The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the links between political attitudes and conspiracy beliefs. However, it should be noted that while the approach used in this study can establish the direction of observed effects, it does not fully map the causal chain, as there may be factors not measured in the study influencing the observed associations.
The paper, “Conspiracy beliefs and democratic backsliding: Longitudinal effects of election conspiracy beliefs on criticism of democracy and support for authoritarianism during political contests,” was authored by Emma F. Thomas, Alexander O’Donnell, Danny Osborne, Lucy Bird, Lisette Yip, Eliana Buonaiuto, Morgana Lizzio-Wilson, Linda Skitka, and Michael Wenzel.
