In the wake of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, a study tested whether speeches by Republican politicians could bolster support for democratic norms among party voters. The findings revealed that despite the perceived initial effectiveness of the speeches by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitch McConnell, they did not significantly impact the attitudes of Donald Trump’s supporters.
The research was recently published in the Journal of Experimental Political Science.
The violent breach of the Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump marked a stark challenge to democratic principles. In response, prominent Republican figures delivered speeches advocating for the core tenets of democracy, including the peaceful transfer of power. This period saw varying reactions from Republican officials and voters, with some downplaying the events and others publicly supporting democratic processes.
The attack on the Capitol raised profound questions about the stability of American democracy and whether political elites could reinforce a waning commitment to democratic principles. Before this incident, various indicators suggested that allegiance to democratic norms was declining among Republicans, influenced by elite cues and partisan divides. Given this context, researchers sought to understand if and how pro-democracy messages from within the Republican party could counteract these trends.
The researchers targeted a specific demographic: U.S. citizens who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential elections. Participants were recruited through Prolific, an online platform known for higher data quality compared to other survey platforms. A total of 660 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups to eliminate selection bias and ensure that any differences observed could be attributed to the treatment.
The experiment, which was conducted on February 19, 2021, featured two treatment groups and one control group. The control group watched a neutral video on space exploration, specifically Ronald Reagan’s historical speech, which was unrelated to democracy or the political climate. This served as a baseline to measure the natural level of support for unrelated political issues.
One treatment group watched an eight-minute video of Arnold Schwarzenegger, where he drew parallels between the Capitol riots and historical events in Austria, emphasizing the importance of democratic stability and the dangers of its erosion. The other treatment group listened to Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor, advocating for the peaceful transfer of power and the importance of adhering to electoral outcomes.
The researchers found no discernible differences in abstract attitudes toward democracy between the control group and the treatment groups. Participants’ overall endorsement of democracy as a preferred form of government and the importance they placed on living in a democratic society remained unchanged after viewing the speeches. This indicates that the messages did not alter general democratic attitudes among Trump voters, even though they resonated with Republican ideologies and were delivered by prominent figures within the party.
Further analysis revealed similar non-results for more specific democratic norms. The speeches did not increase participants’ acceptance of electoral defeat nor did they decrease their acceptance of political violence as a legitimate means of political expression. This was particularly notable in the context of the study, given that these issues were directly addressed in the speeches, especially in McConnell’s emphasis on the peaceful transfer of power and Schwarzenegger’s warnings against the dangers of undermining democratic processes.
The researchers also explored whether exposure to these pro-democracy messages would influence participants’ hypothetical voting behavior. Through a conjoint experiment, where participants chose between two hypothetical candidates with varying democratic credentials, they assessed the practical impact of the speeches on voting decisions. However, the findings showed no significant changes in how much participants valued democratic principles in their candidate choices after viewing the speeches.
“The experiment reported in this study provides no evidence that Republican politicians who made the case for democratic principles amidst a democratic crisis fostered the commitment of prior Trump voters to these principles,” the researchers said. “The lack of persuasive effects on democracy-related orientations goes against our pre-registered expectations as the experiment in various respects was designed to maximize treatment effects… Both videos were considered highly persuasive in the broader public debate and by many commentators.”
These results suggest that even well-crafted and earnest appeals by conservative political figures might fail to penetrate the established beliefs and attitudes of Trump voters. However, the unique context of the Capitol riot and the high politicization of the period might have solidified participants’ attitudes to a point where a single speech could not sway them. Also, the study’s timing and the possibility that participants had previously seen similar messages could have influenced the results. Future research could explore the potential effects of repeated exposure to pro-democracy messages or the impact if these messages were delivered closer to the events of January 6.
“Given these limitations, the reported findings should not be taken as conclusive evidence that Schwarzenegger’s and McConnell’s pro-democracy speeches were in vain and had no communicative effects whatsoever. More narrowly, the study shows that exposing Trump-voting Prolific panelists to these speeches in highly politicized times and in the context of an academic study failed to induce any changes of relevant size on a variety of democracy-related attitudes and behavioral inclinations,” the researchers concluded.
“To the extent that readers, like us, would have expected such carefully crafted messages to elicit attitude changes even in the specific context of our study, the findings help us to update prior beliefs on the persuasiveness of such messages. They point to potential limitations of persuasive messaging on citizens’ support for democratic principles and norms from in-party politicians at times when those parties are internally divided. More broadly, these findings hint at a research agenda on the conditions under which pro-democracy communication will and will not be successful.”
The study, “Null Effects of Pro-Democracy Speeches by U.S. Republicans in the Aftermath of January 6th,” was authored by Alexander Wuttke, Florian Sichart, and Florian Foos.
