Losers’ Conspiracy

Elections and Conspiracism

Dados Bibliográficos

ID6333948
AutoresJoanne M Miller (0000-0002-9823-5005, University of Delaware, autor correspondente), Christina E Farhart (0000-0001-7549-4568, Carleton College), Kyle L Saunders (0000-0003-4023-8729, Colorado State University)
Ano2025
Data de publicação2025-07-28
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPolitical Behavior (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0190-9320 • E-ISSN: 1573-6687
EditoraSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s11109-025-10063-1
OpenAlexW4412906388
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências citadas75

Elections produce winners and losers. Winners reap the benefits; losers have to dust themselves off. How each side chooses to respond has important implications for democratic stability. Winners may attempt to develop post-election narratives in such a way as to claim a mandate and consolidate power. But losers are even more likely to be motivated to search for an explanation—a narrative that not only explains the loss in a self-esteem preserving way but also provides guidance for how to engage (or not) in the future to avoid subsequent losses. Building on extant research on the winner-loser gap in political attitudes, we theorize that electoral losers will be more conspiratorial (as assessed by a general measure of conspiracism) after the election than before the election. We report the results of five nationally representative pre/post-election panel surveys spanning three election years in the U.S. (2016, 2018, 2020) that provide strong and consistent support for the “losers’ conspiracism” hypothesis and discuss the implications of our findings

General election · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Law · Media Influence and Politics · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Social Media and Politics