They See Dead People (Voting): Correcting Misperceptions about Voter Fraud in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Abstract

The 2016 US Presidential election was unique for many reasons, especially the widespread endorsement of falsehoods about the candidates and the electoral process. Using a unique experiment fielded the week prior to the election, we examine whether correcting information can overcome misperceptions about election fraud. We find that providing counter information is generally ineffective at remedying misperceptions and can, depending on the source, increase endorsements of misperceptions among Republicans. Although information from a fact-checking source is generally unconvincing, when given with evidence from an unlikely source – in our experiment, Breitbart News – both Republicans and Democrats decrease beliefs in voter fraud.

Keywords:

• election 2016
• information sources
• misperceptions
• motivated reasoning
• partisanship
• voter fraud

Notes

Notes

1 Trump and his spokespeople have cited a much-maligned study in Electoral Studies as their evidence for widespread voting by non-citizens (Richman, Chattha, and Earnest 2014). The study’s author, Jesse Richman, claims Trump and others have misinterpreted the findings. Many other scholars have criticized the study’s methods. For examples of these critiques, see https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/.

2 And, Freed et al. show that 11.5% of parents with concerns about adverse effects of vaccines had refused at least one recommended vaccination (2010).

3 Other studies show that the level of beliefs in falsehoods depends on aspects of the information itself and on emotions. Misperceptions about climate change, for example, can be negated with information about the high degree of scientific consensus on this subject, but only when these facts are not presented alongside misinformation, as is common when the media seek to “present both sides” to appear objective (van der Linden et al. 2017; see also Lodge and Taber 2005). Given the importance of affect in decision-making (Taber and Ledge 2013), certain emotions, such as anxiety, may moderate partisan motivated reasoning, while others, notably anger, facilitate the process of motivated reasoning (Weeks 2015; Valentino et al. 2008; Redlawsk et al. 2010).

4 We choose to compare Democrats to Republicans, given the context of the election and the lack of viability of third party candidates in the 2016 election. While large (and growing) groups of individuals identify as independents in the USA (Klar and Krupnikov 2016), most of these voters do routinely vote for a political party. Finally, in our sample, less than 10% identify as true independents, which limits the ability for us to compare from either party to independents.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mirya R. Holman

Mirya R. Holman, Associate Professor, Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles Avenue, Norman Mayer Building, Room 316, New Orleans, LA 70118, 504-862-8316 (ph); 504-862-8745 (fax), [email protected]

J. Celeste Lay

J. Celeste Lay, Associate Professor, Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles Avenue, Norman Mayer Building, Room316, New Orleans, LA 70118, 504-862-8316 (ph); 504-862-8323 (fax), [email protected]