Change language
English Deutsch
Change currency
€ EUR £ GBP $ USD
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 28, 2021

The Role of Anti-Establishment Orientations During the Trump Presidency

  • Adam M. Enders EMAIL logo and Joseph E. Uscinski EMAIL logo
From the journal The Forum
https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2021-0003

Abstract

Growing levels of polarization and out-group hostility have become fashionable explanations for the caustic politics of the Trump presidency. However, partisan and ideological identities cannot explain popular attraction to Trump’s anti-elite and populist rhetoric, nor can polarization and sorting account for rising levels of mass identification as political independents. In light of these discrepancies, we offer an explanation for the Trump era unrelated to traditional left-right identities and ideologies: anti-establishment orientations. We argue that much of what is interpreted as an expression of partisan and ideological extremism or polarization is actually the product of a deep-seated antagonism toward the broader political establishment. We first exhibit the individual-level correlates of anti-establishment orientations, finding that people holding strong anti-establishment views exhibit relatively high levels of anti-social personality traits and distrust of others. We then show that anti-establishment orientations are more predictive than left-right orientations of beliefs in conspiracy theories regarding COVID-19, QAnon, and voter fraud. Most importantly, we demonstrate that, while anti-establishment orientations are positively related to support for Donald Trump, they are negatively related to support for Joe Biden and both major parties. In short, the toxicity emblematic of the Trump era—support for outsider candidates, belief in conspiracy theories, corrosive rhetoric, and violence—are derivative of antipathy towards the established political order, rather than a strict adherence to partisan and ideological dogma. We conclude that Trump’s most powerful and unique impact on American electoral politics is his activation, inflammation, and manipulation of preexisting anti-establishment orientations for partisan ends.

Keywords: anti-establishment; conspiracy theory; extremism; QAnon; voter fraud
Corresponding authors: Adam M. Enders, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA, E-mail: ; and Joseph E. Uscinski, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA, E-mail:

Appendix

Question wording

Anti-establishment orientations (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree):

  1. Much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places.

  2. Even though we live in a democracy, a few people will always run things anyway.

  3. The people who really ‘run’ the country, are not known to the voters.

  4. Big events like wars, the current recession, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people who are working in secret against the rest of us.

  5. Politicians always end up agreeing when it comes to protecting their privileges.

  6. Politicians should follow only the will of the people.

  7. The people, not politicians, should make our most important policy decisions.

  8. The political differences between the elite and the people are much larger than the differences among the people.

  9. I would rather be represented by a citizen than a by a profession politician.

  10. Elected officials talk too much and take too little action.

  11. Established politicians who claim to defend our interests only take care of themselves.

  12. The established elite and politicians have often betrayed the people.

  13. Politics is a battle between good and evil.

  14. What people call “compromise” in politics is really just selling out on one’s principles.

Primary source of news. What is your primary source for finding news? (please only select one option)

  1. National or local TV news

  2. Radio

  3. Newspapers

  4. Internet news websites (e.g. CNN.com, FoxNews.com, etc.)

  5. Social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.)

  6. Friends/relatives

Spread information online. I share information on social media about politics even though I believe it may be false.

  1. Strongly disagree

  2. Disagree

  3. Neither agree, nor disagree

  4. Agree

  5. Strongly agree

Anomie. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = 0.62, M = 3.56, SD = 0.78):

  1. The situation of the average person is getting worse.

  2. It is hardly fair to bring a child into today’s world.

  3. Most public officials are not interested in the average person.

Social media use. Thinking about the social media you use, how often in a typical week do you visit or use: 1) Facebook, 2) Twitter, 3) Instagram, 4) Reddit, 5) YouTube, 6) 4chan, 8kun

  1. Not at all

  2. Once a month or less

  3. Several times a month

  4. Several times a week

  5. Everyday

Dogmatism. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = 0.60, M = 3.13, SD = 0.83):

  1. On important public issues, I believe you should either be for them or against them and not take a middle course.

  2. It is better to take a stand on an issue even if it’s wrong.

  3. When it comes to the really important questions about religion and philosophy of life, a person must decide them, one way or the other.

Nationalism. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = 0.75, M = 3.05, SD = 0.93):

  1. The United States deserves special treatment.

  2. Not many people seem to fully understand the importance of the United States.

  3. I will never be satisfied until the United States gets the recognition it deserves.

Machiavellianism. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree):

  1. I tend to manipulate others to get my way.

  2. I have used deceit or lied to get my way.

  3. I have used flattery to get my way.

  4. I tend to exploit others towards my own end.

Narcissism. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree):

  1. I tend to want others to admire me.

  2. I tend to want others to pay attention to me.

  3. I tend to seek prestige or status.

  4. I tend to expect special favors from others.

Psychopathy. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree):

  1. I tend to lack remorse.

  2. I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.

  3. I tend to be callous or insensitive.

  4. I tend to be cynical.

Dark triad (combination of all sociopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism items; α = 0.89, M = 2.20, SD = 0.74).

Argumentation. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; α = 0.72, range = 1–5, M = 2.86, S = 0.98): Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below:

  1. I like to argue online with other people.

  2. I enjoy a good argument over a controversial issue.

  3. I am willing to express my opinion online even if others strongly disagree with me.

Trust. Here are some ideas that some people agree with, and others disagree with. In thinking about each one, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (each item is 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree):

  1. I trust the police

  2. I trust my neighbors

  3. I trust my relatives

Feeling thermometers. Please rate name listed below using the “feeling thermometer” slider bars. Ratings between 50 and 100° mean that you feel favorable toward the name. Ratings between 0 and 50° mean that you do not feel favorable toward the name.

  1. Democratic Party

  2. Republican Party

  3. Donald Trump

  4. Joe Biden

Partisan Identity. Combination of two questions about partisan attachment and strength of attachment.

  1. Strong Democrat

  2. Weak Democrat

  3. Lean Democrat

  4. Independent

  5. Lean Republican

  6. Weak Republican

  7. Strong Republican

Ideological Identity. Where would you place yourself on a scale that goes from “very liberal” to “very conservative”?

  1. Very liberal

  2. Liberal

  3. Slightly liberal

  4. Moderate

  5. Slightly conservative

  6. Conservative

  7. Very conservative

Interest in politics. Some people follow what’s going on in politics and current events most of the time. Others aren’t that interested. How often do you follow what’s going on in government and current events?

  1. Never

  2. Hardly at all

  3. Only now and then

  4. Some of the time

  5. Most of the time

Sociodemographics:

  1. Educational attainment (six-point scale, 1 = No high school degree, 5 = post-grad degree)

  2. Religiosity (five-point scale about religious service attendance; 1 = never, 5 = every day)

  3. Age (age in years, 18–90)

  4. Household income (seven-point scale, 1 = $24,999 or less, 7 = 200,000 or more)

  5. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)

  6. Race (Black: 0 = not Black, 1 = Black; Hispanic: 0 = not Hispanic, 1 = Hispanic)

Sample composition

Table A1:

Sociodemographic information about October 2020 sample, compared to 2010 U.S. census estimates.

CharacteristicOctober 20202010 census estimate
Age (median)4338
High school degree (%)9788
Some college or more (%)7659
Female (%)5151
Household income (median)$25,000–$49,999$49,445
Race:
White (%)6872
Black (%)1413
Hispanic (%)1716
n2015

Factor analysis results

Table A2:

Exploratory factor analysis of left-right and anti-establishment items.

Factor 1Factor 2
Left-right dimension
1. Partisan identities0.0090.941
2. Ideological identities0.0180.763
3. Feelings toward Democratic Party−0.100−0.761
4. Feelings toward Republican Party−0.0480.780
Anti-establishment dimension
1. Even though we live in a democracy, a few people will always run things anyway. (Con)0.508−0.046
2. The people who really “run” the country, are not known to the voters. (Con)0.5470.027
3. Big events like wars, the recent recession, and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people who are working in secret against the rest of us. (Con)0.5200.095
4. Much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places. (Con)0.5380.084
5. Politicians always end up agreeing when it comes to protecting their privileges. (Pop)0.5480.002
6. Politicians should follow only the will of the people. (Pop)0.466−0.020
7. The people, not politicians, should make our most important policy decisions. (Pop)0.486−0.073
8. The political differences between the elite and the people are much larger than the differences among the people. (Pop)0.542−0.049
9. I would rather be represented by a citizen than a by a profession politician. (Pop)0.5590.084
10. Elected officials talk too much and take too little action. (Pop)0.583−0.006
11. Established politicians who claim to defend our interests only take care of themselves. (Pop)0.7090.023
12. The established elite and politicians have often betrayed the people. (Pop)0.6470.001
13. Politics is a battle between good and evil. (Man)0.3360.135
14. What people call “compromise” in politics is really just selling out on one’s principles. (Man)0.5810.137
Eigenvalue4.5112.777
Proportion shared variance accounted for0.4070.250

  1. Solution estimated using iterated principal axis factoring with a varimax (orthogonal) rotation. n = 1947. Bold values are those greater than 0.30 in absolute value.

Full regression results

Table A3:

OLS regressions of QAnon-related conspiracy beliefs on anti-establishment and left-right orientations, with controls.

Believe in QAnonSatan worshippersDT battle deepstate
Anti-establishment1.261c2.207c2.175c
(0.140)(0.142)(0.160)
Left-right0.780c0.692c1.993c
(0.081)(0.083)(0.093)
Religiosity0.252c0.326c0.359c
(0.076)(0.077)(0.086)
Interest in politics−0.148−0.368c−0.099
(0.098)(0.100)(0.112)
Education0.032−0.052−0.126
(0.085)(0.086)(0.097)
Age−1.175c−1.371c−0.182
(0.109)(0.110)(0.124)
Female0.0510.177c0.022
(0.048)(0.048)(0.054)
White0.135a−0.072−0.151a
(0.068)(0.069)(0.077)
Black0.1630.226b0.168
(0.086)(0.087)(0.098)
Latinx0.0240.046−0.186a
(0.070)(0.071)(0.080)
Constant1.300c1.060c0.778c
(0.146)(0.148)(0.166)
R20.1580.2560.289
n194419451946

  1. OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. ap < 0.05, bp < 0.01, cp < 0.001.

Table A4:

OLS regressions of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs on anti-establishment and left-right orientations, with controls.

Group infected DTDT faking COVIDDT coverup COVID
Anti-establishment1.195c1.487c0.705c
(0.156)(0.171)(0.163)
Left-right1.332c−1.607c−2.741c
(0.091)(0.099)(0.095)
Religiosity0.425c−0.025−0.082
(0.085)(0.093)(0.088)
Interest in politics−0.314b−0.515c−0.312b
(0.109)(0.120)(0.114)
Education0.069−0.0170.195a
(0.095)(0.104)(0.099)
Age−1.034c−0.702c−0.275a
(0.121)(0.133)(0.127)
Female0.0470.0840.107
(0.053)(0.058)(0.055)
White0.013−0.175a−0.081
(0.075)(0.083)(0.079)
Black0.0210.432c0.046
(0.096)(0.105)(0.100)
Latinx−0.0490.1450.081
(0.078)(0.086)(0.082)
Constant1.043c2.987c4.339c
(0.162)(0.178)(0.170)
R20.1890.2610.366
n194719461947

  1. OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. ap < 0.05, bp < 0.01, cp < 0.001.

Table A5:

OLS regressions of electoral fraud beliefs on anti-establishment and left-right orientations, with controls.

General voter fraudPost officeMail-in ballotsDT won’t leave officeDT cancel election
Anti-establishment2.201c1.811c1.959c0.588c0.874c
(0.165)(0.157)(0.160)(0.159)(0.153)
Left-right0.396c−0.995c2.416c−2.056c−0.101
(0.096)(0.091)(0.093)(0.092)(0.089)
Religiosity0.1280.1630.333c−0.0860.486c
(0.089)(0.085)(0.087)(0.086)(0.083)
Interest in politics0.363b0.188−0.1400.021−0.396c
(0.115)(0.110)(0.112)(0.111)(0.107)
Education0.075−0.140−0.108−0.0050.284b
(0.100)(0.095)(0.097)(0.096)(0.093)
Age−0.720c−0.377b−1.169c0.159−1.372c
(0.128)(0.122)(0.124)(0.123)(0.119)
Female0.239c0.139b−0.0430.185c0.023
(0.056)(0.053)(0.054)(0.054)(0.052)
White−0.036−0.092−0.021−0.028−0.074
(0.080)(0.076)(0.077)(0.077)(0.074)
Black0.1630.0880.305b−0.0830.068
(0.101)(0.097)(0.098)(0.098)(0.094)
Latinx0.0420.0260.0280.0780.111
(0.083)(0.079)(0.080)(0.080)(0.077)
Constant1.428c2.461c1.256c3.756c1.916c
(0.171)(0.163)(0.166)(0.165)(0.159)
R20.1240.1500.3610.2450.150
n19471947194719471947

  1. OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. ap < 0.05, bp < 0.01, cp < 0.001.

Table A6:

OLS regressions of feelings toward parties and candidates on anti-establishment and left-right orientations, with controls.

TrumpBidenRep PartyDem Party
Anti-establishment10.891c−21.120c−12.816c−22.759c
(3.301)(3.348)(2.933)(2.993)
Left-right106.940c−98.462c96.252c−95.922c
(1.914)(1.947)(1.702)(1.737)
Religiosity9.265c10.355c10.847c10.279c
(1.784)(1.815)(1.587)(1.620)
Interest in politics9.827c11.230c10.427c8.817c
(2.331)(2.368)(2.054)(2.096)
Education0.5846.990c0.7126.020c
(2.001)(2.034)(1.777)(1.814)
Age0.8988.491b1.4113.491
(2.563)(2.606)(2.278)(2.325)
Female−3.200b−1.105−1.780−0.277
(1.122)(1.139)(0.996)(1.017)
White2.450−2.1040.018−2.239
(1.599)(1.621)(1.417)(1.446)
Black−2.9882.472−1.4841.160
(2.043)(2.058)(1.801)(1.838)
Latinx−4.102a−0.195−2.613−0.720
(1.658)(1.685)(1.471)(1.501)
Constant−29.124c93.037c−7.552a95.378c
(3.438)(3.498)(3.047)(3.110)
R20.6780.6180.6780.655
n1931193119471947

  1. OLS coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. ap < 0.05, bp < 0.01, cp < 0.001.

References

Abramowitz, A., and J. McCoy. 2019. “United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681 (1): 137–56, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218811309.Search in Google Scholar

Akkerman, A., C. Mudde, and A. Zaslove. 2014. “How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters.” Comparative Political Studies 47 (9): 1324–53, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013512600.Search in Google Scholar

Armaly, M. T., and A. M. Enders. 2021. “‘Why Me?’ The Role of Perceived Victimhood in American Politics.” Political Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09662-x.Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, M. D., and D. DeWitt. 2018. “The Politics of Disruption: Social Choice Theory and Conspiracy Theory Politics.” In Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by J. E. Uscinski, 122–34. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Barber, M., and J. C. Pope. 2019. “Conservatism in the Era of Trump.” Perspectives on Politics 17 (3): 719–36, https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271900077X.Search in Google Scholar

Bartels, L. M. 2018. “Partisanship in the Trump Era.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1483–94, https://doi.org/10.1086/699337.Search in Google Scholar

Benkler, Y., C. Tilton, B. Etling, H. Roberts, J. Clark, R. Faris, J. Kaiser, and C. Schmitt. 2020. Mail-in Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign. http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/publications/Benkler-etal-Mail-in-Voter-Fraud-Anatomy-of-a-Disinformation-Campaign.pdf (accessed February 10, 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Berlinski, N., M. Doyle, A. M. Guess, G. Levy, B. Lyons, J. M. Montgomery, B. Nyhan, and J. Reifler. 2020. Also available at http://www.dartmouth.edu/∼nyhan/voter-fraud.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Blum, R. M., and C. S. Parker. 2019. “Trump-ing Foreign Affairs: Status Threat and Foreign Policy Preferences on the Right.” Perspectives on Politics 17 (3): 737–55, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719000999.Search in Google Scholar

Busby, E. C., J. R. Gubler, and K. A. Hawkins. 2019. “Framing and Blame Attribution in Populist Rhetoric.” The Journal of Politics 81 (2): 616–30, https://doi.org/10.1086/701832.Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, A., P. Converse, W. Miller, and D. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter: Unabridged Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Converse, P. E. 2006. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964).” Critical Review 18 (1-3): 1–74, https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810608443650.Search in Google Scholar

Edelson, J., A. Alduncin, C. Krewson, J. A. Sieja, and J. E. Uscinski. 2017. “The Effect of Conspiratorial Thinking and Motivated Reasoning on Belief in Election Fraud.” Political Research Quarterly 70 (4): 933–46.10.1177/1065912917721061Search in Google Scholar

Enders, A. 2019. “Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Constraint.” Public Opinion Quarterly 83 (3): 510–33, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz032.Search in Google Scholar

Enders, A., and J. Uscinski. 2021. “Are Misinformation, Anti-scientific Claims, and Conspiracy Theories for Political Extremists?” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 24 (4): 583–605.10.1177/1368430220960805Search in Google Scholar

Enders, A., and S. M. Smallpage. 2018. “Polls, Plots, and Party Politics: Conspiracy Theories in Contemporary America.” In Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by J. E. Uscinski, 298–318. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0020Search in Google Scholar

Enders, A., and S. M. Smallpage. 2019. “Who Are Conspiracy Theorists? A Comprehensive Approach to Explaining Conspiracy Beliefs.” Social Science Quarterly 100 (6): 2017–32, https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12711.Search in Google Scholar

Enders, A., S. M. Smallpage, and R. N. Lupton. 2020. “Are All ‘Birthers’ Conspiracy Theorists? On the Relationship Between Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Orientations.” British Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 849–66, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000837.Search in Google Scholar

Enders, A. M., J. E. Uscinski, C. Klofstad, and J. Stoler. 2020. “The Different Forms of COVID-19 Misinformation and Their Consequences.” The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review 1 (8): 1–21, https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-48.Search in Google Scholar

Green, D. P., B. Palmquist, and E. Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hofstadter, R. 1964. The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Iyengar, S., Y. Lelkes, M. Levendusky, N. Malhotra, and S. J. Westwood. 2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22 (1): 129–46, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034.Search in Google Scholar

Kinder, D. R., and N. P. Kalmoe. 2017. Neither Liberal Nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Klar, S., and Y. Krupnikov. 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316471050Search in Google Scholar

Lane, R. E. 1962. Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes what He Does, Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes what He Does. Oxford: Free Press of Glencoe.Search in Google Scholar

Martherus, J. L., A. G. Martinez, P. K. Piff, and A. G. Theodoridis. 2019. “Party Animals? Extreme Partisan Polarization and Dehumanization.” Political Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09559-4.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, L. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

McCauley, C., and S. Moskalenko. 2008. “Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 20 (3): 415–33, https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550802073367.Search in Google Scholar

Meijers, M. J., and A. Zaslove. 2020. “Measuring Populism in Political Parties: Appraisal of a New Approach.” Comparative Political Studies 54 (2): 372–407, 0010414020938081, https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020938081.Search in Google Scholar

Merkley, E. 2020. “Anti-Intellectualism, Populism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus.” Public Opinion Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz053.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, J-W. 2017. What is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, E., and T. Wood. 2014. “Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style (s) of Mass Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 952–66, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12084.Search in Google Scholar

Oliver, J. E., and W. M. Rahn. 2016. “Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667 (1): 189–206.10.1177/0002716216662639Search in Google Scholar

Pennycook, G., and D. G. Rand. 2021. “Examining False Beliefs about Voter Fraud in the Wake of the 2020 Presidential Election.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-51.Search in Google Scholar

Pfiffner, J. P. 2021. “Donald Trump and the Norms of the Presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 51 (1): 96–124, https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12698.Search in Google Scholar

Reny, T. T, L. Collingwood, and A. A. Valenzuela. 2019. “Vote Switching in the 2016 Election: How Racial and Immigration Attitudes, Not Economics, Explain Shifts in White Voting.” Public Opinion Quarterly 83 (1): 91–113, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz011.Search in Google Scholar

Rieder, R. 2020. Trump and the ‘New Hoax’. Factcheck.org. (accessed March 21, 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Rudolph, T. 2021. “Populist Anger, Donald Trump, and the 2016 Election.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 31 (1): 33–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1582532.Search in Google Scholar

Smallpage, S. M., A. M. Enders, and U. Joseph. 2017. “The Partisan Contours of Conspiracy Theory Beliefs.” Research & Politics 4 (4): 2053168017746554, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017746554.Search in Google Scholar

Spruyt, B., G. Keppens, and F. Van Droogenbroeck. 2016. “Who Supports Populism and What Attracts People to It?” Political Research Quarterly 69 (2): 335–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916639138.Search in Google Scholar

Stecula, D. A., and M. Pickup. 2021. “How Populism and Conservative Media Fuel Conspiracy Beliefs about COVID-19 and what it Means for COVID-19 Behaviors.” Research & Politics 8 (1): 2053168021993979, https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168021993979.Search in Google Scholar

Stroud, N. J. 2008. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior 30 (3): 341–66, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9050-9.Search in Google Scholar

Uscinski, J., and J. M. Parent. 2014. American Conspiracy Theories. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199351800.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Uscinski, J., A. M. Enders, W. Stefan, C. Klofstad, M. Seelig, J. Funchion, M. Murthi, K. Premaratne, and C. Everett. 2020. “Why Do People Believe COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories?” The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review 1: 1–12, https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-015.Search in Google Scholar

Uscinski, J., C. Klofstad, and M. Atkinson. 2016. “Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories? The Role of Informational Cues and Predispositions.” Political Research Quarterly 69 (1): 57–71.10.2139/ssrn.2268782Search in Google Scholar

Uscinski, J., E. Adam, M. Seelig, C. Klofstad, J. Funchion, C. Everett, S. Wuchty, K. Premaratne, and M. Murthi. 2021. “American Politics in Two Dimensions: Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science. Also available at https://www.joeuscinski.com/uploads/7/1/9/5/71957435/two_dimensions_uscinski_et_al.pdf.10.1111/ajps.12616Search in Google Scholar

van Prooijen, J-W., B. Rutjens, and M. Brandt. 2018. “Populism as Political Mentality Underlying Conspiracy Theories.” In Belief Systems and the Perception of Reality, 79–96. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315114903-6Search in Google Scholar

Wang, A. 2016. ‘Post-truth’ Named 2016 Word of the Year by Oxford Dictionaries. (accessed May 24, 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-07-28

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

From the journal
The Forum
The Forum
Volume 19 Issue 1

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same Issue

Frontmatter
Introduction
The Forum: Spring 2021 Introduction
Articles
Assessing the Trump Presidency on Its Own Terms
Change and Continuity in White House Staffing: The Trump Factor
The Role of Anti-Establishment Orientations During the Trump Presidency
Angry about Fraud: How Congress Took up Trump’s Claims of Fraud
Trump’s Immigration Legacy
“In the Mold of Justice Scalia”: The Contours & Consequences of the Trump Judiciary
The Trump Era Legacy of Partisanism
Book Reviews
Nazita Lajevardi’s: Outsiders at Home: The Politics of American Islamophobia
Robert D. Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garrett: The Upswing: How American Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again
Downloaded on 11.12.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2021-0003/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button