ArticleNature human behaviour2026
The overlooked threat of democratic neutrality in the USA.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From free speech advocates to critics: The Trump administration's new rhetoric promotes support for censorship among Trump voters.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The overlooked threat of democratic neutrality in the USA.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite increasing concerns about American democracy, recent studies find little public support for undemocratic practices. However, these studies ignore democratic neutrality-that is, expressing neither agreement nor disagreement with undemocratic practices. Here, integrating research on uncertainty, indifference, ambivalence, conditionality and socially desirable responding, we argue that democratic neutrality poses an overlooked threat to democracy. Reanalysing prominent survey data (N = 45,095) and conducting two original surveys (N = 3,039; including a candidate-choice experiment), we document democratic neutrality as (a) prevalent (half of Americans express neutrality towards one or more undemocratic practices), (b) reflecting substantively meaningful attitudes (versus inattention), (c) correlated with theoretically related constructs, (d) distinct from opposition to undemocratic practices, and (e) as consequential as outright support for undemocratic practices in shaping preferences for anti-democratic candidates. Our findings challenge optimistic empirical accounts of Americans' attitudes towards democracy. Democratic neutrality may help explain, and be targeted to ameliorate, democratic backsliding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.