Panel Data on Perceived Electoral Legitimacy using Two Independent Samples

Understanding when and why people accept electoral outcomes is vital to the study of political psychology, mass politics, and democratic governance. Despite its clear theoretical and practical importance, however, most existing research on electoral legitimacy have been cross-sectional or have only examined a narrow range of theoretically relevant factors. In this data brief, we present data for two independent panel studies. Sample 1 completed two-waves before/after the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Wave 1: N = 1,079, Wave 2: N = 903). Sample 2 approximated national representativeness and completed four-waves before/after the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election and before/after the 2022 U.S. Congressional Midterm Elections (W1: N = 1,127, W2: N = 769, W3: N = 506, W4: N = 453). Both surveys include a wide range of measures theoretically relevant to perceived electoral illegitimacy and political attitudes and behavior. These data enable the scientific study of critical questions that surround perceived electoral legitimacy in American politics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Data
Published
2025-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04980-3
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Social and Intergroup Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Panel Data on Perceived Electoral Legitimacy using Two Independent Samples

Joseph A. Vitriol, Daniella P. Alva, Christina E. Farhart
1 citations
Scientific Data
Social and Intergroup Psychology
4.20
article

Panel Data on Perceived Electoral Legitimacy using Two Independent Samples

Joseph A. Vitriol, Daniella P. Alva, Christina E. Farhart
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Understanding when and why people accept electoral outcomes is vital to the study of political psychology, mass politics, and democratic governance. Despite its clear theoretical and practical importance, however, most existing research on electoral legitimacy have been cross-sectional or have only examined a narrow range of theoretically relevant factors. In this data brief, we present data for two independent panel studies. Sample 1 completed two-waves before/after the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Wave 1: N = 1,079, Wave 2: N = 903). Sample 2 approximated national representativeness and completed four-waves before/after the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election and before/after the 2022 U.S. Congressional Midterm Elections (W1: N = 1,127, W2: N = 769, W3: N = 506, W4: N = 453). Both surveys include a wide range of measures theoretically relevant to perceived electoral illegitimacy and political attitudes and behavior. These data enable the scientific study of critical questions that surround perceived electoral legitimacy in American politics.

Scientific DataVol. 12(1)
Lehigh University (US), Carleton College (US)
Carleton College, Lehigh University, Stony Brook University, Research Foundation for the State University of New York
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Social and Intergroup Psychology
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.