Under What Conditions Does Material Economic Insecurity Cause People to Prefer Fundamental Political-System Change?

Full report

On this page

1. Executive Conclusion

The contemporary United States presents a profound paradox in the study of political economy and public opinion. Despite possessing the highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita among major advanced economies, a vast supermajority of its citizens express a deeply rooted desire to fundamentally alter or completely replace the nation's political and economic systems. Between 2021 and 2026, high-quality longitudinal surveys consistently demonstrated that between 77% and 85% of Americans believe the nation's political system requires either "major changes" or needs to be "completely reformed"1. This sentiment extends well beyond ordinary political dissatisfaction, routine incumbency disadvantage, or generalized anger over policy outcomes. It represents a systemic rejection of the constitutional status quo—a revolutionary preference defined not by the desire for violent overthrow, but by the demand for nonviolent, structural transformation of the democratic apparatus itself.

This report investigates the specific conditions under which material economic insecurity—characterized by cost-of-living pressures, real wage stagnation, healthcare and transportation burdens, and profound household financial fragility—translates into this preference for fundamental system change. Based on an exhaustive review of public opinion data, comparative political science, behavioral economics, and political psychology spanning from 2008 to 2026, the central conclusion of this investigation is that material economic insecurity is neither a strictly necessary nor a wholly sufficient condition for producing a preference for fundamental political-system change. Left to its own devices, objective material deprivation is equally likely to result in political demobilization, apathy, or a paradoxical psychological defense of the existing system.

Instead, material economic insecurity acts as a highly potent catalyst only when filtered through specific intervening institutional, psychological, and sociological mechanisms. Economic hardship mutates into a demand for structural transformation under four primary conditions. First, the hardship must be experienced as relative deprivation and downward mobility following a period of expectation, rather than as persistent, baseline poverty. Second, individuals must translate their personal financial struggles into sociotropic grievances, concluding that the overarching economic system is structurally unfair rather than blaming personal misfortune. Third, there must be a profound representational failure wherein repeated electoral cycles and partisan changes fail to alleviate the material pressures, prompting citizens to shift the attribution of responsibility from specific politicians to the constitutional rules of the game. Fourth, the economic distress must interact with pre-existing ideological identities or status threats that frame the economic failure as an existential threat to the citizen's political or cultural survival.

Crucially, the data strictly differentiates between support for fundamental, nonviolent constitutional reform and support for political violence. While supermajorities of Americans support structural transformation—such as abolishing the Electoral College, imposing term limits, or fundamentally restructuring campaign finance—only a minute fraction genuinely supports political violence. The empirical evidence demonstrates that support for lethal or violent political action is driven primarily by trait aggression and authoritarian psychology, not by material economic hardship.

2. Best-Supported Causal Mechanisms

To understand how acute pressures—such as the inability to meet basic needs, income volatility, and rising food or healthcare costs—translate into a desire for structural replacement, it is necessary to trace the causal pathway from individual financial fragility to regime-level rejection. The evidence points to several intervening mechanisms that bridge the gap between pocketbook pain and revolutionary preference.

The Transition from Specific to Diffuse Support

Political science relies heavily on the theoretical framework established by David Easton, which distinguishes between "specific support" and "diffuse support"4. Specific support refers to the public's satisfaction with current incumbents, political actors, and short-term policy outputs. When a nation experiences a cyclical recession or a temporary spike in inflation, citizens typically withdraw specific support, resulting in the electoral punishment of the ruling party. This is the standard mechanism of democratic accountability, often termed pocketbook voting, where the system itself remains unquestioned because the electorate believes a change in leadership will resolve the economic distress6.

However, a fundamental transition occurs when economic insecurity becomes a permanent, structural feature of the economy. In the contemporary United States, decades of real wage stagnation for the lower and middle classes, combined with extreme income volatility and rising fixed costs for healthcare and housing, have created a landscape of persistent financial fragility. When voters consistently utilize the electoral mechanism to change incumbents but experience no alleviation of these material pressures, they encounter a phenomenon known as representational failure4. The cognitive mechanism driving this is an "attribution of responsibility" shift. Voters stop asking which party is mismanaging the economy and begin asking why the institutional framework prevents any party from managing the economy in the public interest6. This realization erodes diffuse support—the deep-seated belief in the legitimacy and efficacy of the constitutional order itself. Once diffuse support collapses, the citizen concludes that ordinary policy reform is impossible within the current institutional constraints, leading directly to a preference for replacing the political system.

Relative Deprivation and the Davies J-Curve

A consistent finding across the literature is that absolute deprivation—living in persistent, intergenerational poverty—rarely sparks demands for systemic change. Instead, the mechanism driving systemic rejection is relative deprivation, a phenomenon accurately modeled by the Davies J-Curve9. This theory posits that systemic discontent reaches a critical threshold not when conditions are at their absolute worst, but when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is suddenly reversed by a sharp decline, or when expectations of continued progress are violently ruptured.

In the United States context between 2008 and 2026, this mechanism has been hyper-active. The post-World War II expectation of perpetual upward mobility, stable industrial employment, and intergenerational wealth accumulation has been fundamentally fractured11. High-quality polling consistently reveals that individuals who believe children in their country will be financially worse off than their parents are uniquely and overwhelmingly likely to demand that the political system be completely reformed3. It is the psychological gap between expected economic reality (homeownership, a stable retirement, affordable healthcare) and actual economic reality (gig-economy precarity, massive reliance on debt, unpredictable income volatility) that generates the friction required for systemic delegitimization. The pain of downward mobility, or the sudden inability to maintain a previously established standard of living due to inflation or cost-of-living crises, is far more politically explosive than persistently low living standards.

The Privatization of Risk and Credit Regimes

A critical intervening variable determining whether economic insecurity threatens the political system is the institutional structure of a country's social safety net. Comparative political economy research demonstrates that in countries with robust, comprehensive welfare states, economic shocks are absorbed collectively, which helps to preserve the legitimacy of the political system12. When unemployment or healthcare crises strike, the state intervenes, maintaining the citizen's standard of living and reinforcing diffuse support for the regime.

Conversely, the United States features a structurally weaker and more fragmented welfare state, characterized by the privatization of risk. As labor market protections have eroded, American households have been forced to rely on private credit markets to survive financial shortfalls, utilizing student loans for education, credit cards for basic needs, and second mortgages to cover medical emergencies12. This "credit regime" temporarily delays political unrest by allowing individuals to maintain consumption levels via the accumulation of private debt. However, it ultimately transforms systemic macroeconomic failure into acute household financial fragility. When credit maximums are reached and debt servicing becomes unsustainable, the realization that the state has entirely abandoned the citizen to market forces generates profound alienation. The individual perceives that the economic and political systems are entirely decoupled from human welfare, which catalyzes a demand for fundamental systemic restructuring rather than marginal policy adjustments12.

Sociotropic Grievance and Systemic Unfairness

Voters rarely translate their own personal poverty directly into demands for constitutional change. Personal hardship is often rationalized or attributed to bad luck, local conditions, or personal failure, a dynamic that insulates the broader political system from blame7. The causal mechanism that bridges economic hardship and revolutionary preference relies heavily on sociotropic grievances. Sociotropic evaluation occurs when citizens perceive that the broader national economy is fundamentally rigged, corrupt, or structurally unfair14.

Systemic change is preferred only when citizens view their personal economic insecurity as a direct symptom of a broader institutional pathology. If an individual cannot afford transportation or food, they may simply be angry. But if they cannot afford transportation while simultaneously observing massive corporate bailouts, unchecked elite impunity, and soaring wealth inequality, the hardship is cognitively mapped onto a systemic failure. This perception is exacerbated when political elites actively frame economic disparities as the intentional result of a corrupt establishment15. When economic distress is successfully linked to perceptions of society-wide unfairness and political corruption, the demand shifts from "improve my wages" to "dismantle the corrupt structure."

3. Strongest Evidence Supporting the Hypothesis

The strongest empirical evidence linking material inequality and economic insecurity to demands for fundamental system change derives from large-scale longitudinal surveys, cross-national democratic indices, and recent comparative case studies that isolate the variables in real-time crises.

Public Opinion Data on Systemic Reform (2021–2026)

High-quality public opinion data from the Pew Research Center provides the most direct, unequivocal evidence of a preference for structural transformation in the United States. Unlike metrics that track presidential approval or generic "wrong track" polling, these surveys specifically measure attitudes toward the constitutional and economic systems themselves. Despite the United States having the highest GDP per capita among the surveyed advanced economies, American dissatisfaction with the political system is a distinct international outlier. By 2025 and 2026, 77% of Americans stated that the nation's political system needs "major changes" or complete reform2.

Crucially, this data explicitly links these revolutionary preferences to economic insecurity and perceived downward mobility. Respondents who rate the current national economic situation as "bad," and those who express pessimism about the financial prospects of today’s children, are consistently and significantly more likely to call for the complete overhaul of both the political and economic systems3. Furthermore, when probed on specific structural reforms that would require monumental constitutional amendments, the support is overwhelming and bipartisan. For instance, 87% of Americans favor limiting the number of terms that members of Congress can serve, 74% favor maximum age limits for Supreme Court justices, 72% favor strict limits on campaign spending by individuals and organizations, and 63% prefer to elect the president directly through a nationwide popular vote, effectively abolishing the Electoral College16. These are not demands for new policies; they are demands for a new political system.

Data synthesized from Pew Research Center (2021-2026)1.

Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) and Democratic Backsliding

The V-Dem Institute provides robust, macro-level statistical evidence demonstrating that economic inequality is the single strongest structural predictor of democratic backsliding and systemic erosion in the 21st century17. In comprehensive analyses utilizing over 100 statistical models to track 23 distinct periods of democratic erosion across 22 countries from 1995 to 2022, income and wealth inequality consistently predicted periods where democratic norms and constitutional arrangements were dismantled17.

The evidence shows that in highly unequal societies, even wealthy and longstanding democracies are vulnerable. Backsliding leaders actively weaponize economic inequality by cultivating a sense of sociotropic grievance among populations experiencing downward mobility, often referred to as the "left-behinds." By framing the existing democratic institutions—such as the courts, the press, and the legislature—as tools of a corrupt elite that perpetuate economic insecurity, these leaders convince voters that horizontal accountability mechanisms must be dismantled17. Consequently, voters experiencing severe economic insecurity become highly tolerant of structural attacks on the political system, preferring decisive, autocratic executive aggrandizement over the gridlock of traditional institutional checks and balances20.

Comparative Case Study: The Chilean "Estallido Social" (2019)

Historical and international comparisons vividly illustrate how specific economic triggers escalate into revolutionary preferences when diffuse support is low. In October 2019, Chile experienced a massive social uprising, the estallido social, which was triggered by a seemingly minor 30-peso (approximately USD 0.05) increase in public transit fares21.

Viewed in isolation, a minor transportation cost increase should only trigger demands for ordinary policy reform, such as repealing the fare hike. However, this economic pressure occurred against a backdrop of severe, long-term structural inequality, characterized by a privatized pension system, prohibitive costs for healthcare and higher education, and widespread household debt23. Because the baseline of economic insecurity was so pervasive, the transit fare hike served as a sudden, intolerable catalyst. The public grievance instantly shifted from a specific policy dispute to a sweeping structural indictment, encapsulated by the popular protest slogan, "It's not 30 pesos, it's 30 years." The ultimate outcome of this mobilization was not merely the reversal of the fare hike, but a massive, democratically endorsed mandate to entirely rewrite the nation's Pinochet-era constitution23. This case perfectly isolates the intervening mechanism: when economic insecurity is systemic and institutional legitimacy is exhausted, an ordinary cost-of-living pressure bypasses ordinary policy reform and directly triggers a demand for total systemic replacement.

4. Evidence Against the Hypothesis (Nuance and Contradictions)

Despite the strong correlations noted above, rigorous political science reveals several major theories and robust datasets that fundamentally challenge or complicate the premise that material economic insecurity leads directly to a revolutionary preference.

System Justification Theory

System Justification Theory (SJT), pioneered by psychologists such as John Jost, posits a profound paradox that contradicts traditional Marxist or materialist expectations: individuals who are the most objectively disadvantaged by a political and economic system are frequently the most likely to defend, legitimize, and justify that very system25.

The psychological mechanism underpinning SJT is the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Acknowledging that the overarching societal system is fundamentally rigged, unfair, and oppressive, while simultaneously being entirely dependent upon it for daily survival, induces intolerable psychological distress. To cope with this existential anxiety, those experiencing severe economic hardship often rationalize profound inequality as natural, fair, or the inevitable result of personal failings rather than systemic flaws26. Therefore, absolute economic distress frequently decreases the likelihood that an individual will prefer fundamental political-system change. By fostering the belief that the system is legitimate despite its disparate outcomes, SJT acts as a powerful conservative force preserving the status quo, explaining why revolutions rarely originate among the absolute poorest demographics.

The Resource Model of Political Participation and Demobilization

The Resource Model of political participation demonstrates that engaging in politics—let alone conceptualizing, organizing, and advocating for the structural replacement of a constitutional regime—requires significant resources, including time, money, cognitive bandwidth, and civic skills28.

Severe economic insecurity, characterized by job loss, food insecurity, and the chronic stress of imminent eviction, typically results in political demobilization rather than radicalization28. Individuals struggling to meet basic daily needs are forced to withdraw from the political sphere entirely to focus their cognitive and physical energy on basic survival. Therefore, instead of producing a highly mobilized vanguard demanding constitutional change, widespread and severe economic hardship is highly likely to produce mass political apathy, civic disengagement, and plummeting voter turnout28. The exhaustion associated with poverty actively suppresses the capacity required to sustain a revolutionary preference.

The "Status Threat" Thesis vs. Material Interests

In analyzing the contemporary United States context, notably the anti-establishment political shifts during the 2016 election cycle, political scientist Diana Mutz produced highly influential evidence challenging the idea that material "economic hardship" drove the populist disruption of the American political system14. Utilizing longitudinal panel data, Mutz demonstrated that personal financial well-being and pocketbook economic indicators had virtually no predictive impact on voters' shift toward radical, anti-system candidates.

Instead, Mutz attributes the desire for systemic disruption to dominant group status threat14. In this view, voters from historically dominant demographic groups (e.g., white, Christian, and male voters), observing rapid demographic shifts and a perceived decline in American global hegemony, reacted defensively to protect their historical social status. While subsequent sociologists and political scientists (such as Stephen Morgan) have vigorously contested Mutz’s findings by demonstrating that economic variables and material interests still played a significant, intertwined role32, the Status Threat thesis remains a powerful counter-argument. It suggests that cultural, racial, and demographic anxieties can be vastly more potent than material economic insecurity in driving citizens to abandon democratic norms and support fundamental systemic disruption.

5. Groups or Circumstances in Which the Relationship Differs

The translation of economic insecurity into a preference for systemic change is not a uniform phenomenon across the electorate; it is heavily moderated by pre-existing political ideology and socio-demographic contexts.

The Moderating Role of Left-Right Ideology

Economic grievances are invariably processed through established ideological heuristics. Research indicates that left-wing and right-wing citizens interpret the exact same economic crises in fundamentally different ways, leading to divergent prescriptions for system change35.

Individuals on the political left possess strong baseline expectations regarding the necessity of the welfare state, economic equality, and robust state intervention. When an economic crisis occurs, they are highly likely to interpret it as a failure of democratic representation and evidence of corporate capture of the state35. Because austerity measures, welfare cuts, and labor market liberalizations directly violate their political ideals, left-wing citizens rapidly lose "satisfaction with democracy." Consequently, their preferred systemic changes revolve around structural democratization, such as implementing proportional representation, abolishing elite veto points (e.g., the filibuster or the Electoral College), and embedding economic rights into the constitutional framework35.

Conversely, individuals on the political right generally possess higher baseline tolerances for economic inequality and place a higher premium on systemic stability, tradition, and free-market outcomes. Pure economic downturns do not immediately trigger demands for systemic reform among this group35. However, right-wing citizens will demand profound structural change when economic insecurity intersects with cultural status threat, or when there is a perception that the state is artificially redistributing resources to underserving out-groups, such as immigrants or minority populations14. Their preferred systemic changes are often reactive and exclusionary, focusing on restricting the franchise, dismantling the administrative state, or permanently altering immigration frameworks to preserve historical demographic dominance17.

"Pessimistic Reformers" vs. "Optimistic Reformers"

Public opinion data identifies a crucial divergence in how different populations view the viability of system change. In the United States, roughly half of the population (49%) can be classified as "pessimistic reformers"—individuals who strongly believe the political system needs major changes or complete reform, but who have absolutely no confidence that such changes can happen effectively2.

By contrast, in developing democracies that are experiencing rapid, albeit unequal, economic growth (such as India or Indonesia), populations lean heavily toward being "optimistic reformers," believing structural change is both necessary and practically achievable2. This dichotomy highlights that in the United States, prolonged economic insecurity combined with intense political gridlock has engendered a profound societal fatalism. While revolutionary preferences exist in theory, the belief in the practical viability of nonviolent structural transformation has severely atrophied, leading to a dangerous environment characterized by high alienation and low civic efficacy1.

6. Distinguishing Nonviolent Structural Transformation from Political Violence

A critical analytical requirement for accurately assessing the contemporary United States is distinguishing between the desire to structurally reorganize the state (revolutionary preference via constitutionalism) and the willingness to use physical violence to achieve political ends. Equating the two fundamentally misreads the American public and dramatically overstates the imminence of civil conflict.

Support for nonviolent structural transformation is a supermajority position in the United States. As established, up to 85% of Americans support massive constitutional overhauls, driven by deep frustrations over legislative gridlock, representational failure, and the economic unresponsiveness of the governing elite1.

However, support for political violence remains a distinct, fringe phenomenon. Despite alarming media narratives suggesting that large pluralities of Americans support partisan violence, rigorous political psychology research spearheaded by Nathan Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason demonstrates that genuine support for political violence is exceedingly rare38. Early surveys estimating that 15% to 40% of Americans supported partisan violence were heavily distorted by methodological flaws, specifically "expressive responding" (voters blowing off steam by selecting extreme answers without literal intent) and respondent inattention39.

When researchers correct for this measurement error by using highly precise definitions of violence (e.g., explicit support for assault or murder) and by statistically eliminating disengaged respondents, the actual baseline of Americans who genuinely support political violence drops precipitously to between 2% and 7%39. Furthermore, Kalmoe and Mason's research proves that this residual support for political violence is not primarily driven by material economic hardship, nor is it strongly correlated with extreme ideological policy positions. Rather, the endorsement of political violence correlates heavily with specific psychological and social traits: high trait aggression, authoritarianism, and a deeply internalized sense of systemic victimhood38.

Therefore, while material economic insecurity makes ordinary citizens deeply desire to rewrite the Constitution and restructure the economy, it does not inherently make them want to physically attack their political opponents. The leap from demanding constitutional reform to endorsing political violence requires a psychological predisposition toward interpersonal aggression and anti-social behavior that operates largely independently of economic variables.

7. The Causal Status of Economic Insecurity

Based on the comprehensive synthesis of the empirical evidence, the causal status of material economic insecurity in generating a preference for fundamental political-system change can be defined as follows:

• It is NOT Sufficient: System Justification Theory and the Resource Model definitively prove that economic hardship alone is vastly more likely to produce political apathy, cognitive rationalization, and status quo defense than a mobilized desire to overthrow the system26. If absolute economic deprivation were sufficient to cause revolutionary preference, the poorest and most marginalized citizens would consistently form the vanguard of constitutional change, an assumption that empirical data roundly refutes.
• It is NOT Necessary: Structural changes to the political system are frequently demanded for reasons entirely unrelated to economics. The Status Threat thesis demonstrates that affluent, materially comfortable individuals will enthusiastically support systemic disruption and democratic backsliding if they believe their cultural, racial, or national dominance is eroding14.
• It IS Catalytic: Material economic insecurity acts as a high-octane accelerant when introduced into a political environment already suffering from low institutional trust and high affective polarization. When a population experiences relative deprivation and downward mobility, and political elites actively frame that deprivation as the intentional result of a rigged structural system, economic insecurity provides the visceral, emotional proof required to convince voters that ordinary policy reform is a dead end17. In this context, economic insecurity is the catalyst that transforms ambient political frustration into a hardened demand for a new constitutional order.

8. Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Several methodological and theoretical gaps complicate the definitive assessment of these dynamics:

1. The Confounding of Economics and Culture: Disentangling material economic insecurity from cultural status threat remains the most heavily debated methodological challenge in modern political behavior research14. Because periods of macroeconomic decline often occur concurrently with rapid demographic and cultural shifts (such as globalization and migration), isolating the pure causal effect of a lost job or wage stagnation versus the fear of cultural displacement is exceedingly difficult.

2. Measurement Error in "System Support": Survey instruments asking if a political system needs "complete reform" often suffer from varying interpretations by respondents42. For one respondent, "complete reform" may mean passing a universal healthcare bill within the existing constitutional framework; for another, it means drafting an entirely new constitution. Furthermore, measuring diffuse support (system legitimacy) versus specific support (incumbent approval) remains imprecise, as voters frequently conflate their intense hatred of current politicians with a hatred of the democratic system itself4.

3. The Temporal Lag Effect of Private Debt: Research on credit regimes highlights that the accumulation of private debt successfully masks the acute pain of economic insecurity, artificially extending the lifespan of political stability12. There is currently insufficient longitudinal data to accurately predict the temporal lag—how long a highly indebted, financially fragile society can postpone political radicalization before the credit bubble bursts and latent systemic preferences crystalize into active institutional disruption.

9. Confidence Assessment of Major Conclusions

 

10. Top Reference Sources

1. Pew Research Center (2021-2024). Citizens in Advanced Economies Want Significant Changes to Their Political Systems. Detailed global tracking of public attitudes toward political and economic system reform, highlighting the unique position of the United States. \[URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/10/21/citizens-in-advanced-economies-want-significant-changes-to-their-political-systems/\]

2. Mutz, D. C. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). A seminal, highly debated study on the limits of economic hardship explanations in modern political realignment. \[URL: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115\]

3. Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2022). A holistic view of conditional American support for political violence. PNAS. Methodologically rigorous analysis separating the widespread support for structural change from the fringe support for actual political violence. \[URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35878010/\]

4. V-Dem Institute (2024-2025). Democracy Report 2025: 25 Years of Autocratization. Comprehensive global dataset and statistical modeling linking economic inequality to democratic backsliding and systemic institutional erosion. \[URL: https://www.v-dem.net/documents/60/V-dem-dr\_\_2025\_lowres.pdf\]

5. Wiedemann, A. (2021). A Social Policy Theory of Everyday Borrowing. Analysis of how weak welfare states and permissive credit regimes mask economic insecurity and delay political disruption through the privatization of risk. \[URL: https://scispace.com/pdf/a-social-policy-theory-of-everyday-borrowing-on-the-role-of-4k79jmt35p.pdf\]

6. Frontiers in Political Science (2021). The Moderating Role of Ideology in the Impact of Economic Crises on Democratic Discontent. Highlights how left-wing and right-wing citizens radically diverge in translating economic pain into specific demands for systemic reform. \[URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2021.685199/full\]

7. American Political Science Review (2023). Attitudes toward Electoral System Reform and Party System Change in the US. Experimental analysis of the American appetite for moderate multiparty democracy, structural reform, and aversion to extreme polarization. \[URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/attitudes-toward-electoral-system-reform-and-party-system-change-in-the-us/D6C0974F51E699AE8BD4802D1F5A79E5\]

Works cited

1. Can Americans be optimistic about their democracy?, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/13/can-americans-be-optimistic-about-their-democracy/

2. Americans stand out internationally for their pessimism about the, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/15/americans-stand-out-internationally-for-their-pessimism-about-the-nations-political-system/

3. Citizens in Advanced Economies Want Significant Changes to Their, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/10/21/citizens-in-advanced-economies-want-significant-changes-to-their-political-systems/

4. Political Distrust and its Discontents: Exploring the Meaning ... \- MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/9/4/72

5. Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracie, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8281d6wt

6. Do economic differences or institutions explain variance in the, https://cses.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Beltran.pdf

7. The voter as juror: Attributing responsibility for economic conditions, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226209180\_The\_voter\_as\_juror\_Attributing\_responsibility\_for\_economic\_conditions

8. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES AMBIGUOUS ATTRIBUTION, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working\_papers/w35550/w35550.pdf

9. Social and Economic Determinants of Support for a Strong Non, https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/download/7235/7235.pdf

10. Results from PACL Table 2.12 \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Results-from-PACL-Table-212\_tbl1\_38414228

11. Political Parties in the New Politics of Insecurity (Chapter 10), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/who-gets-what/political-parties-in-the-new-politics-of-insecurity/02D42C9D24E030FADC7DDCDCAA018D62

12. a-social-policy-theory-of-everyday-borrowing-on-the-role ... \- SciSpace, https://scispace.com/pdf/a-social-policy-theory-of-everyday-borrowing-on-the-role-of-4k79jmt35p.pdf

13. Downing the Master's Tools? New Research Strategies to Address, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10315868/

14. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential, https://www.asc.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/2021-03/Status%20threat%2C%20not%20economic%20hardship%2C%20explains%20the%202016%20presidential%20vote.pdf

15. Partisan and Ideological Identities versus Anti-Establishment, https://www.joeuscinski.com/uploads/7/1/9/5/71957435/two\_dimensions\_uscinski\_et\_al.pdf

16. Most Americans favor political changes that likely would require, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/07/28/most-americans-favor-big-changes-to-the-political-system-that-likely-would-require-amending-the-constitution/

17. Economic Inequality Threatens Democracy, https://www.aft.org/ae/fall2025/rau\_stokes

18. Income inequality and the erosion of democracy in the twenty-first, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2422543121

19. Institutional Order in Episodes of Autocratization \- V-Dem, https://v-dem.net/media/publications/WP\_133.pdf

20. Democracy in Decline: The Economic Implications of Democratic, https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2025/v25-502.pdf

21. (PDF) The 2019 Chilean Social Upheaval: Who Are the Leaderless, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355198336\_The\_2019\_Chilean\_Social\_Upheaval\_Who\_Are\_the\_Leaderless\_Protesters

22. Chilean street artists and instagrammable heritage activism, https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstreams/587f3f57-c52d-4198-a96d-38090adf8fb7/download

23. Reparations for Victims of Human Rights Violations during the 2019, https://periodicos.fgv.br/revdireitogv/article/download/99294/91482

24. (PDF) Social Crisis in Chile 2019: Review of Two Hypotheses as to, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364600616\_Social\_Crisis\_in\_Chile\_2019\_Review\_of\_Two\_Hypotheses\_as\_to\_its\_Cause

25. Book of Abstracts 9ICCP Naples 2022 9th International Conference, https://boa.unimib.it/retrieve/326e6bdb-ea01-4933-b495-9bff033ee502/9ICCP%202022%20Book%20of%20Abstracts%20.pdf

26. (PDF) The Legitimacy of Inequality: Integrating the Perspectives of, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320259157\_The\_Legitimacy\_of\_Inequality\_Integrating\_the\_Perspectives\_of\_System\_Justification\_and\_Social\_Judgment

27. Consequences of Economic Inequality for the Social and Political, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356969505\_Consequences\_of\_Economic\_Inequality\_for\_the\_Social\_and\_Political\_Vitality\_of\_Society\_A\_Social\_Identity\_Analysis

28. trajectories of outsiderness: a resource model of political, https://mobilization.kglmeridian.com/downloadpdf/view/journals/maiq/30/4/article-p427.pdf

29. Access to Healthcare and Voting: The Case of Hospital Closures in, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/access-to-healthcare-and-voting-the-case-of-hospital-closures-in-rural-america/33E48DFAC6215DE273E7D80366B408B1

30. Full article: 'We don't know who to trust': inequality and democratic, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2026.2638616

31. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115

32. Does “status threat” explain the 2016 presidential vote?, https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/05/14/status-threat-explain-2016-presidential-vote/

33. Status Threat, Material Interests, and the 2016 Presidential Vote \- OSF, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7r9fj\_v1

34. How Immigration and Trade Affected Voting in 2016 and 2018 \- CPIP, https://www.cpip.uci.edu/files/docs/CPIP%20Working%20Paper%2020210%20-%20Telles.pdf

35. Economic Crisis and Attitudes Towards Democracy: How Ideology, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2021.685199/full

36. Status Threat, Partisanship, and Voters' Conservative Shift Toward, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/1ADA24CB898A3974BA4476CD83FB1878/S2052263025100067a.pdf/status\_threat\_partisanship\_and\_voters\_conservative\_shift\_toward\_rightwing\_candidates.pdf

37. Status Threat: Moving the Right Further to the Right?, https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/status-threat-moving-right-further-right

38. Lethal Mass Partisanship: \- Danny Hayes, https://www.dannyhayes.org/uploads/6/9/8/5/69858539/kalmoe\_\_\_mason\_ncapsa\_2019\_-\_lethal\_partisanship\_-\_final\_lmedit.pdf

39. Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason. Radical American Partisanship, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368637867\_Nathan\_P\_Kalmoe\_and\_Lilliana\_Mason\_Radical\_American\_Partisanship\_Mapping\_Violent\_Hostility\_Its\_Causes\_and\_the\_Consequences\_for\_Democracy

40. Current research overstates American support for political violence, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc78/83ffe85d4d265d75f8d1df5796978e81add7.pdf

41. Support for Political Violence in the United States, https://warpreventioninitiative.org/peace-science-digest/support-for-political-violence-in-the-united-states/

42. Attitudes Toward Electoral System Reform and Party System, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/attitudes-toward-electoral-system-reform-and-party-system-change-in-the-us/D6C0974F51E699AE8BD4802D1F5A79E5