“Stop the Earl!” He not only attracted partisans during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. A new study shows that many people, even those in the political aisle, may also truly believe that they are fraudulent because of the reports of the results.
According to seven new experiments published Psychological Sciencethe way in which part of the vote could distort public perception. If the candidate starts with a lead but loses later, people are more likely to think something is wrong, even if not.
Psychology behind doubt
The culprit is a cognitive malfunction Cumulative redundancy bias (CRB). This bias has made people pay too much attention to early prospects, and it is difficult to shake the impression even after all votes. “It would be even worse if the winners took the lead later in the number.”
The researchers conducted seven studies with participants in the United States and the United Kingdom. Some experiments use fictional school elections, while others reflect real-world situations, including Georgia’s 2020 presidential votes. In all cases, the impression of the candidate and the belief in the legitimacy of the election depend solely on the order in which the results are presented.
What has the research found
In these seven studies, the researchers found:
- Even if participants eventually lose their early leader evaluation (Study 1)
- People are more likely to suspect fraud when the winner leads (Study 2-4)
- This effect remains even if the count is still in progress (Study 5)
- Providing a reasonable explanation of the voting order only slightly reduces bias (Study 6)
- Partisan identity does not eliminate this effect – both Democrats and Republicans are affected (Study 7)
In one of the most revealed tests, participants looked at actual data on Georgia’s 2020 presidential vote. When the late sequence occurred (Trump leads, Biden) was late, and participants suspected that the fraudsters favored Biden. When the exact same data is displayed in reverse order, the suspicion will flip.
Ignore context bias
The researchers stressed that this distortion still exists even when the logical explanation was given to the participants. “Although the explanation reduces the effect, it does not eliminate it.” Even participants who recognize and support real candidates (Biden or Trump) are not immune. CRB seems to be a deeply ingrained way of competition in our brain processes: we like people who seem to win early, and even if the end result contradicts this trend, it’s hard for us to update our psychological models.
Should we stop reporting some results?
What should I do? The study proposes a bold idea: avoid reporting partial votes. While delaying results may introduce its own risks, such as conspiracy theories that contribute to lack of transparency, the authors believe there are better ways to communicate elections. Improved predictive models and more public education on how and why votes change over time and why it helps.
In a polarized media environment, even simple behavior of statistical voting in different orders may change the public’s perception. The team behind the research hopes that their findings can guide election officials and news media how results are shared and ultimately help prevent false claims from taking root.
Research details
Magazine: Psychological Science
Publication date: July 24, 2025
doi: 10.1177/09567976251355594
author: André Vaz, Moritz Ingendahl, André Mata, Hans Alves
funds: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Grant No. 538466518)
Related
If our report has been informed or inspired, please consider donating. No matter how big or small, every contribution allows us to continue to provide accurate, engaging and trustworthy scientific and medical news. Independent news takes time, energy and resources – your support ensures that we can continue to reveal the stories that matter most to you.
Join us to make knowledge accessible and impactful. Thank you for standing with us!
