Do those who support democracy also oppose autocracy, and vice versa? Intuitively, the answer is yes, given that these are contradictory regime types, and scholars often construct a bipolar index for analytic purposes. Yet our investigation of the latest wave of the World Values Survey (WVS) demonstrates that a plurality of citizens worldwide now support both democracy and autocracy, and this ambivalent camp has been growing. We further investigate who is ambivalent and why. Using WVS, we identify broad predictors of ambivalence globally, including knowledge gaps and value orientations. To improve causal inference and explore broader implications, we also conduct a preregistered survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of U.S. respondents. Findings suggest a powerful and underappreciated role for civic education to ameliorate ambivalence, particularly by clarifying the contrast space across regime types. More troublingly, they also reveal a strong association between ambivalence and openness to democratic backsliding.
AlemánJ.WoodsD. (2016). Value orientations from the world values survey: How comparable are they cross-nationally?Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1039–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015600458
2.
AlvarezR. M.BrehmJ. (1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 1055–1082. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111669
3.
AlvarezR. M.BrehmJ. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies?American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 345–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111768
4.
AngelS.DisslbacherF.HumerS.SchnetzerM. (2019). What did you really earn last year? Explaining measurement error in survey income data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series A: Statistics in Society, 182(4), 1411–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12463
5.
APM Research Lab. (2023). Mood of the nation: Americans’ belief in democracy. Mood of the Nation Poll, The McCourtney Institute for Democracy.
6.
ArielyG. (2015). Democracy-assessment in cross-national surveys: A critical examination of how people evaluate their regime. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0666-y
7.
ArielyG.DavidovE. (2011). Can we rate public support for democracy in a comparable way? Cross-National equivalence of democratic attitudes in the world value survey. Social Indicators Research, 104(2), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9693-5
8.
BasingerS. J.LavineH. G. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051580
9.
BauerN. M. (2023). Gendered ambivalence: The structure of attitudes about female candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 45(4), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2023.2257122
10.
BerinskyA. J. (1999). The two faces of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 1209–1230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991824
11.
BertsouE.CaramaniD. (2022). People haven’t had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12554
12.
BrattonM.MattesR. (2001). How people view democracy: Africans’ surprising universalism. Journal of Democracy, 12(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2001.0002
13.
BrattonM.MattesR.Gyimah-BoadiE. (2005). Public opinion, democracy, and market reform in Africa. Cambridge University Press.
14.
BrecklerS. J. (2004). Hold still while I measure your attitude. In HaddockG.MaioG. R. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 77–91). Psychology Press.
15.
BurgerA. M. (2024). Political ideology and attitudinal ambivalence: Investigating the role of ideological extremity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(4), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231222958.
16.
ButtlarB.PauerS.van HarreveldF. (2024). The model of ambivalent choice and dissonant commitment: An integration of dissonance and ambivalence frameworks. European Review of Social Psychology, 36(1), 196–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2024.2373547
17.
CacioppoJ. T.GardnerW. L.BerntsonG. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 1(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2
18.
CamparoJ. C.CamparoL. B. (2021). Are political-opinion pollsters missing ambivalence: “I love Trump”… “I hate Trump”. PLoS One, 16(3), Article e0247580. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247580
19.
CantrilA. H.CantrilS. D. (1999). Reading mixed signals: Ambivalence in American public opinion about government. Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
20.
CaramaniD. (2017). Will vs. reason: The populist and technocratic forms of political representation and their critique to party government. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055416000538
21.
CareyJ.ClaytonK.HelmkeG.NyhanB.SandersM.StokesS. (2020). Who will defend democracy? Evaluating tradeoffs in candidate support among partisan donors and voters. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 32(1), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2020.1790577
22.
CarlinR. E.SingerM. M. (2011). Support for polyarchy in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies, 44(11), 1500–1526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011407471
23.
ChuY.DiamondL.NathanA. J.ShinD. C. (Eds.), (2008). How East Asians view democracy. Columbia University Press.
24.
ChyungS. Y.RobertsK.SwansonI.HankinsonA. (2017). Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21727
25.
CitrinJ.LuksS. (2005). Patriotic to the core? In CraigS. C.MartinezM. D. (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 127–148). Springer.
26.
ClaassenC. (2020). Does public support help democracy survive?American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12452
27.
ConoverP. J.FeldmanS. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110756
28.
CoppedgeM.GerringJ.AltmanD.BernhardM.FishS.HickenA.KroenigM.LindbergS. I.McMannK.PaxtonP.SemetkoH. A.SkaaningS. E.StatonJ.TeorellJ. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711000880
29.
CraigS. C.MartinezM. D. (Eds.), (2005a). Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion. Springer.
30.
CraigS. C.MartinezM. D. (Eds.), (2005b). Ambivalence, politics and public policy. Palgrave Macmillan US.
31.
CraigS. C.MartinezM. D.KaneJ. G. (2005). Ambivalence and response instability: A panel study. In CraigS. C.MartinezM. D. (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 56–71). Springer.
32.
DavisN. T.GoidelK.GaddieK. (2022). Democracy’s meanings: How the public understands democracy and why it matters. University of Michigan Press.
33.
DukalskisA. (2021). Making the world safe for dictatorship. Oxford University Press.
34.
EastonD. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. John Wiley & Sons.
35.
EastonD. (1975). A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science, 5(4), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400008309
36.
ErhardtJ.WamslerS.FreitagM. (2021). National identity between democracy and autocracy: A comparative analysis of 24 countries. European Political Science Review, 13(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773920000351
37.
FedericoC. M. (2007). Expertise, evaluative motivation, and the structure of citizens’ ideological commitments. Political Psychology, 28(5), 535–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00589.x
38.
FeldmanS.ZallerJ. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111433
39.
FerrínM.KriesiH. (Eds.), (2016). How Europeans view and evaluate democracy. Oxford University Press.
40.
FoaR. S.MounkY. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation: The democratic disconnect. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0049
41.
FrederiksenK. V. S. (2022). Does competence make citizens tolerate undemocratic behavior?American Political Science Review, 116(3), 1147–1153. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000119
42.
GainousJ.MartinezM. D.CraigS. C. (2010). The multiple causes of citizen ambivalence: Attitudes about social welfare policy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 20(3), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2010.490717
43.
GidengilE.StolleD.Bergeron-BoutinO. (2022). The partisan nature of support for democratic backsliding: A comparative perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 61(4), 901–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12502
44.
GlasiusM. (2018). What authoritarianism is… and is not: A practice perspective. International Affairs, 94(3), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy060
45.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.AdetounB.OsagieJ. E.AkandeA.AlaoA.BrunnerA.WillemsenT. M.ChipetaK.DardenneB.DijksterhuisA.WigboldusD.EckesT.Six-MaternaI.ExpósitoF.López LópezW. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and behavior and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763
46.
GonzalezF. J. (2021). Unresolved politics: Implicit ambivalence and political cognition. Political Research Quarterly, 74(3), 556–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920911100
47.
GrahamM. H.SvolikM. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the united States. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000052
48.
GurievS.TreismanD. (2020). The popularity of authoritarian leaders: A cross-national investigation. World Politics, 72(4), 601–638. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887120000167
49.
HaleH. E. (2011). The myth of mass Russian support for autocracy: The public opinion foundations of a hybrid regime. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(8), 1357–1375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2011.601106
50.
HaririJ. G.LassenD. D. (2017). Income and outcomes: Social desirability bias distorts measurements of the relationship between income and political behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(2), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw044
51.
Harmon-JonesE.MillsJ. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In Harmon-JonesE. (Ed.), Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–24). American Psychological Association.
52.
HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge University Press.
53.
HuntingtonS. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press.
54.
InglehartR. (2003). How solid is mass support for democracy—and how can we measure it?Political Science and Politics, 36(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096503001689
55.
JohnsR. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 15(2), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13689880500178849
JonesC. W. (2015). Seeing like an autocrat: Liberal social engineering in an illiberal state. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714003119
JonesC. W.MitchellJ. S. (2025). Social desirability and political sensitivity: Interviewer gender effects on men in five Arab countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, Advance articles. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaf016.
60.
JonesC. W.MitchellJ. S.MartinJ. D. (2021). Ambivalent sexism? Shifting patterns of gender bias in five Arab countries. International Studies Quarterly, 65(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab007
61.
KaplanK. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032590
KirschH.WelzelC. (2019). Democracy misunderstood: Authoritarian notions of democracy around the globe. Social Forces, 98(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy114
64.
LavineH. G. (2001). The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 915–929. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669332
65.
LavineH. G.JohnstonC. D.SteenbergenM. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford University Press.
66.
LinzJ. J.StepanA. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. Johns Hopkins University Press.
67.
LipsetS. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951731
68.
MagalhãesP. C. (2014). Government effectiveness and support for democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 53(1), 77–97.
69.
MartinezM. D.GainousJ.CraigS. C. (2011). Measuring ambivalence about government. In AldrichJ. H.McGrawK. M. (Eds.), Improving public opinion surveys (pp. 238–259). Princeton University Press.
70.
MattesR.BrattonM. (2007). Learning about democracy in Africa: Awareness, performance, and experience. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 192–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00245.x
71.
McDonnellD.ValbruzziM. (2014). Defining and classifying technocrat-led and technocratic governments. European Journal of Political Research, 53(4), 654–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12054
72.
McGrawK. M.BartelsB. (2005). Ambivalence toward American political institutions. In CraigS. C.MartinezM. D. (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 105–126). Springer.
73.
McGrawK. M.HaseckeE.CongerK. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00335
74.
MishlerW.RoseR. (2001). Political support for incomplete democracies: Realist vs. idealist theories and measures. International Political Science Review, 22(4), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512101022004002
75.
MutzD. C. (2004). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055402004264
76.
Newby-ClarkI. R.McGregorI.ZannaM. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157–166.
77.
NewmanL. S.SargentR. H. (2021). Liberals report lower levels of attitudinal ambivalence than conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 780–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620939798
78.
NorrisP. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford University Press.
79.
NorrisP. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
80.
Open Society Foundations. (2023). Open society barometer: Can democracy deliver?The Open Society Foundations.
81.
PastorellaG. (2016). Technocratic governments in Europe: Getting the critique right. Political Studies, 64(4), 948–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12217
82.
PillaudV.CavazzaN.ButeraF. (2018). The social utility of ambivalence: Being ambivalent on controversial issues is recognized as competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 961. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00961
83.
ProulxT.InzlichtM.Harmon-JonesE. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002
SawickiV.WegenerD. T.ClarkJ. K.FabrigarL. R.SmithS. M.DursoG. R. O. (2013). Feeling conflicted and seeking information: When ambivalence enhances and diminishes selective exposure to attitude-consistent information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213481388
87.
SchedlerA.SarsfieldR. (2007). Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support. European Journal of Political Research, 46(5), 637–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00708.x
SchneiderI. K.NovinS.van HarreveldF.GenschowO. (2021). Benefits of being ambivalent: The relationship between trait ambivalence and attribution biases. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12417
90.
SekiK. (2023). Assessing the public understanding of democracy through conjoint analysis. Frontiers in Political Science, 5, 976756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.976756
91.
ShinD. C. (2015). Cultural hybridization in East Asia: Exploring an alternative to the global democratization thesis. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 25(1), 10–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.953009
92.
ShinD. C. (2024). Have East Asians embraced their democratic political system as “the only game in town”? Ascertaining a variety of their system preferences. In ChuY.ChangY.HuangM.HuangK.-P. (Eds.), How Asians view democratic legitimacy (pp. 55–66). National Taiwan University Press.
93.
ShinD. C.KimH. J. (2017). Liberal democracy as the end of history: Western theories versus Eastern Asian realities. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 2(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057891116673745
94.
ShinD. C.KimH. J. (2018). How global citizenries think about democracy: An evaluation and synthesis of recent public opinion research. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 19(2), 222–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109918000063
95.
ShinD. C.WellsJ. (2005). Challenge and change in East Asia: Is democracy the only game in town?Journal of Democracy, 16(2), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2005.0036
96.
SilverL.FetterolfJ. (2024). Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government?Pew Research Center.
97.
SteenekampC.Du ToitP. (2017). The evolution of support for democratic regime principles and its alternatives. Journal of Public Affairs, 17(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1644
98.
SvolikM. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge University Press.
ThompsonM. M.ZannaM. P.GriffinD. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
van HarreveldF.NohlenH. U.SchneiderI. K. (2015). The ABC of ambivalence: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of attitudinal conflict. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 285–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.002
103.
van HarreveldF.van der PligtJ.de LiverY. N. (2009). The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 13(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308324518
104.
WeissJ. C. (2019). A world safe for autocracy? China’s rise and the future of global politics. Foreign Affairs, 92–102.
WuttkeA.GavrasK.SchoenH. (2022). Have Europeans grown tired of democracy? New evidence from eighteen consolidated democracies, 1981–2018. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123420000149
108.
YooS. (2010). Two types of neutrality: Ambivalence versus indifference and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 72(1), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381609990545
109.
ZilinskyJ. (2019). Democratic deconsolidation revisited: Young Europeans are not dissatisfied with democracy. Research & Politics, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018814332
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
