Influential perspectives on polarization in the United States imply that partisans will be more willing to degrade democracy when they are ideologically aligned with their own party and negatively oriented toward the opposing party. But psychological accounts of political ideology suggest that conservatives will be especially anti-democratic regardless of partisanship. Integrating insights from these areas, we argue that there are reasons to expect paradoxical partisan asymmetries in the ideological correlates of democratic attitudes. Across numerous surveys we find that cultural conservatism and out-party favorability are reliably associated with anti-democratic orientation among Democrats (but not Republicans), while left-leaning economic attitudes are reliably associated with anti-democratic orientation among Republicans (but not Democrats). These findings provide context for understanding how polarization might impact American democracy. They also suggest that increased centrality of sociocultural conflict and Republican cultivation of a right-wing populist reputation might sort anti-democratic Americans into the Republican Party.
AbramowitzAI (2010) The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramowitzAIWebsterS (2016) The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of US Elections in the 21st Century. Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
3.
AdornoTWFrenkel-BrunswikELevinsonDJ, et al. (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.
4.
AhmedA (2023) Is the American Public Really Turning Away From Democracy? Backsliding and the Conceptual Challenges of Understanding Public Attitudes. Perspectives on Politics21 (3): 967–978.
5.
AllportGW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6.
AltemeyerB (1988) Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
AltemeyerB (1996) The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BartelsLM (2020) Ethnic Antagonism Erodes Republicans’ Commitment to Democracy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117 (37): 22752–22759.
9.
BeckNJackmanS (1998) Beyond Linearity by Default: Generalized Additive Models. American Journal of Political Science42: 596–627.
10.
BerinskyAJMargolisMFSancesMW (2014) Separating the Shirkers From the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys. American Journal of Political Science58 (3): 739–753.
11.
BrattonM (2010) The Meanings of Democracy: Anchoring the “D-Word” in Africa. Journal of Democracy21 (4): 106–113.
12.
BroockmanDEKallaJLWestwoodSJ (2022) Does Affective Polarization Undermine Democratic Norms or Accountability? Maybe Not. American Journal of Political Science66 (4): 819–836.
13.
CarminesEGEnsleyMJWagnerMW (2012) Political Ideology in American Politics: One, Two, or None?The Forum10 (3): 1–20.
CoppedgeMLindbergSSkaaningSE, et al. (2016) Measuring High Level Democratic Principles Using the V-Dem Data. International Political Science Review37 (5): 580–593.
16.
CoppockAMcClellanOA (2019) Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents. Research & Politics6 (1): 2053168018822174. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018822174
17.
CostelloTHBowesSMStevensST, et al. (2022) Clarifying the Structure and Nature of Left-Wing Authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology122 (1): 135–165.
18.
CostelloTHZmigrodLTasimiA (2023) Thinking Outside the Ballot Box. Trends in Cognitive Sciences27 (7): 605–615.
19.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
DaltonRJ (2018) Political Realignment: Economics, Culture, and Electoral Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
Democracy Fund Voter Study Group (2021) Views of the Electorate Research Survey, December 2021. Washington, DC: Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. Available at: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/data/voter-survey (accessed 29 April 2025).
22.
De Oliveira SantosDJostJT (2024) Liberal-Conservative Asymmetries in Anti-Democratic Tendencies are Partly Explained by Psychological Differences in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample. Communications Psychology2: 61.
23.
DiamondL (2008) The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies throughout the World. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
24.
DrutmanL (2020) Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
DrutmanLDiamondLGoldmanJ (2018) Follow the leader: Exploring American support for democracy and authoritarianism. Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. Available at: https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/follow-the-leader (accessed 29 April 2025).
26.
EllisCStimsonJA (2012) Ideology in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
EngelhardtAMFeldmanSHetheringtonMJ (2023) Advancing the Measurement of Authoritarianism. Political Behavior45 (2): 537–560.
28.
FedericoCMMalkaA (2023) The Psychological and Social Foundations of Ideological Belief Systems. In: HuddyLSearsDOLevyJS, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 3rd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.601–648.
29.
FedericoCMDeasonGFisherEL (2012) Ideological Asymmetry in the Relationship Between Epistemic Motivation and Political Attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology103 (3): 381–398.
30.
FeldmanSHuddyL (2005) Racial Resentment and White Opposition to Race-Conscious Programs: Principles or Prejudice?American Journal of Political Science49 (1): 168–183.
31.
GelmanA (2008) Scaling Regression Inputs by Dividing by Two Standard Deviations. Statistics in Medicine27 (15): 2865–2873.
32.
GerringJ (2012) Mere Description. British Journal of Political Science42 (4): 721–746.
33.
GethinAMartínez-ToledanoCPikettyT (2022) Brahmin Left Versus Merchant Right: Changing Political Cleavages in 21 Western Democracies, 1948–2020. The Quarterly Journal of Economics137 (1): 1–48.
34.
GidengilEStolleDBergeron-BoutinO (2022) The Partisan Nature of Support for Democratic Backsliding: A Comparative Perspective. European Journal of Political Research61 (4): 901–929.
35.
GidronNAdamsJHorneW (2020) American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
GidronNHallPA (2020) Populism as a Problem of Social Integration. Comparative Political Studies53 (7): 1027–1059.
37.
GrahamMHSvolikMW (2020) Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review114 (2): 392–409.
38.
GreenDPPlatzmanP (2022) Partisan Stability During Turbulent Times: Evidence From Three American Panel Surveys. Political Behavior44 (1): 1–27.
39.
GroenendykESancesMWZhirkovK (2020) Intraparty Polarization in American Politics. The Journal of Politics82 (4): 1616–1620.
40.
GrossmanGKronickDLevenduskyM, et al. (2022) The Majoritarian Threat to Liberal Democracy. Journal of Experimental Political Science9 (1): 36–45.
41.
GrossmannMHopkinsDA (2015) Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics. Perspectives on Politics13 (1): 119–139.
42.
GrossmannMHopkinsDA (2016) Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
HalikiopoulouDVlandasT (2020) When Economic and Cultural Interests Align: The Anti-Immigration Voter Coalitions Driving Far Right Party Success in Europe. European Political Science Review12 (4): 427–448.
44.
HareCPooleKT (2014) The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics. Polity46 (3): 411–429.
45.
HetheringtonMJWeilerJD (2009) Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
HetheringtonMJWeilerJD (2018) Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
47.
InglehartRHaerpferCMorenoA, et al. (eds) (2020) World Values Survey: All Rounds—Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid and Vienna: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. Available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp (accessed September 2023).
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22: 129–146.
50.
JardinaAMickeyR (2022) White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science699 (1): 79–89.
51.
JohnstonCDLavineHGFedericoCM (2017) Open Versus Closed: Personality, Identity, and the Politics of Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
KingzetteJDruckmanJNKlarS, et al. (2021) How Affective Polarization Undermines Support for Democratic Norms. Public Opinion Quarterly85 (2): 663–677.
53.
KönigPDSiewertMBAckermannK (2022) Conceptualizing and Measuring Citizens’ Preferences for Democracy: Taking Stock of Three Decades of Research in a Fragmented Field. Comparative Political Studies55 (12): 2015–2049.
54.
LavineHGJohnstonCDSteenbergenMR (2012) The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
LaymanG (2001) The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
56.
LaymanGCCarseyTM (2002) Party Polarization and “Conflict Extension” in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 786–802.
57.
LefkofridiZMichelE (2017) The Electoral Politics of Solidarity. In: BantingKKymlickaW (eds) The Strains of Commitment: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.233–267.
58.
LelkesY (2016) Mass Polarization: Manifestations and Measurements. Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw005
59.
LelkesY (2018) Affective Polarization and Ideological Sorting: A Reciprocal, Albeit Weak, Relationship. The Forum16 (1): 67–79.
60.
LelkesYSnidermanPM (2016) The Ideological Asymmetry of the American Party System. British Journal of Political Science46 (4): 825–844.
61.
LenzGS (2013) Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62.
LevenduskyM (2009) The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
63.
LipsetSM (1959) Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review53 (1): 69–105.
64.
LudekeSJohnsonWBouchardTJ, et al. (2013) Obedience to Traditional Authority: A Heritable Factor Underlying Authoritarianism, Conservatism and Religiousness. Personality and Individual Differences55 (4): 375–380.
65.
MalkaACostelloTH (2023) Professed Democracy Support and Openness to Politically Congenial Authoritarian Actions Within the American Public. American Politics Research51 (3): 327–342.
66.
MalkaALelkesYBakkerBN, et al. (2022) Who Is Open to Authoritarian Governance Within Western Democracies?Perspectives on Politics20 (3): 808–827.
67.
MalkaALelkesYSotoCJ (2019) Are Cultural and Economic Conservatism Positively Correlated? A Large‑Scale Cross‑National Test. British Journal of Political Science49 (3): 1045–1069. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000072
68.
MasonL (2015) “I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization. American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 128–145.
69.
MasonL (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
70.
MasonLWronskiJ (2018) One Tribe to Bind Them All: How Our Social Group Attachments Strengthen Partisanship. Political Psychology39 (Suppl. 1): 257–277.
71.
McCartyNPooleKTRosenthalH (2014) Polarized America: The Dance of Political Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72.
McCloskyHZallerJ (1984) The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
73.
McCoyJRahmanTSomerM (2018) Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Politics. American Behavioral Scientist62 (1): 16–42.
74.
MillerSVDavisNT (2021) The Effect of White Social Prejudice on Support for American Democracy. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics6 (2): 334–351.
75.
NilssonAJostJT (2020) The Authoritarian-Conservatism Nexus. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences34: 148–154.
NorrisPInglehartR (2019) Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78.
OliverJERahnWM (2016) Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science667 (1): 189–206.
79.
OsborneDCostelloTHDuckittJ, et al. (2023) The Psychological Causes and Societal Consequences of Authoritarianism. Nature Reviews Psychology2: 220–232.
80.
PiazzaJA (2023) Political Polarization and Political Violence. Security Studies32 (3): 476–504.
81.
PrzeworskiA (1999) Minimalist Conception of Democracy a Defense. In: ShapiroIHacker-CordónC (eds) Democracy’s Value. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.23–55.
82.
SimonovitsGMcCoyJLittvayL (2022) Democratic Hypocrisy and Out-Group Threat: Explaining Citizen Support for Democratic Erosion. The Journal of Politics84 (3): 1806–1811.
83.
StankovL (2017) Conservative Syndrome: Individual and Cross-Cultural Differences. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology48 (6): 950–960.
84.
SullivanJLPieresonJMarcusGE (1982) Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
85.
SvolikMW (2019) Polarization Versus Democracy. Journal of Democracy30 (3): 20–32.
86.
The AmericasBarometer by the LAPOP Lab (n.d.) Available at: www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop (accessed September 2023).
87.
VlandasTHalikiopoulouD (2022) Welfare State Policies and Far Right Party Support: Moderating “Insecurity Effects” Among Different Social Groups. West European Politics45 (1): 24–49.
88.
VoelkelJGChuJStagnaroMN, et al (2023) Interventions Reducing Affective Polarization Do Not Necessarily Improve Anti-democratic Attitudes. Nature Human Behaviour7 (1): 55–64.
89.
VoelkelJGStagnaroMNChuJY, et al (2024) Megastudy Testing 25 Treatments to Reduce Antidemocratic Attitudes and Partisan Animosity. Science386 (6719): eadh4764.
90.
WelzelC (2013) Freedom Rising. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
91.
WestwoodSJGrimmerJTylerM, et al. (2022) Current Research Overstates American Support for Political Violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119 (12): e2116870119.
92.
WilsonGDPattersonJR (1968) A New Measure of Conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology7 (4): 264–269.
93.
WronskiJBankertAAmiraK, et al. (2018) A Tale of Two Democrats: How Authoritarianism Divides the Democratic Party. The Journal of Politics80 (4): 1384–1388.
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.
