Affective polarization, characterized by intense divisions between citizens, is widely considered a major threat to democratic societies. However, several recent studies have failed to find a causal link with a weakening of democratic norms and attitudes. We contend that affective polarization is not a direct cause of undemocratic sentiments, but a symptom of other factors which also influence democratic support. Moreover, such drivers of affective polarization may have counteracting effects on democratic support, causing previous work on the consequences of affective polarization to yield mixed results.

In this study, we focus on two important confounders of this relationship. Firstly, we argue that affective polarization often is a manifestation of political involvement, which simultaneously bolsters democratic support. When affective polarization merely reflects strong involvement, a polarized citizenry should not be a concern; quite the contrary. Secondly, affective polarization may be the result of anti-elitism, an attitude that is likely to cause lower democratic support. Previous research that found affective polarization harmful to democracy might have largely been driven by citizens who, in fact, hold anti-elitist attitudes. To test our theory, we triangulate three novel cross-sectional studies conducted in 18 Western democracies (N = 32,000) with a series of cross-national vignette experiments (N = 8,000). By disentangling how political involvement and anti-elitism relate to affective polarization and democratic support, we aim to shed light on existing mixed findings and provide a more nuanced account of the normative (un)desirability of affective polarization.