Although the term "affective polarization" implies the presence of affect or emotion, most research on polarization relies on feeling thermometers, while discrete emotions and their antecedents remain underexplored. Intergroup threat has been identified as a key antecedent, yet significant gaps remain regarding which types of threats elicit specific emotions and how these emotions contribute to prejudicial attitudes towards out-party supporters. This paper addresses these gaps by examining how different types of threat evoke fear and anger toward out-party supporters and how these emotions, in turn, shape partisan prejudice. Using data from an original 13-country cross-sectional survey, we find that realistic threats -concerns about resources, status, and security- are predominantly associated with fear, whereas symbolic threats -challenges to values, culture, and worldview- are more likely to elicit anger. Both fear and anger are positively associated with heightened prejudice toward out-party supporters, in line with our hypotheses. In a second step, we conduct a survey experiment to test whether manipulating fear and anger confirms these relationships, with results expected in spring 2025. This research highlights the crucial role of threat and related emotions in deepening polarized rifts and driving supporters of opposing parties further apart. In doing so, it provides critical insights for interventions aimed at mitigating polarized attitudes and fostering intergroup understanding.