Affective Polarization Vs. Political Cynicism: Diverging Impacts on Democratic Norms and Attitudes

Research into democratic backsliding, the rise of radical and illiberal parties, and instances of political violence in Western democracies has spurred interest in understanding the causes behind the erosion of democratic support. In recent years, affective polarization has gained prominence as a critical topic in public and academic debates, fueling concerns about its potential to undermine citizens' democratic values (Janseen & Turkenburg 2024). Affective polarization describes the tendency of individuals to view their favored political party and its supporters positively (i.e., in-group favoritism) while harboring negative sentiments toward opposing parties and their adherents (i.e., out-group hostility) (Gidron et al., 2020). At the individual level, affective polarization is believed to contribute to various undemocratic attitudes, such as rejecting unfavorable election outcomes and endorsing leaders with authoritarian inclinations. Although such claims are widespread, empirical evidence concerning the connection between affective polarization and support for democracy is mixed. While some studies suggest that affective polarization undermines citizens' commitment to democratic norms (e.g., Harteveld et al., 2023), others find no significant effects (e.g., Broockman et al., 2023). Considering worries on recent affective polarization and its possible impact on the quality of democracy, we offer a complementary perspective by comparing it with political cynicism. Political cynicism is a negative political attitude characterized by the belief that political actors, institutions, and the broader political system are fundamentally immoral and incompetent. Reflecting an entrenched form of anti-elitism, rooted in perceptions of unethical behavior and a lack of effective governance, political cynicism goes beyond general distrust and disdain for politics. Similarly to affective polarization, political cynicism is also shown to affect democratic outcomes: eroding trust in political institutions and actors, decreased voter turnout, reduced civic responsibility, and increased support for populist or protest movements, ultimately threatening the stability and quality of democratic systems (Dekker & Meijerink 2012). The proposed paper examines the consequences of both affective polarization and political cynicism on democratic norms and attitudes, by conducting a series of analyses based on a two-wave survey panel (n = 1500), measuring political attitudes during the recent double Greek parliamentary elections, that took place in May and June 2023. We operationalize democratic commitment by examining the effects on five different variables: likelihood to vote, trust in institutions and elections, authoritarian stances, political knowledge and belief in misinformation. In light of mixed findings in the literature, we find that during the election campaign, affective polarization is correlated with positive changes in normatively desirable outcomes in democracies (e.g. higher likelihood to vote, lower levels of misinformation belief), whereas political cynicism is associated with worsening outcomes over time (e.g. lower likelihood to vote, lower trust in the democratic process). These findings suggest that in contexts outside the United States, where political cynicism and affective polarization often intersect, it may be cynicism—rather than affective polarization—that exerts a more corrosive impact on democratic norms, highlighting the need to disentangle these attitudes in varying political landscapes.