Strong leaders, not strongmen: how concern for polarization and collective nostalgia shape leader preference

Political polarization is widely seen as a growing threat to democratic cohesion, yet little is known about how concern about polarization shapes citizens’ preferences for political leadership. Across four studies in the United States and Canada, we examined whether concern about polarization predicts support for strong leaders, and whether this association is mediated by the content of collective nostalgia (i.e., what aspect of the national past people long for). Study 1 (N = 366), conducted shortly after the January 6th Capitol insurrection, showed that concern about polarization predicted support for a generic strong leader via civic-focused (but not homogeneity-focused) nostalgia. In Study 2 (N = 332 cross-sectional) and Studies 3–4 (pre–post the 2024 US and 2025 Canadian elections), we distinguished three types of strong leaders: authoritarian, unifying and beloved hero. Concern about polarization consistently predicted support for unifying and heroic leaders through civic nostalgia, whereas homogeneity-focused nostalgia predicted support for authoritarian leaders but was not itself driven by polarization concern. In Study 3 (N = 282), but not Study 4 (N = 264), these pathways were moderated by vote choice, with stronger effects among those whose candidate lost. Together, the findings highlight collective nostalgia as a motivational mechanism linking polarization anxiety to divergent leadership preferences and demonstrate that support for strong leaders does not always reflect authoritarian motives.