Research Shows: Politics is a Chronic Mental Health Stressor that Impacts Our Behavior
Does hearing about politics stress you out? Turns out you're not alone, and psychological research validates your concerns. It is hard to be an informed citizen keeping up with life's demands while hearing about the latest government poll, blunder, or how this politician is doing too much or that one not enough. It's hard to hear how government and political advocacy, or lack thereof, negatively impact people's lives—yet again. It's tough, actually, to stay motivated and up-to-date while attempting to be healthy.
I previously wrote about my concerns regarding public policy, accountability, and public mental health. While preparing for that blog, I found an excellent research article on how daily politics negatively affects psychological and physical well-being. This post aims to highlight and summarize said research and briefly describe its relevance to current political issues and recent research.
The research study design and write-up of The Political Is Personal: The Cost of Daily Politics is not only incredibly thoughtful and creative but also quite rigorous—a combination that is hard to accomplish. The researchers are a team of psychologists from the University of Toronto, New York University, and Brock University, and their paper was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The title is catchy because it's a play on the 1960s and 70s feminist movement phrase, The Personal is Political, which argues that the personal experiences of women, particularly their inequality and lack of power, are inherently political issues with broader social implications.
Before moving on, let us not forget that the personal is STILL political today. #MeToo Movement, Black Lives Matter, Reproductive Rights, and Climate Change Activism highlight how women and people of color's experiences with gender inequality & sexism, police brutality & systemic racism, personal choice & reproductive healthcare, and advocating for environmental policies, respectively, reflect and contribute to broader political or social systemic issues.
The authors, hereinafter referred to as Ford et al., provide evidence that the inverse, political talk and listening to coverage on social systemic issues, negatively affects well-being. Specifically, they argue that daily political events (think hearing repetitive, media-covered political commentary such as presidential or voting updates, news regarding the Supreme Court, updates on Congress, congress members, bills, bombs, movements, etc.) are a type of unique stressor that understandably trigger negative emotions compromising mental and physical well-being. They argue that such political stress typically motivates us to act (e.g., donate, march for a cause, vote, etc.). Interestingly, however, their research also shows that when folks successfully regulate their negative emotions, this effort decreases motivation for political action. Even more interesting is that these results are true across the political spectrum (i.e., valid for both Democrats and Republicans).
The paper provides the results of four studies; part one of the paper is the results of studies one and two, and part two is the results of studies three and four. In the first part, Ford et al. tracked people's daily experiences and emotions related to politics. They found that negative emotions from political events were linked to feeling worse but also being more motivated to take political action. In the second part, they conducted experiments where they manipulated how people regulated their emotions when exposed to politics. They found that when people successfully controlled their negative feelings, they felt better but were less motivated to take action.
The first study used daily recordings to show that political events often upset folks, and feeling more upset about politics is linked to feeling worse overall. Similarly, In the second study, the researchers investigated how people respond to politics daily, focusing on emotional reactions, well-being, and strategies for managing emotions. These results showed that political events often evoke negative emotional responses, which were associated with worse psychological and physical well-being, and that folks commonly attempted to regulate their emotions in response to political events. The emotion regulation strategies included reappraisal (55% of days), distraction (56% of days), and suppression (34% of days). Of these, reappraisal (i.e., when you reinterpret or reevaluate the stress in a more positive light) and distraction (pretty obvious) were more successful at improving mood than suppression (which usually isn't good, right?).
Interestingly, Ford et al. found that the worse you feel about politics, or the less successful you are at regulating or improving your emotions, then the more motivated you are to engage in political action. Paradoxically, the more effective you are at reappraising or distracting yourself from political talk, the less motivated you are to participate in political activities. Thus, there is a trade-off: managing your emotions effectively improves well-being, and it looks like the effort involved with this strategy reduces your motivation to participate in political activities. Again, this is true across political orientations.
Additionally, the second study examined the potential benefits of emotional acceptance as an alternative approach to managing political distress. The researchers found that successfully accepting one's emotions about politics was associated with greater well-being without compromising motivation to engage in political action.
In studies 3 and 4, Ford et al. investigated how 'controlled' exposure to daily politics (i.e., watching conservative or liberal news sources like Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow) affects negative emotions, well-being, and political action while also exploring the role of political orientation. The results from study three suggest that watching news from both conservative and liberal sources made people feel really upset and stressed out, which, in turn, made folks feel worse overall, both mentally and physically. This time, however, exposure to daily politics had a more substantial effect on negative emotions for Democrats and liberals than Republicans and conservatives.
In this third study, the researchers found that the worse you felt, the more fired up you were to act on political issues (i.e., donating money or participating in protests). Sorta like the previous study, the researchers found that negative, or unregulated, emotions predicted greater motivation for collective political action and a higher likelihood of engaging in such acts. However, exposure to daily politics did not necessarily lead to a higher likelihood of individual political action. Overall, their findings suggest that, regardless of their political beliefs (conservative or liberal), exposure to political news is stressful and upsetting. Still, this distress can make folks fired up to take political action.
In the fourth study, the researchers wanted to see how people's emotions are affected by daily politics and whether they can prescribe specific strategies to protect themselves from feeling too upset. Again, they found that when people were exposed to news from both conservative and liberal sources, they felt much more negative emotions compared to those who weren't exposed to any news. And, once again, they also found that using different strategies to regulate emotions, like changing their thoughts (reappraisal), distracting themselves, or accepting their emotions, helped lessen the negative feelings. Ford et al. found no differences in how these strategies affected people's emotions based on political beliefs. However, they did find that the link between negative emotions and well-being, as well as political action, was more robust for liberals compared to conservatives. But this difference didn't appear when they looked at political party (Democrat vs Republican) instead of political ideology. Either way, reducing negative emotions was linked to better well-being but less motivation for political action. Thus, the fourth study suggests that using specific strategies to regulate emotions can help protect people from feeling too upset about politics and improve their well-being, regardless of political beliefs.
Take home message:
It's complicated. Ford et al.'s study sheds light on the balance between feeling good and doing good, particularly in politics. They found that the political is, in fact, personal, meaning political events often cause negative emotions, which can make people feel worse but also motivate them to take action. Emotion regulation strategies, like changing your thoughts or distracting yourself, can help improve well-being but might make you less motivated to take political action.
Understanding this trade-off is crucial for therapists, activists, and social movements aiming to mobilize people for a cause. Clinicians and organizers can educate folks on this research that greater psychological well-being is associated with slightly less likelihood of taking action while challenging them to stay motivated by standing up for their values.
Receipts:
Ford, B. Q., Feinberg, M., Lassetter, B., Thai, S., & Gatchpazian, A. (2023). The political is personal: The costs of daily politics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000335
Also check out a Psychology Today post the authors penned about their paper here.
