Clinical relevance: Growing political polarization and partisan animosity drive higher rates of election-related PTSD and broader mental health issues among voters.

A study found that 12.5% of voters showed PTSD symptoms following the 2020 election. “Affective polarization,” or intense negative feelings toward opposing party members, is a contributing factor. Researchers recommend public health initiatives to address the growing mental health effects.

There’s a reason politics and religion are verboten dinner topics. Debates over abortion, gender, or the existence of God are never settled by the time dessert arrives. And things have gotten worse over the last half-decade. A new Podcastle survey, for example, reports that 47 percent of Americans admit that they’re “anxious” over this year’s election. A third of voters say they’re “stressed.”

Election PTSD

It’s no surprise then that a recent study found that the 2020 U.S. presidential election traumatized more than one out of 10 American voters. More specifically, the study’s authors estimate that 12.5 percent of voters showed symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This figure, culled from a nationally representative sample of 573 individuals and measured with an adapted PTSD screener, far exceeds the typical annual U.S. PTSD prevalence rate of 3.5 percent.

The study – conducted a year after escalating political conflict culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, hints at a quiet – but growing – mental health crisis stemming from that particularly contentious presidential election cycle.

The Cambridge University Press paper sheds light on the connection between “affective polarization” — intense negative feelings toward opposing party members — and election-related PTSD symptoms.

The Link Between Partisanship and Trauma

Researchers worked with a modified version of the PCL-5 PTSD screening tool to assess the correlation between strong partisan animosity and trauma while controlling for other variables such as demographics and political engagement.

The team found that respondents with higher levels of affective polarization reported significantly more election-related PTSD symptoms than those with lower levels. In a rare moment of nonpartisanship, this relationship remained steady across party lines. The researchers figure voters from both major parties could experience election-related PTSD if they harbored strong negative emotions toward opposing partisans.

The authors contextualize these findings in a broader body of literature that ties the political environment to our mental health. Earlier research has shown that American political polarization impacts specific markers, such as stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep quality. The 2020 election – fraught with partisan hostility, widespread (and ultimately baseless) challenges to electoral integrity, and fears of violence – might have exacerbated these health issues. Events like the Capitol Riot emerged as an existential threat among voters, potentially triggering PTSD-like symptoms in those already polarized.

A Bad Election Year?

In terms of polarization, 2020 ushered in one of the most divisive presidential races in U.S. history. Polls from that period revealed that many Americans expected some level of unrest. And more than half of those polled predicted increased violence in the aftermath of the election.

Subsequent research hinted that voters, especially those with strong partisan identities, felt alienated from friends and family members who supported the other candidate. This social rift added to this “moral injury” — distress experienced when exposed to beliefs or actions contradicting one’s core values — which researchers noted as a predictor of PTSD.

But What Does It Mean?

The results of this study offer a troubling glimpse into the ripple effect of growing political polarization. It suggests that those who cling more desperately to negative views toward opposing party members might risk greater psychological consequences during elections. The authors suggest that this could influence future public health and political discourse. As American politics continues to operate under mounting levels of affective polarization, this data implies that citizens could face further mental health repercussions while partisan animosity persists.

The authors conclude that this research points to a greater need for increased public health awareness around election-related stress and trauma. In the shadow of today’s political polarization, the researcher hopes their findings will encourage policymakers to install support mechanisms for Americans dealing with election-related mental health issues.

Further Reading

Anxiety Grips Voters as Election Day Looms

High PTSD Rates in LGBTQ Community Demand A Better Approach

Researchers Identify Variables Driving PTSD in Traumatized Youth