The harmful effects of partisan polarization on health

Abstract

Partisan polarization significantly drives stress and anxiety among Americans, and recent aggregate-level studies suggest polarization may be shaping their health. This individual-level study uses a new representative dataset of 2752 US residents surveyed between December 2019 and January 2020, some U.S. residents report more days of poor physical and mental health per month than others. Using negative binomial models, zero inflated models, and visualizations, we find evidence that polarization is linked to declines in physical health: the more distant an individual feels politically from the average voter in their state, the worse health outcomes he or she reports. By uncovering the individual-level political correlates of health, this study aims to encourage further study and attention to the broader consequences of political polarization on American communities.

Health and Election Outcomes: Evidence from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

“…We note that our polarization measure does not have a statistically significant relationship with changes in general health in any of the models. Again, Fraser et al (2022) found that perceived polarization (measured as the perceived difference from the average voter in one's state of residence) exerted a statistically significant effect on the number of days of poor physical health, a finding that stands in contrast to the results we report. The only variable that has a statistically significant impact on general health in Table 4 is age.…”

“…The coefficient indicates that those who believe that polarization is much greater now than in the past are more likely than their counterparts to report worse mental health compared to before the 2020 election. This is an interesting finding given that some previous research has found that polarization has a more important impact on physical health, compared to mental health (Fraser, et al, 2022). Accordingly, we view this as an open question that warrants further scrutiny.…”

“…Researchers working in this area have measured “politics” in several different ways. For instance, while some studies (Smith, Hibbing, and Hibbing 2019; Smith 2022) have assessed politics using general questions (e.g., respondent ratings of statements such as “politics has caused me to be stressed”), other studies (e.g., Nayak, et al, 2021; Panagopoulos, et al, 2021; Fraser, et al, 2022) have asked people about their perceptions of specific features of the political system (e.g., levels of political polarization). Others have examined the role of government policies, such as those related to immigration, in shaping health outcomes (e.g., Hatzenbuehler et al 2017).…”

“…Related to ideology and partisanship, we also include a measure asking respondents whether the political divide between Republicans and Democrats is much greater now, greater now, about the same, less now, or much less now than in the past (coded from 1-5, were higher values indicate greater perceived polarization). Recent research has indicated that polarization is related to health, with those who perceive the political environment to be polarized reporting poorer health than those who do not (Nayak, et al, 2021; Panagopoulos, Fraser, Aldrich, Kim, and Hummel 2021; Fraser, et al, 2022). Studies conducted prior to (Motta 2021) and throughout (Callaghan et al 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States also reveal the partisan (and polarized) nature of vaccine hesitancy and other forms of protective health behavior in the U.S. and highlight the various ways that partisan identity can influence protective and pro-social health behavior and, in turn, health outcomes.…”

Social capital's impact on COVID-19 outcomes at local levels

“…Further, scholars and policymakers should use these indices to identify communities as similar as possible to their own in terms of social capital in order to make projections about their communities’ recovery trajectories. Finally, scholars should apply these indices to diagnosing and explaining a wide variety of other community resilience, highlighting the close relationships between social capital and policy-relevant social outcomes, including health 16 , political polarization 49 – 51 , 88 , 89 , adaptation to climate change 90 , and resilience to future disasters 25 , 55 , 91 . We hope that these indices galvanize social capital scholars to examine the role of social capital in their communities’ recovery and to encourage greater attention to the role of residents and community planning in recovery and response to crisis.…”