On the surface, basic strategies for regulating emotions can work to reduce stress about politics. Ford and her colleagues found that after the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton voters who reframed their negative thoughts about the election outcome using cognitive reappraisal techniques had better emotional well-being (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 117, No. 5, 2019).
But the benefits came at a cost because those respondents were also less motivated to take political action. A follow-up study replicated the results, finding that emotion regulation strategies (including distraction and reframing) improved well-being but reduced political engagement (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 125, No. 1, 2023).
“We’re seeing a trade-off between reducing negative emotions about politics, which is a perfectly reasonable goal, and the motivation to be politically active,” Ford said.
Those findings beg the question: “Is there a way of regulating the negative emotions politics triggers so politics doesn’t impair our well-being, but at the same time, doesn’t decrease our motivation to take action?” said psychologist Matthew Feinberg, PhD, an associate professor of organizational behavior at the University of Toronto and a collaborator of Ford’s.
The team’s latest research is exploring whether the positive emotions politics can evoke—things like admiration, compassion, inspiration, and gratitude—can be used to motivate voters to action without raising their stress levels. So far, the study is yielding promising results.
“Just as negative emotions help drive us to take action, so too do our positive emotions,” Ford said. “These kinds of socially engaged emotional experiences appear to help push people to get involved, but with less cost to their well-being.”
Those results are echoed by recent reports. The election may be a source of stress for more U.S. adults this year, but they also plan to volunteer and contribute more to causes they value, according to APA’s Stress in America survey. Fifty-one percent of adults planned to do so, compared to 45% prior to the 2020 presidential election.
Social connection clearly makes a difference, but some social ties are more helpful than others, according to research on partisanship by Costas Panagopoulos, PhD, a professor of political science at Northeastern University in Boston, and his colleagues.
In polarized communities, they found that bonding ties, or bonds between people who are similar (in this case, politically similar), were linked with better physical and mental health (International Political Science Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2022). Bridging ties—connections with dissimilar people—were associated with worse overall health for people who were politically isolated.
“When we’re worried, we have an instinct to isolate ourselves, but we have to reach out and connect,” said Steven Stosny, PhD, a clinical psychologist, consultant, and author based in Washington, D.C., who works with individuals and couples experiencing stress around politics and daily news.
link