An analysis of the 2022 Cooperative Election Study data found that mental health is emerging as a source of political identity, particularly among younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans. These individuals believe that people with mental illness should work together to change laws unfair to them and tend to support increased healthcare, education, and welfare spending. The research was published in Political Behavior.
Recent years have seen several cases where U.S. politicians publicly acknowledged that they are dealing with mental health issues. For example, in 2022, Democrat John Fetterman won Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seat. Two months later, he checked himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to undergo inpatient treatment for clinical depression, a condition he had been struggling with for years.
“I never thought that it was significant enough to go get help,” Fetterman said. “And I, of course, regret that I did not do that.” Although he returned to his duties after treatment, questions about his physical and mental health persisted.
Although Fetterman did not make his mental health condition a central part of his political identity initially, there are other U.S. Senators who do. For example, Senator Tina Smith is a prominent advocate for mental health who has sponsored multiple pieces of mental health legislation during her tenure in the U.S. Senate.
In one of her speeches on the Senate floor, she stated that mental health is one of her top priorities and that one of the reasons for this is that she also struggles with depression. She described her condition with the words “I’m one of them,” referring to people with mental illness, indicating that having a mental illness might be a basis for a political identity.
Study author Lauren Van De Hey posed the following question: If political elites are beginning to think about their own mental health condition in terms of political identity, do citizens also think about their own mental health in terms of political identity? With this in mind, she conducted a study exploring how much people with mental illness treat it as a source of political identity, looking into the political predictors and consequences of such identities, as well as the political participation of these individuals.
She notes that previous studies indicate liberals (Democrats) tend to report worse mental health conditions than conservatives (Republicans), but also that Republicans are less likely to seek treatment. Previous studies also indicated that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to consider anxiety and depression to be mental health conditions, which could suppress self-reporting among conservatives.
She analyzed data from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CES), a large national survey administered by YouGov. The survey consists of common content questions asked of everyone, and content from university teams given only to a subset of 1,000 respondents. There is a pre- and post-election wave of the CES during election years.
The author of this study created a mental health identity battery of assessments that was included in the post-election wave of this survey, which was administered in November 2022 to a group of 860 respondents.
The battery included an assessment of mental health political identity developed by the author (by adapting a previously existing measure of White identity). “The first question asked respondents whether they have ever had a mental illness, a physical disability, or a serious chronic physical illness in their lifetime.
This categorization question led to branching questions. Respondents who categorized themselves as having had a mental illness were given the full mental health identity battery, which consisted of two identity questions, two group consciousness questions, and two alienation questions,” the study author explained in the paper.
Results showed that 26% of participants categorized themselves as having had a mental illness in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 22% stated that they had a physical disability, and 20% stated that they had a serious chronic physical illness. Approximately one-half of study participants with mental illness stated that their identity as a person with a mental health illness is very important or somewhat important to them. These percentages were somewhat lower for individuals with a physical disability or chronic illness.
People with self-reported mental illness were more frequent among liberal than among conservative individuals. Among very liberal participants, 39% declared that they had a mental illness in their lifetime. This percentage was only 16% among very conservative participants. Individuals with a stronger mental illness identity were less likely to be conservative and more likely to be liberal. This identity was also more pronounced among younger (Gen Z) Americans.
Further analyses revealed that those who self-categorize as having suffered from mental illness and have high scores on mental health identity are just as likely to participate politically as those who do not self-categorize. This is notable, as having a physical disability typically lowers voter turnout and political participation. Furthermore, individuals who self-categorize as having had a mental illness and possess a strong mental health identity tend to support significantly increased healthcare, education, and welfare spending.
“I find that people who have experienced mental illness feel close to others who have experienced mental illness. They are also likely to self-categorize as having or having had a mental illness, share a sense of group consciousness with others who have or had mental illness, and recognize the need to work together to change laws that are unfair to people with mental illness,” the study author concluded. “These findings have far-reaching consequences for mental health advocacy and the role mental health identity will play in the political sphere—especially as Gen Z matures as a cohort.”
The study contributes to the scientific understanding of political identities in the U.S. However, it should be noted that the goals of this study were primarily descriptive. The cross-sectional design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. Also, the author of the study notes that social desirability bias might have affected the results, as more liberal individuals might be more willing to recognize and report mental health issues rather than deny them.
The paper, “Just a Little Melancholic, Maybe a Little Blue: Mental Health as an Emerging Political Identity,” was authored by Lauren Van De Hey.