Stressful politics: Voters’ cortisol responses to the outcome of the 2008 United States Presidential election
Section snippets
Subjects
Data were collected from 80 participants (27 men) in Durham, NC and from 103 participants (34 men) in Ann Arbor, MI. Eleven Durham participants’ data and nine Ann Arbor participants’ data were omitted from the analyses, because they did not vote in the election or failed to complete all aspects of the experiment. The final Durham sample (N = 69) consisted of 24 men and 45 women (21.07 ± 0.46 years old). The final Ann Arbor sample (N = 94) consisted of 33 men and 61 women (21.12 ± 0.49 years old). Three
Results
Salivary cortisol values were right-skewed, thus all subsequent analyses used log-transformed cortisol values. To examine how supporting the winning or losing candidate affected cortisol levels after the outcome of the election, we ran a repeated-measures ANCOVA with post-outcome cortisol at T2, T3, and T4 as a within-subjects factor, and candidate choice as a between-subjects factor. Covariates included cortisol level at T1 and saliva collection time at T2. We included saliva collection time
Discussion
The present study provides novel evidence demonstrating that shifts in political dominance hierarchies are biologically stressful for voters who supported the losing candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Our hypothesis that voters who supported the losing candidate would have increases in cortisol after the outcome of the election was affirmed at the Durham, North Carolina study site. The context of the U.S. presidential election is a salient stimulus to voters—as political
Role of funding source
This research was supported by departmental funds from the University of Michigan (to JCB) and Duke University (to KSL), and the McClelland Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Hay Group (to SJS). Our funding sources had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
We thank Matt Fecteau, Eila Roberts, and Sonali Mohanty for assistance in scheduling and testing participants.
References (36)
- et al.
Are subordinates always stressed? A comparative analysis of rank differences in cortisol levels among primates
Hormones and Behavior
(2003) - et al.
Testosterone, cortisol, and women's competition
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2002) - et al.
Testosterone changes during vicarious experiences of winning and losing among fans at sporting events
Physiology and Behavior
(1998) - et al.
Facilitation of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal responses to novel stress following repeated social stress using the resident/intruder paradigm
Hormones and Behavior
(2003) - et al.
Testosterone, winning and losing in human competition
Hormones and Behavior
(1989) Salivary testosterone measurements: collecting, storing, and mailing saliva samples
Physiology and Behavior
(1991)- et al.
Intercollegiate soccer: saliva cortisol and testosterone are elevated during competition, and testosterone is related to status and social connectedness with teammates
Physiology and Behavior
(2006) - et al.
Psychophysiological stress in tennis players during the first single match of a tournament
Psychoneuroendocrinology
(2009) - et al.
Testosterone, cortisol, and mood in sports team competition
Hormones and Behavior
(1999) - et al.
Stressor paradigms in developmental studies: what does and does not work to produce mean increases in salivary cortisol
Psychoneuroendocrinology
(2009)
Gender differences in testosterone and cortisol response to competition
Psychoneuorendocrinology
Sex difference in testosterone response to a video game contest
Evolution and Human Behavior
Testosterone responses to winning and losing experiences in females soccer players
Psychoneuroendocrinology
Coping with competition: neuroendocrine responses and cognitive variables
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
Effects of competition and its outcome on serum testosterone, cortisol and prolactin
Psychoneuroendocrinology
Social stress: from rodents to primates
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology
The Authoritarian Specter
Cited by (52)
Elections have (health) consequences: Depression, anxiety, and the 2020 presidential election
2022, Economics and Human BiologyCitation Excerpt :French et al. (2014) showed that baseline cortisol levels can explain the variance in voting behavior. Trawalter et al. (2012) and Stanton et al. (2010) examined saliva samples from voters around the 2008 U.S. presidential election and found that voters show an increase in cortisol around an election. Waismel-Manor et al. (2011) found a similar result for voters in Israel.
Is divisive politics making Americans sick? Associations of perceived partisan polarization with physical and mental health outcomes among adults in the United States
2021, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :Our findings also suggest that higher levels of perceived elite polarization at the national level may be harmful to current self-rated health and may contribute to the onset of depressive disorders. Our findings add to the literature on political events as important risk factors for adverse health outcomes (Krieger et al., 2018; Lauderdale, 2006; Bruckner et al., 2019; Hodges et al., 2018; Torres et al., 2018; Roche and Jacobson, 2019; Anýž et al., 2019; Hoyt et al., 2018; Trawalter et al., 2012; Stanton et al., 2010). Whereas other researchers have identified the immediate sequelae of the 2016 election on people's health (Krieger et al., 2018; Roche and Jacobson, 2019; Hoyt et al., 2018; Fleming et al., 2019), we extend this work by using data collected more than three years after the election to demonstrate that perceptions of increased polarization as a consequence of the election may generate longer-lasting effects on mental health.
Individualized learning potential in stressful times: How to leverage intensive longitudinal data to inform online learning
2021, Computers in Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :For each technique, a conceptual description is provided, a potential research question is listed, and a brief overview of data processing and analysis steps is shared, all while comparing and contrasting differences in model assumptions and interpretations as well as advantages and disadvantages. To concretize the comparisons, illustrative data from a subsample of college students whose completion of an online 75-day diary study overlapped with the 2016 U.S. presidential election and inauguration (i.e., election group; conceptualized as a macro-level stressor based on prior work; Hoyt et al., 2018; Stanton et al., 2010), as well as a control group of students whose daily data were collected a year later in 2017 were used. The illustrative data answer the overarching question: How do daily psychological processes contribute to daily learning potential during a period of heightened sociopolitical stress?
Coping with Politics: The Benefits and Costs of Emotion Regulation
2020, Current Opinion in Behavioral SciencesHoneymoon or hangover? How election outcomes produce emotional shifts to winning candidate smiles
2020, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :The winners of competitive contests experience lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol (Sherman et al., 2012) and higher levels of testosterone (Verbeke, Belschak, Ein-Dor, Bagozzi, & Schippers, 2018). Followers likewise share changing hormonal levels with stronger partisans of losing candidates experiencing greater reduction in testosterone (Apicella & Cesarini, 2011) and elevated levels of cortisol (Stanton, LaBar, Saini, Kuhn, & Beehner, 2010) when compared with supporters of the winning candidate. It is not surprising that the biological substrate influencing the emotional response may be implicated in the perception of candidates for leadership and is affected by information concerning winners and losers (Waismel-Manor, Ifergane, & Cohen, 2011).
Did the 2016 election cause changes in substance use? An intersectional approach
2023, Economics and Politics