Politics is an ongoing stress test for millions of Americans confronted with uninterrupted media crafted to polarize and instigate anger In a study conducted after the 2008 presidential election (McCain versus Obama), Steven Stanton and his colleagues found that supporters of the losing candidate showed an increase in the stress hormone cortisol while those who voted for the winning candidate presented with a stable physiological profile.
Aristotle observed that it is the noble individual who understands when, where, how, and towards whom, to be angry. Cognitively, anger is derived from a perception that one’s rights have been unjustly and intentionally violated. The most provocative media outlets distort notions of entitlements, causality, and responsibility, to expand the occasions for anger.
The American public has been hearing for months, and that this is the most consequential election of their lifetime. They must help the nation in this existential moment by making the “right choice.” No pressure! At the presidential level, all indications are that it will be a tight race, further heightening stress levels due to the inability to forecast or rely on anticipatory coping strategies.
In a seminal article, James Averill differentiated three kinds of control efforts for dealing with aversive stimuli: cognitive (interpretation of information), decisional (availability and selection of options), and behavioral (direct action).
Voter stress is primarily associated with cognitive (interpretive) control efforts in response to chaotic media overload. To cope, “facts” are selected or ignored, accepted without question, or heavily filtered. Why do prospective voters strongly diverge in fact-selection and fact-building? I vote for value-affirmation and or “self” preservation. In reality, these concepts are interrelated, particularly if we adopt a broader perspective on self-preservation. However, they can be distinguished for analytical purposes.
Experimental studies have shown that affirmations of core values under challenging conditions (political foment) elicit an especially strong feeling of “being moved,” bypassing hard-wired behavioral inhibition systems (Strick and Soolingen, 2018; Crowell and colleagues, 2015). In simpler terms, human beings are “triggered” by threats to cherished values.
By self-preservation, I include the multitude of ways that human beings defend their being and identity. Gordon Allport, who provided the most complex layering of the self-concept, included the “extended self,” which incorporates material and symbolic elements. Some examples include being “American,” “Democrat,” or “Republican.” Frank Asbrock and Immo Fritsche experimentally manipulated experiences of personal and collective threats to study recourses to authoritarianism. The results showed that authoritarian responses to perceived “national threats” were more about “me” (self-preservation) than “we” (collective threat).
A political argument may bring on a fight-or-flight response because the stakes are much higher than policy differences. Moreover, such debates can become particularly heated when one side intuits a self-preservation strategy presented as a value affirmation, or vice versa.
I created a short exploration for those seeking less stress but are tempted to debate politics. Ideally, both parties would complete this self-assessment. The results can shed light on what may be at stake if the debate goes forward. I titled this The Pulse, for “Politics Under the Least Stressful Examination.”
Content. Some of the below items are derived from the Statista website in cooperation with YouGov. Statista reported on a survey of the most important issues for Democrats, Independents, and Republicans between September 29 and October 1, 2024.
Forced Choice Format. The forced-choice format (for example, A or B) is used to bypass potential social desirability-related distortions (bias). A forced-choice format can also provide a means for bypassing semantics or “part-way thinking.” Many arguments can end with agreement or disagreement on terms (semantics) or considering the logical conclusions of an initial proposition.
1. How do you remember the presidential election between Biden and Trump (2020)?
A. Fair and legitimate.
B. I still have questions.
2. How did President Trump manage the first year of COVID-19 (March to December 2020)?
A. He did what was humanly possible.
B. He could have done so much more.
3. How do you remember the events of January 6, 2021 (at the US Capitol)?
A. t was an insurrection.
B. It was a legitimate protest.
4. How would you deal with Putin (Russia), Erdogan (Turkey), or Kim (North Korea)?
A. Iron Fist.
B. Friendly Diplomacy.
5. If you were in charge of the US border, and had only two choices, your policy would be:
A. The US needs to remain open and welcome legitimate asylum seekers, even if there are costs.
B. I would make it virtually impossible for migrants to enter the US, no matter the cost.
6. Which of these two networks do you believe shares more real facts with the public?
A. FOX
B. MSNBC
7. When it comes to taxes, if you had to choose, which would you favor?
A. I favor more taxes, if they are equally distributed, it will balance out in the end.
B. I favor lower taxes, even if they favor one economic class, it will balance out in the end.
8. If I had to choose between the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) and gun control.
A. I would modify the Constitution to limit access to guns in the age of modern weaponry.
B. Under no circumstances do I limit an American’s right to possess a gun, it’s a slippery slope.
9. On the issue of healthcare, which point of view do you take?
A. Every American should have healthcare, it should be a right, no matter the cost.
B. America cannot afford to support healthcare for everyone, even if they are valid US citizens.
10. On the topic of inflation, which point of view do you take?
A. Inflation is complex; presidents/administrations can only do so much to control prices.
B. Inflation rises or falls due to presidential/administration actions; they can control prices.
