Symbolic disempowerment and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election: Mental health responses among Latinx and white populations

Does sleep quality differ across political parties? Results from a survey of Arizona adults

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we explore the relationship between political party affiliation and sleep quality since the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We analyze online survey data collected for a sample of adult residents of Arizona in February and March 2023 (N = 922). We fit ordered-logistic regression models to examine how party affiliation and changes to one's personal life due to the COVID-19 pandemic are associated with the self-reported frequency of sleep difficulty.

RESULTS

Compared to Republicans, Democrats and Independents report significantly worse sleep quality, net of the influence of sociodemographic controls. Additionally, having experienced major changes to one's personal life due to the COVID-19 pandemic is significantly associated with more frequent trouble sleeping for Democrats and Independents, but not for Republicans.

CONCLUSIONS

We document a partisan divide in sleeping patterns among adults in a swing state and highlight an underappreciated factor contributing to sleep health amidst heightened political polarization.

Male twinning after the 2008 Obama election: A test of symbolic empowerment

On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was elected the first Black President of the United States. His campaign and electoral win served as a symbol of hope for a more just future, fostering an "Obama effect" that appears associated with improved well-being among non-Hispanic (NH) Black communities. Situating the Obama election within the symbolic empowerment framework, we consider the potentially protective role of the Obama election on NH Black fetal death, an important but understudied measure of perinatal health that has stark racial disparities. Using restricted-use natality files from the National Center for Health Statistics, we proxy fetal death using the male twin rate (number of twins per 1000 male live births). Male twins have a relatively high risk of in utero selection that is sensitive to maternal and environmental stressors, making the twin rate an important marker of fetal death. We then estimate interrupted time-series models to assess the relation between the Obama election and male twin rates among NH Black births across monthly conception cohorts (February 2003-October 2008). Greater-than-expected male twin rates signal less susceptibility to fetal loss. Results indicate a 4.5% higher male twin rate among all NH Black cohorts exposed in utero to the Obama election, after accounting for historical and NH white trends (p < 0.005). The greater-than-expected rates concentrated among births conceived in the months preceding Obama's nomination at the Democratic National Convention and Obama's presidential win. These results suggest a salutary perinatal response to election events that likely reduced NH Black fetal loss. They also indicate the possibility that sociopolitical shifts can mitigate persisting NH Black-NH white disparities in perinatal health.

Adverse Infant Health Outcomes Increased After the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Among Non-White U.S.-born and Foreign-born Mothers

Macro-level events such as elections can improve or harm population health across existing axes of stratification through policy changes and signals of inclusion or threat. This study investigates whether rates of, and disparities in, adverse birth outcomes between racialized and nativity groups changed after Donald Trump's November 2016 election, a period characterized by increases in xenophobic and racist messages, policies, and actions in the United States. Using data from 15,568,710 U.S. births between November 2012 and November 2018, we find that adverse birth outcomes increased after Trump's election among U.S.- and foreign-born mothers racialized as Black, Hispanic, and Asian and Pacific Islander (API), compared with the period encompassing the two Obama presidencies. Results for Whites suggest no change or a slight decrease in adverse outcomes following Trump's election, yet this finding was not robust to checks for seasonality. Black-White, Hispanic-White, and API-White disparities in adverse birth outcomes widened among both U.S.- and foreign-born mothers after Trump's election. Our findings suggest that Trump's election was a racist and xenophobic macro-level political event that undermined the health of infants born to non-White mothers in the United States.

County-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality among adults in the United States: A lagged multilevel study

Objective

To investigate the associations between county-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality from all causes and from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States.

Methods

Using data from five survey waves (1998-2006) of the General Social Survey-National Death Index dataset and the County Presidential Election Return 2000 dataset, we fit weighted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between (1) political group density and (2) partisan polarization measured at the county level in 2000 (n = 313 counties) categorized into quartiles with individual-level mortality (n = 14,983 participants) from all causes and CHD, controlling for individual- and county-level factors. Maximum follow-up was from one year after the survey up until 2014. We conducted these analyses using two separate measures based on county-level vote share differences and party affiliation ideological extremes.

Results

In the overall sample, we found no evidence of associations between county-level political group density and individual-level mortality from all causes. There was evidence of a 13% higher risk of dying from heart disease in the highest quartile of county-level polarization (hazards ratio, HR = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.74-1.71). We observed heterogeneity of effects based on individual-level political affiliation. Among those identifying as Democrats, residing in counties with high (vs. low) levels of polarization appeared to be protective against mortality, with an associated 18% lower risk of dying from all causes (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.71-0.94). This association was strongest in areas with the highest concentrations of Democrats.

Conclusions

Among all study participants, political group density and polarization at the county level in 2000 were not linked to individual-level mortality. At the same time, we found that Democratic party affiliation may be protective against the adverse effects of high polarization, particularly in counties with high concentrations of Democrats. Future research should further explore these associations to potentially identify new structural interventions to address political determinants of population health.

Short-term changes in mental health help-seeking behaviors following exposure to multiple social stressors and a natural disaster

In 2020, unprecedented circumstances led to significant mental health consequences. Individuals faced mental health stressors that extended beyond the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including widespread social unrest following the murder of George Floyd, an intense hurricane season in the Atlantic, and the politically divisive 2020 election. The objective of this analysis was to consider changes in help-seeking behavior following exposure to multiple social stressors and a natural disaster. Data from Crisis Text Line (CTL), a national text-based mental health crisis counseling service, was used to determine how help-seeking behavior changed in the wake of each event. Wilcoxon rank sum tests assessed changes in help-seeking behavior for each event in 2020 as compared to the same period in 2019. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models examined if changes in crisis conversation volumes following each event differed. Higher median conversation volumes noted for the COVID-19 pandemic (+1 to +5 conversations), Hurricane Laura (+1 to +7 conversations) and the 2020 Election (+1 to +26 conversations). ARIMA models show substantial increases in help-seeking behavior following the declaration of a national emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic (+4.3 to +38.2%) and following the 2020 election (+3 to +24.44%). Our analysis found that the mental health response following social stressors may be distinct from natural events, especially when natural disasters occur in the context of multiple social stressors. This analysis adds to the growing body of literature considering the mental health impact of exposure to multiple co-occurring societal stressors, like police violence and a global pandemic.

Deportation threat predicts Latino US citizens and noncitizens' psychological distress, 2011 to 2018

The national context of deportation threat, defined as the federal government's approach to deportation and/or deportation's salience to the US public, fluctuated between 2011 and 2018. US Latinos across citizenship statuses may have experienced growing psychological distress associated with these changes, given their disproportionate personal or proximal vulnerabilities to deportation. Drawing on 8 y of public- and restricted-access data from the National Health Interview Survey (2011 to 2018), this article examines trends in psychological distress among Latinos who are US-born citizens, naturalized citizens, and noncitizens. It then seeks to explain these trends by considering two theoretical pathways through which the national context of deportation threat could distress Latinos: 1) through discrete dramatic societal events that independently signal a change to the country's approach to deportation and/or that render deportation temporarily more salient to the public or 2) through more gradual changes to the country's everyday institutional (i.e., quotidian efforts to detain and deport noncitizens) and social (i.e., deportation's ongoing salience to a concerned public) environment of deportation threat. We find that, though both pathways matter to some degree, there is more consistent evidence that the gradual changes are associated with Latino US citizens and noncitizens' overall experiences of psychological distress. The article highlights how, even absent observable spillover effects of dramatic societal events bearing on deportation threat, the institutional and social environment in which they occur implicates Latinos' well-being.

Cultural Stress Profiles: Describing Different Typologies of Migration Related and Cultural Stressors among Hispanic or Latino Youth

Youth of immigrant origin vary across their families' migration history (e.g., country of heritage, reasons for migration, etc.) and in the communities in which they reside. As such, these youth are often faced with different cultural and immigrant stressors. Although prior research documented the detrimental impact of cultural and immigrant stressors, variable-centered approaches fail to account for the fact that these stressors often co-occur. Addressing this gap, the current study identified typologies of cultural stressors in Hispanic/Latino adolescents using latent profile analysis. Cultural stress profiles were derived using socio-political stress, language brokering, in-group identity threats, and within-group discrimination as indicators. The study was conducted in two sites (Los Angeles and Miami; total N = 306) during Spring and Summer 2020. A four-profile solution was identified: Low Cultural Stress (n = 94, 30.7%), Sociopolitical and Language Brokering Stress (n = 147, 48%), Sociopolitical and In-group Identity Threat Stress (n = 48, 15.7%), and Higher Stress (n = 17, 5.6%). Results indicate that profiles with stress were characterized by worse mental health symptoms, reporting higher means of depression, stress, and lower self-esteem, as well as by higher heritage cultural orientation compared to the low stress profile. Interventions designed to mitigate the deleterious effects of cultural stressors would benefit from adopting an individualized, tailored approach that addresses youth's stress profile membership.

Mental health symptoms following the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol

On January 6, 2021, rioters stormed the US Capitol to overturn the Congressional certification of Joseph Biden as the 46th president of the United States. In previous work, the symbolic dis/empowerment framework, as a result of sociopolitical context, has influenced health outcomes in certain sub-populations. We examine whether the Capitol Riot corresponds with an increase in mental health symptoms and explore whether this relation differs by individual political party affiliation and/or state electoral college victory. We utilize the Understanding America Study, a nationally representative panel of adults, between March 10, 2020-July 11, 2021. Using fixed effects linear regression, we find a modest increase above expected levels in mental health symptoms immediately following the Capitol Riot. This result holds for Democrats overall, Democrats in Biden states, and when restricting analyses to only states that voted for Biden (or separately, for Trump). Democrats show the greatest increase of mental health symptoms following the Capital Riot, supporting the symbolic dis/empowerment framework as well as notions of political polarization and allegiance. Social and political events of national importance may adversely affect mental health of specific subpopulations.

The relationship between political efficacy and self-rated health: An analysis of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban subgroups compared to non-Latinx whites in the United States

Latinx represent a growing population in the United States (US) that continue to experience a disproportionate burden of disease. However, health disparities vary across Latinx subgroups, including Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban communities, particularly when assessing self-rated health. Given the nature of political exclusion in the US, these differences may be associated with underexplored political factors, or political determinants of health, within the social environment that distinctly shape health among racial and ethnic minorities. To explore potential pathways that connect the political environment to individual-level health outcomes among Latinx subgroups, political efficacy (or one's perceptions about one's power to influence political affairs) was assessed as a correlate of self-rated health. We used secondary data from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-election Survey to conduct ordered logistic regression analysis to determine whether two domains of political efficacy, internal and external political efficacy, were correlates of self-rated health among Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban subgroups as compared to non-Latinx whites in the US. We also tested for differential associations across Latinx subgroups as compared to non-Latinx whites. The sample consisted of 3156 respondents (1486 Mexicans, 484 Puerto Ricans, 159 Cubans and 1027 non-Latinx whites). Among Puerto Ricans, results revealed that lower levels of internal political efficacy were associated with higher levels of self-rated health. Conversely, among other subgroups, positive associations between internal political efficacy and self-rated health were observed. This study provides empirical evidence of a relationship between internal political perceptions and health perceptions that has not previously been established within the Latinx health disparities literature. Future investigations should continue to examine pathways that connect political determinants to individual-level health outcomes, particularly among communities that disproportionately experience political exclusion.

Association between Feelings of Trust and Security with Subjective Health among Mexican Migrants in the New York City Area

The size of the foreign-born population living in the United States makes migrants' health a substantive policy issue. The health status of Mexican immigrants might be affected by the level of social capital and the social context, including the rhetoric around immigration. We hypothesize that a diminished perception of trust and safety in the community has a negative impact on self-reported health. In a cross-sectional study, we conducted a survey among 266 Mexican Immigrants in the New York City Area who used the Mexican Consulate between May and June 2019 for regular services provided to documented and undocumented immigrants. A univariate and bivariate descriptive analysis by trust and security items first shows the diversity of the Mexican population living in the US and the conditions of vulnerability. Then, logistic regression models estimate the association between trust and security items with self-reported health status. Results show that safety is consistently associated with good self-rated health, especially when rating the neighborhood, and trust showed mixed results, more reliant to the way it is operationalized. The study illustrates a pathway by which perceptions of the social context are associated with migrants' health.

Sanctuary city policies and Latinx immigrant mental health in California

This quasi-experimental study examined whether "sanctuary city" policies are an effective mechanism for reducing mental health inequalities by immigrant origin status in Latinx populations in California. Ample evidence indicates that people experience mental health problems when restrictive immigration policies are imposed. It remains unclear whether sanctuary city policies can improve population mental health in the groups targeted by restrictive immigration policies: undocumented immigrant Latinxs, documented immigrant Latinxs, and native-born Latinxs. We combined data on California's 482 cities concerning whether and when they implemented a sanctuary policy with health data on approximately 142,000 adults, 6400 adolescents and 13,000 children from the multi-year California Health Interview Survey. After using propensity score matching to identify non-sanctuary cities comparable to sanctuary cities, we estimated respondent-level difference-in-differences models to determine whether sanctuary city policies had beneficial mental health effects on three age groups: adults, adolescents, and children during the period 2007-2018. There was a trend toward improved mental health in sanctuary cities after policy enactment, but the patterns of mental health in the three Latinx immigration sub-groups of each age group did not conform to our hypotheses. Buffering the adverse effects of harsh federal immigration policies may need to involve other approaches, such as expanded local mental health care access. We discuss these results in terms of alternative treatment interference, residents' policy awareness, the policy's capacity to address past health impacts, methodological issues, and potential policy momentum.

State and local integrationist policies and the physical and psychological health of undocumented immigrants

Protracted daily preoccupation with the federal immigration policing infrastructure, restrictive policy, and antagonistic rhetoric take a substantial toll on the psychological and physical health of undocumented immigrants and their families. A growing network of states and municipalities are adopting policies to promote immigrant wellbeing through integration. Recent advances in research suggest subfederal healthcare access, sanctuary, and ID policies increase access to healthcare and health resources and decrease fear and stress. However, health impacts of these policies are modulated by national socio-political forces that spur misinformation, distrust, and fear. To help overcome this, states and municipalities should layer integrationist actions. Critically, more policy impact research is needed to support understanding, uptake, and renewal of state and local policymaking promoting immigrant health.

Increasing psychological distress among Californians from 2013 to 2020: Race/ethnic differences

The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health is of mounting concern to population-health researchers. While early reports indicated increases in mental health problems, noticeably absent from these studies is how mental health has changed in 2020 compared to previous years (2013-2019) and whether such trends vary by race/ethnicity. The present study used repeated cross-sectional data from the California Health Interview Survey (n ​= ​168,216) to systematically document trends in psychological distress scores (Kessler-6 scale; K6) and severe psychological distress scores (K6; 13+) from 2013 to 2020 and by race/ethnicity over the same period. Among all Californians we find that the reported average psychological distress scores increased by 22% between 2013 and 2020. Reported severe psychological distress scores increased 61% from 2013 to 2020. These increases were largely concentrated in the years 2017-2020. Increases in psychological distress were also especially pronounced among non-Latino/a White Californians (29% increase in K6 from 2013 to 2020), Latino/a Californians (14% increase in K6 from 2013 to 2020), and Asian Californians (35% increase in K6 from 2013 to 2020). Multiple and logistic regression models that accounted for sociodemographic and behavioral health covariates echoed these findings. Future research should continue to investigate secular trends in mental health that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and carefully situate the shifts into broader temporal perspective.