How did psychologists classify political distress during the 2016 and 2020 US elections?
Executive summary
Psychologists and researchers classified election-related distress across 2016 and 2020 using established clinical constructs (anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms), social-psychological frameworks (sociopolitical stress, affective polarization, vicarious exclusion), and population-level metrics (self‑reported stress and days of poor mental health). Studies estimate event-related PTSD symptoms in 2020 at about 12.5% of adults (using a modified PCL‑5) and documented that 52% of adults called the 2016 election a significant stressor versus roughly 68% for 2020 in APA polling [1] [2] [3].
1. How clinicians measured “political distress”: symptom checklists and population surveys
Researchers borrowed psychiatric screening tools and public‑health surveys to quantify election distress: teams adapted validated PTSD screeners (a modified PCL‑5) to measure “election‑related PTSD” in 2020 (estimating 12.5% prevalence in one nationally representative sample) and used standard measures of anxiety, depression, and self‑reported stress in both election years [1] [2]. Large polls — for example the American Psychological Association’s Stress in America results — were used to report the share of adults saying elections caused significant stress (52% in 2016, ~68% in 2020) [3] [2].
2. Social‑psychological framings: vicarious exclusion, sociopolitical stress, and affective polarization
Beyond clinical labels, psychologists framed distress as social phenomena: supporters of losing candidates displayed emotions akin to interpersonal exclusion (vicarious exclusion) after 2016, and scholars used the term “sociopolitical stress” to track longitudinal patterns of worry, coping, and civic action among youth during 2020 [4] [5]. Researchers also tied distress to affective polarization — hostility toward out‑partisans — and modeled how that polarization correlated with PTSD‑like outcomes around the 2020 vote [1].
3. Evidence that some reactions reached clinical thresholds
Multiple studies reported clinically significant, event‑related symptoms after 2016: one college sample found about 25% met criteria for symptoms often seen in PTSD in response to the 2016 campaign, and population‑level analyses detected tens of millions more “days of poor mental health” in Clinton‑voting states the month after the 2016 result [6] [7]. For 2020, authors went further by adapting a DSM‑based screener and estimating a higher than usual prevalence of election‑related PTSD symptoms (12.5%), above typical annual PTSD prevalence [1] [7].
4. Emotional content and behavioral correlates: anger, anxiety, despair, and coping
Studies linked negative emotions — anger, anxiety, depression — to support for populist candidates and to changing voting patterns across 2016 and 2020, and documented coping behaviors (increased alcohol use, withdrawal, activism or avoidance) in the wake of electoral outcomes [8] [4]. Longitudinal college studies in 2020 showed high sociopolitical stress persisted and students used diverse coping strategies, indicating both distress and adaptive responses [5].
5. Methodological differences and interpretive limits
Classification varied by method: single‑time surveys of students, adapted clinical screeners of national samples, public‑opinion polls, and social‑media language analyses each capture different phenomena — acute emotional reactions, diagnosable symptom clusters, subjective stress, and cognitive markers in discourse. This heterogeneity matters: an adapted PCL‑5 estimate [1] is not directly comparable to poll percentages about “significant stress” [3], and college samples cannot be generalized to the whole population [6] [5].
6. Political context changed between 2016 and 2020 — and so did distress patterns
Reporting and research highlight two shifts: higher reported election‑stress in 2020 compared with 2016 (APA polling: 68% vs. 52%) and increased indicators of cognitive distortion and negative affect in political discourse on social media between 2016 and 2020 — suggesting both greater subjective stress and a measurable change in political thinking that coincided with higher distress [2] [9].
7. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas in the literature
Some work emphasizes clinical pathology (PTSD‑like responses), while other studies treat distress as social‑psychological fallout of polarization or media exposure; authors sometimes frame findings to warn clinicians (more screening needed) or to critique political rhetoric and media dynamics. Readers should note that adaptations of clinical measures to political events are contested methodological choices and may reflect an agenda to medicalize political reactions [1] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers and practitioners
Available sources show psychologists classified election distress using clinical symptom measures, social‑psychological constructs, and population surveys — and they found elevated, sometimes clinically significant, distress after both 2016 and 2020, with higher population‑reported stress in 2020 [6] [1] [2]. Limitations: measurement and sampling differ across studies, so precise prevalence comparisons are uncertain; available sources do not mention long‑term trajectories beyond the cited follow‑ups [6] [5].