People in tune with their bodies pay a lower health price for politics, without switching off

Our new study of more than 2,000 Americans across two elections found that people who notice and trust their body’s signals reported fewer physical, emotional, behavioural and social costs from politics, and were more politically engaged.

Our findings come days before the 2026 US midterm elections on 3 November: the first national vote since the 2024 presidential election in which the researchers tracked voters.

Politics can make people ill. Surveys led by political scientist Kevin Smith at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have found that around four in ten US adults see politics as a significant source of stress. One in five say it has cost them sleep, and three in ten say they have lost their temper over it. Those most engaged in politics often pay the highest price. That raises a question: is switching off the only way to protect your health? 

Our study, accepted for publication in the journal Political Psychology, suggests it may not be. It points to interoception: our sense of what is happening inside our body, such as our heartbeat, breathing, and muscle tension. 

Across three studies during the 2022 US midterms and the 2024 presidential election, Democrats and Republicans with higher interoceptive sensibility (the tendency to notice, interpret and trust bodily signals) consistently reported lower physical, emotional, behavioural and social costs from politics. The link held after accounting for party, demographics and how people usually manage their emotions. 

How people related to their bodies mattered. People who tended not to become anxious about bodily discomfort, and who experience their body as safe and reliable, reported the lowest health costs.

Lead author Dr Mariana von Mohr, lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience at University of Kent, said: “We know that politics can take a real toll on people’s bodies and minds, from lost sleep to strained relationships. What we found is that people who notice and trust what their body is telling them carry less of that toll. The link was strongest among those under the most strain: Harris voters, who overall reported higher health costs even before their candidate was defeated.”  

In all three studies, people with higher interoceptive sensibility were more politically engaged. In 2022, that meant being more likely to intend to vote and to say they had voted. In 2024, it meant being more interested in politics, discussing it more and following public affairs more closely. Four months after the 2024 election, they also felt more able to understand and influence politics, and more confident that institutions respond to citizens. 

The link was strongest among Harris voters. They reported higher health costs than Trump voters both before and after the 2024 election, and the link between interoceptive sensibility and lower health costs was stronger among them. Levels of interoceptive sensibility did not differ significantly between the parties. People with higher interoceptive sensibility also reported fewer negative emotions about the election. Among Harris voters, they felt less fear for the nation’s future. Among Trump voters, they felt more hope. 

Senior author Professor Manos Tsakiris, Director of the Centre for the Politics of Feelings and Professor of Psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London, said: “We live in times that pull us in opposite directions. On the one hand, we might be driven to feel more and more, being constantly outraged by what is happening in politics. On the other, we might choose to feel less and less, switching off and becoming apathetic. Neither is good for us or for democracy. The civic challenge is neither to feel more nor to feel less, but to feel in better more accurate ways, to listen to what our bodies are telling us, so that we can stay both resilient and engaged.” 

Our studies show an association rather than cause and effect, and were carried out in the US during a highly polarised period; the next step is to test whether helping people build this kind of bodily awareness could help them cope with politics without disengaging. 

“Interoception is not just about knowing your heart rate,” said Professor Tsakiris. “It is a form of emotional literacy: understanding what our bodies are telling us about how we feel, as we move through the world and are moved by what happens around us. A simple place to start is to notice what your body does when a headline lands — a tight chest, a racing heart — name the feeling, ask where it is coming from, and let it settle before you share or reply. That skill matters for our own health, but also for our democracy.” 

View the full paper: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70217