Political battles can be exhausting not only mentally but also physically. Scientists have found that the ability to notice signals from one's own body helps reduce the health harm from political stress without giving up an active civic stance.
The study was conducted by Mariana von Mohr and Manos Tsakiris of the University of London. The results were published in the journal Political Psychology. The focus is interoception, that is, the brain's ability to perceive and interpret signals from inside the body, such as a rapid heartbeat, shallow breathing or muscle tension. The scientists suggest that people with high interoceptive sensitivity (a tendency to notice bodily sensations and trust them) cope more easily with the emotional and physical loads associated with modern politics.
The first study, conducted immediately after the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, involved 632 people, roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. They filled out questionnaires assessing interoceptive sensitivity and the perceived harm to health from politics - physical, emotional, behavioral and social. It turned out that people with higher sensitivity reported less harm on all four parameters. The most protective factors were a reduced tendency to worry about bodily sensations and greater trust in the body. At the same time, such participants were not less involved in politics - on the contrary, they more often showed interest.
Then, during the 2024 presidential campaign, the researchers surveyed 1,050 people three times: two weeks before the election, a few days before the vote, and a few days after the polls closed. And again, high interoceptive sensitivity predicted less harm to health. This link held even when accounting for traditional emotional regulation strategies such as suppressing feelings or reappraising thoughts. After the election, supporters of Kamala Harris reported worse well-being and greater deterioration in health compared with supporters of Donald Trump. However, regardless of the election outcome, higher interoception was associated with better health. Among Harris supporters with initially low stress levels, the link between interoception and less health deterioration weakened as pre-election stress grew. In addition, after the election, Harris supporters experienced stronger negative emotions, but those with higher interoception worried and feared less for the country's future. Among Trump supporters, higher interoception predicted greater hope.
Four months after the election, the scientists contacted the participants of the second stage again (752 people responded) to assess their political activity. It turned out that high interoceptive sensitivity still predicted greater involvement, as well as higher internal and external political efficacy. Internal efficacy is the belief in one's ability to understand politics and influence it; external efficacy is confidence that political institutions respond to society's demands.
The authors emphasize that the study is observational, so it does not prove that bodily awareness directly improves health. It only shows that these traits are consistently linked. The data are based on self-reports rather than physiological measurements and were obtained only from adult U.S. citizens during a period of high polarization. The results may not transfer to countries with a different political system or to less tense times. Nevertheless, since interoception can be developed through training (for example, mindfulness practices or biofeedback), the scientists allow that teaching people to recognize bodily signals may help them cope with the stress of political life.