Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

 

The basic data -- based on an aggregated sample of more than 4,000 interviews conducted since 2004 -- are straightforward.

 

The differences are quite significant, as can be seen. While Democrats are slightly less likely to report excellent mental health than are independents, the big distinctions in these data are the differences between Republicans and everyone else.

 

One could be quick to assume that these differences are based on the underlying demographic and socioeconomic patterns related to party identification in America today. A recent Gallup report (see "Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health" in Related Items) reviewed these mental health data more generally, and found that men, those with higher incomes, those with higher education levels, and whites are more likely than others to report excellent mental health. Some of these patterns describe characteristics of Republicans, of course.

 

But an analysis of the relationship between party identification and self-reported excellent mental health within various categories of age, gender, church attendance, income, education, and other variables shows that the basic pattern persists regardless of these characteristics. In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for.

 

The accompanying graphs display the relationship between party identification and self-reported mental health crossed by categories of a number of relevant variables. In almost all cases, Republicans are more likely to report excellent mental health across the various categories.

 

For example, Republicans are significantly more likely to report excellent mental health than are independents or Democrats among those making less than $50,000 a year, and among those making at least $50,000 a year. Republicans are also more likely than independents and Democrats to report excellent mental health within all four categories of educational attainment.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republic...han-Others.aspx

 

More graphs in link.

and this matters because...........

 

this is a self assessment. not quite the most reliable assessment.

and this matters because...........

 

this is a self assessment. not quite the most reliable assessment.

Because it is interesting and this is a message board.

 

Loosen up.

I'd like to think that I'm happier by virtue of being Republican, but could political ideology simply be serving as a proxy for wealth? Income is actually a reasonably reliable predictor of self-assessed mental health. If Republicans tend to be wealthier, on average, than Independents or Democrats then they ought to report better mental health, on average.

I'd like to think that I'm happier by virtue of being Republican, but could political ideology simply be serving as a proxy for wealth? Income is actually a reasonably reliable predictor of self-assessed mental health. If Republicans tend to be wealthier, on average, than Independents or Democrats then they ought to report better mental health, on average.

 

that would be a pretty reasonable assumption I'd say.

 

 

I certainly don't buy this statement: "In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health"

The last part of the article mentions that exact point, Mike.

The last part of the article mentions that exact point, Mike.

My mistake, I only saw the poll and posted my intial reservations before I had to run to a meeting (I didn't have time to read the article). Now that I have read it, I see that they normalized for income, race, age, and gender effects when reporting their findings, which is hoenstly more than I can say for most studies out there. That said, the way in which these polls are conducted is something my economics professor calls "Name that residual."

 

The way they figure these things out is they take an equation: Happiness = A*(Age) + B*(Gender) + C*(Race) + D*(Income) + E + Standard Error. Now, they say differences in happiness between people with similar Age, Gender, Race, and Income are due to differences in E. They define E to be party affiliation and see if when E equals party affiliation any differences actually emerge. If so, they say party affiliation correlates with happiness. While the method is common, it's doesn't really hold up to academic scrutiny. There's no indicaiton as to whether the difference in mean happiness, once you control for these socioeconomic factors, is still significant at the 95% level (Meaning there's less than a 5% chance these differences can be attributable to chance/random variaiton).

I suppose one could argue (though I don't) that the factors that lead one to identify themselves as Democrat/Republican could coincide with how they assess their mental health. (e.g. equating morals with mental health perhaps)

Maybe Republicans just view the world differently - they're quick to say the war in Iraq is going alright, they're quick to ignore injustice here and abroad, etc. Just a more positive outlook in general, rather than a realistic one.

 

/Political rant over.

 

:lol

Maybe Republicans just view the world differently - they're quick to say the war in Iraq is going alright, they're quick to ignore injustice here and abroad, etc. Just a more positive outlook in general, rather than a realistic one.

 

/Political rant over.

 

:lol

My political outlook has nothing to do with my mental health.

 

 

Your stereotype is quite comical though. That improved my mental health.

Maybe Republicans just view the world differently - they're quick to say the war in Iraq is going alright, they're quick to ignore injustice here and abroad, etc. Just a more positive outlook in general, rather than a realistic one.

 

/Political rant over.

 

:lol

Democrat: Throwing tapxayer money to fund inefficient social programs will actually provide a net benefit, a government known for its wastefulness and inefficiency is best suited to carry out a role even when the private sector has shown it can handle it, bureaucracies aren't so bad, etc.

 

Caricatures work both ways. :mischief

My political outlook has nothing to do with my mental health.

 

But do you think that's true for most people or not? Those doing the study appear to be making that case.

Maybe Republicans just view the world differently - they're quick to say the war in Iraq is going alright, they're quick to ignore injustice here and abroad, etc. Just a more positive outlook in general, rather than a realistic one.

 

/Political rant over.

 

:lol

Democrat: Throwing tapxayer money to fund inefficient social programs will actually provide a net benefit, a government known for its wastefulness and inefficiency is best suited to carry out a role even when the private sector has shown it can handle it, bureaucracies aren't so bad, etc.

 

Caricatures work both ways. :mischief

 

Agree! Actually, I agree with most of what you said - social programs tend to be inefficient, the government sucks at doing nearly everything it does (and the private sector can do much better), etc.

 

Fox, I was joking.

This is total conjecture, but I think if you sent yourself back all the way to the extremes you'd find a decent explanation.

 

I've always though an American conservative ideology was based in optimism. I mean, you have to be optimistic in the market, the people's ability to handle their own lives, parents, schools, and people in general for the system to work. You have to have a deep belief that people are good and will do what's best for them while not hurting others to get there. Naturally, not every Republican feels this way, but that's the basic core of the ideology.

 

Modern liberalism, on the other hand, is based on a bit of pessimism. Companies are out for themselves and themselves only, people will hurt you if you give them the chance, there has to be a lot of tape in the way to prevent people from taking advantage of the system, etc. Not to say that you have to believe people are stupid to believe in modern liberalism, but it helps. I've always seen it as a much more pessimistic view of the world and of life as a whole.

 

Granted, this is all from the eyes of a conservative who doubles as an optimist and an idealist, so take it with a grain of salt.

This is total conjecture, but I think if you sent yourself back all the way to the extremes you'd find a decent explanation.

 

I've always though an American conservative ideology was based in optimism. I mean, you have to be optimistic in the market, the people's ability to handle their own lives, parents, schools, and people in general for the system to work. You have to have a deep belief that people are good and will do what's best for them while not hurting others to get there. Naturally, not every Republican feels this way, but that's the basic core of the ideology.

 

Modern liberalism, on the other hand, is based on a bit of pessimism. Companies are out for themselves and themselves only, people will hurt you if you give them the chance, there has to be a lot of tape in the way to prevent people from taking advantage of the system, etc. Not to say that you have to believe people are stupid to believe in modern liberalism, but it helps. I've always seen it as a much more pessimistic view of the world and of life as a whole.

 

Granted, this is all from the eyes of a conservative who doubles as an optimist and an idealist, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

It all just depends on how you want to twist things around, though. You could just as soon say that conservatives think that people who don't succeed are lazy, bad people who are undeserving of our help, whereas as liberals see people who don't succeed as more of a product of their circumstances. In other words, if we could only provide them a little boost, they would be able to do good, or even great, things.

 

In other words, neither side is more "optimistic" than the other. I think they're both plenty optimistic--I mean, the whole point of political activism is to make a change for the better in this world. Well...that's SUPPOSED to be the point anyway. And I think both sides are realistic to a point as well. There's a lot of uncertainty in this world, and I would hope that people on both sides understand that even though they think they know what's best for the world, they might very well be wrong. There are few absolutes in this world.

 

As for this mental health stuff...whatever. I mean, you're only really crazy if you don't realize you're crazy, right? So, a bunch of those people proclaiming themselves as in a great state of mental health, well, they might be the craziest of them all.