Previous research in political psychology has suggested that individuals with conservative political attitudes often exhibit better physical health compared to their liberal counterparts (Chan, 2019). More recent research by Kirkegaard (2020) expanded on this by exploring the relationship between political ideology and mental health. This study found that individuals who identify as “extremely liberal” are more likely to experience mental health issues compared to those with more conservative or moderate views. The author speculated that this might be due to the association between political conservatism and higher levels of religiosity, which in turn is linked to better physical and mental health. However, the benefits of religiosity on health have been observed primarily in cultures where religion is highly esteemed and do not necessarily apply in more secular contexts (Stavrova, 2015).

Kirkegaard’s study utilized data from the General Social Survey, a comprehensive survey of American adults aged 18 and older, which includes questions about mental health and overall happiness. Participants were asked about their mental health experiences, such as whether they had ever felt they had a mental health problem or received treatment for one, as well as their happiness and life satisfaction. Political ideology was rated on a scale from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. The analysis revealed that liberals generally reported poorer mental health compared to conservatives. This disparity was most notable among those who identified as “extremely liberal,” who showed worse mental health outcomes on several measures compared to both conservatives and those with less extreme liberal views. Conversely, individuals identifying as “extremely conservative” had mental health levels similar to those identifying as “conservative” or “slightly conservative,” with minimal differences compared to more moderate or slightly liberal respondents. Happiness levels also tended to be higher among conservatives, with “extremely liberal” men reporting the lowest happiness.

Kirkegaard proposed that the correlation between mental health and political ideology might be partly due to the higher religiosity among conservatives, which is associated with health benefits (Koenig, 2012). However, he acknowledged that the cross-sectional nature of the survey data limits conclusions about causality. Other research indicates that the positive impact of religiosity on health is not universal but depends on the cultural context. In cultures where religiosity is highly respected, religious individuals often experience social benefits that contribute to better health. In contrast, in more secular cultures or regions, these benefits are less pronounced (Stavrova, 2015). Therefore, it may be valuable to consider other factors, such as personality traits, which are known to correlate with both political ideology and mental health.

Research on the “Big Five” personality traits extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience has revealed notable differences between politically liberal and conservative individuals. Studies indicate that those who identify as politically liberal typically score higher in openness to experience (which reflects a more complex mental life) and neuroticism (indicating greater negative emotionality), while scoring lower in conscientiousness (associated with self-discipline and impulse control) compared to their conservative counterparts (Fatke, 2017; Gerber et al., 2011).

Moreover, these personality differences are evident not just when comparing liberalism and conservatism on a single spectrum but also when examining the separate economic and social dimensions of these ideologies. For instance, a study by Gerber et al. (2009), which analyzed data from three national datasets, found that neuroticism was more closely associated with economic liberalism than with social liberalism. In other words, individuals with higher levels of neuroticism were more likely to support left-leaning economic policies, such as higher taxes and increased government funding for healthcare, compared to their support for social issues like abortion and gay rights. Conversely, individuals with high conscientiousness were more inclined to hold conservative views on both economic and social matters, although this tendency was more pronounced in economic issues. These associations persisted even when accounting for the respondents’ levels of religious attendance, suggesting that personality traits have a significant impact on political ideology independent of religiosity.

Gerber et al. propose at least two reasons why neuroticism might correlate with liberal economic views: one is empathy towards the less fortunate, and the other is self-interest, where individuals with high neuroticism might be more concerned about their own financial security and thus support welfare policies. It’s also possible that both factors play a role.

I find this topic intriguing because, while religious individuals often score higher in conscientiousness compared to their less religious counterparts, they do not typically exhibit significant differences in neuroticism (Saroglou, 2009). Additionally, although both high conscientiousness and low neuroticism are linked to better mental health, neuroticism tends to have a more pronounced impact (Malouff et al., 2005; Steel et al., 2008). This suggests that rather than conservative individuals experiencing better mental health due to their religiosity, it might be that highly liberal individuals could experience poorer mental health due to higher levels of neuroticism. This hypothesis would need to be confirmed through further research. Specifically, it would be valuable to investigate whether economic attitudes have a stronger connection to mental health compared to social attitudes, given that the former are more closely linked with neuroticism. Lastly, it’s important to approach individuals with mental health challenges with empathy, regardless of their political beliefs.