This article is authored by Tram Dinh and Danny Rahal.
At college, students can learn more about the world, including social issues. Students engage in sociopolitical discussions that expose them to different viewpoints and experiences, which promote the development of their sociopolitical identity (Flanagan & Bundick, 2011). Sociopolitical identity refers to how individuals view themselves and their experiences with the political structures of the world. Highly charged political times like US elections or social and political movements in response to inequality and atrocities can be emotionally distressing, regardless of social identity, and engaging in political discussion about these troubling issues and engaging in activism can help individuals cope. However, sociopolitical engagement requires a potentially exhausting amount of time and effort, and dedicating high levels of effort to cope with racism and discrimination can worsen physical health. For example, in one study of Black young adults (Volpe et al., 2020), they found that a more frequent exposure to discrimination coupled with increased use of John Henryism, which is a prolonged effort to use energy to respond to stress, was associated with greater cardiovascular risk during the transition to adulthood.
The first step to civic engagement is civic awareness. Individuals tend to dedicate their efforts to combat social injustice when they learn about social injustice. Is social awareness with others a double-edged sword for minority students, especially during times of highly charged political tensions? The Health Equity in Youth Lab examined whether sociopolitical awareness with respect to discussions with peers and family members contributes to internalizing problems, such as depression or anxiety, and how they vary across election and non-election years.
To answer this question, we conducted a study in November following the 2020 election, a time when political tensions were high, and many were worried about the outcomes of the presidency and the social and political climate of the US. In the study, participants reported how often they experienced the 10 forms of discrimination, the frequency of their political discussions with friends and family, anxiety or depressive symptoms, and their political ideology. The data revealed that frequent sociopolitical discussions with parents were related to greater internalizing problems. However, a slightly different pattern emerged for discussions with friends. Having frequent sociopolitical discussions with friends was only related to greater internalizing problems in those who were racially minoritized and had never experienced racial discrimination.
What does this mean? Well, for starters, for a majority of racially minoritized college students, frequent civic engagement and discussion were not related to higher anxiety or depressive symptoms, so don’t feel discouraged from engaging in these conversations. Prior research actually suggests that civic engagement is a key part of development for young adults (Eveland, 2004; Gastill & Dillard, 1999; Muntz & Mondak, 2006). Rather, the present study finds that individuals who experience frequent levels of racial discrimination are often more prepared to have sociopolitical conversations than those who don’t experience it as often. To reduce internalizing problems in the latter group during politically charged times, it may be beneficial for those individuals to engage in social topics when the political climate is not as tense. That way, individuals build up their tolerance and are more prepared to tackle political issues during tense times. We were unable to look at how interpersonal factors, such as barriers or group relations, play a role in discussing political issues, so it might be helpful for future studies to look into these topics and their relationship to political engagement and discussion.
References
- Eveland, W., Jr. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600490443877
- Flanagan, C., & Bundick, M. (2011). Civic engagement and psychosocial well-being in college students. Liberal Education, 97(2), 20–27.
- Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198749
- Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for crosscutting political discourse. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x
- Rahal, D., & Singh, A. G. (2023). Racial discrimination moderates associations between sociopolitical discussions and internalizing problems among racially minoritized college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 29(4), 540-550. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000608
- Volpe, V. V., Rahal, D., Holmes, M., Rivera, S. (2020). Is hard work and high effort always healthy for Black college students? John Henryism in the face of racial discrimination. Emerging Adulthood, 8(3), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818804936