• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

怨恨如同饮鸩?情感极化的非一致性健康效应。

Resentment Is Like Drinking Poison? The Heterogeneous Health Effects of Affective Polarization.

机构信息

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

出版信息

J Health Soc Behav. 2022 Dec;63(4):508-524. doi: 10.1177/00221465221075311. Epub 2022 Feb 11.

DOI:10.1177/00221465221075311
PMID:35148647
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9716484/
Abstract

Affective polarization-the tendency for individuals to exhibit animosity toward those on the opposite side of the partisan divide-has increased in the United States in recent years. This article presents evidence that this trend may have consequences for Americans' health. Structural equation model analyses of nationally representative survey data from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel (n = 4,685) showed heterogeneous relationships between affectively polarized attitudes and self-rated health. On one hand, such attitudes were directly negatively associated with health such that the polarized political environment was proposed to operate as a sociopolitical stressor. Simultaneously, affective polarization was positively associated with political participation, which in turn was positively associated with health, although the direct negative effect was substantially larger than the indirect positive one. These results suggest that today's increasingly hostile and pervasive form of partisanship may undermine Americans' health even as it induces greater political engagement.

摘要

近年来,美国的情感极化(即个人对党派分歧另一方表现出敌意的倾向)有所加剧。本文提出的证据表明,这种趋势可能会对美国人的健康产生影响。皮尤研究中心美国趋势小组(n = 4685)的全国代表性调查数据的结构方程模型分析表明,情感极化态度与自我评估健康之间存在异质关系。一方面,这种态度与健康直接呈负相关,因此有观点认为这种政治环境是一种社会政治压力源。同时,情感极化与政治参与呈正相关,而政治参与又与健康呈正相关,尽管直接的负面影响比间接的积极影响要大得多。这些结果表明,当今日益敌对和普遍的党派之争形式可能会破坏美国人的健康,即使它会促使人们更多地参与政治。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6ea/9716484/42a2db1adade/10.1177_00221465221075311-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6ea/9716484/42a2db1adade/10.1177_00221465221075311-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b6ea/9716484/42a2db1adade/10.1177_00221465221075311-fig1.jpg

相似文献

1
Resentment Is Like Drinking Poison? The Heterogeneous Health Effects of Affective Polarization.怨恨如同饮鸩?情感极化的非一致性健康效应。
J Health Soc Behav. 2022 Dec;63(4):508-524. doi: 10.1177/00221465221075311. Epub 2022 Feb 11.
2
Disclosing political partisanship polarizes first impressions of faces.披露政治党派会使人们对面孔的第一印象产生偏见。
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 9;17(11):e0276400. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276400. eCollection 2022.
3
Political polarization projection: social projection of partisan attitude extremity and attitudinal processes.政治极化预测:党派态度极端和态度过程的社会预测。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jul;103(1):84-100. doi: 10.1037/a0028145. Epub 2012 Apr 30.
4
Perceiving political polarization in the United States: party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide.感知美国的政治极化:党派认同强度和态度极端性加剧了感知到的党派分歧。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015 Mar;10(2):145-58. doi: 10.1177/1745691615569849.
5
Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes.减少情感两极分化的干预措施不一定能改善反民主态度。
Nat Hum Behav. 2023 Jan;7(1):55-64. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01466-9. Epub 2022 Oct 31.
6
Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society.理解生物医学研究辩论中的公众舆论:超越政治党派之争,关注对科学与社会的信念。
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 18;9(2):e88473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088473. eCollection 2014.
7
Belief in the Utility of Cross-Partisan Empathy Reduces Partisan Animosity and Facilitates Political Persuasion.相信跨党派同理心的效用可以减少党派敌意,促进政治说服。
Psychol Sci. 2022 Sep;33(9):1557-1573. doi: 10.1177/09567976221098594. Epub 2022 Aug 30.
8
Placing "trust" in science: The urban-rural divide and Americans' feelings of warmth toward scientists.对科学的“信任”:城乡差距与美国人对科学家的好感度。
Public Underst Sci. 2023 Jul;32(5):596-604. doi: 10.1177/09636625221147232. Epub 2023 Jan 17.
9
Partisan niche construction: Out-party affect, geographic sorting, and mate selection.党派利益塑造:外党影响、地域选择与伴侣选择。
Politics Life Sci. 2023 Nov;42(2):254-276. doi: 10.1017/pls.2023.19.
10
Negative partisanship is not more prevalent than positive partisanship.负面党派偏见并不比正面党派偏见更普遍。
Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Jul;6(7):951-963. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01348-0. Epub 2022 May 19.

引用本文的文献

1
County-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality among adults in the United States: A lagged multilevel study.美国成年人县级政治团体密度、党派两极分化与个体层面死亡率:一项滞后多层次研究。
SSM Popul Health. 2024 Mar 19;26:101662. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101662. eCollection 2024 Jun.

本文引用的文献

1
Is divisive politics making Americans sick? Associations of perceived partisan polarization with physical and mental health outcomes among adults in the United States.分裂的政治是否让美国人患病?美国成年人感知到党派极化与身心健康结果的关联。
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Sep;284:113976. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113976. Epub 2021 May 4.
2
Arrhythmia Risk During the 2016 US Presidential Election: The Cost of Stressful Politics.2016 年美国总统选举期间的心律失常风险:政治压力的代价。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Jun;10(11):e020559. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020559. Epub 2021 May 20.
3
Subjective health in adolescence: Comparing the reliability of contemporaneous, retrospective, and proxy reports of overall health.
青少年的主观健康状况:比较当前、回顾性和代理报告的整体健康状况的可靠性。
Soc Sci Res. 2021 May;96:102538. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102538. Epub 2021 Feb 16.
4
Sociopolitical stress and acute cardiovascular disease hospitalizations around the 2016 presidential election.2016 年总统选举前后的社会政治压力与急性心血管疾病住院治疗。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Oct 27;117(43):27054-27058. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2012096117. Epub 2020 Oct 12.
5
Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic.两极分化与公共卫生:新冠疫情期间社会 distancing 方面的党派差异。 (注:这里“social distancing”常见释义为“社交距离” ,但原文中该词似乎有误,可能是“social distancing measures”之类表述会更准确,直接翻译的话就是“社会距离” )
J Public Econ. 2020 Nov;191:104254. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
6
Status Variation in Anticipatory Stressors and Their Associations with Depressive Symptoms.预期性应激源的变化及其与抑郁症状的关系。
J Health Soc Behav. 2020 Jun;61(2):170-189. doi: 10.1177/0022146520921375. Epub 2020 May 22.
7
Striving While Black: Race and the Psychophysiology of Goal Pursuit.努力奋斗的黑人:种族与目标追求的心理生理学。
J Health Soc Behav. 2020 Mar;61(1):24-42. doi: 10.1177/0022146520901695. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
8
Friends, relatives, sanity, and health: The costs of politics.朋友、亲人、理智和健康:政治的代价。
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 25;14(9):e0221870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221870. eCollection 2019.
9
BIC and Alternative Bayesian Information Criteria in the Selection of Structural Equation Models.结构方程模型选择中的贝叶斯信息准则(BIC)及替代贝叶斯信息准则
Struct Equ Modeling. 2014;21(1):1-19. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.856691. Epub 2014 Jan 31.
10
Association of Preterm Births Among US Latina Women With the 2016 Presidential Election.美国拉丁裔女性早产与 2016 年总统选举的关联。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Jul 3;2(7):e197084. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7084.