In recent years, an increasing number of politicians have publicly spoken about their mental health, with some opening up about their history of mental health problems and diagnosed conditions and others naming the stress and pressure of holding public office as a cause of poor mental health. In some cases, these struggles have led politicians to quit politics or take a break from it. How do voters react to this? Through a survey experiment in the UK we examine how voters evaluate politicians with mental health conditions. Specifically, we study the effects of politicians’ experience of depression, bipolar disorder, and panic disorder on public perceptions of their traits and representativeness as well as voter support. By using vignettes presenting fictional social media posts or news articles we investigate whether voters react differently depending on whether politicians communicate their mental health issues themselves or whether they are disclosed by a third party. We also analyse to what extent these effects vary with citizens’ own experience of mental health conditions and levels of stigma. Our study reveals that publicly disclosing their mental health conditions does not seem to hurt politicians’ prospects; rather, voters value their character and their ability to represent diverse groups of citizens.
