Antisemitism on Campus in the Wake of October 7: Examining Stress, Coping, and Depressive Symptoms Among Jewish Students

ABSTRACT

The Hamas‐led terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, were an inflection point that spurred a global rise in antisemitism. College and university campuses were particularly affected. Given the adverse impacts of prejudice and discrimination for mental health and the dearth of research on psychosocial effects of antisemitism, examining stress, coping, and mental health among Jewish students within this context is crucial. In this study, we used longitudinal data and multilevel modelling in the months after the events of October 7 to examine within‐ and between‐person effects of antisemitism‐related stress, stress associated with the Israel‐Palestine conflict, and approach and avoidance coping on depressive symptoms among a sample of 253 Jewish college and university students. Within‐person results indicated that increases from one's usual level of antisemitism‐related stress and stress attributable to the Israel‐Palestine conflict were independently associated with heightened depressive symptoms. Increased use of avoidance coping was also associated with heightened depressive symptoms, whereas the inverse was true for approach coping which had a protective effect. Similar effects were observed at the between‐person level. Results from the present work draw attention to both the potentially detrimental effects of stress associated with antisemitism, but also highlight coping as a target for intervention to potentially combat such effects. The findings also point to a path forward where campuses can remain open areas of inquiry by fostering resilience at both the community and individual level.

1. Introduction

Antisemitism underwent a global surge following the Hamas‐led terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, that further intensified when Israel launched its military response (Anti‐Defamation League, The Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, and The Irwin Cotler Institute at Tel Aviv University ²⁰²⁴; Brym ²⁰²⁴; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights ²⁰²⁴; Halamish ²⁰²⁴; Huffnagle ²⁰²⁴). The anti‐Israel sentiment prevalent on college and university campuses across the western world led to elite institutions becoming epicentres of anti‐Israel protests that often devolved into antisemitic rhetoric and, in some cases, discrimination and harassment of Jewish students (Anti‐Defamation League, Hillel International, and College Pulse ²⁰²³; Nelson, Friedland, and O’Connell ²⁰²⁴; Santos and Yogev ²⁰²⁴; Selznick and Greene ²⁰²⁴; Wright et al. ²⁰²³; Wright et al. ^2024b). Although this surge was unsurprising to those aware of the long history of antisemitism in academia (Harris 2009; Small ²⁰¹³), and those cognisant of the rising rates of antisemitism on campuses that preceded the October 7 attacks (Kenedy 2022; Rubin ²⁰¹⁹), the sudden increase was likely unanticipated by many young, politically left‐leaning students who viewed antisemitism as primarily a right‐wing issue, with little foothold in academic settings increasingly dominated by progressive ideologies (Wright et al. 2024; Wright et al. ^2024a).

Coinciding with the rising incidence of reports of antisemitism in the wake of October 7 were reports of Jewish students being challenged on the veracity of their claims of such incidents (Anti‐Defamation League, Hillel International, and College Pulse ²⁰²³; Subcommittee on Antisemitism and Anti‐Israeli Bias ²⁰²⁴). While the questioning and delegitimisation of claims of antisemitism are not novel within academia (Hirsh 2023), the scepticism was at odds with the increasing trend towards the centring of ‘lived experience’ and harms‐based views of discrimination espoused on college and university campuses in recent years (Freeman and Stewart 2021; Haidt ²⁰¹⁶; Lilienfeld ²⁰²⁰). For example, this disconnect can be observed in the heightened campus sensitivities to ‘microaggressions’ targeting non‐Jewish minorities but apparent ambivalence towards overt acts of discrimination targeting Jewish students (Abrams and Armeni 2023; Brym ²⁰²⁴). Given the adverse effects of experiencing prejudice and discrimination on mental health (Emmer, Dorn, and Mata ²⁰²⁴; Livingston et al. ²⁰²⁰; Pascoe and Smart Richman ²⁰⁰⁹), Jewish students' need to contend with experiences of antisemitism, combined with a lack of recognition and institutional or administrative action taken to address their concerns (Santos and Yogev 2024), may have had adverse effects for mental health during this period. This is in addition to potential mental health impacts of stress directly attributable to the ongoing geopolitical conflict and exposure to the humanitarian impacts via social and news media (Holman, Garfin, and Silver ²⁰²⁴). Given that college and university students are a population at high risk for mental health concerns (Pedrelli et al. 2015), examining the effect of such stressors is crucial.

With the rise in reported instances of antisemitism on college and university campuses, it is critical to understand how Jewish students are coping with these experiences. Given the central role that coping responses play in mitigating the adverse effects of stress on well‐being (DeLongis and Holtzman ²⁰⁰⁵; Folkman et al. ¹⁹⁸⁶; Segerstrom and Smith ²⁰¹⁹; Trudel‐Fitzgerald et al. ²⁰²³), such examination is key to understanding the individual‐level impacts of antisemitism, as well as in identifying ways to promote resilience. The approach/avoidance distinction has been theorized to identify adaptive and maladaptive responses across a range of contexts (Taylor and Stanton 2007). Coping responses that involve turning one's attention towards the source of stress or one's emotional reaction to it (approach) have been found to be more effective and associated with positive mental health impacts whereas those that involve directing one's attention away from the source of stress (avoidance) are often associated with worse mental health (Aldao, Nolen‐Hoeksema, and Schweizer ²⁰¹⁰; Taylor and Stanton ²⁰⁰⁷). Although this distinction can be overly simplistic when applied unilaterally, the distinction is useful in contexts that involve managing stressors that are unremitting or chronic (DeLongis and Newth ²⁰⁰¹)—characteristics applicable to the sustained rise in antisemitism reported across multiple jurisdictions following the October 7 terrorist attacks (Anti‐Defamation League, Hillel International, and College Pulse ²⁰²³). Evidence that approach and avoidance coping in response to discrimination‐related stress are associated with positive and negative mental health outcomes, respectively, among a range of affected populations (Barnes and Lightsey Jr ²⁰⁰⁵; Foster ²⁰⁰⁰; Jacob et al. ²⁰²³; Sanders Thompson ²⁰⁰⁶; Villegas‐Gold and Yoo ²⁰¹⁴) further implores us to consider this distinction in the present context.

While adverse psychological and mental health impacts among Jewish students in the aftermath of October 7 are beginning to emerge, research on coping responses among this population remains limited (Anti‐Defamation League, Hillel International, and College Pulse ²⁰²³; Santos and Yogev ²⁰²⁴). That said, work examining coping responses in the wake October 7 among Jewish diaspora more broadly has pointed to approach coping as a potentially adaptive response. Specifically, in the limited number of studies that have examined the topic, recruiting social support or obtaining informational resources from community members are often cited responses to heightened stress, and preliminary evidence of their efficacy has been documented (Bankier‐Karp and Graham ²⁰²⁴; Reingold and Reznik ²⁰²⁴). In the present study, we build on this work and examine the potential protective effect of approach coping responses, such as seeking advice or support from others, on depressive symptoms. In addition, we explore whether avoidance coping responses, such as refusing to think or talk about one's stress, were associated with heightened depressive symptoms. We examine the effect of these responses in conjunction with the effect of stress resulting from antisemitism, as well as that attributable to concerns about the ongoing Israel‐Palestine conflict.

To investigate both within‐ and between‐person effects of these sources of stress, we used multilevel modelling and longitudinal data collected weekly during the early months of 2024. Specifically, we isolated the effects of individual differences to examine whether deviations from an individual's typical level of approach coping, avoidance coping, antisemitism‐related stress, and conflict‐related stress were associated with corresponding changes in depressive symptoms at a given timepoint. We hypothesised that at the within‐person level, intra‐personal increases from one's average level of antisemitism‐related stress, conflict‐related stress, and avoidance coping would be associated with increases in depressive symptoms, with the inverse being true for approach coping, with intrapersonal increases from one's average level of approach coping expected to exert a protective effect against heightened depressive symptoms. We expected similar effects at the between‐person level, with those students who tended to report higher levels of antisemitism‐related stress, conflict‐related stress, more avoidance coping, and less approach coping experiencing more depressive symptoms.

2. Method

2.1. Data Collection and Participants

Data for the present study come from an online baseline survey and 17 weekly follow‐up assessments. Data collection began in January 2024 with follow‐up assessments distributed weekly through mid‐May. Participants were able to join the study at any point during the study period by completing the baseline survey accessible via the study website. Any college or university student who identified as Jewish was invited to take part in the study. Recruitment was done primarily through social media by reaching out to organisations that cater to Jewish students and young adults and requesting that they share our study with their networks. The same request was made of members of the Jewish community with prominent followings on social media. All study procedures were approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H23‐04062). To encourage participation and given concern for security expressed by prospective participants, consent documents included the assurance that survey responses would not be uploaded to a publicly accessible platform.

A total of 356 Jewish students responded to the baseline survey of whom 71% had complete data on requisite variables on at least one timepoint. Using listwise deletion to account for missing data at each timepoint resulted in a dataset contained 812 survey responses belonging to 253 participants. The mean number of surveys per participant was 3.47 (SD = 3.88) with 56% of participants providing data on more than one timepoint. Women and men comprised 59% and 34% of the sample respectively, with 7% of participants identifying as another gender. Participants represented 108 different schools, the majority located in Canada (62%) followed by the United States (30%), with the remaining 8% attending schools throughout Europe. The mean age of the sample was 23.40 (SD = 6.05). There were no significant differences on demographic variables between the analytic sample and participants excluded due to missing data (p > 0.05).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Depressive Symptoms

Depressive symptoms were assessed in each survey using the 10‐item version of the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Short Depression Scale (CESD‐10; Andresen et al. ¹⁹⁹⁴). The scale includes items such as ‘I felt depressed’ and ‘I was bothered by things that usually don't bother me’ and participants rated how often the statements characterised their experiences in the past week ranging from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (all the time). Responses were summed to create a composite score. The 10‐item version of the scale has been widely used with community and college student samples and has similar psychometric properties to the full version (Bradley, Bagnell, and Brannen ²⁰¹⁰). Reliability of the scale (coefficient omega, ω) at first assessment was 0.86.

2.2.2. Antisemitism‐Related Stress

Antisemitism‐related stress (antisemitism stress) was assessed at each timepoint by having participants rate on a four‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal) the extent antisemitism on and off campus had contributed to their stress in the past week. Responses to the questions ‘to what extent has antisemitism on campus contributed to your stress in the past week?’ and ‘to what extent has antisemitism in general contributed to your stress in the past week?’ were summed to create a composite score. The Spearman‐Brown reliability coefficient for the two‐item measure at first assessment was 0.78.

2.2.3. Israel‐Palestine Conflict Stress

Stress relating to the events of October 7 and the war that ensued (conflict stress) was assessed with the question ‘to what extent has the Israel‐Palestine conflict contributed to your stress in the past week?’ Participants responded on a four‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a great deal).

2.2.4. Coping

If participants indicated experiencing antisemitism‐related stress or stress related to the Israel‐Palestine conflict in the past week, they were presented with a list of potential coping responses and asked to indicate the extent they had used each method to cope. Coping responses were drawn from the Ways of Coping (WOC) Questionnaire and rated on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all or not applicable) to 3 (a great deal; Folkman et al. ¹⁹⁸⁶; Lee‐Baggley, Preece, and DeLongis ²⁰⁰⁵). Participants who indicated they had not experienced stress related to antisemitism or the Israel‐Palestine conflict in the past week (and thus had no need to initiate of a coping response), were not presented with the question and coded as 0 on coping variables for that timepoint.

Approach coping was assessed with seven items from the from the WOC. Items included those that involved orienting attention towards the source of stress or one's emotional reaction. Approach coping items included responses such as ‘I made a plan of action and followed it’, ‘I talked to someone about how I was feeling’, and ‘I asked a relative or friend I respected for advice’. Reliability of the scale (ω) at first assessment was 0.71. Avoidance coping was also assessed with a subset of seven items from the WOC. Avoidance coping items included responses that involved distraction or re‐orienting one's attention away from the source stress and emotional reactions. For example, ‘I tried to keep my feelings to myself’, ‘I tried to forget the whole thing’, and ‘I went on as if nothing had happened’ were included in the measure of avoidance coping. At first assessment, ω = 0.65.

2.2.5. Covariates

General stress was included as a covariate in models to isolate its effect and capture the independent contribution of stress relating to antisemitism and the Israel‐Palestine conflict to depressive symptoms. General stress was computed as the mean of five items from the College Student Stress Scale (CSSS; Feldt ²⁰⁰⁸). At each timepoint, participants indicated the extent they had felt ‘anxious or distressed’ in the past week on a five‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often) in five domains (relationships, family, financial, academic, and housing matters). At first assessment, ω = 0.76. Demographic variables including age, gender, and school location were assessed at baseline and were also included as covariates in study models.

2.3. Analytic Strategy

Multilevel modelling was used to account for the hierarchical nesting of weekly survey responses (level 1) within participants (level 2). To capture both within‐ and between‐person effects, level 1 stress and coping variables were person‐mean centred (PC) and entered in the model at level 1, with person‐means (PM) reintroduced as grand‐mean centred predictors at level 2. This approach allows for capturing the effect of deviation from one's average level of a variable on a given timepoint (PC, within‐person effect), as well as the effect of one's average level of a variable compared to that of others in the sample (PM, between‐person effect). Age was also grand‐mean centred and entered at level 2. Gender and school location were entered as dummy codes into models. The former included three levels (women, men and other) with men as the reference group. The latter was a single variable indicating whether a participant was attending school in North America with those attending school in Europe as the reference group.

Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) was used to estimate all models. To capture the contributions of antisemitism and conflict stress on depressive symptoms, as well as the contribution of how participants coped, over and above the effect of general stress and covariates, modelling was done in three stages. In the first stage, only covariates and general stress were included in the model (Model 1). Next, antisemitism stress and conflict stress were added (Model 2). In the final model, approach and avoidance coping were added (Model 3). To account for serial dependence of residuals, a first order autoregressive error structure was included. Random slopes were excluded due to model non‐convergence. Likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) were used to compare nested models, and test if inclusion of additional parameters was justified at the cost of decreased parsimony. To do so, models were re‐fit using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. Analyses were run in R version 4.3.2 (R Core Team ²⁰²³) and RStudio version 2024.04.2 + 764 (RStudio Team ²⁰²⁴) using the nlme package (Pinheiro, Bates, and R Core Team ²⁰²⁴) for multilevel modelling and r2mlm (Shaw et al. 2022) for computing and comparing R ² values.

3. Results

Univariate and bivariate statistics are presented in Table 1. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) ranged from 0.43 (avoidance coping) to 0.76 (general stress) reflecting substantial stability in participants scores across timepoints. Of note, participants' levels of depressive symptoms were elevated according to established cut‐offs. The mean CESD score, 14.06, exceeds the often‐cited benchmarks of 8 and 10 used to identify cases of potential concern and worthy of clinical follow‐up in community samples (Andresen et al. 1994). All correlations were significantly associated with depressive symptoms, except for approach coping which was non‐significant at the within‐person level. These findings are consistent with theory and are further explicated by results from multivariate models.

TABLE 1.

Means, standard deviations, intraclass correlations, and within‐ and between‐person correlations among study variables.

	Variable	M (SD)	ICC	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	Depressive symptoms	14.09 (6.15)	0.65		0.38***	0.34***	0.35***	0.06	0.21***
2	General stress	2.67 (0.75)	0.76	0.71***		0.19***	0.23***	0.08*	0.20***
3	Antisemitism stress	5.50 (1.69)	0.61	0.54***	0.45***		0.58***	0.32***	0.27***
4	Conflict stress	3.03 (0.85)	0.54	0.54***	0.35***	0.79***		0.33***	0.30***
5	Approach coping	2.09 (0.67)	0.61	0.40***	0.32***	0.57***	0.61***		0.50***
6	Avoidance coping	2.29 (0.67)	0.43	0.33***	0.42***	0.42***	0.36***	0.30***

Note: Values below the diagonal are between‐person correlations, values above the diagonal are within‐person correlations. Means and standard deviations are based on person‐means.

Abbreviation: ICC, Intraclass correlation coefficient.

*p ≤ 0.05. **p ≤ 0.01. ***p ≤ 0.001.

Table 2 presents multilevel models predicting depressive symptoms. In all models, effects of demographic covariates were nonsignificant. As expected, general stress was a potent contributor to depressive symptoms in all models demonstrating both within‐ (PC) and between‐person (PM) effects over and above those of focal predictors. In Model 1, predictor variables accounted for 40% of outcome variance. Adding variables capturing the within‐ and between‐person components of antisemitism stress and conflict stress to Model 2 improved model fit, X ²(4) = 99.52, p < 0.001. In Model 2, an additional 2% and 6% of variance explained could be attributed to the within‐ and between‐person components of the predictors respectively (computed using the formulae for ΔR _t ^2(f1) and ΔR _t ^2(f2); Rights and Sterba ²⁰²⁰). Only the between‐person effect of antisemitism stress was nonsignificant. The results suggest that increases from one's average level of antisemitism stress, but not average levels of antisemitism stress, were associated with heightened depressive symptoms. By contrast, both higher average levels of conflict stress as well as increases from one's average level of conflict stress were associated with increased depressive symptoms. Adding coping to Model 3 improved overall model fit X ²(4) = 13.13, p = 0.011. In line with hypotheses, increases in approach coping from one's usual level were associated with reduced depressive symptoms and the inverse was true for avoidance; however, results did not surface between‐person effects. Accordingly, the change in R ² for this model was driven by the within‐person components of coping variables which accounted for an additional 0.3% of outcome variance (ΔR _t ^2(f1)).

TABLE 2.

Results from multilevel models predicting depressive symptoms.

Predictor	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Fixed effects
	Est.	SE	Est.	SE	Est.	SE
Intercept	12.63***	1.16	12.73***	1.07	12.74***	1.08
Age	0.06	0.05	0.03	0.04	0.03	0.04
Gender (women)	0.20	0.61	−0.04	0.56	−0.14	0.57
Gender (other)	0.94	1.20	0.95	1.12	0.79	1.14
Location (North America)	1.03	1.10	1.15	1.03	1.20	1.04
PC general stress	3.69***	0.40	3.05***	0.39	2.90***	0.39
PM general stress	5.44***	0.39	4.52***	0.40	4.31***	0.42
PC antisemitism stress			0.59***	0.15	0.63***	0.15
PM antisemitism stress			0.39	0.26	0.33	0.27
PC conflict stress			1.12***	0.29	1.17***	0.29
PM conflict stress			1.48**	0.50	1.48**	0.52
PC approach coping					−1.14**	0.38
PM approach coping					−0.15	0.50
PC avoidance coping					0.71*	0.30
PM avoidance coping					0.83	0.48
Random effects
Variance
Level 1	13.40		11.94		11.66
Level 2	12.20		10.20		10.50
Goodness of fit
AIC	4683.868		4597.605		4592.599
BIC	4730.777		4663.207		4676.855

Note: Unstandardised regression coefficients. All models fit using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation.

Abbreviations: PC, person‐centred (within‐person effect); PM, person‐mean (between‐person effect).

*p ≤ 0.05. **p ≤ 0.01. ***p ≤ 0.001.

As a follow‐up to our analyses, we re‐ran Model three excluding covariates and revealed the same pattern of effects. Results from this model are presented in Supplemental Table S1. Additionally, we ran Model 3 with only North American participants to test for potential regional differences between Canada and the United States. To do so, location was dummy‐coded (Canada = 1, United States = 0). Results from this model are presented in Supplemental Table S2 and revealed a significant effect of location with greater depressive symptom scores reported among those attending schools in the United States, b = −1.17, SE = 0.57, p = 0.041. Effects of focal variables were consistent with results from models including the full sample that we report here.

4. Discussion

The present study adds to a body of work in its infancy on the psychosocial correlates and consequences of antisemitism at a time when there has been an increase that is unprecedented in recent history (Anti‐Defamation League, Hillel International, and College Pulse ²⁰²³). Jewish college and university students were at the forefront of this increase making them a group particularly at risk for experiencing adverse outcomes. We found that experiencing antisemitism was associated with a within‐person increase in depressive symptoms. That is, we found that on occasions when students reported greater antisemitism than their usual, they also tended to report higher than usual levels of depressive symptoms. This finding is noteworthy because it accounts for the propensity of some students to habitually perceive higher levels of antisemitism—a tendency likely influenced by incidence of antisemitic events, as well as individual differences that predispose some to interpret events as threatening or hostile (Denissen and Penke 2008; Mellentin et al. ²⁰¹⁵). Furthermore, we found that this effect emerged controlling for the effect of stress attributable to the Israel‐Palestine conflict, as well as other common sources of student stress (housing, finances, etc.). Given that increases in antisemitism can often coincide with escalation of conflict in Israel (Enstad 2023; LaFreniere Tamez, Anastasio, and Perliger ²⁰²⁴; Vergani et al. ²⁰²²), accounting for stress attributable to this source is key. The need for such consideration is demonstrated by our finding that such stress was also related to increases in depressive symptoms at both the between‐ and within‐person level.

Of primary interest in the present work was the role that coping responses play in students' experiences of depressive symptoms during this period of heightened stress. As expected, bivariate associations revealed that both approach and avoidance coping were positively associated with all types of stress as well as depressive symptoms. This finding indicates that those who experienced greater stress and depressive symptoms were also more likely to invoke coping responses—an expected finding given the increased need for coping among such individuals (Lazarus 2000). However, when controlling for covariates and within‐person variability, we observed no additional effect of coping at the between‐person level. This lack of observed effect may point to the importance of within‐person changes from one's usual level of engagement in a specific coping response, rather than stable, trait‐like differences in typical patterns of responding (Blaxton and Bergeman 2017; DeLongis and Holtzman ²⁰⁰⁵; Tennen et al. ²⁰⁰⁰). In accordance with this and in line with our hypotheses, we found that within‐person increases in approach and avoidance coping were associated with decreases and increases in depressive symptoms respectively.

Our findings provide preliminary support for the view of approach and avoidance coping as adaptive and maladaptive responses to antisemitism respectively and point to them as potentially actionable targets for intervention to improve the well‐being of Jewish students in the present context. Such interventions could involve targeting stress appraisals that precede coping responses by providing resources to cope with or modify the environment, in order to enable approach‐oriented responses. Specifically, in revealing the potentially detrimental effects of coping with antisemitism through avoidance, our results suggest that institutional responses that downplay its existence or stifle speech about its impacts may inadvertently worsen outcomes for affected students by promoting such responses. This is consistent with work indicating the harms of neglecting to acknowledge or downplaying experiences of discrimination (Briscoe 2024; Schraub ²⁰¹⁶; Yi et al. ²⁰²³). As such, institutional interventions aimed at fostering environments that signal openness to discourse and provide opportunities for students to voice their concerns about antisemitism may be an avenue to explore. Such interventions might increase the perceived availability of coping resources for Jewish students and is consistent with preeminent models of stress and coping that centre the role of appraisal in coping processes (DeLongis and Holtzman ²⁰⁰⁵; Folkman et al. ¹⁹⁸⁶) as well as models that frame approach and avoidance as motivational constructs. For example, the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPS) suggests that approach‐oriented responses to stress are more often enacted when one perceives coping resources to be sufficient to meet environmental demands (Blascovich 2008). As such, increasing resources to cope at the institutional level by implementing the responses described above might promote student engagement in approach‐oriented coping and ultimately well‐being. While speculative, this line of reasoning pre‐empts the empirical question of the role of school and campus climate in the mental health of Jewish students in the current context. Our follow‐up analyses revealing an effect of location, with students in the United States reporting higher levels of depressive symptoms compared to those in Canada, supports this potential. While not the focus of the present study, these results suggest the need for more granular investigation of regional differences as well as differences between universities to gain a comprehensive understanding of student experiences.

While examining within‐person effects as we have done here provides greater support for investigating stress and coping processes than do cross‐sectional analyses, our analyses cannot establish temporal ordering in these effects. Namely, it is possible that heightened depressive symptoms may have preceded increased/decreased engagement in coping responses. The same possibility of reversed directionality can be applied to the within‐person increases in stress. More concretely, it stands to reason that intraindividual increases in depressive symptoms may have precipitated increased sensitivity to environmental threats, thereby heightening one's propensity to perceive such threats as antisemitic, or reducing students' capacity to respond adaptively to such incidents (Hong 2007). Nuanced examination of the sequence of cognitive appraisals that precede perceptions of antisemitic incidents and students' resources to cope will provide greater insight into this process. While prior work has documented intrapersonal lagged effects of discrimination on mental health, with within‐person increases in reports of discrimination predicting next‐day worsening of mental health symptoms (Potter, Brondolo, and Smyth ²⁰¹⁹), this has yet to be examined in the context of antisemitism and will require more closely spaced assessments that can establish temporal ordering of antisemitic incidents and variation in mood states. This could be achieved through daily diary or ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods (Bolger and Laurenceau 2013)—methodologies largely absent in the literature on antisemitism at time of writing. Given the role of stress reactivity in transmitting and perpetuating the adverse health effects of discrimination among other minority populations (Emmer, Dorn, and Mata ²⁰²⁴; Leger et al. ²⁰²²), such examination is crucial and sorely needed.

In addition to temporal ordering of effects, there are limitations to the present work that necessitate caution in interpreting and generalizing the observed effects beyond the present sample. In particular, the self‐selected nature of the present sample must be noted. While the study garnered a great deal of attention on social media (with one post garnering over 14,000 views), the total number of Jewish students who were willing to participate was lower than we expected based on our past research using similar strategies for recruitment (e.g., Morstead et al. ²⁰²⁴) and may have been impacted by the chilling effect perpetuated by hateful comments that often surfaced when the post was re‐shared. Additionally, we received reports via email from students hesitant to participate for fear of doxing and social ostracization. In addition, a contingent of students may have been dissuaded from responding to the survey out of disagreement with our characterization of the study as an investigation into experiences of antisemitism. Jewish students who objected to the characterization of on‐ and off‐campus hostility toward Jewish individuals and organizations as antisemitism and instead view it as a manifestation of anti‐Zionism may not have felt compelled to participate. We limited the possibility of this by invoking the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism but deliberately excluding the example statements—the most hotly contested elements of the definition given their inclusion of reference to Israel (Della Pergola ²⁰²⁴; Penslar ²⁰²²)—from the body of our survey. Nonetheless, our recruitment of Jewish students from mainstream Jewish organizations likely resulted in underrepresentation of Jewish students who identify as anti‐Zionist. While a minority, this contingent is overrepresented among young adult Jewish populations and should not be overlooked (Fine 2024; Pew Research Center ²⁰²¹). Future work that is inclusive of this population will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mental health and diversity of experiences of Jewish students during this period. Such investigation will provide insight into how individual differences in conceptualizations of antisemitism contribute to threat appraisals, coping responses, and well‐being outcomes.

For better and for worse, college and university students are often at the forefront of political and cultural change and are a particularly key demographic to attend to during periods of instability (Murphy et al. 2024). Limitations notwithstanding, our study provides key insights into an understudied subset of this population during a uniquely stressful time. Jewish university and college students today are facing a spike in antisemitism (Anti‐Defamation League, Hillel International, and College Pulse ²⁰²³; Brym ²⁰²⁴; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights ²⁰²⁴; Halamish ²⁰²⁴; Huffnagle ²⁰²⁴). In this context, it is critically important that mental health advocates, public health officials, and clinicians develop tools to aid students encountering these challenges. Insights gleaned from this work will benefit not only Jewish students but may be applicable in countering hate and discrimination against a range of minority groups and populations. Research investigating successful coping strategies is key to developing and implementing effective interventions for treating those experiencing psychological distress in these contexts, as well as addressing contextual factors that might mitigate these adverse effects. As a pervasive, shape‐shifting, and divisive phenomenon, countering antisemitism requires systemic and structural change, and the identification and challenging of societal narratives that perpetuate it (Nelson 2024; Waxman, Schraub, and Hosein ²⁰²²). This will remain an ongoing challenge for the foreseeable future. As such, investigating and intervening in how individuals interpret and respond to potentially antisemitic incidents is crucial in returning a sense of agency to individuals, and providing a means to promote resilience, even in the absence of societal change. Crucially, returning agency and fostering resilience at the individual level will enable students to cope with discomforting ideas and engage meaningfully with conflicting views. This development that will allow campuses to remain areas for open inquiry where meaningful progress on significant global challenges can be made.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting Information S1

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.