Using tech to solve problems rooted in human #psychology and tribalism is a fraught exercise.
Ask your local Fediverse instance moderator.
https://www.superversive.co/blog/ai-product-change-management
Search
93 results for “psychology_geek”
-
DATE: October 27, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: We’ll pay to get revenge on an algorithm, even though it can’t feel a thing
URL: https://www.psypost.org/well-pay-to-get-revenge-on-an-algorithm-even-though-it-cant-feel-a-thing/
When a computer algorithm treats people unfairly, they tend to get just as angry and retaliate just as often as they would against a human wrongdoer. A new series of experiments published in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General provides mixed evidence on whether punishing a machine brings the same sense of closure as punishing a person, but it suggests that a machine’s response to being punished, such as sounding hurt or promising to make fairer offers, can strengthen people’s sense that justice was done. The findings suggest that as artificial intelligence takes on more decision-making roles in society, organizations may need to design systems that can communicate accountability when things go wrong.
Automated systems are increasingly tasked with consequential choices, from screening job applicants to steering vehicles and prioritizing medical care. To understand how people react when these systems cause harm, psychologists study a concept known as mind perception, which is the everyday process of judging what kind of mental life another entity possesses. People generally evaluate minds along two separate dimensions: agency, meaning the ability to think, plan, and act intentionally, and experience, meaning the capacity to feel physical pain, pleasure, fear, and emotions.
In human interactions, the capacity to commit a moral wrong and the capacity to experience punishment usually go together, since a sane adult can both plan a harmful act and feel the sting of a penalty. Artificial intelligence splits these two qualities apart because people often view machines as having enough agency to cause deliberate harm, yet almost no ability to feel pain or remorse. For instance, research covered by PsyPost in 2023 found that people judged AI agents as more deserving of blame than humans in one classic life-and-death dilemma. Similarly, another 2023 study covered by PsyPost showed that people hold automated driving assistants responsible for road outcomes while simultaneously categorizing the software as a mere tool rather than a true moral being.
This mental divide raises questions about whether punishing an algorithm can produce justice satisfaction, which is the feeling of closure, fairness, and resolution a victim experiences after an offender is penalized. Psychological theories generally propose two reasons why punishment feels satisfying: either it fulfills a desire for retribution by making the wrongdoer suffer for their actions, or it serves a communicative role by teaching the wrongdoer a moral lesson.
Because people tend to see machines as unable to genuinely suffer or feel guilt, study author Alexander Eng, an associate professor of organizational behavior in the Department of Management at the Asia School of Business in Kuala Lumpur, and co-author Kai Chi Yam of the National University of Singapore examined how people emotionally and behaviorally respond during and after they penalize an unfair algorithm.
“Research on punishment usually assumes that anyone capable of doing wrong can also be punished,” Eng told PsyPost. “We tend to see a young child as unable to truly commit a wrong, and so also as unfit for punishment. Machines break that link: people see AI as able to make decisions that hurt them, yet unable to feel pain, regret, or learn a moral lesson. As AI takes on decisions like medical triage and firing employees, we wanted to know how people respond when they try to hold it accountable, and whether punishing it gives them any sense that justice was done.”
The researchers began with a pilot study of 380 English-speaking adults in the United States, recruited through the online platform Prolific, to verify whether people actually punish algorithms. Participants played a single round of an economic exercise called the ultimatum game, in which a partner was given £0.50 and proposed how to split it. If the participant accepted the split, both parties kept their share, but if the participant rejected it, neither party received anything, making rejection a form of costly punishment.
Participants were told their partner was either another human participant or an algorithm, and they received either a fair offer of £0.25 each or an unfair offer where the partner kept £0.45 and left the participant just £0.05. In reality, the researchers preset all offers. Receiving a stingy offer from an algorithm provoked much higher anger (an average of 3.12 on a 5-point scale) than receiving a fair offer from an algorithm (1.31). When given the unfair deal, participants felt comparable anger toward algorithms (3.12) and humans (2.91), and they punished the unfair algorithm by rejecting its offer 57.8 percent of the time, which was not statistically different from the 62.2 percent rejection rate for unfair humans.
In their first main experiment, the authors examined what happens after punishment is delivered using a final sample of 123 Prolific participants. Every participant received the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game from either a human or an algorithm, decided whether to accept or reject it, and then answered five questions measuring their justice satisfaction, such as whether they felt everyone got what they deserved. Afterward, participants played a second exercise called the dictator game, where they were given £0.50 and could unilaterally share any amount in £0.05 increments with their partner, while also having the option to switch to a new human partner first.
As in the pilot study, participants rejected unfair offers from algorithms (38 out of 62) and humans (40 out of 61) at similar rates. Overall, the 78 participants who punished their partner by rejecting the offer reported higher justice satisfaction (3.57 out of 5) than the 45 who accepted it (2.63). Controlling for whether participants switched partners, the satisfaction gap between those who punished and those who did not was larger when the offender was a human than when it was an algorithm, and higher justice satisfaction in turn predicted greater generosity in the second game.
Because the option to switch partners or the belief that computers have no use for money might have influenced the first experiment, the researchers conducted a second study with a stricter setup among 739 participants, preregistered along with the third and fourth experiments through the journal’s registered-report review process. Participants were told that five algorithms and five human research assistants were competing across multiple negotiations, and that while neither kept the money personally, the lowest-earning algorithm and human would be eliminated from the competition.
Participants were not allowed to switch partners between the ultimatum game and the dictator game, and they also completed scales measuring their partner’s perceived agency and emotional experience, along with their own baseline tendency to attribute human-like consciousness to technology, a trait known as anthropomorphism.
Participants rated human partners higher on agency (3.30 versus 2.79 out of 5) and much higher on the capacity for emotional experience (3.20 versus 1.86) than algorithmic partners. Even so, participants rejected the unfair offer at comparable rates for algorithms (71.0 percent, or 262 of 369) and humans (65.4 percent, or 242 of 370), and those who punished their partner felt much greater justice satisfaction (3.53) than those who accepted the unfair split (2.71). In contrast to the first study, after controlling for baseline anthropomorphism, the link between punishing and justice satisfaction, and in turn generosity, was equally strong whether the partner was an algorithm or a human.
“People react to an unfair machine much as they react to an unfair person,” Eng said. “Participants got just as angry at an algorithm that made them a lowball offer as at a human who made the same offer, and they were just as willing to give up their own money to punish it. Whether punishing the machine felt as satisfying was less consistent across studies.”
A third study tested these dynamics in a different scenario called the trust game with 735 participants who chose to invest £0.20 with a human research assistant or an algorithm. The investment was tripled to £0.60, and the partner broke the participant’s trust by returning just £0.10 instead of a fair £0.30 split. Participants could then penalize their partner by recommending on a 1-to-5 scale that the partner be removed from the player pool, before rating their justice satisfaction and playing a second round where the roles were reversed.
Participants gave similar removal ratings to unfair algorithms (3.37 out of 5) and unfair humans (3.26). Unexpectedly, harsher removal ratings were associated with lower justice satisfaction rather than higher closure. The authors suspect this is because participants only submitted a recommendation and never saw a penalty take effect, so the ratings may have reflected anger more than punishment. In an exploratory analysis looking directly at anger, feeling angrier predicted lower justice satisfaction and less generosity toward both types of partners, with anger reducing justice satisfaction slightly more when the partner was human than when it was an algorithm.
In a fourth study involving 3,684 participants who rejected the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game, the researchers tested whether a message from the penalized partner could increase justice satisfaction. Immediately after rejecting the offer from a human or an algorithm, participants received either no message at all, a message expressing emotional distress over repeated rejections, a message calmly acknowledging that the offer was too low and promising to be fair in the future, or a combined message expressing both distress and a moral lesson learned. A separate preliminary test with 305 people confirmed that these messages effectively conveyed emotional suffering and moral learning as intended.
Across the entire sample, participants paired with an algorithm reported slightly lower justice satisfaction (3.56 out of 5) than those paired with a human (3.66), a small difference that accounted for about half a percent of the overall variation in satisfaction scores. However, receiving a message from an algorithm expressing emotional suffering (3.57) or moral learning (3.62) produced higher justice satisfaction than receiving no response from the algorithm (3.42).
For human partners, the differences between receiving no message (3.57) and receiving a suffering (3.66) or moral learning (3.69) message were not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Still, the boost from a message was not statistically larger for algorithms than for humans, and combining both messages added no measurable benefit beyond either one alone. The results suggest that a response from a machine can help satisfy people’s need for redress, even though participants rated algorithms as far less capable of feeling than humans.
“We expected an apology or a show of remorse from an algorithm to count for little, since people don’t believe algorithms feel anything,” Eng explained. “Yet those messages raised people’s sense of justice for algorithms at least as much as the same messages did for humans. It was also striking that people paid to punish an algorithm that couldn’t keep the money and couldn’t experience the loss.”
A final supplemental experiment with 1,093 participants examined whether dissatisfaction after being wronged causes people to take out their frustration on an innocent bystander, a behavior known as displaced aggression. Participants received the unfair £0.05 offer in the ultimatum game from a human or an algorithm, decided whether to accept or reject it, and then played the dictator game paired with a brand-new human research assistant who had no involvement in the first round.
Controlling for baseline anthropomorphism, participants who punished their initial partner by rejecting the unfair offer shared slightly more money with the innocent bystander (an aggression score of 6.75 versus 7.07 on an 11-point scale, where higher scores mean less money shared) than those who did not punish, regardless of whether the original wrongdoer was a person or a machine.
“The anger and punishment results held up across more than 6,000 participants,” Eng noted. “The machine-versus-human differences in justice satisfaction were small where they appeared at all: in our largest study, of about 3,700 people, partner type explained roughly half a percent of the variance. I’d treat that as a modest pattern that needs more testing.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider when interpreting these results. All of the experiments relied on brief online financial games where the harm consisted of being offered an unfair split of £0.50 by an anonymous text-based partner. How people think and feel when a simple computer program shortchanges them by a few cents may differ from how they react to high-stakes algorithmic harm in the real world, such as an automated system wrongfully denying a mortgage, firing an employee, or causing a traffic accident. In addition, participants chose for themselves whether to punish, so differences between those who punished and those who did not may partly reflect who chose to punish rather than the effect of punishing itself.
“These were online economic games with small stakes, splitting 50 pence,” Eng pointed out. “Real harms from AI, like a denied loan or a wrong diagnosis, carry much more weight, so the effects could look different there. The justice satisfaction results were also mixed: one study found a clear gap between machines and humans and another found none, so I wouldn’t claim that punishing machines never satisfies people.”
The evidence on whether punishing a machine feels less satisfying than punishing a person was mixed across the studies, appearing in the first and fourth experiments but not in the second, while the third experiment’s punishment measure did not work as intended. The clearest gap came from the smallest experiment, which included 123 participants after dozens of duplicate entries were removed and which had originally been preregistered to test different outcomes; the larger, preregistered second experiment did not replicate it.
The authors also noted that their five-item survey measuring justice satisfaction showed relatively low internal consistency in the fourth study, indicating a need to develop more precise tools for measuring psychological closure after technological failures. Future research could explore how different types of real-world errors and corrective feedback shape public trust, helping engineers and policymakers design accountability measures, such as holding human creators rather than machines responsible, that satisfy human intuitions of fairness.
“We want to test other kinds of wrongdoing and punishment beyond economic games, and develop a better measure of justice satisfaction,” Eng added. “In a related project, I’m studying the ‘AI disclosure penalty,’ where people value content less once they’re told AI made it.”
The study, “Artificial Intelligence and Machines Are Capable of Harm, but Not of Experiencing Punishment,” was authored by Alexander Eng and Kai Chi Yam.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/well-pay-to-get-revenge-on-an-algorithm-even-though-it-cant-feel-a-thing/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #Algorithms #MachineLearning #AIethics #Psychology #SocialPsychology #Justice #Accountability #HumanBehavior
-
DATE: October 27, 2026 at 06:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Limiting sugar in the first 1,000 days of life is associated with later dementia onset, study finds
Limiting exposure to added sugar in the womb and during the first two years of life is associated with a lower risk of developing dementia decades later, according to a new study published in Neurology. By examining adults born around the end of post-World War II food rationing in the United Kingdom, researchers found that early-life sugar restriction corresponded with delayed dementia onset, healthier brain structure, and better scores on some cognitive tests in their 60s. The findings suggest that nutritional conditions during the earliest stages of human development may play a lasting role in how the brain ages.
Dementia is an umbrella term for progressive neurological conditions that impair memory, thinking, and the ability to perform everyday activities. The most common form is Alzheimer’s disease, which involves the gradual breakdown of brain cells and the buildup of abnormal proteins, followed by vascular dementia, which occurs when reduced blood flow damages brain tissue. Although lifestyle habits in middle and old age are well-known factors in cognitive decline, growing evidence points to the importance of the “first 1,000 days” of life, the developmental window spanning from conception to a child’s second birthday.
During this early period, the brain undergoes rapid growth, forming neural connections and building the structural foundation for lifelong thinking and memory. High sugar intake during pregnancy and infancy may disrupt this process by triggering inflammation or interfering with how cells respond to insulin. For instance, research covered by PsyPost in 2016 indicated that rats fed sugary drinks early in life developed changes in the hippocampus, a seahorse-shaped brain region essential for memory, that resembled the biological effects of early-life stress. In humans, observational studies have similarly linked higher maternal sugar consumption during pregnancy and breastfeeding to altered brain tissue organization in newborns and slightly lower cognitive scores in young children.
Studying how infant diets affect human brain aging is difficult because tracking people from birth into their 70s rarely happens in controlled experiments. To overcome this challenge, scientists have turned to a historical policy shift in the United Kingdom: the end of wartime sugar rationing. Introduced in July 1942 during World War II, the rationing system strictly limited added sugar and sweets to levels comparable to modern dietary guidelines while keeping overall calories and basic nutrients sufficient, unlike historical famines that caused severe starvation. When the British government abruptly ended sugar rationing in September 1953, national sugar consumption jumped by more than 50 percent, even as total calorie intake rose by only about 5 percent and other food groups remained relatively stable.
Researchers have used this sudden dietary shift to examine how early sugar limits relate to adult health, starting with a 2024 study by another team that linked rationing exposure during the first 1,000 days to lower adult rates of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. Extending this approach to respiratory health, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that rationing exposure during pregnancy and infancy was tied to better adult lung capacity and lower rates of asthma. In the realm of mental health, a 2026 cohort study of British adults found that experiencing sugar rationing across the first 1,000 days of life was associated with a reduced preference for sweet foods and a lower risk of adult depression and anxiety.
Building on this line of inquiry, the new study was led by Jiazhen Zheng, an assistant professor at the School of Life and Health Sciences at Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology in China, who also led the 2025 lung-health study. Zheng conducted the research at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) alongside co-corresponding author S. W. Ricky Lee of the same institution and their colleagues, examining whether early sugar restriction also relates to long-term dementia risk, brain structure, and cognitive ability in older age.
“While growing evidence suggests that early-life nutrition can shape long-term health, remarkably little is known about whether sugar exposure during this period is associated with dementia many decades later,” Zheng told PsyPost. “We were particularly interested in addressing this knowledge gap because most dementia prevention research focuses on risk factors in middle and older age. The end of sugar rationing in the United Kingdom in September 1953 provided a unique natural experiment to investigate this question.”
The researchers analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large health study that recruited middle-aged and older British adults between 2006 and 2010. Starting with 74,213 participants born between 1951 and 1956, the team excluded 6,582 people born outside the United Kingdom, 2,424 from multiple births such as twins or triplets, 79 adoptees, 208 people already diagnosed with dementia at recruitment, and 108 who withdrew from the project. This left a final sample of 64,737 adults who were an average of 54.6 years old at enrollment, 56.4 percent of whom were women.
Using each person’s birth date relative to the September 1953 policy change, the authors sorted participants into groups reflecting how long they experienced sugar rationing during their first 1,000 days from conception. In total, 40,963 participants experienced rationing: 10,682 were exposed in the womb only, 15,025 were exposed in the womb plus up to one year after birth, and 15,256 were exposed in the womb plus one to two years after birth. The remaining 23,774 participants were born after July 1, 1954, meaning they were conceived after rationing ended and grew up in an environment of unrestricted sugar.
The team tracked hospital admissions and death registries through July 1, 2023, to identify new diagnoses of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and vascular dementia. To account for other differences between the groups, the statistical models controlled for age, sex, race, birthplace, birth month, inflation-adjusted food prices, average national fat intake at birth, maternal smoking, breastfeeding, and parental dementia history. The researchers also adjusted for adult household income, neighborhood socioeconomic status, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and chronic illnesses such as heart, kidney, and liver disease.
In addition to tracking dementia diagnoses, the authors examined a subset of more than 7,500 participants who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scans at an average age of 61.8 years, alongside roughly 6,400 to 20,600 participants who completed computerized cognitive assessments. These brain scans measured total brain volume, gray matter (the outer layer of brain tissue rich in nerve cell bodies), white matter (the deeper nerve fibers that connect different brain regions), the hippocampus, and white matter hyperintensities, which are bright spots on a scan that indicate small blood vessel damage and tissue wear.
Building on the 2024 research linking rationing to metabolic and vascular health, the team also tested whether adult type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure explained the link between early sugar restriction and dementia, and they checked two conditions considered unlikely to be affected by early sugar intake, type 1 diabetes and melanoma (a form of skin cancer), as negative controls.
Over the follow-up period, 504 out of 23,774 unexposed participants (about 2.1 percent) were diagnosed with all-cause dementia, including 227 cases of Alzheimer’s disease (about 1.0 percent) and 178 cases of vascular dementia (about 0.75 percent). In raw numbers, the rationed groups had slightly higher dementia rates, largely because they were born earlier and were more than two years older on average than the unexposed group, with 251 dementia cases among the 10,682 people rationed only in the womb (about 2.3 percent), 388 cases among the 15,025 people rationed through age one (about 2.6 percent), and 456 cases among the 15,256 people rationed for one to two years (about 3.0 percent). Once the researchers adjusted for age and other background variables, the rationed groups showed a lower risk of developing dementia at any given age, though the association for those exposed only in the womb was smaller and not statistically significant.
Compared with adults who never experienced rationing, those exposed to sugar rationing in the womb plus their first year of life had a 21 percent lower hazard (the rate at which new cases appear at a given age) of developing all-cause dementia and a 23 percent lower hazard of developing Alzheimer’s disease. The association was slightly stronger for those exposed in the womb plus one to two years after birth, who showed a 23 percent lower hazard of all-cause dementia and a 28 percent lower hazard of Alzheimer’s disease.
For vascular dementia, the estimates pointed in a similar direction, though the results were not statistically significant. Looking at the timing of diagnoses, experiencing rationing from conception through ages one to two was associated with delaying the onset of all-cause dementia by 2.55 years, Alzheimer’s disease by 2.87 years, and vascular dementia by 2.49 years.
“The magnitude of the associations was particularly noteworthy,” Zheng said. “These are population-level estimates rather than predictions for any individual, but even modest shifts in dementia occurrence could have meaningful public health implications given the growing global burden of the disease.”
The results were less robust in one additional analysis. When the researchers accounted for the possibility that participants would die of other causes before developing dementia, rationing exposure was still linked to a roughly 15 percent lower likelihood of all-cause dementia, but the associations with Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia were no longer statistically significant.
The link between early sugar rationing and dementia was stronger in women than in men, which the authors noted might relate to biological differences in how female neural circuits respond to early nutritional environments. The results held steady regardless of whether participants carried genetic variants of the apolipoprotein E gene that heighten Alzheimer’s risk. Mediation analyses indicated that lower rates of adult type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure accounted for 18.0 percent and 11.6 percent of the association, respectively, or 25.5 percent when combined, while birth weight accounted for just 2.7 percent. As expected, rationing exposure showed no association with type 1 diabetes or melanoma, and the primary dementia patterns were supported by a validation analysis in an independent British aging study, with an American cohort serving as a comparison group.
The brain imaging and cognitive test results aligned with the clinical dementia findings. Compared with the unexposed group, participants who experienced early-life sugar rationing had larger total gray matter volumes, averaging 618.9 cubic centimeters versus 618.5 cubic centimeters (an adjusted increase of 3.27 cubic centimeters), and smaller volumes of white matter hyperintensities, averaging 3.72 cubic centimeters versus 3.84 cubic centimeters (an adjusted reduction of 0.64 cubic centimeters).
Rationed participants also performed better on tests of complex processing speed, verbal and numerical reasoning, nonverbal pattern reasoning, and a timed test of visual attention that involves connecting numbered circles in order. Differences in total brain volume, white matter volume, hippocampal size, working memory, verbal memory, and a harder version of the connect-the-dots test that requires switching between numbers and letters were not statistically significant. These differences were modest: the gray matter difference amounted to about half a percent of total gray matter volume, and the cognitive differences were similarly small.
“What struck us most was how strongly early-life nutritional exposure appeared to be associated with brain health more than half a century later,” Zheng explained. “Beyond dementia diagnoses, we also observed favorable differences in brain MRI measurements, including greater gray matter volume and fewer white matter hyperintensities, alongside better performance on certain cognitive tests. The convergence of these findings across clinical, structural, and cognitive outcomes was especially interesting and suggested that the associations might reflect broader processes of brain aging.”
These results are consistent with research covered by PsyPost in December 2025, which tracked broad diet quality across the lifespan starting at age four rather than isolating sugar restriction during the first 1,000 days of life, and similarly found that healthier early nutritional habits were associated with better cognitive performance and a lower risk of late-life dementia. They also align with another study covered by PsyPost in November 2025, which examined how chronic sugar consumption caused memory impairment and Alzheimer’s-related brain pathology in adult rats rather than how early-life sugar restriction affects long-term dementia risk in humans, yet similarly linked high sugar exposure to neurodegenerative decline.
“Our findings suggest that the nutritional environment during pregnancy and early childhood may have consequences for brain health that extend across an entire lifetime,” Zheng told PsyPost. “The key message is not that people should eliminate sugar entirely, but rather that limiting excessive added sugar during these sensitive developmental periods may be beneficial. Importantly, our findings demonstrate associations, not definitive causation.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider when interpreting these findings. Because this was an observational study that relied on birth dates during a historical policy change, the researchers did not have direct measurements of how much sugar individual pregnant mothers or infants actually consumed. Although national surveys confirm that household sugar purchases surged right after September 1953, personal eating habits within both the rationed and unrationed groups likely varied from family to family. Because exposure was determined entirely by birth date, the rationed participants were also older, so the findings depend on statistical adjustments for age; the authors checked this by confirming that dementia risk did not drift among never-rationed participants born at different times after the policy ended.
“One important distinction is that our study does not prove that reducing sugar intake in infancy directly prevents dementia,” Zheng noted. “Other dietary, social, or environmental differences associated with the rationing period may also have influenced the results. Furthermore, our findings should not be interpreted as advocating extremely restrictive diets during pregnancy or infancy; adequate and balanced nutrition remains essential for healthy development.”
Another consideration is the age and makeup of the study population. Because participants were born in the early to mid-1950s, they were only in their late 60s and early 70s by the end of the tracking period in 2023, meaning the study primarily captured relatively early cases of dementia rather than diagnoses occurring in the 80s and 90s.
In addition, the UK Biobank consists of volunteers who survived into middle age and tend to be healthier, wealthier, and predominantly white (over 96 percent of this sample), which may limit how well the findings apply to more diverse or disadvantaged populations. The authors suggest that future randomized trials testing practical nutritional counseling to limit added sugars during pregnancy and infancy could help establish how early dietary habits shape brain development and long-term cognitive resilience.
“We hope to better understand the biological mechanisms linking early-life nutrition with brain aging and neurodegenerative diseases,” Zheng said. “In this study, type 2 diabetes and hypertension together statistically accounted for approximately one-quarter of the observed association, suggesting that metabolic and vascular health may play a role. Future research should examine additional biological pathways, clarify the most sensitive developmental windows, and determine whether these findings can be replicated in other populations with more detailed dietary information. Ultimately, we hope this work will help inform evidence-based nutritional recommendations across the life course.”
“I believe one of the broader implications of our work is that dementia prevention may need to be considered from a much earlier life-course perspective,” Zheng added. “We often think of dementia as a disease of old age, but some of the factors associated with vulnerability or resilience may originate decades before symptoms appear. Understanding these early influences could open new opportunities for preventive research and public health strategies.”
The study, “Association of Sugar Restriction in Utero Through Age 2 Years on Dementia Risk Later in Life,” was authored by Jiazhen Zheng, Gregory Y.H. Lip, Zhuoni Zhang, and S. W. Ricky Lee.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DementiaResearch #BrainHealth #EarlyLifeNutrition #SugarReduction #MaternalHealth #ChildNutrition #AlzheimersResearch #CognitiveHealth #HealthyAging #PublicHealth
-
DATE: October 18, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: The difference between friend types
URL: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-difference-between-friend-types-according-to-a-psychologist/
What you should know about the potential downsides of categorizing yourself and other humans, and how to reject the label while focusing on healthy connections.
URL: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-difference-between-friend-types-according-to-a-psychologist/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Friendship #HealthyRelationships #HumanConnection #RelationshipAdvice #SelfAwareness #MentalHealth #PersonalGrowth #SocialConnections #AuthenticRelationships #FriendshipGoals
-
DATE: October 22, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: Can a dream help you solve a problem?
URL: https://www.npr.org/2026/10/22/nx-s1-6008129/dream-incubation-research-self-discovery
There's a resurgence of interest and new research on dream incubation, planting a question in your mind before sleep in hopes your dreams will offer insights.
URL: https://www.npr.org/2026/10/22/nx-s1-6008129/dream-incubation-research-self-discovery
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DreamIncubation #Dreams #Sleep #ProblemSolving #Creativity #DreamResearch #Science #BrainHealth #SubconsciousMind #SleepScience
-
DATE: October 16, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: Napping linked to dementia risk
URL: https://www.healthday.com/health-news/senior-health/napping-linked-to-dementia-risk
A study found that those who nap frequently have higher rates of dementia, with short and unintentional naps having the highest association.
URL: https://www.healthday.com/health-news/senior-health/napping-linked-to-dementia-risk
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Dementia #BrainHealth #SleepHealth #Napping #SleepResearch #HealthStudy #HealthyAging #AlzheimersAwareness #Wellness #HealthNews
-
DATE: October 14, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: The best way to respond to passive-aggressive comments
URL: https://time.com/article/2026/10/14/how-to-respond-passive-aggressive-comment/
Experts explain what to say when someone seems to be taking a dig at you but won’t quite say what they mean.
URL: https://time.com/article/2026/10/14/how-to-respond-passive-aggressive-comment/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Communication #Relationships #ConflictResolution #EmotionalIntelligence #SelfRespect #HealthyBoundaries #Assertiveness #DifficultConversations #PassiveAggressive #LifeAdvice
-
DATE: October 11, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: Sweating the details: Sauna's potential health benefits draw scientists' interest
URL: https://www.npr.org/2026/10/11/nx-s1-5996655/heat-therapy-sauna-thermoregulation-health-benefits
Scientists want to study heat therapy as a bonafide intervention that can be recommended for preventing and treating chronic health conditions.
URL: https://www.npr.org/2026/10/11/nx-s1-5996655/heat-therapy-sauna-thermoregulation-health-benefits
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Sauna #HeatTherapy #HealthBenefits #Wellness #HealthResearch #Science #ChronicDisease #PreventiveHealth #SelfCare #HealthyLiving
-
DATE: October 8, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: Wanting to quit leadership doesn’t mean you don’t want to lead
Leaders can manage emotional weight by identifying what is theirs to regulate, addressing issues, and letting go of responsibilities that do not belong to them.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Leadership #LeadershipTips #EmotionalIntelligence #LeadWithPurpose #LeaderWellbeing #WorkplaceWellness #SelfLeadership #HealthyLeadership #StressManagement #LeadershipDevelopment
-
DATE: October 7, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: What to say when someone shows up sick
URL: https://time.com/article/2026/10/07/what-to-say-when-someone-shows-up-sick/
The key is to make your request clear while reassuring the person that you care about them and would like to see them when they’re feeling better.
URL: https://time.com/article/2026/10/07/what-to-say-when-someone-shows-up-sick/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #SettingBoundaries #HealthyBoundaries #CommunicationTips #SelfCare #StayHealthy #HealthAndWellness #SickDay #Relationships #AssertiveCommunication #Wellness
-
DATE: October 3, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: The secret to staying smart when using AI
URL: https://www.vox.com/advice/504829/chatgpt-ai-dumber-critical-thinking
ChatGPT brain isn’t inevitable.
URL: https://www.vox.com/advice/504829/chatgpt-ai-dumber-critical-thinking
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #AI #ChatGPT #ArtificialIntelligence #CriticalThinking #StayCurious #DigitalLiteracy #AIWisdom #BrainHealth #LifelongLearning #ThinkForYourself
-
DATE: October 3, 2026
SOURCE: AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONTITLE: Cutting back on ultra-processed foods may help ease depression symptoms
Researchers are investigating how factors such as nutrition, inflammation, metabolic health, and the gut-brain axis may link ultra-processed foods with mood.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #UltraProcessedFoods #MentalHealth #DepressionAwareness #Nutrition #GutBrainConnection #MoodSupport #HealthyEating #Inflammation #MetabolicHealth #Wellness
-
Psychology Today traces the six-step arc that connects every historical 'impossibility' that eventually became real - from first story to tipping point - and applies the pattern to what might come nex #wellness #psychology #self-improvement
Posted into FLIPBOARD EXCHANGE FEED 🗞️ @flipboard-exchange-feed-Econopass
-
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Women reach orgasm more often alone, but partnered orgasms are more closely tied to sexual satisfaction
Women tend to reach orgasm more often during solo sex than with a partner, but a new study suggests that partnered orgasms are the ones more closely tied to overall sexual satisfaction. The survey of nearly 28,000 users of a period-tracking app, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, also found that a wider variety of partnered activities was linked to greater satisfaction, while variety in solo sex showed no such benefit.
Sexual satisfaction refers to a person’s overall evaluation of how fulfilling and pleasurable their sex life is, a measure closely tied to overall health and quality of life. Past research has consistently linked women’s sexual satisfaction to how often they reach orgasm and to sexual variety, which is the number of different sexual behaviors a person engages in. For instance, a 2017 national survey of U.S. adults found that people in long-term relationships who incorporated a wider range of intimate behaviors and had more frequent orgasms tended to feel more satisfied with their sex lives.
Reaching orgasm with a partner, however, is far less consistent for women than reaching orgasm alone, a disparity examined in a 2024 review of the partnered orgasm gap. That review noted that 38 to 92 percent of women usually or always climax when masturbating, and that women’s orgasm rates rise sharply when sexual activity includes direct stimulation of the clitoris, a small, highly sensitive organ at the top of the vulva. During partnered sex with men, routines often center on vaginal penetration alone, leaving many women without the stimulation needed to climax.
Because solo sex is such a reliable source of orgasms, one might expect frequent masturbation to boost sexual satisfaction, yet prior research has yielded mixed results. Among studies of women in a 2024 systematic review, 40 percent found no link between masturbation and sexual satisfaction, a third found a negative link, and about a quarter found a positive one.
The review’s authors argued that negative links may arise when masturbation compensates for unfulfilling or absent partnered sex, but they found that for women, masturbation more often seemed to complement partnered sex rather than replace it. The context of solo activity may also matter: a study covered by PsyPost in 2020 indicated that women who used vibrators both alone and with a partner reported higher sexual satisfaction than those who used vibrators only alone.
Most earlier studies examined only a narrow set of partnered behaviors or treated masturbation as a single category without comparing specific solo and partnered activities side by side. To explore how distinct behaviors, variety, and orgasms relate to satisfaction across both contexts, Yella Hewings-Martin and Adam C. Cunningham of Flo Health UK Limited and their colleagues surveyed users of the Flo health app to test whether solo orgasms and variety relate to overall satisfaction the same way partnered ones do.
The researchers recruited participants between April 11 and May 5, 2024, via in-app messages shown to adult English-speaking Flo users. From 70,424 initial responses, the team excluded users who did not complete the survey, lacked a valid app ID, or failed two attention-check questions, leaving 27,931 participants with an average age of 28 years. Nearly all respondents were biologically female (98.9 percent) and identified as women (96.4 percent); 70.7 percent identified as heterosexual, 23.1 percent as bisexual or pansexual, and 81.3 percent had a male partner.
Respondents reported on their sex lives over the previous six months, rating their overall sexual satisfaction on a five-point scale and their orgasm frequency from never to almost always. They also rated how often they engaged in 13 partnered and 13 solo sexual activities, including vaginal penetration, clitoral stimulation by hand or vibrator, watching erotica, and role-play, and how often each behavior led to orgasm. Multiplying activity frequency by orgasm frequency yielded weighted orgasm scores for solo and partnered contexts. Those who climaxed more often in one setting than the other selected up to three reasons from 22 options to explain why.
Across the full sample, 56.2 percent of participants were moderately or very satisfied with their overall sex life, while 19.5 percent were moderately or very dissatisfied. Roughly 36.9 percent reached orgasm almost always or always, and 22.9 percent did so most of the time, whereas 20.6 percent climaxed less than half the time or never. Overall orgasm frequency had a moderate positive correlation with sexual satisfaction (r = 0.38, on a scale where 1 would be a perfect match): 61.2 percent of very satisfied respondents reached orgasm almost always, though 19.5 percent of very dissatisfied respondents also climaxed almost every time.
The data showed a difference between the behaviors performed most consistently at every encounter and those practiced by the widest share of women overall. Vaginal penetration without other stimulation was the partnered behavior most consistently performed every time (39.7 percent), but clitoral stimulation by a partner’s hand, mouth, or tongue was the most widespread partnered activity overall (90.2 percent at least sometimes), followed closely by vaginal penetration paired with other body stimulation (90.1 percent) and by vaginal penetration paired with clitoral touch (90.0 percent).
The authors noted that clitoral stimulation topping the list of widespread partnered behaviors contrasts with older surveys where vaginal intercourse was most common. They suggest this likely reflects their more detailed questions about a six-month period, though they also speculate that it could partly reflect a younger sample (38 percent of respondents were aged 18 to 25).
In solo sex, clitoral stimulation by hand was both the most widespread behavior (84.6 percent) and the most consistent (44.5 percent every time), while only 5.5 percent practiced solo vaginal penetration alone every time. Across all 13 paired comparisons of similar activities, women reached orgasm more frequently when alone than with a partner, with differences ranging from small to moderate. Overall, 47 percent of participants reported reaching orgasm more often during solo sex, compared to 21 percent with a partner and 27 percent who reported no difference.
In solo sessions, clitoral stimulation with a vibrator or dildo, watching erotica, and clitoral stimulation by hand were linked to the highest orgasm rates. During partnered sex, the highest orgasm rates came from using sex toys together, combining vaginal penetration with clitoral stimulation, and masturbating with a partner present, while vaginal penetration alone and anal stimulation were linked to the lowest rates in both contexts.
Participants’ own explanations pointed to both psychological and physical factors. Women who climaxed more often alone most commonly cited inadequate stimulation from a partner, an absence of pressure to perform, reduced body image self-consciousness, and feeling safer to let go because they controlled the stimulation. Many also pointed to partnered obstacles such as a partner finishing too soon, difficulty communicating preferences, life stress, or painful intercourse. By contrast, those who reached orgasm more often with a partner emphasized emotional intimacy, adequate partner stimulation, and heightened arousal from attraction to their partner.
To examine how solo and partnered experiences predicted overall sexual satisfaction, the authors analyzed the 19,469 respondents who had engaged in partnered sex during the past six months. Partnered orgasm frequency was the strongest positive predictor of sexual satisfaction, whereas solo orgasm frequency showed a tiny negative association in initial models and was not statistically significant in the final model. Participants averaged 7.79 of the 13 partnered activities and 6.45 of the 13 solo activities; greater partnered variety predicted higher satisfaction, while greater solo variety was weakly associated with lower satisfaction. Together, these factors accounted for about 16 percent of the differences in satisfaction between participants.
In a separate model of 20,805 partnered-sex participants controlling for relationship status, being in a relationship and engaging in greater partnered variety both predicted higher overall orgasm frequency, whereas solo variety was not statistically significant. That model accounted for about 7 percent of the differences in orgasm frequency between participants.
The positive tie between partnered climax and satisfaction aligns with research covered by PsyPost in 2018, which examined heterosexual newlywed couples rather than a broad sample of female app users and similarly found that a woman’s partnered orgasm frequency is positively linked to her sexual satisfaction. At the same time, the findings on solo sex and variety stand in tension with a study covered by PsyPost in 2022, which linked frequent masturbation in women to higher sexual satisfaction alongside frequent intercourse and variety. That earlier study, however, looked at overall masturbation frequency across a broad adult population, whereas the new study specifically evaluated solo orgasm frequency and sexual variety among female app users.
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. Because the survey captured data at a single point in time, it cannot establish cause and effect: women who already feel happy and secure in their relationships may simply feel more comfortable exploring a wider variety of activities with their partners, while women experiencing an unfulfilling partnered sex life may turn to solo masturbation and try more solo techniques to compensate. In addition, sexual satisfaction was measured with a single question about a respondent’s overall sex life, which many people may naturally judge based on their partnered relationships rather than their solo habits. The large sample size also makes it possible to detect tiny statistical differences that have little practical impact in daily life.
The sample consisted of English-speaking users of a health tracking app who were mostly young, White, and heterosexual, and about half held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Because participants volunteered for a study described as being about female orgasms, they may be more comfortable discussing sex, or more sexually active, than women in general. Four of the authors are employees of Flo Health with equity in the company, and the other three are consultants for it.
The authors suggest that bringing elements of solo sex into partnered encounters, such as open communication about preferences and less pressure to perform, could help narrow the gap between solo and partnered orgasms. Future research tracking couples over time could help explain how emotional closeness, trust, and communication interact with physical stimulation to shape sexual fulfillment.
The study, “Sexual Satisfaction and Orgasm Experiences During Partnered and Solo Sex Among 27,931 Users of the Flo App,” was authored by Yella Hewings-Martin, Adam C. Cunningham, Jordan Rullo, Karen L. Blair, Carley Prentice, Anna Klepchukova, and Liudmila Zhaunova.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #SexualHealth #SexualWellness #WomensHealth #FemaleOrgasm #SexualSatisfaction #OrgasmGap #Intimacy #HealthyRelationships #SexualityResearch #HealthResearch
-
TRIGGER WARNING: Military Psychology
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 03:15PM
SOURCE: CONSORTIUM FOR DEFENSE PSYCHOLOGYDirect article link at end of text block below.
The NDAA required the development of a system where non-DoW TRICARE mental health care providers who meet eligibility criteria established by the Secretary of War, could receive a mental health Provider Readiness Designation. https://t.co/enTCXs9kOG
Here are any URLs found in the article text:
Articles can be found at https://deploymentpsych.org/.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #military #militarypsych #militarypsychology #militarycounseling #APA #Division19 #militaryhealth #DeploymentPsychology #DefensePsychology #ConsortiumForDefensePsychology #UniformServicesUniversity
-
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 02:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Feed recommendations are the most common way teens encounter self-harm content
An analysis of data from the 2025 OxWell Student Survey found that about a third of 11- to 18-year-old students in England had come across self-harm content online in the past month. Most of these encounters were unintentional, and about two-thirds of exposed students said the content had appeared in their social media feeds or been suggested while they were browsing. Students who were lonelier, had experienced other online harms, or had poorer mental health were more likely to report exposure. The paper was published in Nature Mental Health.
Social media has become an integral part of young people’s everyday lives. It provides wide opportunities for communication, entertainment, self-expression, and social connection. Platforms such as TikTok and Instagram offer an almost endless stream of content, much of which is selected by recommendation algorithms that personalize what users see based on their interests and online behavior.
While this personalization can help users discover content they enjoy, it can also expose them to potentially harmful material. One particular concern is content related to self-harm, which can range from personal stories of recovery and supportive discussions to graphic images and videos that portray self-injury in a positive or encouraging way.
Research suggests that repeated exposure to such content may increase emotional distress and the risk of self-harming thoughts and behaviors, particularly among vulnerable adolescents. However, the effects are not always negative, as some online communities that discuss self-harm also provide emotional support and encourage young people to seek help.
Adolescents also do not need to search for self-harm content to encounter it, as recommendation algorithms may place it in their feeds without them seeking it out. Their interactions with such content may then lead algorithms to recommend more similar material, potentially creating a cycle of repeated exposure.
Study author Holly Bear of the University of Oxford and colleagues examined how often adolescents in England reported coming across self-harm content online in the past month and the routes through which this happened. They were particularly interested in whether exposure was passive (unintentional) or active, such as searching for the content or having it shared with them, and how these different routes related to students’ demographic characteristics, social experiences, and mental health.
The researchers analyzed data from the 2025 OxWell Student Survey, a school-based survey of young people in England run by researchers at the University of Oxford. The analysis drew on 32,102 students in school years 7 through 13 (ages 11 to 18) at 49 secondary schools and further education colleges, mainly in Liverpool and Oxfordshire, who completed the survey between February and May 2025.
Students were asked whether they had come across content about self-harm on online platforms in the past month and, if so, how. They also answered questions about loneliness, bullying, online aggression and coercion, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. A total of 28,797 students answered the question about exposure, 14,083 of whom were girls.
Of these students, 9,940 (34.5%) reported encountering self-harm content online in the past month. Most of them (55%) had seen it once or twice, while 26.5% had seen it a few times and 18.5% several times.
Among exposed students who described how they came across the content, 66% said it had appeared in their feed or been suggested while they were browsing, and 24% said it was embedded within other, unrelated content. Fewer said they had accidentally encountered it (12%), searched for it (8%), or had it shared with them by someone else (8%), and 15% reported some other route.
Based on these answers, the researchers sorted students into groups. Nearly three-quarters (73%) had been exposed only through passive routes, 12% through a mix of routes, 9% only through “other” routes, 3% only by having the content shared with them, and 3% only by searching for it.
How often students saw the content depended on how they encountered it. Most students exposed only passively (59%) or only through content shared by others (62%) had seen it just once or twice in the past month, compared with about 30% of those who had only searched for it or who were exposed through a mix of routes. The authors note this is consistent with a feedback loop in which actively engaging with self-harm content leads algorithms to show more of it.
Each exposure route was associated with higher levels of loneliness, online harms, anxiety, and depression compared with students who reported no exposure, though the patterns differed across groups. Girls had higher odds than boys of passive-only exposure but lower odds of having content shared with them, and trans and gender-diverse students had elevated odds across most routes, particularly searching for the content.
Black students and students from mixed ethnic backgrounds were more likely than white students to have only searched for the content, as were students who often went to bed hungry compared with those who rarely did. Searching was most strongly linked to depression, while having content shared by others was more closely tied to receiving aggressive or threatening messages online. Students exposed through a mix of routes had some of the most pronounced risk profiles, with especially strong links to online aggression and coercion.
“Exposure to online self-harm content is widespread and shaped by distinct pathways that differ according to adolescents’ wider vulnerabilities, social environments and digital behaviors. Around one-third of our large community sample reported recent exposure, underscoring the need for interventions that account for diverse exposure experiences, from passive, algorithmically driven delivery to more intentional searches and peer sharing,” study authors concluded.
The authors call for a public health approach that combines regulation to reduce self-harm content in feeds, efforts to direct young people who search for it toward supportive resources, and digital literacy education for adolescents and their parents.
The study contributes to the scientific understanding of how adolescents encounter self-harm content online. However, it should be noted that the survey was cross-sectional, so it cannot show whether loneliness, online harms, and mental health difficulties make exposure more likely, result from exposure, or both. The researchers also did not ask what kind of self-harm content students saw, which could range from graphic material to recovery stories and peer support.
In an earlier wave of the survey, about two-thirds of students who had actively sought out self-harm content cited potentially positive motivations, such as finding support or connecting with others with similar experiences. The data were self-reported and came mainly from two regions of England, and the wording of the exposure question, which asked whether students had “come across” such content, may have led some who sought it out to underreport.
The paper, “Algorithmically driven exposure to online self-harm content and its association with broader psychosocial risk in 32,000 adolescents,” was authored by Holly Bear, Emma Soneson, Galit Geulayov, and Mina Fazel.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #TeenMentalHealth #YouthMentalHealth #SocialMedia #RecommendationAlgorithms #OnlineSafety #DigitalWellbeing #SelfHarmAwareness #MentalHealthAwareness #AdolescentHealth #DigitalLiteracy
-
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 12:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Frequent cannabis use linked to higher odds of nighttime breathing problems
URL: https://www.psypost.org/frequent-cannabis-use-linked-to-higher-odds-of-nighttime-breathing-problems/
Adults who use cannabis are more likely to report loud snoring and pauses in breathing during the night, according to new research published in Sleep Health: Journal of the National Sleep Foundation. The findings indicate that more frequent cannabis consumption corresponds with higher odds of experiencing these nocturnal breathing issues, even after accounting for factors like body weight and tobacco smoking. This relationship raises important questions for the growing number of people who turn to cannabis as a sleep aid.
Sleep-disordered breathing is an umbrella term for medical conditions characterized by abnormal respiratory patterns or insufficient ventilation during rest. The most common form is obstructive sleep apnea, a disorder in which the muscles in the back of the throat relax too much, causing the upper airway to narrow or collapse entirely. People with this condition require extra physical effort to breathe, often resulting in loud snoring, gasping, or brief, repeated stops in breathing known as apneas. Standard treatments like continuous positive airway pressure machines, oral appliances, and surgery can be effective, yet many patients find the devices uncomfortable or difficult to tolerate over the long term.
At the same time, cannabis has become increasingly accessible across the United States, and difficulty sleeping is one of the most common reasons people cite for using it. While users frequently report that the plant helps them rest, controlled clinical trials examining cannabinoids and sleep have produced mixed outcomes.
For example, a 2023 clinical trial covered by PsyPost found that consuming medicinal cannabis oil improved sleep duration and increased midnight melatonin levels in adults with insomnia, whereas a study covered by PsyPost in 2024 indicated that a cannabis compound called cannabinol reduced nighttime awakenings when taken alone but showed no benefit when combined with cannabidiol, another cannabis compound. Observational tracking also points to potential drawbacks, such as a 2026 longitudinal study of military service members that linked current cannabis use to worse overall sleep quality and longer times needed to fall asleep.
When it comes to breathing disorders specifically, tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis, has shown some potential to stabilize breathing in animal experiments and small human trials using oral pills. However, the broader clinical evidence remains inconsistent, leading the American Academy of Sleep Medicine to formally advise against using cannabis to treat obstructive sleep apnea. Most everyday consumers inhale cannabis rather than taking standardized pills, exposing their airways to smoke and heat that could inflame the tissues of the throat.
The new research, led by Tyler J. Gallagher, a resident physician in the Caruso Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and co-first author Matthew E. Lin of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, sought to evaluate how everyday consumption relates to signs of breathing issues at night.
“While some studies have explored cannabinoids as potential treatments for obstructive sleep apnea, there has been relatively little population-level research examining whether real-world cannabis use is associated with common signs of sleep-disordered breathing, such as loud snoring and pauses in breathing during sleep,” Gallagher told PsyPost. “We sought to better understand this relationship using a nationally representative sample of US adults.”
To investigate this connection, the authors analyzed information from the 2017 to 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a state-based telephone survey coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although nearly 900,000 adults completed the main survey during those two years, only Minnesota and Tennessee included optional survey modules asking about both cannabis habits and sleep breathing symptoms. From the respondents in those two states who had complete data, the researchers selected a stratified random sample of 14,485 adults designed to match the demographic profile of the broader United States population.
Participants were asked how many days they had used marijuana or cannabis during the past 30 days, as well as their primary method of consumption and whether they used it for medical or recreational purposes. The researchers grouped the respondents into three categories: non-users (zero days in the past month), non-regular users (1 to 15 days), and regular users (16 to 30 days). Signs of sleep-disordered breathing were assessed using two yes-or-no questions asking if anyone had ever observed the respondent stop breathing during sleep, and if the respondent had ever been told that they snore loudly.
Of the participants, 13,461 reported no current cannabis use, 438 were classified as non-regular users, and 364 were regular users, meaning about 5.5 percent of the sample currently used cannabis. Smoking was by far the most common consumption method, reported by about 87 percent of both non-regular and regular consumers, followed by vaporizing and eating. Among non-regular users, 61.6 percent used cannabis strictly for recreational reasons, whereas 37.6 percent of regular users reported using it strictly for medical reasons and another 24.7 percent used it for both medical and recreational purposes.
Overall, signs of sleep-disordered breathing were common across the entire cohort, with 44.7 percent reporting either loud snoring or witnessed apneas. In the unadjusted raw numbers, 44.3 percent of non-users reported at least one of the two breathing signs, compared to 48.4 percent of non-regular users and 55.2 percent of regular users. Specifically, witnessed breathing pauses were reported by 15.3 percent of non-users, 17.1 percent of non-regular users, and 19.8 percent of regular users. Loud snoring was reported by 41.3 percent of non-users, 44.5 percent of non-regular users, and 50.0 percent of regular users.
To account for other differences between users and non-users, the researchers ran statistical models that applied national survey weights (statistical adjustments that make a sample better mirror the U.S. adult population) and controlled for a wide range of potentially confounding factors. These adjustments accounted for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, income, health insurance status, diabetes, body mass index, alcohol consumption, traditional cigarette smoking, and electronic cigarette use. Even after factoring out the influence of tobacco smoking and body weight, cannabis use remained independently associated with higher odds of sleep-disordered breathing symptoms.
Compared to non-users, non-regular cannabis users had 41 percent higher odds of reporting witnessed apneas, 26 percent higher odds of reporting loud snoring, and 33 percent higher odds of experiencing either symptom. The association was more pronounced among regular consumers. Those who used cannabis 16 to 30 days per month had 73 percent higher odds of witnessed apneas, 68 percent higher odds of loud snoring, and 82 percent higher odds of reporting either sign compared to non-users. These figures describe odds rather than probabilities, so the absolute differences are smaller than the percentages might suggest; in the raw numbers, about 55 percent of regular users reported at least one sign, compared with about 44 percent of non-users.
“While the impact of infrequent use is relatively small, the odds of irregular breathing during sleep almost double with more frequent cannabis use, making this a strong association worthy of consideration before frequent cannabis utilization,” Gallagher explained.
The researchers also analyzed cannabis consumption as a continuous spectrum from zero to 30 days. In the weighted models, each additional day of cannabis use per month was associated with an approximate 2 percent increase in the odds of reporting witnessed apneas, loud snoring, or either sign, an estimate the authors note is clinically small and serves as a general summary across use levels rather than a strict per-day effect. When the authors repeated the analysis without the national survey weights, regular cannabis use remained linked to both breathing signs, though the estimates were smaller (for example, 36 percent higher odds of either sign rather than 82 percent). In that analysis, non-regular use was no longer linked to loud snoring or to either sign, and its link with witnessed breathing pauses sat right at the threshold of statistical significance.
“The strength of the association and its greater magnitude among more frequent users were notable, particularly given that some studies have investigated cannabinoids as potential treatments for sleep apnea,” Gallagher said. “These findings may reflect differences between isolated cannabinoids studied in clinical settings and real-world cannabis use, including differences in composition and method of consumption.”
The authors proposed two primary biological mechanisms that might explain why cannabis consumers report more signs of airway obstruction at night. Because roughly 87 percent of the consumers in the sample smoked their cannabis, physical irritation from smoke is one possible contributor. Unlike tobacco, cannabis smoke is typically inhaled through deeper breaths without a filter, and it burns at a higher temperature, which can cause thermal injury and inflammation in the throat tissues that narrow the upper airway.
A second potential mechanism involves the way cannabis interacts with the autonomic nervous system, which regulates involuntary body functions. While small doses of cannabis tend to stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, the body’s “fight or flight” system, higher doses activate the parasympathetic nervous system, which promotes physical relaxation. Frequent users may develop tolerance and consume larger quantities, and the resulting parasympathetic activity may cause the muscles that hold the upper airway open to relax excessively during sleep, making the throat more likely to collapse.
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. Because the survey captured information at a single point in time, the study cannot establish whether cannabis use causes sleep-disordered breathing or if the relationship works in the opposite direction. People who suffer from undiagnosed sleep apnea often experience fragmented, unrefreshing sleep, and it is possible that some of these individuals turn to cannabis in an attempt to self-medicate their exhaustion or insomnia. The researchers also could not account for factors such as sleeping pill or sedative use, heavy drinking, or psychiatric conditions, any of which might influence both cannabis use and nighttime breathing.
The reliance on self-reported telephone survey data also introduces constraints. Asking participants if they have been told they snore or stop breathing is less reliable than conducting an overnight medical sleep study, and people who sleep alone may be unaware of their nighttime breathing habits. Additionally, the survey only tracked how many days a person used cannabis over the past month, without measuring the exact dosage, potency, or ratio of specific compounds like tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol.
The data came from just two states, Minnesota and Tennessee, because they were the only ones to include both sets of questions, and roughly 98 percent of the original survey respondents were excluded for that reason or because of missing information. Survey weights help align the sample with national demographics, but the authors note that applying them to such a small subset is debated among statisticians. In addition, the breathing questions asked whether these symptoms had ever been observed, while the cannabis question covered only the past month, so some symptoms may have predated participants’ current cannabis habits.
Gallagher emphasized that reporting these symptoms is not the same as receiving a formal medical diagnosis. “While obstructive sleep apnea – a clinically defined and hazardous intermittent airway obstruction during sleep – is a type of sleep-disordered breathing, this study cannot make conclusions about the association between cannabis use and sleep apnea or other associated long-term risks,” he noted.
Future research will need to incorporate objective sleep testing, such as polysomnography, an overnight sleep study that monitors breathing, oxygen levels, and brain activity, to verify whether cannabis habits correspond with clinically diagnosed sleep apnea. Scientists also need to compare different delivery methods, such as edibles versus inhalation, to separate the chemical effects of cannabinoids on throat muscles from possible damage from inhaling hot smoke.
“Further research is required to examine the long-term effects of cannabis use on sleep and to determine the effects of cannabis dosage, different cannabis compositions, and different methods of consumption on sleep-disordered breathing,” Gallagher said. “Additionally, the long-term consequences of these impacts must be studied.”
Until those relationships are clarified, the authors suggest that physicians should counsel patients about the potential respiratory risks of using cannabis, particularly for individuals who already show signs of sleep-disordered breathing. “People experiencing persistent snoring, pauses in breathing, or other symptoms of sleep apnea should seek medical evaluation rather than trying to utilize cannabis to manage their sleep,” Gallagher advised.
“This study highlights the importance of evaluating the broader health effects of substances that people increasingly use for self-management,” Gallagher added. “Cannabis may have benefits for certain symptoms or conditions, but those potential benefits should be considered alongside possible risks. Sleep-disordered breathing is particularly important because it can go unrecognized for years while causing significantly worse quality-of-life. We hope these findings encourage further research and help clinicians have more informed conversations with patients who use cannabis for sleep-related concerns.”
The study, “Cannabis use and associated sleep-disordered breathing among US adults,” was authored by Tyler J. Gallagher, Matthew E. Lin, Ian Kim, Ziva D. Cooper, Sebastian M. Jara, and Eric J. Kezirian.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/frequent-cannabis-use-linked-to-higher-odds-of-nighttime-breathing-problems/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Cannabis #SleepHealth #SleepApnea #SleepDisorderedBreathing #LoudSnoring #NighttimeBreathing #RespiratoryHealth #HealthResearch #MedicalResearch #SleepAwareness
-
[P] I have defence mechanisms for ever believing nrurotypical hiverarchians have empathy for aught outside of their affiliated narcissistic shit-hives.
"Brits loved Farage when they thought he was just racist."
*All hiverarchians want to be wealthy, and permit wealth."
"The Judge Rotenberg Center is still torturing kids."
"They all shit on enbies, even the trans ones."Oh. Right.
#psychology #actuallyautistic #neurotypicals #trans #enby #nonbinary #racism #wealth #hiverarchiansaredumb & #evil
-
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 09:26AM
SOURCE: STAT NEWS MENTAL HEALTHTITLE: A virus that afflicts cows makes the jump to a human
Get your daily dose of health and medicine every weekday with STAT’s free newsletter Morning Rounds. Sign up here.
I know we’ve had a lot of “You Can See Everything” content in this newsletter, but allow me one more plug. A recent STAT letter to the editor included a message from the former director of a Phoenix lab. When Theranos rolled out its products there, this writer said he heard from former colleagues about frustrations.
Read the rest…
-------------------------------------------------
STAT News reports "from the frontiers of health and medicine".
Learn more at https://www.statnews.com/topic/mental-health/ .
See also their complete Mastodon account at @STAT .
This robot is NOT affiliated with STAT news and merely rebroadcasts from their site. Responses posted here are not monitored.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ZoonoticDisease #InfectiousDisease #OneHealth #PublicHealth #EmergingInfectiousDisease #AnimalHealth #Virus #DiseaseOutbreak #HealthNews #CowHealth
-
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 09:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Playing video games with trusted friends may reduce addiction risks
URL: https://www.psypost.org/playing-video-games-with-trusted-friends-may-reduce-addiction-risks/
Video game developers constantly look for ways to keep players returning to their games without fostering unhealthy behavioral dependencies. Recent research published in Computers in Human Behavior reveals that playing video games with a trusted, familiar group of people can build player loyalty while simultaneously reducing the risk of video game addiction. These findings suggest that the social environment within a digital game plays a powerful role in determining whether a gaming habit remains a healthy pastime or becomes a psychological burden.
The video game industry faces a persistent tension between business goals and social responsibility. Companies rely on player loyalty, which describes a gamer’s intention to keep playing and recommending a specific game to others. At the same time, the industry faces scrutiny over video game addiction, a clinical syndrome characterized by a loss of control over gaming habits despite negative consequences in daily life.
Past studies have identified factors that contribute to addiction, such as social isolation, and factors that boost loyalty, like customized digital avatars. Few researchers have investigated how specific social dynamics inside a game might influence both outcomes at the same time. A team of researchers led by Shih-I Tai, a management scholar at Chang Gung University in Taiwan, wanted to find out if specific types of group interactions could help secure a player’s devotion to a game without pushing them toward maladaptive behavior.
To understand how the social environment alters a player’s mental state, the researchers looked at two established psychological frameworks. The first is the pleasure-arousal theory, which separates emotions into two dimensions. One dimension tracks how pleasant an experience feels, while the other tracks how much it stimulates or arouses the person.
The second framework is brain reward circuitry theory. This theory suggests that pleasure and arousal activate entirely different neural pathways in the human brain. According to these frameworks, feelings of comfort, harmony, and contentment increase pleasure but lower physical and emotional arousal.
In contrast, surprises and intense excitement boost both pleasure and arousal at the same time. The research team hypothesized that high pleasure encourages players to return to a game, building long-term loyalty. High arousal provides the intense neurological reinforcement that can lead to addiction.
To test these ideas, the researchers conducted an online survey of 884 video game players in Taiwan. The participants answered detailed questions about their gaming habits over the previous month. The respondents nominated a game they had played recently, which frequently included games where massive numbers of players assume fictional roles and interact in a shared digital world.
The research team ensured the reliability of their data by excluding responses from participants under the age of 18 or people who reported impossible play times. The survey measured four distinct aspects of the gaming experience. The researchers asked players about the size of their usual gaming group and how many of those group members they knew in the real world.
They also asked participants to rate their level of trust in their fellow group members. Finally, the survey assessed game escapism, which measures the extent to which players use the game to actively avoid stress from their everyday lives.
The researchers then compared these four factors against self-reported measures of game loyalty and game addiction. They analyzed the data using structural equation modeling, a statistical technique that helps identify relationships among multiple variables. The results showed that different social elements influenced players in entirely distinct ways.
When looking at the size of a player’s gaming group, the data showed a positive link to game loyalty. Players who routinely gamed with larger groups were more likely to report intentions to keep playing and recommending the game to others. However, group size was not statistically significant in relation to game addiction.
The researchers suspect that larger groups provide more social connections that make the game enjoyable, satisfying the pleasure dimension. At the same time, massive groups often introduce repetitive interactions or toxic behavior that dampen the intense overall excitement needed to form a dependency.
The findings regarding real-world familiarity showed a different pattern. Knowing fellow players in the real world was not statistically significant when predicting a player’s loyalty to a game. It did correspond with lower levels of game addiction.
The researchers propose that when gamers play with real-world acquaintances, those friends might occasionally remind them of outside responsibilities. This social grounding breaks the immersive spell of the game and lowers the intense emotional arousal that drives compulsive play.
Trust among group members proved to be the most beneficial social factor. High levels of trust within a gaming group corresponded with both increased game loyalty and decreased game addiction. Engaging with honest and reliable peers likely provides a comforting, highly pleasant experience that makes players want to return.
This same comfort and harmony create a relaxed state of mind. Trusting one’s peers reduces the high-stakes anxiety and arousal typically associated with addictive behavior. If a player trusts their group to act in their best interest, they receive social support that helps maintain a healthy balance between gaming and life.
In contrast to the protective social factors, game escapism had a dual effect. Using games to flee real-world stress strongly predicted higher game loyalty, as the temporary relief provided a rewarding experience. Yet escapism also strongly predicted higher levels of game addiction. Fleeing reality into a digital space immerses the player intensely, heightening the emotional arousal that stimulates the brain’s reward centers in a maladaptive way.
While the data offer insights into player behavior, the study relies on survey responses rather than direct observations. The researchers measured self-reported habits and feelings at a single point in time, meaning the results highlight associations rather than a strict cause-and-effect relationship. It is possible that players who are already less prone to addiction are simply more inclined to build trusting relationships with their peers.
The researchers used psychological theories regarding brain activity to interpret their findings, but they did not conduct medical brain scans or directly measure the participants’ physiological arousal and pleasure. Future studies could incorporate clinical monitoring tools, such as electroencephalograms, to verify exactly how these social interactions alter brain activity in real time.
Additionally, the survey was conducted entirely in Taiwan, which means the findings might be influenced by local cultural norms regarding socializing and technology use. Expanding this research to include gamers in different countries could reveal whether the protective effects of trust and real-world familiarity remain consistent across diverse cultural backgrounds.
The study, “The ties that (healthily) bind: Playing in groups increases game loyalty but decrease addiction,” was authored by Shih-I Tai, Thi Tuan Linh Pham, Tzu-Ling Huang, Alexander S. Dennis, Chun-Hao Liu, Gen-Yih Liao, and Ching-I Teng.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/playing-video-games-with-trusted-friends-may-reduce-addiction-risks/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Gaming #VideoGames #GamingCommunity #GamingFriends #HealthyGaming #MentalHealth #GameAddiction #SocialGaming #PlayerWellbeing #GamingResearch
-
Applying transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the scalp temporarily reduces the perceptual bias associated with the sexual objectification of women, leading viewers to process sexualized images of women more like people and less like objects.
#Psychology #Neuroscience #sflorg
https://www.sflorg.com/2026/10/psy10262601.html -
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Political endorsements by scientific journals reduce public trust in research
When scientific journals publicly endorse political candidates, they risk lowering public trust in the scientific community, particularly among moderate and conservative Americans. These endorsements cause measurable declines in how people view the impartiality and societal value of science, though they do not appear to change whether people are willing to follow practical scientific advice. The findings were recently published in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.
Public trust in scientific institutions is an important factor in shaping how society responds to global challenges like pandemics and climate change. Historically, scientific organizations have sought to maintain an apolitical stance to preserve their reputation as objective arbiters of fact. In recent years, several high-profile scientific journals have broken from this precedent. Editors at these publications have published pieces endorsing Democratic presidential candidates or strongly criticizing Republican candidates, often framing these stances as necessary defenses of scientific integrity. Researchers wanted to understand how these explicit political stances affect how the American public views the scientific enterprise as a whole.
Stylianos Syropoulos, Kyle Fiore Law, and their colleagues set out to examine this phenomenon through the psychological framework of motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is the human tendency to process information in a way that confirms existing beliefs and political identities. When individuals encounter statements that conflict with their political views, they often scrutinize or reject the source of that information.
The research team suspected that political endorsements from scientific journals might trigger this psychological mechanism. They hypothesized that people who identify as moderate or conservative might question the objectivity of science after reading endorsements that clash with their political leanings.
To capture a complete picture, the researchers evaluated trust not as a single concept, but as a collection of distinct dimensions. These dimensions include perceived ability, which is the competence of scientists to provide accurate information. They also looked at integrity, which involves the belief that science is impartial and objective. Benevolence measures the perception that science serves the public good and lacks hidden agendas. Finally, behavioral trust reflects whether people are actually willing to follow scientific recommendations in their daily lives, such as adhering to public health guidelines.
In the first experiment, conducted shortly before the 2020 presidential election, researchers recruited a large sample of 3,081 participants online. They randomly assigned these participants to read one of two types of texts regarding prominent scientific publications, such as Science, The Lancet, or Scientific American. The control group read a brief, neutral description of the journal’s history and mission formatted like a news wire article.
The treatment group read the same background information, but with an added excerpt from an actual editorial published by the journal that endorsed Joe Biden or criticized Donald Trump. Following the reading, participants answered a series of questions measuring their trust in science and their intentions to comply with health guidelines.
The researchers found that reading the political endorsements caused a measurable drop in general trust in scientific institutions. Participants in the treatment group were more likely to report that science lacks impartiality, pointing to a decline in perceived integrity. This effect was largely driven by politically moderate and conservative individuals, who exhibited lower trust after exposure to the endorsements.
Among conservatives, the treatment also increased belief in conspiracy theories about science and the origins of the coronavirus, indicating a drop in perceived benevolence. However, the endorsements did not yield a statistically significant effect on behavioral trust. Participants exposed to the political messaging remained just as willing to follow practical public health recommendations as those in the control group.
To see if these results would hold up under different conditions, the researchers conducted a second experiment days before the November 2020 election. They recruited a sample of 1,056 participants, matched to national demographic quotas for age, gender, and ethnicity. The experimental setup mirrored the first study, with participants randomly assigned to read either neutral background text or a political endorsement from a scientific journal.
The results replicated the core findings of the first experiment. Exposure to the political messaging reduced general trust in science and increased the belief that science is biased, again driven by moderate and conservative participants. In this iteration, the treatment group also reported a lower likelihood of using scientific sources for coronavirus updates, which suggests a decline in perceived scientific ability or competence.
Just as in the first study, the political endorsements had no statistically significant impact on people’s willingness to comply with practical safety guidelines. The messaging also did not alter belief in conspiracy theories for this specific group.
A third experiment took place four years later, surrounding the 2024 presidential election. The research team recruited a large sample of 2,144 participants to read material from Scientific American, Nature, or The Economist. The Economist was included because it frequently covers science and technology for a broad audience. As before, participants read either neutral background descriptions or actual published editorials endorsing Kamala Harris or criticizing Donald Trump.
Because the pandemic was no longer a central issue during this later study, the researchers removed questions about the coronavirus. They added new measures to evaluate general perceptions of scientific objectivity and societal usefulness.
The results from the 2024 election cycle aligned closely with the 2020 data. Reading the political endorsements decreased general trust in science and increased the belief that personal and political values govern scientific research. Participants in the treatment group also reported lower confidence in the idea that science is objective and useful for society. Once again, the declines in general trust and perceived integrity were most pronounced among moderate and conservative respondents.
The study relies entirely on real-world editorials that endorsed Democratic candidates or criticized Republican ones. Because the researchers used actual published materials to ensure their experiment mirrored reality, they did not test how left-leaning individuals might react to a major scientific journal endorsing a conservative candidate. It remains unknown if political liberals would exhibit the same motivated reasoning and subsequent loss of trust if faced with scientific endorsements that opposed their own political identities.
The researchers note that while explicit political endorsements carry reputational costs, complete silence from the scientific community on policy matters might also negatively affect public perception. Choosing not to address political rhetoric that directly targets scientific funding or spreads false information could be viewed as a failure to defend the scientific enterprise. Future research will need to explore how scientific organizations can correct falsehoods or advocate for evidence-based policies without appearing overly partisan. Finding the right balance will help institutions maintain their legitimacy across the entire political spectrum.
The study, “Presidential candidate endorsements by scientific journals decrease trust in science especially for moderate and conservative Americans,” was authored by Stylianos Syropoulos, Kyle Fiore Law, Crystal Li, Bernhard Leidner, and Kevin L. Young.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Science #ScientificResearch #PublicTrust #PoliticalEndorsements #ScienceCommunication #Research #Politics #MediaLiteracy #EvidenceBased #PublicHealth
-
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 05:00AM
SOURCE:
NEW YORK TIMES PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGISTS FEEDTITLE: How to Embrace a Fitness Mind-Set
URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/26/well/move/exercise-mindset-advice.html
To build an effective workout habit, you have to start by changing how you see yourself.
URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/26/well/move/exercise-mindset-advice.html
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #FitnessMindset #WorkoutMotivation #HealthyHabits #FitnessJourney #MindsetMatters #SelfImprovement #StayActive #FitnessGoals #Wellness #HealthyLifestyle
-
DATE: October 26, 2026 at 04:30AM
SOURCE: STAT NEWS MENTAL HEALTHTITLE: Opinion: Could long-term AI use lead to isolation? We need to find out — but researchers need better access to data
OpenAI recently announced that it is tracking signs of user distress across sessions, rather than only within them, and using that information to inform model responses. The announcement follows a wave of new safeguards for mental health and well-being conversations with artificial intelligence at OpenAI and elsewhere, such as parental controls for teens, usage limits and break reminders, and crisis detection and referral. Policymakers have also moved to address associated risks, with a dozen states now requiring companion chatbot operators to disclose to users that their tools are not human, and to institute crisis referral procedures.
This attention, within AI companies and legislatures, is important and urgent. But it is directed almost entirely at acute harm from interacting with AI, rather than the cumulative harm that develops over time, such as the gradual replacement of one’s connections with friends and family by AI interaction.
Read the rest…
-------------------------------------------------
STAT News reports "from the frontiers of health and medicine".
Learn more at https://www.statnews.com/topic/mental-health/ .
See also their complete Mastodon account at @STAT .
This robot is NOT affiliated with STAT news and merely rebroadcasts from their site. Responses posted here are not monitored.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #ChatGPT #AICompanions #MentalHealth #SocialIsolation #DigitalWellbeing #AIResearch #Technology #ResponsibleAI
-
DATE: October 25, 2026 at 07:18AM
SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORGTITLE: Cybersecurity Experts Sound the Alarm Over New Era of AI-Enabled Hacking
Source: The Guardian
Cybersecurity experts are sounding the alarm after the discovery of a major vulnerability this week. They predict that AI tools will expose more fundamental weaknesses in global internet infrastructure in the months to come. "I no longer think we're going to be able to patch all bugs," said OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman on Thursday evening. The next few months will see a "vulnerability tsunami," according to Jason Clinton of AI company...
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Cybersecurity #AIHacking #ArtificialIntelligence #CyberAttack #CyberThreats #InfoSec #InternetSecurity #Vulnerability #DataProtection #TechNews
-
DATE: October 25, 2026 at 07:17AM
SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORGTITLE: Anthropic Sued for Allegedly Using 274 Elvis Presley Songs to Train AI Models
Source: The Guardian
The owners of Elvis Presley 's music catalogue are suing artificial intelligence company Anthropic for allegedly using Presley's songs to train their models without permission. Authentic Brands Group, which owns Presley's music and likeness, is accusing Anthropic of infringing on the rights of 274 songs by Presley. The lawsuit, filed Friday, could set a broad precedent for how AI companies are allowed to use existing music catalogues.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ElvisPresley #Anthropic #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #MusicCopyright #CopyrightInfringement #AITraining #MusicIndustry #Lawsuit #IntellectualProperty
-
DATE: October 25, 2026 at 07:18AM
SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORGTITLE: The Psychology Behind Taylor Swift's Billion-Dollar Media Empire
Source: PsyPost
The intense, one-sided connections that fans feel toward pop star Taylor Swift—known as a "parasocial relationship"—and their fear of missing out on shared cultural moments strongly predict whether they will attend her concerts and watch her films. These predictive links highlight how the psychological need for social belonging drives large-scale consumer behavior, according to a recent study published in the journal Psychology of Popular Media.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #TaylorSwift #TaylorSwiftPsychology #ParasocialRelationships #FanCulture #PopCulture #SocialPsychology #FOMO #Swifties #Concerts #MediaEmpire
-
DATE: October 25, 2026 at 02:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Young adults who fear rejection also tend to fear death more, psychology study finds
Young adults who are especially worried about rejection in their close relationships tend to report a greater fear of death, which in turn is linked to more symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other forms of distress, according to a new study published in Scientific Reports. The findings also suggest that for several types of symptoms, this link depends on whether a person views death as the complete end of their existence or as a transition to another state.
Death anxiety refers to the worry, dread, or apprehension that comes from knowing that human life eventually ends. While it is normal to think about mortality from time to time, many psychologists now view persistent or poorly managed fear of death as a shared factor underlying many different mental health conditions. It can show up as panic or constant worry in anxiety disorders, feelings of hopelessness in depression, repetitive rituals aimed at preventing harm in obsessive-compulsive disorder, or extreme worry about physical sensations in somatic symptom disorders.
These existential concerns often become especially prominent during emerging adulthood, the developmental period spanning the late teens and twenties. As young people build their independent identities and confront major life transitions, they frequently grapple with questions about meaning and mortality, with prior research showing that fear of death tends to peak during a person’s twenties.
How well a young adult copes with the reality of mortality has been linked to their attachment style, which is the characteristic way a person relates to others in close relationships based on their internal sense of self-worth and their trust in other people. Psychologists often categorize adult attachment into four patterns: secure (positive view of both self and others), preoccupied (negative view of self, positive view of others), dismissing (positive view of self, negative view of others), and fearful (negative view of both self and others).
People with a secure attachment style generally manage stress well and turn to loved ones for comfort. In contrast, those with insecure styles rely on less helpful strategies to regulate their emotions, and a 2025 meta-analysis of 18 studies found that adults with higher attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance consistently report a greater fear of death.
Individuals with a preoccupied attachment style tend to experience high attachment anxiety, meaning they are overly sensitive to rejection and abandonment, which can amplify their distress when thinking about death. Those with a dismissing style exhibit high attachment avoidance, meaning they prize extreme independence and suppress their emotional needs, often trying to push thoughts of mortality out of their awareness.
Beyond relationship patterns, how a person fundamentally defines death also shapes how they handle existential fear. In psychology, this belief is called the ontological representation of death, which captures what a person believes happens to their core identity when they die. Some people view death as total annihilation, meaning the absolute and permanent extinction of the self. Others view death as a passage, meaning a transition to another form of existence, whether through a literal afterlife or a symbolic legacy that allows some part of their identity to continue.
The research, led by Alessandro Musetti, an associate professor of dynamic psychology in the Department of Humanities, Social Sciences and Cultural Industries at the University of Parma in Italy, examined how these relational and existential factors work together. Psychologists use the term internalizing symptoms for inward-directed problems such as depression, anxiety, obsessive thoughts, and unexplained physical complaints.
“Death anxiety is increasingly recognized as a factor involved in many forms of psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and somatic complaints,” Musetti told PsyPost. “However, we still know relatively little about why some people are more vulnerable to death anxiety than others, and why death anxiety seems to affect some individuals more strongly. We wanted to integrate attachment theory with existential psychology by examining whether attachment styles are linked to internalizing symptoms through death anxiety, and whether this process depends on how people fundamentally represent death, either as total annihilation or as a form of passage or continuity.”
To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from 640 Italian young adults between the ages of 18 and 22, with an average age of about 20.5 years. The sample was predominantly female (83.4 percent) and consisted mostly of students (62.7 percent) or working students (28.8 percent). In terms of religious views, 39.1 percent identified as agnostic, 30.6 percent as atheist, and 30.3 percent as religious believers.
Participants, recruited through social media, completed a series of online questionnaires. To measure attachment styles, the researchers used the Relationship Questionnaire, which asks participants to rate on a 1-to-7 scale how well four short paragraphs describing secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful attachment patterns apply to them. Death anxiety was measured using a 15-item true-or-false questionnaire that included statements like “I am very much afraid to die.”
Participants also completed the Testoni Death Representation Scale, which uses six items rated on a 1-to-5 scale to determine the degree to which a person views death as a passage versus definitive annihilation. Finally, the researchers assessed four types of internalizing mental health symptoms over the prior two weeks: depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms (such as unexplained physical aches and pains), and obsessive-compulsive symptoms (repetitive unpleasant thoughts or urges).
The researchers used a statistical technique called conditional process analysis, which tests whether an indirect pathway between two variables changes depending on a third factor, while controlling for gender. In the initial look at how attachment related to fear of mortality, participants scored an average of 9.31 out of 15 on the death anxiety scale. Higher scores on preoccupied attachment were associated with higher death anxiety, whereas higher scores on dismissing attachment were associated with lower reported death anxiety.
Secure and fearful attachment styles were not linked to death anxiety once all four styles were considered together. The finding for dismissing attachment differs from the 2025 meta-analysis described earlier, which linked attachment avoidance to greater fear of death. The authors suggest that people with a dismissing style may push death-related thoughts out of awareness rather than feel less threatened by mortality.
When looking at how death anxiety connected to mental health, the researchers found that a participant’s view of death played a moderating role for three of the four symptom categories. Death anxiety was linked to worse anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and somatic symptoms, but only among young adults who strongly viewed death as total annihilation. For participants who viewed death as a passage to another state of existence, higher death anxiety was not linked to higher levels of these three symptom types.
Consequently, the indirect pathways linking attachment styles to these three symptoms operated only among those holding annihilation beliefs. For young adults who believed death is the complete end of existence, having a preoccupied attachment style was indirectly linked to greater anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and somatic symptoms through heightened death anxiety.
Among those same annihilation-believing participants, by contrast, a dismissing attachment style had a negative indirect association with anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and somatic symptoms because these individuals reported lower death anxiety. However, the authors caution against interpreting a dismissing attachment style as psychologically healthy. When looking at direct relationships outside of the death anxiety pathway, dismissing attachment was directly linked to higher levels of unexplained somatic symptoms, which the authors suggest may indicate that suppressing emotions and relationship needs can contribute to physical complaints even when conscious fear of death is kept at bay.
Depression followed a different pattern than the other three mental health domains. Whether a participant viewed death as total annihilation or as a passage did not alter the link between death anxiety and depressive symptoms. Instead, preoccupied attachment was indirectly associated with greater depressive symptoms through increased death anxiety across the board, regardless of what the person believed happens after death. Additionally, preoccupied and fearful attachment styles were directly linked to worse symptoms in all four mental health categories, while secure attachment was directly associated with lower depression and anxiety.
“Our findings suggest that psychological distress is influenced not only by how people relate to others, but also by how they make sense of their own mortality,” Musetti explained. “At the same time, the way people understand death appears to matter: when death is experienced as the complete end of personal existence, death anxiety seems more strongly connected to several forms of psychological distress.”
“One finding that surprised us was that the ontological representation of death mattered for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and somatic symptoms, but not for depressive symptoms,” Musetti noted. “This suggests that depression may be connected to existential concerns through somewhat different mechanisms than other forms of psychological distress.”
The findings are consistent with research by Musetti and colleagues covered by PsyPost in 2025, which found that death anxiety and feelings of relational disconnectedness helped explain the link between attachment anxiety and problematic social media use. Both studies indicate that fear of mortality helps explain how insecure attachment is linked to psychological difficulties, though the earlier study focused on problematic social media habits across a wide adult age range while the new research examined internalizing mental health symptoms in young adults.
The depression results also align with a study covered by PsyPost in 2023, which examined broader existential anxiety and meaning in life among adult mental health professionals rather than death anxiety and attachment styles in emerging adults, and similarly found that existential anxiety helped explain the link between lower meaning in life and more severe depressive symptoms.
Musetti pointed out that the statistical relationships uncovered in the study should be kept in perspective. “The effects were statistically significant but generally modest in magnitude, which is common when studying complex psychological phenomena,” he said. “We are not suggesting that attachment style or death anxiety alone determine mental health outcomes. Rather, our findings indicate that existential concerns may be one piece of a broader psychological puzzle that includes relational experiences, emotional regulation, personality, and social context.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider when interpreting these findings. Because all the survey data were collected at a single point in time, the study cannot establish cause and effect. While psychological theory suggests that attachment patterns develop early and shape later fears and symptoms, it is also possible that experiencing depression or anxiety makes a young person feel more insecure in their relationships or more frightened of dying.
“A key caveat is that this was a cross-sectional study,” Musetti emphasized. “The findings identify associations that are consistent with a theoretically grounded model, but longitudinal research is needed to clarify causal pathways. Additionally, representing death as a passage should not be interpreted simply as being religious. The construct we studied concerns a person’s fundamental understanding of what happens to the self after death and cannot be reduced to religious affiliation alone.”
There are a few other limitations to keep in mind. Over 83 percent of the participants were young Italian women, and most were students, meaning the results may not generalize equally to men, older adults, or people from different cultural and religious backgrounds where views on death and the afterlife differ. Participants were recruited through social media and word of mouth rather than randomly selected, and the authors note that mediation analyses based on a single time point can overstate indirect pathways. In addition, the researchers relied on brief self-report screening tools rather than clinical interviews, and the two-item measures for depression and somatic symptoms showed only modest internal consistency.
Future studies could track diverse groups of young people over several years to confirm the order in which attachment insecurities, existential beliefs, and mental health symptoms develop. The authors suggest, though this was not tested, that clinicians working with young adults who have a preoccupied attachment style and view death as total annihilation might combine relationship-focused therapy with existential approaches that help build a sense of meaning and continuity, as long as such approaches respect a person’s own worldview.
“One important next step is to examine these relationships longitudinally to better understand how attachment, death anxiety, and psychological symptoms influence one another over time,” Musetti added. “We are also interested in studying whether similar processes operate across different age groups and cultural contexts, since beliefs about death are deeply shaped by culture and life experience.”
The study, “Adult Attachment, Death Anxiety, Representation of Death, and Depression, Anxiety, Obsessive-compulsive, and Somatic Symptoms in Emerging Adulthood: A Moderated Mediation Model,” was authored by Alessandro Musetti, Andrea Zagaria, Vittorio Lenzo, Gianluca Santoro, and Adriano Schimmenti.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Psychology #MentalHealth #DeathAnxiety #FearOfRejection #AttachmentStyles #YoungAdults #Anxiety #Depression #PsychologyResearch #EmotionalWellbeing
-
DATE: October 25, 2026 at 12:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: How the menstrual cycle might alter ADHD symptoms in women taking stimulant medication
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-the-menstrual-cycle-alters-adhd-symptoms-in-women-taking-stimulants/
The menstrual cycle appears to modulate the severity of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) traits in women taking common stimulant medications. A new small study suggests that these traits peak in severity during menstruation and ease soon after, pointing toward a need for hormone-aware treatment plans. The research was published in the Journal of Attention Disorders.
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by distraction, impulsivity, and hyperactive behavior. Medical professionals historically viewed the condition as something that primarily affected young boys. That diagnostic gap is rapidly closing, and women now make up nearly half of the adult ADHD population in the United States. Women often present with different behavioral patterns than men, leaning toward severe inattention and internalizing behaviors rather than disruptive hyperactivity.
Despite facing daily impairments in their careers and social lives, women remain largely underrepresented in ADHD research. One distinct biological variable separating women from men is the constant fluctuation of ovarian hormones. During the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, estrogen levels rise and peak near ovulation. The subsequent luteal phase features elevated estrogen and progesterone, which then drop rapidly shortly before menstruation begins.
Researchers suspect these hormones play a direct role in brain chemistry. Low estrogen levels are thought to decrease dopamine signaling in the brain. Because dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter involved in focus and attention, these natural hormonal drops could theoretically worsen ADHD symptoms.
Researchers Rebecca Zaritsky, Stephanie C. Reed, and Suzette M. Evans wanted to understand how these hormonal variations interact with ADHD treatments. Prior laboratory work demonstrated that amphetamines, the most commonly prescribed class of ADHD medications, can be less effective during the luteal phase of the cycle. Case reports from clinical settings also hinted that some women experience worsening moods and fading concentration right before their periods.
The research team designed a study to track these daily changes prospectively. The investigators recruited participants through online advertisements to monitor their daily experiences. They screened for individuals between the ages of 18 and 40 who experienced regular menstrual cycles lasting between 21 and 35 days.
To join the study, participants had to report an ADHD diagnosis and currently use amphetamine salts (commonly known by brand names like Adderall) for treatment on at least five days of the week. The team excluded anyone taking hormonal birth control, as well as individuals using other psychiatric medications. After exclusions and dropouts, the researchers ended up with a small study of 30 participants who completed the required long-term tracking.
Each individual filled out an initial survey detailing their medical history, baseline mood, and general impulsive behaviors. Following this baseline assessment, participants completed a daily online survey for 35 consecutive days. This extended timeline ensured the researchers could capture data from one full menstrual cycle for every participant.
The daily questionnaires asked participants to rate their current ADHD symptoms on a standardized four-point scale. They evaluated 18 distinct symptoms, splitting them equally between inattentive traits and hyperactive-impulsive traits. Participants also rated their daily mood variations on a six-point scale measuring 17 distinct emotional states, and reported their exact medication dosage for the day. Finally, they noted whether they were actively menstruating or spotting.
The researchers averaged the daily survey responses and grouped them into three specific biological windows. These windows included the first five days of menstruation, the mid-follicular phase shortly after bleeding ends, and the late luteal phase just before the next period begins. Participants reported their most severe ADHD symptoms during the active menstruation phase. In contrast, they experienced comparatively milder symptoms during the mid-follicular phase.
When researchers separated the specific types of ADHD traits, hyperactive and impulsive behaviors showed variation across the cycle phases, but after adjusting for multiple comparisons this amounted only to a trend rather than a statistically significant difference. Inattentive symptoms also fluctuated, but the differences were not statistically significant. Participants did not report any differences in how much their symptoms generally impaired their daily lives across the different phases.
Mood tracking revealed a correlation between negative emotions and ADHD symptoms. Participants reported elevated negative moods during both the late luteal and menstruation phases compared to the mid-follicular phase. The individuals who experienced the largest drops in mood during menstruation also reported the greatest increases in ADHD symptoms. This correlation held true for both inattentive and hyperactive traits.
Daily amphetamine doses remained remarkably steady across the entire cycle. Participants did not instinctively take more medication to compensate for feeling more distracted or hyperactive during their periods. The research team had hypothesized that some participants using flexible dosing regimens might attempt to counteract their worsening symptoms with higher doses. This lack of adjustment might reflect strict prescribing practices, as many doctors do not encourage patients to alter their daily stimulant intake based on their menstrual cycles.
This research relied entirely on self-reported surveys. The investigators did not measure hormone levels in a laboratory to perfectly confirm each biological phase, opting instead to estimate phases based on reported bleeding days. The small sample size also limited the statistical power of the analysis, meaning the results require verification in larger populations. Because participants taking other psychiatric medications were excluded, the results might not represent individuals managing ADHD alongside conditions such as mood disorders or premenstrual dysphoric disorder.
The study design carried a few distinct demographic and methodological limitations. The researchers did not explicitly gather information on gender identity, meaning the relationship between gender identity, hormone cycles, and ADHD remains untested in this specific context. The standardized survey tool used to track daily symptoms was also based on older diagnostic criteria. This older framework lacks recent diagnostic updates designed to capture how ADHD presents in adults.
The research team also looked at baseline mental health using standardized questionnaires for depression and anxiety. They found a trend suggesting that individuals with higher baseline depression and anxiety scores might experience slightly smaller shifts in ADHD symptoms across their cycles. However, having a higher overall symptom count on average consistently predicted a lower ADHD-related quality of life.
Future studies will need to incorporate direct hormone sampling to precisely map biological changes to behavioral shifts. Researchers might also explore how oral contraceptives or specific antidepressants impact this hormonal cycle in neurodivergent populations. Some clinics have already begun testing symptom-based dosing regimens, where patients take slightly more medication during the specific weeks when their natural hormones work against them. Tracking these targeted interventions could eventually help doctors provide highly individualized care for women navigating adult ADHD.
The study, “Changes in ADHD Symptoms and Mood Across the Menstrual Cycle in Females Treated With Stimulants: A Pilot Study,” was authored by Rebecca Zaritsky, Stephanie C. Reed, and Suzette M. Evans.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-the-menstrual-cycle-alters-adhd-symptoms-in-women-taking-stimulants/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ADHD #WomensHealth #MenstrualCycle #ADHDWomen #MentalHealth #Neurodiversity #HormonalHealth #ADHDAwareness #StimulantMedication #HealthResearch
-
DATE: October 25, 2026 at 10:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Anger and fear nudge voters toward different kinds of leader faces, study suggests
The specific emotions that political issues stir up in voters may subtly shift the physical traits they look for in a leader. A new study published in Cognition and Emotion indicates that when people think about a policy problem that makes them angry, they lean slightly more toward dominant-looking leaders than when they think about one that makes them afraid. Fear, by contrast, appears to put more weight on whether a leader’s face looks trustworthy.
When people look at a stranger’s face, they form instantaneous impressions about that person’s character. As a 2008 behavioral and computer modeling study found, these rapid evaluations boil down to two main facial qualities: trustworthiness and dominance. Trustworthiness is an impression of a person’s intentions, signaling whether they appear warm, cooperative, and safe to approach. Dominance is an impression of physical strength and assertiveness, signaling a person’s capacity to impose their will or confront rivals.
These split-second facial judgments influence real-world voting decisions, and the traits voters prefer often depend on the surrounding political environment and their own personal beliefs. For instance, a 2025 study by members of the team behind the new research, covered by PsyPost, found that people who are generally distrustful of information from others tend to hold more rigid, dogmatic beliefs and more conservative views, which in turn predicts a preference for dominant, authoritarian-looking leaders. Broader contexts matter as well, with voters generally favoring dominant faces during wartime or conflict and trustworthy faces during peaceful periods.
Different emotional reactions to the same crisis can also pull people in different directions. Although anger and fear are both unpleasant, high-stress emotions, a 2001 study on emotion and risk showed that they trigger opposing mindsets: anger makes people feel certain and willing to take risks, whereas fear makes people feel vulnerable and cautious.
In the political arena, a 2025 panel study of Ukrainians conducted during the Russian invasion found that citizens who reacted to the war with aggressive, angry emotions showed stronger preferences for dominant leaders (and for the other leader traits measured, such as warmth and competence), while those who reacted with fear showed little change in their preferences.
Most research on these emotional dynamics has focused on wars, terrorist attacks, or major geopolitical crises. Far less is known about how anger and fear shape leader evaluations during everyday domestic politics, where citizens routinely react to policy debates over the economy, healthcare, or public safety. The research was led by Mariana von Mohr, a lecturer in social and affective neuroscience at the University of Kent, and conducted at the Centre for the Politics of Feelings at the School of Advanced Study, University of London, which is directed by co-author Manos Tsakiris, a professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
“Political issues often evoke strong emotions, which can shape political behavior in different ways,” von Mohr told PsyPost. “For example, anger can increase support for tougher, more confrontational political action, whereas fear can lead people to seek reassurance and favor responses that promise greater safety and protection. Here we wanted to understand whether these emotions also shape who people would prefer to vote for when dealing with the issues that concern them most, simply based on how dominant or trustworthy a potential leader looks.”
To investigate this, the researchers recruited 201 American participants through the online platform Prolific, ensuring the group was evenly split between people who identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and those who identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party. After removing four individuals who did not pass attention checks during the tasks, the final sample consisted of 197 participants.
The experiment used a within-subjects design, meaning every participant went through both the anger condition and the fear condition in a randomized order. In the anger section, participants viewed a list of 16 major national problems taken from a Pew Research Center survey, such as inflation, gun violence, illegal immigration, and climate change. They were asked to select the single issue that made them feel the most angry, defined as an issue that upsets or annoys them and brings up hostility, and to rate the intensity of their anger on a scale from 0 to 100.
Immediately after reflecting on that issue, participants completed a leader choice task consisting of 36 rapid rounds. In each round, two computer-generated faces appeared side by side on the screen for up to three seconds, and participants had to click on the leader they believed would be most capable of handling their chosen political issue. These nine digital faces were drawn from a standardized scientific database and had been systematically altered to represent different combinations of facial dominance and facial trustworthiness.
In the fear section, the same participants went through an identical process, but this time they selected the political issue from the list that made them feel the most afraid, defined as an issue that worries them a lot and feels like a frightening threat. After rating their fear on the 0 to 100 scale, they completed the 36-round face selection task again to pick the best leader to address that frightening issue.
Across the sample, both emotions were felt intensely, with average intensity ratings of 86.51 out of 100 for anger and 81.95 for fear. The issues most frequently selected for anger were illegal immigration (19.3 percent), gun violence (17.8 percent), and inflation (15.2 percent). For fear, participants most commonly selected climate change (15.2 percent), illegal immigration (14.2 percent), and domestic terrorism (11.2 percent).
The researchers first combined each participant’s choices into an overall index measuring the probability of picking a more dominant and less trustworthy-looking leader. Statistical analyses accounting for emotional intensity and specific policy issues showed that participants had a 49.5 percent probability of choosing a dominant-looking leader when angry, compared to a 46.5 percent probability when fearful, meaning participants on average leaned slightly toward the more trustworthy-looking face in both conditions. How intensely participants felt the emotion was unrelated to their choices. While this 3 percentage point absolute shift between anger and fear is modest, the authors note that even small emotional shifts could matter across an entire population during elections, when campaigns frequently amplify fear- and anger-inducing issues.
To see what drove this shift, the authors broke down the choices round by round to look at how participants weighed dominance cues and trustworthiness cues separately. When participants were in the fear condition, a face’s level of trustworthiness increased the likelihood that it would be chosen, whereas a face’s level of dominance had no statistically significant effect on their choices. When participants were in the anger condition, the positive pull of facial trustworthiness dropped, while facial dominance gained a stronger positive influence on their selections.
“Our findings suggest that how we feel about political issues can influence the kinds of leaders we find appealing, even based on something as simple as their facial appearance,” von Mohr explained. “When angry, people placed greater importance on facial cues of dominance (appearing strong and assertive) and less on trustworthiness. When afraid, they placed more importance on trustworthiness (appearing reliable and benevolent).”
The findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2022, which similarly found that anger increased participants’ preferences for dominant-looking leaders over trustworthy ones. However, that earlier study examined anger triggered by non-political frustrations, whereas the new study suggests that anger tied to real-world policy issues is linked to a similar shift while directly contrasting it against political fear.
The researchers also examined the role of political party affiliation. Consistent with previous studies, Republicans showed a higher overall preference for dominant-looking leaders (52.5 percent probability) than Democrats did (43.5 percent probability), representing a 9 percentage point partisan gap. That gap was about three times as large as the 3-point difference between anger and fear. Even though Democrats and Republicans tended to pick different policy issues as their top concerns, the difference between anger and fear did not vary significantly by party, suggesting the emotions influenced leader choices in similar ways for both groups.
The emotion effects did not vary by participants’ gender and held when accounting for the order in which participants completed the tasks. When the researchers statistically controlled for the exact political issue each participant selected in the round-by-round analysis, the distinct effects of anger and fear on how participants weighed dominance and trustworthiness cues remained stable. In the overall-preference analysis, entering each specific issue as a separate factor left the anger-versus-fear difference about the same size but made the estimate less precise.
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider when interpreting these findings. Because participants were allowed to choose whichever political issue personally angered or frightened them the most, the study cannot completely separate the effect of the emotion from the nature of the policy issue itself. Although the researchers used statistical controls to account for the different issues selected, future experiments that induce anger or fear while keeping the policy topic identical for everyone would help isolate the pure effect of the emotion. The study also compared anger only with fear, without a neutral condition, so it cannot say whether anger made dominant faces more appealing, fear made them less appealing, or both.
Additionally, the faces used in the task were standardized, computer-generated avatars rather than photographs of real politicians. While digital faces allow scientists to precisely adjust facial structure without interference from a person’s hairstyle, age, race, or gender, real-world elections involve all of those visual factors alongside party labels and campaign rhetoric. Finally, the study only tested American voters, so it is not known whether the same patterns hold in other countries. Future research could also examine whether other political emotions, such as hope or disgust, shape leader preferences.
The study, “Political emotions shape preferences for leaders’ facial traits: anger favours dominance, fear favours trustworthiness,” was authored by Mariana Von Mohr and Manos Tsakiris.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PoliticalPsychology #PoliticalScience #VoterBehavior #Leadership #Elections #PoliticalEmotions #Anger #Fear #SocialPsychology #ResearchStudy