Your Daily digest for PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

[Article Digests for Psychology & Social Work]

PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

 

(https://www.psypost.org/dirty-campaigning-increases-distrust-in-politicians-and-decreases-trust-in-democracy-study-finds/) Dirty campaigning increases distrust in politicians and decreases trust in democracy, study finds
Aug 11th 2024, 10:00

Research conducted during the 2020 Viennese state election campaign (in Austria) found that perceived dirty campaigning increases anger, frustration, and disgust towards campaigns. Over time, it increased distrust towards politicians and decreased trust in democracy. The research was published in (https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240335) American Behavioral Scientist.
Dirty campaigning refers to unethical or unscrupulous tactics used in political campaigns to undermine opponents and gain an advantage. These tactics include spreading false information, launching personal attacks, or attempting to damage an opponent’s reputation through misleading or exaggerated accusations (often referred to as character assassination). Such tactics heavily rely on exploiting negative emotions like fear and anger.
The goal of dirty campaigning is to manipulate public perception and sway voters through deceit rather than focusing on policy or constructive debate. These tactics can lead to increased polarization, cynicism, and mistrust among the electorate. Ultimately, dirty campaigning undermines the democratic process by prioritizing deceit and manipulation over honest and fair political discourse. Over time, it can erode public trust in the democratic system.
Study authors Franz Reiter and Jörg Matthes sought to investigate the likely effects of dirty campaigning on the public. They hypothesized that perceived dirty campaigning would increase feelings of anger, frustration, and disgust toward political campaigns. These emotions, in turn, would lead to greater distrust of politicians and reduced trust in democracy.
To test their hypotheses, they analyzed data from a two-wave survey conducted before the 2020 Viennese state elections. The first survey wave was conducted about two months before the election, while the second took place in the days immediately preceding the vote. The researchers believed these elections were particularly suited for studying dirty campaigning, as multiple participating parties engaged in such tactics.
The survey data came from 524 participants who completed both waves. These individuals provided assessments of perceived dirty campaigning, emotional reactions toward campaigns, distrust of politicians, and trust in democracy, all of which were designed by the study authors. Participants also reported their age, gender, education level, political ideology, and political knowledge.
The results showed that higher perceived levels of dirty campaigning in the first wave were associated with greater feelings of anger, frustration, and disgust toward campaigns, as well as increased distrust of politicians. However, these perceptions were not directly associated with trust in democracy. On the other hand, higher levels of frustration at one time point were associated with lower trust in democracy, indicating that dirty campaigning might decrease trust in democracy by increasing voters’ frustration with political campaigns.
“We demonstrated that dirty campaigning has important negative consequences for democratically relevant outcomes, albeit via different routes. These findings suggest that “going dirty” in a political campaign may backfire. Dirty campaigning can evoke negative emotional reactions toward campaigns and diminish trust in politicians, which may not only affect the functioning of democracy as a whole but also how the performance of politicians is evaluated by citizens,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on voters’ experiences of dirty campaigning, though it is important to note that the research focused on a specific state-level election. The results may differ in elections of different levels (e.g., national elections) or in different countries.
Additionally, the study measured voters’ perceptions of dirty campaigning rather than assessing the actual behavior of political campaigners. This leaves room for the results to reflect individual differences in voter attitudes rather than the true conduct of campaigners. Furthermore, the study’s design does not allow for definitive cause-and-effect conclusions to be drawn from the findings.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240335) On the Immoral Campaign Trail: Conceptualization, Underlying Affective Processes, and Democratic Outcomes of Perceived Dirty Campaigning,” was authored by Franz Reiter and Jörg Matthes.

(https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-dream-sleep-can-predict-students-test-anxiety-levels-weeks-in-advance/) Study finds “dream sleep” can predict students’ test-anxiety levels weeks in advance
Aug 11th 2024, 08:00

New research published in the (https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.14298) Journal of Sleep Research suggests that a specific type of sleep, known as rapid eye movement (REM) sleep or “dream sleep,” can predict how stressed college students feel before an important exam. The study found that students who experience more REM sleep earlier in the semester tend to have higher levels of anxiety as final exams approach. These findings add a fascinating layer to our understanding of how sleep affects emotional processing and stress in everyday life.
REM sleep is one of the five stages of the sleep cycle that our bodies naturally progress through during the night. REM sleep is characterized by rapid movement of the eyes, increased brain activity, and vivid dreams. Unlike other sleep stages, REM sleep is when the brain is most active, almost as if it were awake, even though the body remains in a state of temporary paralysis.
This stage of sleep is believed to play a crucial role in emotional regulation, memory consolidation, and processing of experiences and emotions. The duration and quality of REM sleep can significantly influence how we cope with stress and handle emotional challenges in our daily lives.
Given the established connection between sleep, particularly REM sleep, and emotional regulation, the researchers behind this study were motivated to explore whether habitual REM sleep could predict stress responses in everyday life situations. While much of the previous research focused on the effects of sleep on emotional processing in clinical populations or in response to traumatic events, this study sought to understand how REM sleep might influence stress in a more common and relatable context: academic stress among college students.
“Many studies examine the relationship between sleep and emotional and cognitive processing; however, the majority of studies do one of two things: they either evaluate how performance in cognitive and emotional tests is affected by sleep and its physiology measured for only a single night prior to test; or they test the relationship over longer periods but using subjective measures of sleep or, at best, objective measures that only probe sleep in its most general sense (total sleep time, sleep quality) rather than its detailed physiological properties,” said study author (https://lerner.sleepmemory.lab.utsa.edu/) Itamar Lerner, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
“My research work attempts to capitalize on new advances in mobile sleep monitoring to combine detailed evaluation of sleep physiology over multiple nights with measurement of emotional and cognitive processing. As part of this research agenda, I am looking at how habitual sleep and its physiology affect the management of stress – and that’s how I came to examine one instance of this relationship, namely, how habitual sleep affects test anxiety in college students.”
The study involved 52 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Texas at San Antonio. These students were monitored over a full semester, either in the fall or spring. To participate, students needed to commit to the study period, report getting at least six hours of sleep per night, and maintain regular alcohol and caffeine consumption. The researchers excluded students with pre-existing neurological or medical conditions that could affect sleep, those using medications influencing sleep, and anyone diagnosed with a sleep disorder.
Participants were trained to use a mobile sleep-monitoring device, which recorded their sleep at home for five consecutive nights early in the semester. This device, the Zmachine® Insight+, uses three electrodes placed on the head to monitor different stages of sleep, including REM sleep. Students also kept a sleep diary to record when they went to bed, when they woke up, and any nighttime awakenings.
In addition to monitoring sleep, the researchers assessed students’ stress levels and related factors using a variety of online questionnaires. The main focus was on test anxiety, measured with the Test Anxiety Inventory. This tool evaluates both the cognitive aspect of anxiety (worry) and the physical responses (emotionality) that students experience when faced with exams. Other factors like depression, resilience, sleep quality, and exposure to stressful life events were also measured to control for their potential influence on test anxiety.
The sleep data collected early in the semester was compared with the students’ stress levels just before final exams, when academic pressure was at its peak.
The researchers found that more REM sleep early in the semester predicted higher levels of test anxiety as exams approached. Specifically, students who spent more time in REM sleep, as well as those who had a higher percentage of their total sleep time in REM, reported greater increases in anxiety before finals. This was contrary to the researchers’ initial hypothesis, which predicted that more REM sleep would be associated with lower anxiety.
Further analysis showed that this increase in anxiety was particularly related to the emotionality dimension of test anxiety — the physical symptoms like a racing heart or sweaty palms that students might experience when they think about their exams. In contrast, the cognitive dimension of anxiety, which involves worrying about performance, did not seem to be as strongly affected by REM sleep.
Interestingly, the study found no significant relationship between REM sleep fragmentation — the number of times REM sleep is interrupted during the night — and test anxiety. This suggests that it is the amount of REM sleep, rather than its quality or continuity, that plays a more critical role in influencing stress levels before exams.
“The main results suggest that habitual REM sleep – or ‘dream sleep’ as it is better known – might influence how we process stress, and particularly how anxious we become before a test,” Lerner told PsyPost. “The results suggest that more REM sleep could actually contribute to maintaining some level of stress before the test; however, previous studies suggest that habitual REM sleep could also alleviate stress. The bottom line is that we need an adequate amount of sleep to have the right balance between a calm, non-anxious demeanor and a healthy anticipation before events that require our attention.”
Future research could expand on these findings by including a larger, more diverse sample of students and by exploring how REM sleep might influence stress in other real-world situations. “The long term goals are to examine how habitual sleep – particularly REM sleep – affect stress response in more extreme situations, such as emergency responders (firefighters, police officers, paramedics) responding to calls during their regular work,” Lerner said.
The study, “(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsr.14298) Habitual rapid eye movement sleep predicts changes in test-anxiety levels weeks in advance,” was authored by Emerson Larios and Itamar Lerner.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-sociosexuality-research-could-revolutionize-how-we-think-about-casual-sex/) New sociosexuality research could revolutionize how we think about casual sex
Aug 11th 2024, 06:00

When it comes to the complexities of human relationships, new research suggests that our motivations for committed partnerships and casual encounters are more distinct than previously thought. A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112779) Personality and Individual Differences challenges the long-standing idea that people’s relationship desires fall on a single spectrum, with casual sex on one end and long-term commitment on the other. Instead, the researchers found that these desires often coexist, suggesting that they are better understood as separate dimensions that independently influence our romantic behaviors and outcomes.
The motivation for this study stemmed from a growing recognition that traditional models of sociosexuality might be overly simplistic. Historically, researchers have often conceptualized sociosexuality as a single continuum, where a strong interest in casual sex (an unrestricted sociosexuality) indicates a weaker desire for committed relationships. However, this approach might be too reductive to capture the true diversity of human mating strategies.
Given the importance of long-term pair-bonded relationships in human life — contributing to happiness, health, and reproductive success — the researchers sought to explore whether a two-dimensional model could better explain how people navigate their romantic lives. They hypothesized that separating the motivations for casual sex and committed relationships into distinct dimensions could provide a clearer picture of how these motives impact relationship outcomes.
“For decades, the desire for casual sex and the desire for a long-term relationship have been treated as two ends of the same continuum. In other words, people either want to have casual sex or they want a committed relationship,” explained study author (https://www.sierradpeters.com/) Sierra D. Peters, a doctoral candidate in social psychology at Florida State University.
“However, there are reasons to believe that greater motivation toward uncommitted sex may not necessarily reflect less motivation toward a committed relationship (and vice versa). By conflating these two important, and potentially distinct motivations, it’s possible that we are also obscuring important relationships between mating motives and people’s experiences in their relationships. Thus, we were interested in whether these two moves are associated with different relationship outcomes, and whether considering them separately helps us understand relationship outcomes better than lumping them together.”
To test their hypothesis, the researchers recruited 693 participants through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, a popular online platform for gathering research data. After applying strict criteria to ensure that participants were paying attention and were in a romantic relationship, the final sample included 320 individuals. These participants were diverse in terms of age, gender, and race, with the majority identifying as heterosexual and being in monogamous relationships.
The researchers used two distinct tools to measure sociosexuality. The first was a traditional, one-dimensional measure, the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, which assesses sociosexuality on a single continuum. This measure includes questions about participants’ past sexual behavior, future sexual intentions, and attitudes toward casual sex.
The second tool was a revised, two-dimensional measure, which separately assessed participants’ desire for casual sex and their desire for long-term pair bonding. This revised measure included subscales that specifically addressed each dimension.
For instance, the casual sex subscale included items that measured comfort and enjoyment in engaging in casual sex with different partners, while the pair-bonding subscale included items that measured the desire for a romantic relationship that lasts forever. These measures allowed the researchers to evaluate how each of these motivations independently influenced participants’ relationship behaviors and attitudes.
To assess the outcomes related to participants’ romantic relationships, the researchers employed the Investment Model Scale. This scale measures four key aspects of relationship quality: satisfaction, commitment, investment, and the perceived quality of alternative partners.
Satisfaction refers to the degree of positive feelings and attraction participants have toward their current relationship. Commitment reflects how strongly participants are dedicated to maintaining their relationship. Investment measures the resources, both tangible and intangible, that participants have put into their relationship, such as time and shared experiences. Finally, the perceived quality of alternatives assesses how appealing other potential partners are in comparison to the participant’s current partner.
The researchers found that when sociosexuality was measured using the two-dimensional model, it explained more variance in key relationship outcomes than when using the one-dimensional model.
For instance, people who scored high on the pair-bonding dimension reported greater satisfaction and commitment in their relationships. This suggests that a strong desire for a committed relationship correlates with more positive feelings and behaviors within the relationship. On the other hand, those who scored high on the casual sex dimension were less committed to their current partners and more interested in potential alternative partners, indicating that a strong motivation for casual sex may be linked to behaviors that could threaten the stability of long-term relationships.
Interestingly, the researchers also found that these two dimensions — casual sex and pair bonding — were only moderately inversely correlated. This means that a strong desire for casual sex does not necessarily preclude a strong desire for a committed relationship. In other words, it’s possible for individuals to simultaneously hold both desires, which challenges the traditional view that these motivations exist on opposite ends of a single spectrum.
“People frequently experience the desire for sex and the desire for a committed relationship simultaneously; such motives are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, these two motives predict relationship outcomes in different ways. Being motivated to form and maintain a long-term relationship is associated with greater satisfaction with, commitment to, and investment in one’s relationship as well as less interest in pursuing alternative partners.”
“In contrast, being motivated to pursue sex does not predict one’s satisfaction with or investment in their relationship, but it does predict less relationship commitment and greater interest in pursuing alternative partners. Importantly, these distinct relationships are only visible when you consider these mating motives separately.”
Despite its groundbreaking findings, the study is not without its limitations. One major limitation is that it relied on self-report measures, which can be influenced by social desirability bias — people may not always be truthful about their motivations for sex and relationships, especially when these motives conflict with societal norms. Additionally, the study’s cross-sectional design means that it provides only a snapshot in time, making it difficult to determine causal relationships.
The study’s focus on long-term relationship outcomes leaves open many questions about how these two dimensions of sociosexuality might influence other aspects of human mating behavior, such as initial attraction or mate selection. Researchers could also explore how these motivations interact over time.
“In the future, we are interested in examining how these two motives may interact to predict relationship outcomes. For example, given that sexual motives are associated with greater interest in alternative partners while long-term relationship (i.e., pair bonding) motives are associated with less interest in alternatives, what happens when people have both strong sexual and strong pair bonding motives? How does the interaction of these two competing motivations predict their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward alternative partners?”
The study, “(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886924002393) Distinct individual differences in motivations for pair-bonding and sexual behavior: Implications for close relationships,” was authored by Jaia N. Hendrickson, Sierra D. Peters, Juliana E. French, and Jon K. Maner.

(https://www.psypost.org/maternal-genetics-play-bigger-role-in-alzheimers-risk-study-finds/) Maternal genetics play bigger role in Alzheimer’s risk, study finds
Aug 10th 2024, 16:00

The genetic risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease is more strongly influenced by the mother’s side than the father’s side, a (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2820195) recent study has discovered.
Alzheimer’s disease steals memories, independence and the capacity to connect with loved ones. In 2020, over (https://www.alzint.org/about/dementia-facts-figures/dementia-statistics/#:~:text=Numbers%20of%20people%20with%20dementia&text=There%20are%20over%2055%20million,and%20139%20million%20in%202050.) 55 million people worldwide were living with dementia. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia, accounting for (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia) 60-70% of all dementias.
It’s expected the number of people affected by dementia will nearly double every (https://www.alzint.org/about/dementia-facts-figures/dementia-statistics/) 20 years. Finding ways to better diagnose, treat and even prevent dementia is more important than ever. This latest study could provide a useful target for researchers hoping to develop new therapies.
The study, published in (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/article-abstract/2820195) JAMA Neurology, showed that people whose mother had a history of memory loss had a greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease at any age when compared to people with only a paternal history of memory loss (or no family history of memory loss whatsoever). However, if a person’s father had early-onset memory loss (occurring before the age of 65), they also had a greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
The study analysed data from 4,413 people aged 65 to 85 who had no issues with cognitive function or memory problems. The study’s large sample size is a key strength, making for a more accurate interpretation of the findings compared to previous research. But it’s important to note it’s not a complete representation of the population, as most participants were white – so results may differ in other ethnicities.
The participants were part of the (https://www.alzheimers.gov/clinical-trials/anti-amyloid-treatment-asymptomatic-alzheimers-disease-a4) Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer study, which is a phase 3 clinical trial investigating a drug researchers hope will slow the progression of memory problems. The participants’ cognitive function was measured using questions from the widely used (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/mini-mental-state-examination) mini-mental state examination.
(https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/research/take-part-research/pet-scan#:~:text=Positron%20Emission%20Tomography%20(PET)%20scans,key%20hallmarks%20of%20Alzheimer's%20disease.) Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging was also used to scan their brains for markers of Alzheimer’s disease and determine their risk of developing it.
The researchers were mainly looking for the presence of amyloid plaques, which are one of two hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease. These toxic amyloid plaques form when protein pieces, called beta-amyloid, clump together.
The hypothesis is that these clumped amyloid plaques are the prime suspects in damaging and killing brain cells (neurons), (https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3505) resulting in Alzheimer’s disease. The second hallmark of Alzheimer’s is the protein tau, which wasn’t assessed in this study.
The accumulation of beta-amyloid is thought to be a prominent precursor of Alzheimer’s disease, as people can have raised amyloid levels (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01249-0) years before memory problems start.
The results of the PET scans showed that participants whose mother had a history of memory impairment (regardless of the age her memory problems started) had higher beta-amyloid levels. The amyloid levels were significantly higher on average in those with maternal history than paternal history of memory impairment.
Participants whose fathers had early-onset memory loss (occurring before 65) also had higher beta-amyloid levels. In comparison, participants who only had a paternal history of late-onset memory impairment (happening after 65 years of age), and those who had no family history of memory loss, had normal beta-amyloid levels.
The reason for this link is not completely understood.
One suggestion from the researchers is mitochondria dysfunction. Mitochondria are energy-providing structures inside our cells. These are only inherited from the mother’s side. Mitochondria possess their own DNA, which may include mutations that cause them to malfunction. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9878959/) Previous research has already demonstrated mitochondria dysfunction is associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
The brain is an energy-hungry organ, taking up about (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/aug/energy-demands-limit-our-brains-information-processing-capacity) 20% of the body’s energy. So it’s unsurprising that dysfunction in mitochondria could lead to cognitive impairment – and potentially Alzheimer’s disease.
Developing treatments
This study builds on previous, (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22669011/) smaller studies which have investigated the role genetics play in Alzheimer’s disease. Since these studies only had small sample sizes, they lacked the statistical power to draw strong conclusions. This study’s much larger sample size allowed for stronger conclusions and reaffirmations on the importance of maternal genetics to be made.
The key message from the study is that a person’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease could depend on whether they inherit it from their mother or father, as well as their parent’s age when memory loss began. As such, considering gender-specific parental history could be fundamental in identifying those at greatest risk of Alzheimer’s.
In light of these findings, next steps could be to determine whether the DNA from the mother – specifically the X chromosome itself – influences the disease’s development. If it does play a role, then researchers may have a better target for treatment.
And given mitochondria are inherited from the mother’s side, researchers may also want to further investigate the mitochondria dysfunction theory to better understand if this explains why people are at greater risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease if their mother had memory problems.
This latest study confirms the critical role that genetics play in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. But it isn’t the only risk factor. Many (https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/types-dementia/who-gets-alzheimers-disease) modifiable risk factors – such as diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and poor diet – are also known to be massive contributors to developing the disease.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/alzheimers-risk-higher-if-your-mother-had-cognitive-problems-233032) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/want-to-know-how-kinky-you-are-this-new-scientific-scale-can-tell-you/) Want to know how kinky you are? This new scientific scale can tell you
Aug 10th 2024, 14:00

In the realm of human sexuality, researchers have long grappled with how to accurately capture the complexities of non-normative sexual practices, often referred to under the umbrella of “kink.” Now, a team of scientists has developed and validated a new tool designed to measure various aspects of kink engagement — the Kink Orientation Scale. ((https://www.psypost.org/#take-the-test) Take the test below.) The study detailing this work was recently published in (https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2387769) The Journal of Sex Research.
Kink encompasses a wide range of sexual practices that fall outside of what many consider “normative” sexual activities. These practices can include power dynamics, the exchange of control, the infliction or reception of pain, and the use of specialized gear or objects to enhance sensory experiences. Kink is not limited to a specific set of activities but rather spans a spectrum that individuals might explore alone or with others.
Despite its long history and increasing visibility in modern culture, kink remains a subject that is often misunderstood or stigmatized. The term “kinky” is sometimes used as a label for people who engage in these practices, but it also can refer to desires and fantasies that may never be acted upon.
Given the diverse ways people experience kink — whether as a deeply ingrained identity, a set of occasional practices, or a source of personal fantasy — a team of researchers led by Liam Wignall of the University of Brighton recognized a gap in how kink was studied. Previous research often relied on self-identified members of kink communities, which tended to overlook the broader population that might engage in or be interested in kink without necessarily identifying as “kinky.”
This focus on community members resulted in a limited understanding of kink, as it missed those who might participate in kink privately or who have kink-related desires but do not engage with a kink community.
To address these limitations, the researchers sought to develop the Kink Orientation Scale. This new scale was designed to capture the full spectrum of kink engagement, from identity and community involvement to private desires and occasional practices. By creating a tool that measures these different dimensions, the researchers aimed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of kink, allowing for more inclusive and accurate research.
The development of the Kink Orientation Scale followed a rigorous, multi-phase methodology aimed at creating a reliable and valid tool to measure various aspects of kink engagement. The researchers began by compiling an initial list of 36 questions, which were designed to explore different dimensions of kink, including attitudes, practices, desires, and identity. These questions drew inspiration from existing scales used to measure other aspects of sexuality, such as the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, which examines similar components in the context of casual sex.
To ensure the clarity and relevance of these questions, the researchers conducted two focus groups. One group consisted of undergraduate psychology students who indicated no particular interest in kink, while the other included self-identified kinky individuals. The purpose of these focus groups was to verify that participants from different backgrounds understood the questions in a similar way, thereby supporting the scale’s construct validity. Based on feedback from these discussions, the researchers refined the scale, ultimately reducing it to 27 questions. These items were presented on a seven-point Likert scale, allowing participants to express varying degrees of agreement or disagreement with each statement.
The next phase involved administering the preliminary 27-item Kink Orientation Scale to a sample of 200 university students. The survey, which was presented as a general study on sexual behavior and attitudes, took about 10 minutes to complete. To avoid biasing the participants’ responses, they were not informed that the survey was specifically about kink. After collecting the data, the researchers conducted exploratory factor analysis to examine the underlying structure of the scale. Through this analysis, they identified and removed seven items that either did not fit well with the rest of the scale or loaded onto multiple factors, leaving an 18-item scale with five distinct factors.
These five factors were labeled as kink identity, kink paraphernalia, kink community, kink practices, and sexual communication. Each factor represented a different facet of kink engagement. For instance, “kink identity” included items related to how participants saw themselves and were perceived by others in relation to kink, while “kink paraphernalia” focused on the use and importance of sex-related items. “Kink community” captured involvement with others who share similar sexual interests, “kink practices” encompassed specific sexual behaviors and the dynamics within them, and “sexual communication” addressed how participants discussed and negotiated their sexual activities.
To further validate the scale, the researchers then tested it on a larger, kink-focused sample of over 1,000 individuals recruited through an online kink community. For this phase, the Kink Orientation Scale was slightly modified, reducing the Likert scale from seven points to five, in order to simplify the data collection and analysis process. The factor structure identified in the initial phase was largely confirmed, although some slight adjustments were made to the grouping of items.
The final Kink Orientation Scale is a concise, 18-item scale that successfully captures a broad range of kink-related experiences and orientations. Its development marks a significant step forward in kink research, offering a tool that can be used not only to explore the diversity of kink practices and identities but also to examine how these intersect with other aspects of sexuality and personal identity. By moving beyond simple identity measures and capturing a wider spectrum of kink engagement, the Kink Orientation Scale provides researchers with a more nuanced and inclusive way to study this complex aspect of human sexuality.
Take the Kink Orientation Scale

The Kink Orientation Scale

I would describe myself as kinky.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I am part of a sexual subculture.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

My friends describe me as kinky.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

My sexual interests are constantly evolving.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

My sexual interests can be risky.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

Pain can be fun in a sexual context.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I have niche sexual interests.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

Sex toys are important in sex.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I feel comfortable visiting a sex shop (offline and online).

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I have researched my sexual interests.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I often talk about my sexual interests with my sexual partner.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I know others with the same sexual interests as me.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I have outfits I wear when having sex.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I like my sex to incorporate a power dynamic.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

It’s important to chat with somebody before having sex with them.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

Casual sex is fun.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

Having chemistry with sexual partner is important.

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

I feel comfortable purchasing items from a sex shop (offline and online).

 Strongly disagree
 Somewhat disagree
 Neither agree nor disagree
 Somewhat agree
 Strongly agree

Submit

The findings and interpretations presented in this article are based on a specific study focused on the development and validation of the Kink Orientation Scale. The scale is designed for research purposes and is not intended to diagnose or label individuals. The discussion of kink in this article is intended for educational purposes and should not be construed as an endorsement or promotion of any specific sexual practices. As always, personal sexual behaviors should be consensual and safe, respecting all parties involved.
The study, “(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2024.2387769) The Kink Orientation Scale: Developing and Validating a Measure of Kink Desire, Practice, and Identity,” was authored by Liam Wignall, Mark McCormack, Tom Carpino, Rebecca Owens, and Thomas Barton.

(https://www.psypost.org/white-and-pink-noise-show-promise-in-enhancing-attention-in-those-with-adhd/) White and pink noise show promise in enhancing attention in those with ADHD
Aug 10th 2024, 13:00

Could noise hold the key to better focus for children and young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? A recent study, published in the (https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(24)00074-1/fulltext) Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, suggests that exposure to white and pink noise may improve task performance in individuals with ADHD, offering a potential new avenue for treatment.
ADHD is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders affecting children and young adults, with about 10% of young people between the ages of 3 and 17 diagnosed with the condition. Traditional treatments for ADHD typically involve medication and behavioral therapy, both of which can be effective. However, these treatments come with challenges — side effects, adherence issues, and limited access to proper care, especially in underserved areas.
There is also a growing interest in non-pharmacological approaches that are safe, easy to access, and less likely to cause side effects. This is where the interest in noise exposure as a potential tool for improving focus and cognitive performance comes into play.
The idea of using noise to help with ADHD isn’t entirely new. In fact, the notion that external stimuli, like sound, might help improve attention in individuals with ADHD has been around for some time. However, with the recent explosion of public interest in white, pink, and brown noise — fueled by social media trends and anecdotal reports — the scientific community has been motivated to investigate these claims more rigorously.
White, pink, and brown noise are types of sound that differ in how they distribute energy across different frequencies. White noise contains equal intensity across all frequencies, creating a consistent, hissing sound similar to a static-filled television. It is often used to mask other noises.
Pink noise, on the other hand, decreases in intensity as frequency increases, resulting in a deeper, softer sound that resembles steady rainfall or rustling leaves. Brown noise (also known as red noise) has an even steeper drop in intensity, leading to a much deeper sound, like the rumble of distant thunder or a powerful waterfall.
“Although outcomes are much improved with current treatments, ADHD still can dramatically increase the risk of serious and complex long-term health outcomes, because treatments are only partially effective, and adherence is difficult,” said study author Joel Nigg, a professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University and co-director of the OHSU Center for Mental Health Innovation. “It is critical that we continue to investigate complementary and alternative supports for those living with ADHD.”
“Our priority is identifying new and improved tools to empower each individual to live their healthiest and most productive life, as well as providing evidence-based guidance on popular ideas in the public domain such as white or brown noise.”
To better understand the effects of white and pink noise on individuals with ADHD, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis—a type of study that combines data from multiple previous studies to draw broader conclusions. The team systematically searched through scientific databases, pulling together relevant studies that focused on the impact of noise on task performance in children and young adults with ADHD or symptoms associated with the condition.
The studies included in the analysis had a few key characteristics. First, the participants either had a formal diagnosis of ADHD or exhibited significant ADHD symptoms based on assessments by parents, teachers, or self-reports. Second, the tasks used to measure performance were designed to test attention, memory, and other cognitive functions. These tasks included well-known assessments like the go/no-go task, which measures impulse control, and various memory recall tests. Importantly, the analysis included studies where the participants were exposed to white or pink noise while performing these tasks, allowing the researchers to compare their performance under different noise conditions.
The meta-analysis ultimately included data from 13 studies, encompassing 335 participants. These studies were conducted in various countries and used different cognitive tasks, which allowed the researchers to get a comprehensive view of how noise might affect ADHD-related symptoms across different contexts.
On average, exposure to white and pink noise had a small but statistically significant positive effect on task performance for children and young adults with ADHD or elevated ADHD symptoms. This finding suggests that noise might help improve focus and cognitive performance for those who struggle with attention issues. Interestingly, the effect size — the magnitude of the impact —was smaller than what is typically seen with ADHD medications, but still notable, particularly because noise exposure is a low-cost, low-risk intervention that can be easily implemented.
Specifically, the average effect size was about 0.25. While the effect was not large, it was consistent across the different studies included in the analysis.
Interestingly, the analysis also found that this benefit was specific to individuals with ADHD or elevated attention problems. In contrast, when the researchers looked at the effects of noise on individuals without ADHD , they found a small negative effect on task performance. This suggests that while noise might help improve focus for those with ADHD, it could be distracting or even counterproductive for those without the disorder.
The researchers also conducted several additional analyses to ensure the robustness of their findings. They found that the effect of noise was consistent regardless of whether the studies had been published in peer-reviewed journals or in other formats, such as theses or book chapters. They also looked at whether the effect size varied depending on whether the participants were taking medication for ADHD , finding that the benefits of noise were somewhat larger in participants who were not taking medication.
While these findings are promising, there are several limitations that need to be addressed in future research. First, the studies included in the meta-analysis often lacked adequate control conditions, making it difficult to rule out placebo effects. Moreover, because it’s challenging to mask participants and researchers to the type of noise being used, there’s a possibility that the mere expectation of improvement could influence the results.
Another limitation is the relatively small sample size and the brief duration of noise exposure in the studies reviewed. Most of the tasks were short, and it’s unclear whether longer-term exposure to noise would yield the same benefits. Additionally, the studies didn’t examine whether different levels of noise intensity might influence the outcomes, which is important considering that excessive noise exposure could potentially harm hearing over time.
Importantly, the meta-analysis did not find any studies that examined the effects of brown noise, another type of noise that has gained popularity in online communities. Given that brown noise operates at a similar power frequency as white noise, it’s possible that it could also have beneficial effects, but this remains to be tested in future studies.
Looking forward, researchers need to conduct more rigorous trials with larger, more diverse populations to better understand the potential of noise as a treatment for ADHD. These studies should also explore how different types of noise, exposure durations, and noise levels might affect cognitive performance and whether there are specific tasks or situations where noise is more likely to be helpful.
“While additional research is needed to translate the findings to clinical practices, these initial results should be seen as encouraging,” Nigg said. “The results should stimulate further work to clarify who can benefit and what dosages and amounts are safe and appropriate. Supportive interventions continue to be needed for ADHD, which affects millions of kids and adolescents around the world.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2023.12.014) Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Do White Noise or Pink Noise Help With Task Performance in Youth With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or With Elevated Attention Problems?” was authored by Joel T. Nigg, Alisha Bruton, Michael B. Kozlowski, Jeanette M. Johnstone, and Sarah L. Karalunas.

(https://www.psypost.org/people-trust-journalists-less-when-they-debunk-misinformation/) People trust journalists less when they debunk misinformation
Aug 10th 2024, 12:00

When journalists confirm that a claim is true, most people tend to trust them. However, when those same journalists correct a false claim, they face a much harder battle to earn the trust of their audience. This was the key finding from a recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241262377) Communication Research, which examined how people perceive fact-checks and the journalists who provide them.
Public confidence in the media has been declining for decades, and this trend has accelerated in recent years. This widespread distrust is partially driven by concerns that journalistic coverage is biased, sensationalized, and often dishonest. To combat these perceptions, many news organizations have ramped up their efforts in fact-checking, hoping that by rigorously verifying information, they can regain public trust.
Fact-checking, however, has not been without controversy. Critics argue that it can be biased or even an attempt by journalists to control public perception of the truth. Given the ongoing skepticism toward the media and the mixed results of previous studies on the effectiveness of fact-checking, the researchers behind this study wanted to explore whether the public actually trusts these fact-checks.
“I wanted to cover something new on the topic of why it’s hard to correct misinformation. I saw an opportunity to take kind of a classic idea from linguistics, that people intuitively understand that you shouldn’t be negative, so being negative (and a correction or debunking is saying someone else is wrong, so it’s negative) carries with it a risk of suspicion,” said study author Randy B. Stein, an associate professor of marketing at Cal Poly Pomona.
The researchers conducted two studies to test their hypothesis that people trust journalists more when they confirm claims rather than correct them. In the first study, 691 participants were presented with a series of eight political or economic claims. These claims ranged from statements about homelessness rates to the prevalence of fentanyl in overdose deaths. Participants were asked to rate how likely they thought each claim was to be true on a scale from 1 to 9.
After this initial evaluation, they were randomly assigned to see a fact-check for one of the claims. The fact-check either confirmed the claim as true or corrected it as false. These fact-checks were real, taken from a political fact-checking website known for its non-confrontational style (checkyourfact.com). After reading the fact-check, participants were asked to rate their level of distrust in the journalist who wrote it. They also rated how surprising they found the fact-check’s outcome, how much evidence they felt was needed to believe it, and whether they thought the fact-check was exploitative.
The second study followed a similar procedure but focused on different types of claims. This time, 691 participants were presented with marketing claims about products, such as whether certain food products were humanely sourced or whether a particular cooking hack was effective. Again, participants rated their initial belief in the claim before being shown a journalistic report that either confirmed or corrected the claim. Unlike the first study, the reports in the second study were not explicitly labeled as fact-checks to see if the effect of distrust would still hold without that label.
The findings from both studies were consistent. Participants showed significantly more distrust toward journalists who corrected false claims than toward those who confirmed true claims.
“People are generally trusting of journalists, and trust of confirmatory articles was pretty high,” Stein told PsyPost. “So despite the stereotype, it’s not true that people don’t trust fact-checks and journalists at all, but there is more suspicion centered around corrective/debunking articles. (I want to add we use ‘corrections’ in the sense of any article that points out that some claim is false, like ‘correcting misinformation that is out there’ or a fact-check, not in the sense of an outlet issuing a correction of an error they made in a previous article.)”
“It’s a really robust effect,” he added. “We found it in two separate contexts, and we found it among both liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are more distrusting overall, but both show more distrust towards corrections.”
This effect was observed even when the correction aligned with what participants already believed to be true. In other words, people were more likely to trust journalists when they told them something they already suspected was true, but they were more skeptical when journalists corrected misinformation they believed was untrue.
“We got the effect even for claims people suspected weren’t true – i.e., ‘I know this thing is probably false, but I’m still a bit suspicious of the person pointing it out,'” Stein said.
The researchers identified three main reasons for this increased distrust toward corrections:
Surprise: Corrections were generally seen as more surprising than confirmations. This is likely because negative statements, such as corrections, are less common and therefore more unexpected in communication.
Need for Evidence: Participants felt that corrections required more evidence to be believed compared to confirmations. This indicates a higher level of skepticism when journalists declare something to be false.
Exploitation: Corrections were perceived as more exploitative, suggesting that participants were more likely to think that the journalist was using the situation to push an agenda or gain attention when they corrected a claim rather than confirmed it.
Interestingly, the study also found that even when corrections successfully changed participants’ beliefs about the claim, they still harbored more distrust toward the journalist who provided the correction. This finding indicates that while corrections can be effective in altering beliefs, they may simultaneously damage the credibility of the journalist delivering them.
“The deck is really stacked against journalists (or anyone) trying to correct misinformation (again, or anything),” Stein said. “The research suggests that “we intuitively hold negative communications to a different standard, demanding more evidence to believe them and doubting the motives of people who make them.”
While the study provides valuable insights, it has limitations that warrant further exploration. First, the study was limited to claims that participants initially found plausible. The researchers argue that this is appropriate because it mirrors the types of claims that are most likely to be the subject of misinformation. However, it remains unclear whether the effect would hold for more outlandish or easily debunked claims.
“We can reasonably assume that people have no issues with debunkings of things they already strongly believe are untrue and are invested in,” Stein noted.
The researchers suggest that future studies could explore ways to mitigate the distrust associated with corrections. For example, providing more detailed information, avoiding attention-grabbing “debunking” language, or framing corrections in more positive terms could potentially reduce the negativity bias and increase trust.
The study, “(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00936502241262377) Whose Pants Are on Fire? Journalists Correcting False Claims are Distrusted More Than Journalists Confirming Claims,” was authored by Randy Stein and Caroline E. Meyersohn.

Forwarded by:
Michael Reeder LCPC
Baltimore, MD

This information is taken from free public RSS feeds published by each organization for the purpose of public distribution. Readers are linked back to the article content on each organization's website. This email is an unaffiliated unofficial redistribution of this freely provided content from the publishers. 

 

(#) unsubscribe from this feed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clinicians-exchange.org/pipermail/article-digests-clinicians-exchange.org/attachments/20240811/3696e9e8/attachment.htm>