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

Sat Aug 17 07:32:29 PDT 2024

PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

(https://www.psypost.org/schemas-help-older-adults-compensate-for-age-related-memory-decline-study-finds/) Schemas help older adults compensate for age-related memory decline, study finds
Aug 17th 2024, 10:00

According to a new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105826) Cognition, schema knowledge compensates for age-related memory decline by filling in the gaps when recollection fails.
As we age, our episodic memory—that is, recalling specific events and experiences—tends to decline. However, this decline does not affect all types of information equally. Research has shown that when information aligns with pre-existing knowledge or schemas, older adults often perform as well as younger adults. There are two main theories explaining how schemas influence memory in older adults: the compensatory theory, which suggests that schemas help fill in gaps caused by memory failures, and the inhibitory deficit theory, which argues that schemas interfere with memory by causing confusion with incongruent information.
Evidence has been inconclusive due to the complexity of isolating memory and schema effects. In this work, Michelle M. Ramey and colleagues sought to directly examine these effects.
The study involved 70 participants, including 35 older adults aged 62-87 years and 35 younger adults aged 18-23 years. The online experiment consisted of two phases: a study phase and a test phase. During the study phase, participants searched for target objects in 60 unique scenes, each presented twice. The objects were either placed in schema-congruent locations (e.g., a coffee cup on a coffee table) or schema-incongruent locations (e.g., a coffee cup on the floor). In the test phase, participants were shown 80 scenes (60 old and 20 new) without the target objects and were asked to recall the target object’s location and rate their memory confidence on a 6-point scale.
The study revealed that older adults exhibited higher schema bias than younger adults, indicating that their memory decisions were more influenced by schema congruency. Specifically, older adults’ spatial recall accuracy was better for schema-congruent scenes compared to incongruent scenes, and this effect was larger than in younger adults. Importantly, the researchers discovered that this schema bias was primarily driven by recollection failures in older adults. When older adults had poor recollection, they relied more on schema knowledge to fill in the gaps, providing evidence for the compensatory theory.
Additionally, older adults’ spatial accuracy within recollected scenes was lower than that of younger adults, even when they correctly remembered the scenes. This suggests that older adults have poorer memory precision and rely more on schemas when their memory is less precise. However, within familiar scenes, older adults performed similarly to younger adults, indicating that familiarity-based memory was not impaired by aging.
A limitation outlined by the authors is that the study was conducted online due to COVID-19 precautions, which may have introduced variability in participants’ testing environments.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105826) How schema knowledge influences memory in older adults: Filling in the gaps, or leading memory astray?”, was authored by Michelle M. Ramey, Andrew P. Yonelinas, and John M. Henderson.

(https://www.psypost.org/the-psychological-puzzle-of-donald-trump-eye-opening-findings-from-20-studies/) The psychological puzzle of Donald Trump: Eye-opening findings from 20 studies
Aug 17th 2024, 08:00

Donald Trump’s (https://www.psypost.org/exclusive/social/political/) political rise in 2016 was as unexpected as it was controversial, shaking the American political landscape to its core. Emerging from a background steeped not in politics but in real estate and reality television, Trump’s ascent to the presidency defied all conventional wisdom. His brash rhetoric, unfiltered communication style, and populist appeal captivated millions, while simultaneously alienating millions of others.
The phenomenon of Trump’s support has since become a focal point for psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists alike, eager to understand what drives such fervent loyalty in his base. What psychological factors contribute to the unwavering support for a leader who has consistently broken political norms? Here, we explore some of the research that has attempted to answer these questions.
Trump’s journey to the White House was anything but typical. Traditionally, U.S. presidents have cut their teeth in politics or the military before making a run for the highest office. Trump, however, had neither. His experience lay in business and entertainment, making his leap to the presidency unconventional and unprecedented.
Trump’s fame as a real estate mogul and reality TV star provided him with an unparalleled level of name recognition, which he leveraged masterfully in his campaign. He eschewed traditional political strategies, relying instead on large rallies, extensive media coverage, and a powerful social media presence.
Furthermore, Trump’s populist rhetoric, which included promises to “drain the swamp” and put “America First,” resonated with a significant portion of the electorate. His approach was highly polarizing, often disregarding political norms and taking a combative stance against the political establishment. His rise defied the expectations of political analysts and pollsters alike, making his eventual victory in the 2016 election all the more remarkable.
The surprising nature of Trump’s ascent led to a surge in research aimed at understanding his appeal and the broader implications of his presidency. Scholars have since explored a wide array of psychological and social factors that may explain the fervent support Trump enjoys among his base. Below, are 20 studies that offer insights into the psychology of Trump supporters and the impact of Trump’s political ascent.

1. (https://www.psypost.org/study-provides-first-evidence-of-a-causal-link-between-perceived-moral-division-and-support-for-authoritarian-leaders/) Heightened Moral Division and Support for Strong Leaders
A study published in Political Psychology found that perceptions of moral division in society intensify support for authoritarian leaders. Researchers surveyed participants in the U.S., U.K., and Australia, finding that those who perceived a breakdown in societal morals were more likely to support leaders like Donald Trump, who they believed could restore order. The study suggests that the perception of moral polarization leads people to favor strong, rule-breaking leaders who promise to challenge the status quo.
2. (https://www.psypost.org/authoritarian-aggression-and-group-based-dominance-distinguished-trump-supporters-from-other-republicans-in-2016/) Authoritarian Aggression and Group-Based Dominance Among Trump Supporters
Research published in Social Psychological and Personality Science analyzed the psychological traits of Trump supporters during the 2016 primaries. The study found that while general right-wing (https://www.psypost.org/exclusive/social/political/authoritarianism/) authoritarianism did not distinguish Trump supporters from other Republican candidates, Trump supporters were uniquely characterized by authoritarian aggression and a preference for group-based dominance. These traits manifested in a greater acceptance of hierarchy and the use of aggressive measures to maintain it. The findings suggest that Trump’s appeal was partly rooted in these authoritarian and dominance-oriented dispositions.
3. (https://www.psypost.org/men-who-are-anxious-about-their-masculinity-are-more-likely-to-support-aggressive-politics-and-to-have-voted-for-trump/) Masculine Insecurity and Aggressive Politics
Research in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin revealed a link between masculine insecurity and support for aggressive political policies, including those endorsed by Trump. The study found that men who feel their masculinity is threatened are more likely to endorse aggressive policies and support leaders like Trump who project a dominant and unyielding persona. This phenomenon is partly explained by the concept of precarious manhood, where men strive to reaffirm their masculinity through aggressive political stances.
4. (https://www.psypost.org/donald-trumps-presidency-associated-with-significant-changes-in-the-topography-of-prejudice-in-the-united-states/) The Trump Presidency’s Impact on Prejudice
A series of 13 studies involving over 10,000 participants, published in Nature Human Behavior, examined changes in (https://www.psypost.org/exclusive/social/racism-and-discrimination/) racial and religious prejudice among Americans during Trump’s presidency. The researchers found that explicit prejudice increased among Trump supporters, while it decreased among those who opposed him. This suggests that Trump’s rhetoric may have reshaped social norms, making expressions of prejudice more acceptable among his supporters.
5. (https://www.psypost.org/trump-supporters-use-less-cognitively-complex-language-and-more-simplistic-modes-of-thinking-than-biden-supporters-study-finds/) Simplicity and Happiness Among Trump Supporters
A study in Social Psychological and Personality Science found that Trump supporters tended to use more positive language and exhibit less cognitive complexity compared to Biden supporters. The research suggests that Trump’s supporters may engage in more simplistic and categorical thinking, which could be linked to higher levels of happiness and satisfaction with their political choices.
6. (https://www.psypost.org/trump-supporters-exhibit-greater-cognitive-rigidity-and-less-interpersonal-warmth-than-supporters-of-liberal-candidates-study-finds/) Cognitive Rigidity and Interpersonal Warmth
Published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, this study found that Trump supporters tend to be more cognitively rigid and less interpersonally warm compared to supporters of Democratic candidates. Even among extreme liberals, the research found that cognitive rigidity was less pronounced than among Trump supporters, suggesting a unique psychological profile among his base.
7. (https://www.psypost.org/new-study-suggests-ambivalence-may-have-played-a-role-in-trumps-2016-victory-but-pollsters-missed-it/) Ambivalence Towards Trump
Research in PLOS One highlighted the ambivalence many people feel towards Trump. The study found that about 40% of college students displayed ambivalence in their attitudes towards Trump, indicating that political opinion polls may often overlook the complexity of voter attitudes. This ambivalence could have played a role in the unexpected outcome of the 2016 election.
8. (https://www.psypost.org/trump-perceived-as-abnormally-sadistic-and-narcissistic-by-both-conservatives-and-liberals-study-finds/) Perceptions of Trump’s Personality Disorders
A study in Clinical Psychological Science revealed that American voters, regardless of their political leanings, perceived Donald Trump as having traits associated with sadistic and (https://www.psypost.org/exclusive/social/dark-triad-personality/narcissism/) narcissistic personality disorders. Both Trump supporters and detractors rated him as highly disordered, with only a difference in the degree of perceived dysfunction. The research highlighted that voters were not necessarily divided on Trump’s personality traits but rather on how these traits influenced their judgment of his suitability as a leader.
9. (https://www.psypost.org/study-identifies-psychological-pathways-that-explain-how-narcissism-predicts-support-for-donald-trump/) Narcissism and Support for Trump
A study in the Journal of Social Psychology explored the relationship between narcissism and support for Trump. The researchers found that narcissism was linked to increased support for Trump, mediated by anti-immigrant attitudes and right-wing authoritarian beliefs. The findings suggest that Trump’s appeal may be partly rooted in his alignment with the narcissistic tendencies of some of his supporters.
10. (https://www.psypost.org/study-pinpoints-two-aspects-of-pathological-narcissism-that-predicted-the-intention-to-vote-for-trump-in-2020/) Narcissistic Traits Among Trump Supporters
Likewise, a study published in PLOS One found that Trump supporters tend to exhibit narcissistic traits similar to those displayed by Trump himself. The research identified antagonism and indifference to others as key narcissistic traits that predicted support for Trump in the 2020 election, suggesting that his supporters may be drawn to his grandiose and aggressive personality.
11. (https://www.psypost.org/trump-supporters-became-more-likely-to-express-dehumanizing-views-of-black-people-after-his-2016-victory-study-finds/) Racial Attitudes and Polarization
A study published in Political Psychology found that Trump’s 2016 campaign had a polarizing effect on the racial attitudes of white Americans. Those who supported Trump were more likely to dehumanize Black people after the election, while those who opposed him became more empathetic. This polarization highlights the deepening racial divide that has been exacerbated by Trump’s rhetoric.
12. (https://www.psypost.org/new-study-indicates-republicans-revised-their-moral-beliefs-to-be-more-in-alignment-with-donald-trump/) Moral Congruence and Political Support
Research in Political Psychology found that voters tend to adjust their moral views to align with those of their preferred candidates. The study found that Trump supporters, in particular, were likely to revise their moral beliefs to reduce inconsistencies with Trump’s positions. This suggests that political leadership can significantly influence the moral beliefs of voters.
13. (https://www.psypost.org/study-indicates-that-donald-trumps-sleepy-joe-nickname-for-biden-was-only-effective-among-trumps-supporters/) The Effectiveness of Trump’s Nicknaming Strategy
A study in the Journal of Political Marketing examined the effectiveness of Trump’s use of nicknames for his political rivals, such as “Sleepy Joe” for Joe Biden. The research found that while many people remembered the nicknames, they were not necessarily more likely to believe the negative connotations associated with them. The study highlights the limitations of this campaign strategy in swaying voter opinions.
14. (https://www.psypost.org/study-links-identity-threat-among-white-evangelicals-to-the-belief-trumps-election-was-part-of-gods-plan/) Religious Beliefs and Support for Trump
Published in Politics and Religion, this study found that white evangelical Christians who view themselves as a religious minority are more likely to believe that Trump’s election was part of God’s plan. The research suggests that feelings of (https://www.psypost.org/exclusive/psychology-of-religion/) religious identity threat may have played a significant role in the unwavering support for Trump among white evangelicals.
15. (https://www.psypost.org/support-for-america-first-populism-linked-to-increased-odds-of-having-been-arrested/) Populism and Criminal Behavior
A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that individuals with strong populist beliefs, particularly those aligned with Trump’s “America First” agenda, were more likely to have been arrested in their lifetime. The research suggests a link between populist views, socioeconomic frustration, and criminal behavior, highlighting the complex relationship between political beliefs and personal conduct.
16. (https://www.psypost.org/pro-trump-maga-republicans-much-more-likely-to-endorse-delusional-and-pro-violence-statements-study-finds/) MAGA Republicans and Political Violence
Research published in PLOS One found that MAGA Republicans, a faction of Trump supporters, are more likely than other groups to endorse political violence. The study revealed that this group holds distinct beliefs on race and democracy, which set them apart from other Republicans and non-Republicans. However, the willingness to engage in violence personally remained low across all groups.
17. (https://www.psypost.org/egocentric-victimhood-is-linked-to-support-for-trump-study-finds/) Victimhood and Support for Trump
A study in Political Behavior found that Trump supporters who scored high on measures of egocentric victimhood were more likely to feel warmly towards him. In contrast, those who felt a sense of systemic victimhood were more hostile towards Trump. The research suggests that feelings of personal victimhood may play a significant role in shaping political preferences.
18. (https://www.psypost.org/this-psychological-factor-might-help-unite-america-or-destroy-us-from-within/) The Rise of Political Authoritarianism and Identity Fusion
A study published in Political Psychology investigated the rise of political authoritarianism in the U.S., particularly surrounding the January 6, 2021, insurrection. The researchers found that Trump supporters who felt a deep personal connection to him (identity fusion) were more likely to perceive Democrats as existential threats and endorse authoritarian actions against them. However, those who fused their identity more with the broader concept of “America” were less likely to support such extreme measures.
19. (https://www.psypost.org/study-indicates-donald-trump-was-the-main-anti-vaccination-influencer-on-twitter-in-2020/) Anti-Vaccination Engagement on Twitter
A study published in PLOS One found that anti-vaccination profiles on Twitter, which were often influenced by Donald Trump, were more engaged and interconnected than pro-vaccination counterparts. The anti-vaccination group was more active, generated more emotional and (https://www.psypost.org/exclusive/conspiracy-theories/) conspiracy-laden content, and formed a tightly-knit network that amplified misinformation. Trump, despite not overtly promoting anti-vaccination as president, was identified as a key influencer in this network, linking vaccination with autism in past tweets.
20. (https://www.psypost.org/how-did-trumps-tweets-really-affect-fox-news-new-research-offers-interesting-insights/) Trump’s Influence on Media Preferences
Research published in Public Opinion Quarterly explored how Donald Trump’s tweets influenced perceptions of Fox News and alternative media outlets like OANN. Trump’s increasing criticism of Fox News on Twitter correlated with a decline in the network’s ratings among Republicans, who began to show a greater willingness to consume more extreme alternatives such as OANN. Interestingly, Democrats viewed Fox News more favorably following Trump’s attacks, suggesting a shift in their perception of the network. The study highlights the powerful role of political elites in shaping media consumption preferences through their rhetoric.

These studies are just a small selection of the extensive research exploring the psychology behind Donald Trump’s support and broader political impact. If you’re interested in delving deeper into this fascinating topic, explore more research and insights at (https://www.psypost.org/exclusive/social/political/donald-trump/) PsyPost’s dedicated section on Donald Trump.

(https://www.psypost.org/stress-induced-fixated-eating-patterns-linked-to-dopamine-disruption-study-finds/) Stress-induced “fixated” eating patterns linked to dopamine disruption, study finds
Aug 17th 2024, 06:00

Stress, it turns out, can do more than make you feel anxious or overwhelmed; it can also subtly shift the way you eat. A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2024.1349366) Frontiers in Neuroscience has revealed that under stress, mice develop unusual feeding behaviors that might offer insight into the effects of stress on the brain’s reward system.
While it is well known that stress can lead to changes in appetite and food intake, less is understood about the specific patterns of eating behavior—such as food selection and consumption patterns—under stress. The researchers wanted to explore whether these patterns could provide more nuanced insights into the effects of stress on the brain, beyond the simple measurement of how much food is eaten.
“Seemingly straightforward questions, such as why some people repeatedly order the same cheeseburger or can’t stop eating potato chips, sparked our interest in understanding the mechanisms that regulate feeding behavior patterns, independent of the quantity consumed. Surprisingly, despite the recognition that overeating or anorexia can manifest under various forms of stress, these processes remain poorly understood,” explained study author Shinsuke Ishigaki, a professor at the (https://mnrc2.jp/en/) Molecular Neuroscience Research Center at Shiga University of Medical Science.
The researchers used three distinct stress models: social isolation, intermittent high-fat diet, and physical restraint. These models were chosen because they reflect different types of stress that humans might experience—social, dietary, and physical stress, respectively. Each of these stressors has been shown in previous research to affect behavior and brain function.
For the social isolation model, mice were housed alone for a week, a condition known to induce anxiety without necessarily affecting body weight. The intermittent high-fat diet model involved giving mice access to a high-fat diet for only a few hours every other day, a method that typically leads to binge-like eating behaviors. The physical restraint model involved completely immobilizing the mice for a couple of hours each day over five consecutive days, simulating the stress of confinement.
To assess how these stressors affected feeding behaviors, the researchers developed a real-time monitoring system. This system allowed them to observe and record the mice’s interactions with multiple food sources placed in an arena. The setup involved four bait containers positioned in a semi-circle, where the mice could choose to eat from any container. The researchers used motion capture technology to track how often and for how long each mouse approached and ate from each container.
The findings revealed that mice under all three stress conditions exhibited what the researchers termed “fixated feeding.” Unlike the control mice, which distributed their eating relatively evenly across all food sources, the stressed mice repeatedly favored one specific food source. This behavior was consistent across all three types of stress, suggesting that stress induces a form of aberrant feeding behavior where the animals fixate on a particular food option.
Notably, these changes in feeding behavior occurred independently of significant changes in the total amount of food consumed or other metabolic factors such as body weight, blood glucose levels, or body temperature.
The findings provide evidence that “changes in eating behaviors can reflect an individual’s environmental stress, whether that stress is obvious or not,” Ishigaki told PsyPost.
To explore the neural basis of these altered behaviors, the researchers measured dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens shell, a key region of the brain’s reward system. They found that in control mice, dopamine levels rose significantly after eating, reflecting the normal reward response to food. However, in the stressed mice, this dopamine response was significantly blunted or absent, indicating that stress had disrupted the normal functioning of the brain’s reward system.
Further experiments showed that administering dopamine directly into the nucleus accumbens shell of the stressed mice restored normal feeding patterns, reinforcing the idea that the aberrant behaviors were linked to disrupted dopamine signaling.
The study also explored the role of the dopaminergic circuit from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to the nucleus accumbens shell, a pathway central to the brain’s reward and motivation systems. By selectively inhibiting this circuit using a technique known as the DREADD system, the researchers were able to replicate the fixated feeding patterns seen in the stressed mice. This finding further confirmed that the mesolimbic dopamine system plays a key role in regulating feeding behaviors.
“We were particularly surprised to find that specific deactivation of dopaminergic neurons in the VTA led to aberrant feeding behavior patterns, characterized by fixated feeding,” Ishigaki said.
However, while these findings are compelling, the study has its limitations. For one, the research was conducted in mice, which, although informative, are not perfect models for human behavior. The researchers also noted that the effects of stress on feeding behaviors varied depending on the type of stressor. For example, the high-fat diet stressor led to increased food intake in some cases, while physical restraint led to reduced intake, highlighting the complexity of how different stressors can affect eating behavior.
Looking ahead, the researchers suggest that future studies could explore these questions in more detail, including whether similar patterns of fixated feeding can be observed in humans under stress. They also propose that further research could investigate how these feeding behaviors are linked to other aspects of the brain’s reward system, and whether they could serve as early indicators of neuropsychiatric conditions such as depression or anxiety.
“Our long-term goal is to develop a system that can detect subtle alterations in human eating behavior patterns,” Ishigaki said. “Deviations in feeding behavior patterns can serve as sensitive biomarkers for stress conditions and neuropsychiatric disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder and frontotemporal dementia.”
The study, “(https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2024.1349366/full) Stress-impaired reward pathway promotes distinct feeding behavior patterns,” was authored by Yusuke Fujioka, Kaori Kawai, Kuniyuki Endo, Minaka Ishibashi, Nobuyuki Iwade, Dilina Tuerde, Kozo Kaibuchi, Takayuki Yamashita, Akihiro Yamanaka, Masahisa Katsuno, Hirohisa Watanabe, Gen Sobue, and Shinsuke Ishigaki.

(https://www.psypost.org/public-advocacy-helps-musicians-fame-and-fortune-new-study-finds/) Public advocacy helps musicians’ fame and fortune, new study finds
Aug 16th 2024, 18:00

Musicians often face skepticism from the public when they openly support charitable or social causes. There are often speculations that musicians only do this to serve their own self-interests (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=2ef192dff7d44cdad7dee2d32a5f64f9f1e00c43) for reputation or tax purposes. Even established artists cannot avoid the risk of negative publicity.
In 2019, Taylor Swift released the song “You Need To Calm Down” (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/25/taylor-swifts-new-song-drives-donations-to-this-lgbtq-advocacy-group.html) supporting the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). The song contains the lyrics: “Why are you mad? When you could be GLAAD?” This led to a surge in donations to the organization, but some criticized Swift as (https://x.com/_briebarber_/status/1141432012282179585) jumping on the bandwagon to stay relevant.
In another example, when Lana Del Rey joined a Black Lives Matter protest in Los Angeles in 2020 and shared footage of her fellow protesters on Instagram, she was (https://money.yahoo.com/lana-del-rey-criticized-peers-182400513.html) criticized for not blurring their faces, making them (https://x.com/cydneykordei/status/1267143852995031042/photo/2) potential targets of revenge actions.
Singer Justine Skye accused Del Rey of (https://x.com/cydneykordei/status/1267143852995031042/photo/3) being inauthentic in her actions:
“We don’t need your weak ass documentation. If you were about the peace, you would’ve encouraged those white kids causing destruction just for their selfish entertainment to STOP! Making actual PROTESTERS look bad.”
Del Rey later removed the video. These high-profile examples might make it seem like advocacy is a bad idea for musicians, with risk outweighing reward. However, our recent research has found that musicians who engage in advocacy regularly can enhance their popularity and music sales.
Consistent advocacy is key
Our study on musicians’ public charity advocacy analyzed over (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05555-1) 300,000 public messages of 384 musicians on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and their weekly music sales from 2016 to 2017.
Among these messages, only around 5,000 supported social causes, or less than two for every 100 messages. This illustrated artists’ great hesitancy towards public advocacy.
However, we found that publicly backing charity causes on both an intermittent and regular basis earned musicians more likes, shares and comments. These artists also increased music sales, whether they sent these messages occasionally or constantly. Regular advocacy messages far outperformed intermittent ones in drawing attention and boosting sales.
This difference was even more prominent when compared to two other types of messages: commercial messages, which are meant to publicize their music, and self-revealing messages, which focused on musicians’ personal lives. Intermittent advocacy messages were less popular and led to fewer sales. However, regular advocacy messages outperformed both, attracting more engagement and driving higher sales.
Our research also found that while regular self-revealing messages received likes, comments and shares, they led to a decrease in sales. These messages only boosted sales when sent occasionally — they backfired when churned out constantly. This contrasts sharply with the success of regular advocacy messages.
This is likely because audiences eventually view these actions as gimmicky and orchestrated, rather than authentic. This negatively impacts the artists’ personal brand and reduces demand for their music products.
Establishing credibility
In contrast, when musicians consistently advocate for social and charity causes, the public — especially those who also support the same causes — gradually recognize their sincerity and commitment to causes and respect them for doing so.
Musicians who are consistent in their advocacy gain respect from the public over time. Selena Gomez, for example, solidified her reputation as an advocate for mental health awareness and (https://apnews.com/article/selena-gomez-mental-health-award-3903980d85f8577b9c4e47958126c00d) was honoured for her contributions.
Ed Sheeran supported different charity causes over the years, including (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2023/10/13/ed-sheeran-benefit-concert-will-be-a-major-coup-for-curebound-the-san-diego-cancer-research-nonprofit/) cancer research and (https://nypost.com/2020/11/02/ed-sheeran-helped-students-with-learning-disabilities-pick-up-music/) funding for music students with disabilities, among others. All these actions enhanced his standing as being (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/ed-sheeran-the-nicest-guy-in-pop/) “the nicest guy in the music industry.”
Swift, over the years, has become a (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-pride-month-eras-tour-chicago-1234746863/) staunch advocate of the LGBTQ+ community. She spoke out against anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in the United States at one of her Eras Tour concerts in 2023, encouraging fans to be intentional while voting at the ballot box.
Divisive social causes
Musicians who choose to publicly support social causes have a complex landscape to navigate. If the causes musicians advocate for are divisive, such as support for women’s abortion rights or refugees, they risk alienating part of their fanbase. This can lead to backlash and a potential loss of support from fans who hold opposing views.
One Reddit user (https://www.reddit.com/r/fantanoforever/comments/1bn0ylx/what_do_you_think_about_musicians_sharing/) described their discomfort in a discussion on this subject:
“I prefer musicians to not talk about politics, unless they are knowledgeable about what they’re talking about. There is a world of difference between someone being invested in an issue and bringing it to the stage and someone who just feels like they should add to a popular topic, and then rambles about some sentiment that they don’t even understand.”
This comment highlights the importance of musicians being well-informed about the causes they support, as superficial advocacy can hurt their credibility and lead to criticism. Faced with these risks, artists might choose to stay anonymous in their advocacy actions. By supporting causes quietly or behind the scenes, they can avoid public scrutiny and potential backlash.
But for those who do publicly support social causes, their careers can often benefit. Being consistent advocates not only improves musicians’ reputations, but also allows them to make a more substantial contribution to the causes they champion. By educating themselves about social issues and strengthening networks, they become more effective and are more likely to make a meaningful impact.

This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/public-advocacy-helps-musicians-fame-and-fortune-new-study-finds-234356) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/gender-differences-in-beauty-concerns-start-surprisingly-early-study-finds/) Gender differences in beauty concerns start surprisingly early, study finds
Aug 16th 2024, 16:00

It’s easy to imagine that concerns about beauty and appearance are adult preoccupations, but a new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14104) Child Development reveals that these worries start much earlier than most of us realize. Researchers have found that girls as young as three already place significant value on personal attractiveness, more so than their male counterparts.
The study sheds light on the early development of gender differences in valuing appearance, suggesting that societal expectations about beauty begin to shape children’s values and identities almost from the moment they begin to understand what it means to be a girl or a boy.
The study was motivated by a desire to understand how and when gender differences in the value placed on personal attractiveness emerge. Previous research has shown that by the time girls reach adolescence, many are already deeply concerned with their appearance, often tying their self-worth to how they look. However, little was known about how early these concerns begin and whether boys share similar preoccupations.
To explore these questions, the researchers recruited 170 children aged three to five years old from child centers in the Los Angeles and Orange County metropolitan areas. The sample was ethnically diverse, with children from Latiné, multiethnic, and non-Hispanic White American backgrounds, reflecting the demographic makeup of the region.
The children were interviewed one-on-one using a series of measures designed to assess how much they valued personal attractiveness. These measures included questions about their preferences for appearance-related occupations, their choices of gender-typed outfits, their memory for fancy clothing items, and their reasons for liking media characters. For example, children were asked to choose between different outfits, some of which were designed to be fancier and more gender-typed, and to recall specific details about clothing items worn by the researcher during the interview.
In addition to these behavioral measures, the children were also asked directly about the importance of being attractive. Girls were asked if they thought it was important to be pretty, while boys were asked if it was important to be handsome. The researchers also assessed the children’s knowledge of gender-attractiveness stereotypes by asking them whether they believed members of their gender needed to be attractive and whether they thought boys or girls cared more about looking good.
Across all measures, girls placed more value on personal attractiveness than boys. For instance, girls were more likely to prefer appearance-related occupations, such as being a ballet dancer or hair stylist, over other types of jobs. They also showed a stronger preference for fancier, more feminine outfits and were more likely to remember and focus on details about clothing and appearance. When asked directly, girls were more likely than boys to say that being pretty was important to them.
“Although young 3-to 5-year-old boys were not necessarily averse to caring about their personal attractiveness, our findings across multiple indicators suggest that they were more moderate in their levels. Young boys tended to score more toward the middle of the scales. Indeed, consistent with our hypothesis, it was striking that across all five measures of personal attractiveness valuing, there was a consistent and significant gender difference with girls valuing personal attractiveness more than boys.”
In addition to valuing attractiveness more than boys, girls also linked this trait more strongly with their gender identity. They were more likely to believe that being a girl means needing to be pretty and that girls, in general, care about their appearance. Boys, on the other hand, were less likely to make these connections, suggesting that attractiveness is less central to their sense of what it means to be a boy.
Interestingly, the study found that these gender differences were not significantly influenced by age within the three-to-five-year-old range. This suggests that girls begin to value personal attractiveness at a very young age, and this valuation remains relatively stable during early childhood.
While the study enhances our understanding of the early development of gender differences in valuing personal attractiveness, it is not without certain limitations. One limitation is that the study relied on self-reported and behavioral measures, which might not capture all aspects of how children value appearance. Future studies could benefit from incorporating naturalistic observations, such as watching how children interact during play or how they get dressed in the morning, to provide a more comprehensive picture.
“At first glance, some might take these findings as ‘obvious,’ but why must these patterns be so expected? We venture that most of us, if not all, are very familiar with cultural and societal expectations for girls and women to be beautiful that persist across the globe (Jeffreys, 2014); so much so that we take our gendered practices for granted,” the researchers wrote.
“For example, a strong female leader must not only be a capable leader but she is often penalized if her appearance is not up to par as well (Gurung et al., 2018). Effective girls and young women who achieve much in school, sports, and extracurriculars often report the burden of feeling like they have to do it all: be good at school, be morally good, and be good-looking (Pomerantz et al., 2013). Yet, observing that girls as young as age 3 are already attuned to these gendered values should, at the very least, give us pause. Our data suggest that young girls are sensitive to cultural values related to beauty as they are first forming their gender identities.”
The study, “(https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.14104) “She’s so pretty”: The development of valuing personal attractiveness among young children,” was authored by May Ling D. Halim, Lyric N. Russo, Kaelyn N. Echave, Sachiko Tawa, Dylan J. Sakamoto, and Miguel A. Portillo.

(https://www.psypost.org/groundbreaking-study-uncovers-male-female-differences-in-pain-sensing-nerve-cells/) Groundbreaking study uncovers male-female differences in pain-sensing nerve cells
Aug 16th 2024, 14:00

In a groundbreaking discovery, researchers have revealed that men and women experience pain differently at the cellular level. This difference is rooted in the nerve cells, known as nociceptors, which are responsible for transmitting pain signals to the brain. The study, conducted by scientists at the University of Arizona Health Sciences and published in the journal (https://academic.oup.com/brain/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/brain/awae179/7686987) BRAIN, marks the first time functional differences between male and female nociceptors have been identified.
The research was driven by a longstanding mystery in medicine: why do men and women often experience pain differently? Women are more frequently affected by certain chronic pain conditions, such as migraines and fibromyalgia, which have significantly higher prevalence rates in women than in men. Despite these observable differences, the biological mechanisms behind them have remained unclear.
The assumption has long been that pain is processed the same way in men and women. However, recent findings have suggested that this might not be the case, prompting researchers to explore the possibility of sex-based differences in pain perception at the cellular level.
The research team, led by Frank Porreca, focused on nociceptors, the nerve cells located near the spinal cord in the dorsal root ganglion. When these cells are activated by an injury or damage, they send pain signals through the spinal cord to the brain. The researchers wanted to determine if there were any differences in how these cells function in males and females.
“Nociceptors are the sensory nerves that convey signals to the central nervous system that there is danger of damage to the body. These cells are normally activated by high intensity stimuli (e.g., touching a hot stove) so that the information can produce a behavioral response (i.e., remove your hand from the stove),” explained Porreca, the Cosden Professor of Pain and Addiction Studies at the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center.
“However, under some circumstances (e.g., mild inflammation from a sunburn for example), even stimuli of low intensity that do not have the potential to damage the body can activate these neurons to produce a pain signal. This is called nociceptor sensitization and can be produced by many substances in the body.”
To examine this, they used tissue samples from male and female mice, nonhuman primates, and humans. These samples were exposed to two specific substances: prolactin and orexin B. Prolactin is a hormone primarily known for its role in lactation and breast tissue development, while orexin B is a neurotransmitter that helps regulate wakefulness. Interestingly, both prolactin and orexin B have other functions that are still being uncovered, including their potential roles in pain sensitization.
The researchers tested how these substances affected the activation thresholds of nociceptors. The activation threshold is the level of stimulus required to trigger a pain signal. In simpler terms, they wanted to see if these substances made it easier or harder for the nociceptors to send pain signals, and whether this effect differed between males and females.
The researchers discovered that prolactin and orexin B affect nociceptors differently in males and females. Specifically, prolactin was found to sensitize nociceptors in females, meaning that it made their nociceptors more likely to send pain signals even in response to lower-intensity stimuli. This effect was not observed in males. On the other hand, orexin B sensitized nociceptors in males but had no effect in females.
“We found that different substances could produce nociceptor sensitization in the neurons that came from male or female animals and then confirmed this in neurons taken from human donors,” Porreca told PsyPost. “This means that nociceptors can be functionally male or female and that we can differentially block the mechanisms promoting sex-specific sensitization to produce pain therapies specific for patient sex.”
These findings suggest that there are fundamental differences in how male and female nociceptors respond to certain stimuli. This is the first time that such a sex-specific difference in nociceptor function has been observed. The implications of this discovery are profound, as it challenges the long-held belief that the mechanisms driving pain are the same in both sexes.
“The main advance is the concept that there are male and female nociceptors,” Porreca said. “This is something that has never been appreciated and not taught. Considering this concept will result in different medicines and different clinical trials.”
To further confirm their findings, the researchers blocked the signaling pathways of prolactin and orexin B. When they blocked prolactin signaling, they found that nociceptor activation was reduced in females but not in males. Similarly, blocking orexin B signaling was effective in reducing nociceptor activation in males but had no effect in females. This demonstrated that the observed differences were indeed specific to these substances and their interactions with male and female nociceptors.
“Pain can be produced differently in men or women so individualized therapy is possible,” Porreca explained. “Please note that I am not saying that men or women feel more pain or that the pain perception is different in men or women. Only that we have an opportunity for ‘personalized medicine’ based on patient sex.”
While these findings are a significant step forward, the study does have its limitations. One of the primary limitations is the relatively small sample size, particularly when it comes to human tissue samples. The availability of such samples is limited, which constrains the scope of the study.
“Humans are so diverse,” Porreca noted. “We studied cells from human donors but increased numbers of cells from many different ages of humans, ethnic backgrounds, races, etc will be a consideration going forward.”
Additionally, while the study identified differences in nociceptor function between males and females, the underlying reasons for these differences remain unclear. Are these differences due to variations in receptor expression levels, or are there other factors at play? These are questions that will need to be explored in future research.
The study primarily focused on the effects of prolactin and orexin B. But it is likely that other substances also contribute to the observed sex differences in pain perception. Future research will need to explore other potential mechanisms and pathways that could be involved.
Looking ahead, the researchers plan to continue investigating other sexually dimorphic mechanisms of pain. They are particularly interested in exploring the potential for developing sex-specific pain treatments based on these findings. For instance, targeting prolactin signaling could be a promising approach for treating pain conditions that are more prevalent in women, while targeting orexin B signaling might be more effective for pain conditions that affect men.
“We hope to increased understanding to contribute to discovery of new pain therapies specifically for men or specifically for women,” Porreca said.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae179) Nociceptors are Functionally Male or Female: From Mouse to Monkey to Man,” was authored by Harrison Stratton, Grace Lee, Mahdi Dolatyari, Andre Ghetti, Tamara Cotta, Stefanie Mitchell, Xu Yue, Mohab Ibrahim, Nicolas Dumaire, Lyuba Salih, Aubin Moutal, Liberty François-Moutal, Laurent Martin, Edita Navratilova, and Frank Porreca.

(https://www.psypost.org/powerless-women-more-likely-to-endorse-benevolent-sexism-and-gender-inequalities/) Powerless women more likely to endorse benevolent sexism and gender inequalities
Aug 16th 2024, 12:00

An analysis of data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study revealed that women who feel powerless tend to endorse benevolent sexism more strongly. When their feelings of powerlessness increase, their endorsement of benevolent sexism at a later time also tends to rise. The research was recently published in the (https://www.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3092) European Journal of Social Psychology.
Sexism is the belief that one gender is inferior to the other. It manifests in various forms, including institutional sexism, where policies and laws disadvantage one gender; interpersonal sexism, involving discriminatory behavior between individuals; and internalized sexism, where individuals adopt sexist beliefs and attitudes about their own gender.
Sexism can be either hostile or benevolent. Hostile sexism is characterized by overt negativity and aggression towards individuals of a specific gender. In contrast, benevolent sexism appears positive but is based on the belief that individuals of each gender have specific roles they must perform, thus reinforcing these roles. Benevolent sexism perpetuates the idea that women are in need of care and are inherently weaker than men, while men are expected to be strong, stoic, and responsible for taking care of others. This reinforces the notion that men and women must conform to specific, restrictive roles in society.
Study author Matthew D. Hammond and his colleagues sought to investigate whether feelings of powerlessness motivate the endorsement of sexist attitudes. They hypothesized that powerless individuals might endorse sexism as a way to increase their power. Specifically, powerless men might be motivated to endorse attitudes that derogate women (i.e., hostile sexism) to elevate their perceived power over them. Conversely, powerless women might be more inclined to endorse benevolent sexism as a way to accentuate their power in relationships and secure resources by making men responsible for their care.
The researchers analyzed data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, a large, longitudinal research project that began in 2009. This study is designed to track the social attitudes, personality, and values of New Zealanders over time. Participants are randomly selected from the New Zealand Electoral Roll and invited each year to complete questionnaires assessing demographics, individual differences, beliefs, and perceptions about themselves and society.
For this analysis, data were used from 58,405 participants, who, on average, completed 2.77 questionnaires over four years during which the relevant measures were collected. Of these participants, 36,944 were women. The average age of participants was 50 years at the 10th data collection wave in 2018-2019.
Among other questionnaires, participants completed assessments of hostile and benevolent sexism (using the short version of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory) and of feelings of powerlessness (e.g., “I do not have enough power or control over important parts of my life” and “Other people have too much power or control over important parts of my life”).
In their analysis, the researchers compared associations between feelings of powerlessness and sexism at different time points—for example, the association between earlier sexism and later feelings of powerlessness, as well as the reverse. Such comparisons allow researchers to differentiate which of the studied factors is the likely cause and which is the consequence, as causes can produce effects in the future but not in the past.
The results showed that, overall, men who felt more powerless tended to display more hostile sexism. However, when the researchers examined whether changes in powerlessness in men were followed by changes in hostile sexism, no such association was found. There was no link between variations in feelings of powerlessness in men and changes in their hostile sexism over time. Men who endorsed hostile sexism also tended to endorse benevolent sexism.
For women, those who endorsed hostile sexism were also more likely to endorse benevolent sexism. Women who generally felt more powerless were more likely to endorse both hostile and benevolent sexism. However, when women’s feelings of powerlessness changed at one point, their endorsement of benevolent sexism at the following time point also tended to change. In other words, when women felt more powerless, they strengthened their endorsement of benevolent sexism, and vice versa.
“These results indicate that women may attempt to overcome feeling powerless by adhering to sexist attitudes that offer power via idealization of women’s qualities in intimate relationships. The novel evidence that women’s powerlessness motivates benevolent sexism represents a novel advance to understanding the conditions that promote women’s endorsement of attitudes that justify gender inequalities,” the study authors concluded.
The study makes an important contribution to the scientific understanding of the factors leading to the endorsement of sexism. However, it is important to note that the study was conducted solely on New Zealanders, and the results might not be identical for individuals from other cultures.
The paper, “(https://www.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3092) Does powerlessness motivate men and women to endorse sexism?”, was authored by Matthew D. Hammond, Nickola C. Overall, and Chris G. Sibley.

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/20240817/c0e6251f/attachment.htm>