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/women-fail-to-spot-heightened-infidelity-risk-in-benevolently-sexist-men-study-finds/) Women fail to spot heightened infidelity risk in benevolently sexist men, study finds
Aug 19th 2024, 10:00

A recent study published in (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2024.2338743) The Journal of Sex Research reveals that both hostile sexism — blatantly negative attitudes toward women — and benevolent sexism — seemingly chivalrous but ultimately patronizing views — are significant predictors of infidelity among men. The research also indicates that women often fail to recognize that men who exhibit benevolent sexism are just as likely to be unfaithful as those with hostile sexist attitudes.
Infidelity is a common issue, with studies showing that approximately 21% of men and 13% of women in the United States have engaged in infidelity at some point in their lives. The consequences of infidelity are significant, often leading to emotional distress, decreased self-esteem, trust issues, and in many cases, the dissolution of the relationship.
Previous research has identified a range of factors that can contribute to unfaithfulness, including insecure attachment styles, permissive sexual attitudes, and relationship dissatisfaction. However, the potential influence of sexist attitudes — both hostile and benevolent sexism — on infidelity had not been thoroughly investigated.
Hostile sexism refers to overtly negative attitudes and beliefs about women, characterized by resentment, mistrust, and a desire to maintain male dominance. It manifests in behaviors and statements that openly denigrate or seek to control women, often punishing those who defy traditional gender roles.
On the other hand, benevolent sexism is a more subtle form of sexism that can appear positive or protective. Benevolent sexism involves attitudes that idealize women as needing protection, care, and provision from men, reinforcing traditional gender roles by portraying women as delicate and dependent. It rewards traits that align with passivity and submission.
To explore whether men’s sexist attitudes were associated with a higher likelihood of infidelity, the researchers recruited 379 American men who had experience in romantic relationships. The participants were asked to complete an online survey that assessed their levels of hostile and benevolent sexism using the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, a well-established tool for measuring sexist beliefs.
In addition to measuring sexist attitudes, the survey also assessed participants’ intentions toward infidelity using the Intention Toward Infidelity Scale. This scale asked participants how likely they would be to cheat on their partner if they knew they wouldn’t get caught, among other questions.
Participants were also asked about their actual past infidelity behavior, as well as their experience with being cheated on by a partner. The study controlled for factors such as social desirability, to account for the possibility that participants might try to present themselves in a better light than is true.
The findings revealed that both hostile sexism and benevolent sexism were significant predictors of infidelity. Men who scored higher on these sexism scales were more likely to have cheated on their partner in the past and were more likely to express intentions to cheat in the future. This initial study provided evidence that men’s sexist attitudes are linked to infidelity, challenging the assumption that benevolent sexism, because it appears positive, would not be associated with such harmful behavior.
“Our study advances existing knowledge by showing that gender ideology regarding more generalized intergender relationships (i.e., men’s evaluations and stereotypes about women and not necessarily confined to one’s intimate relationship) can also predict infidelity,” the researchers wrote. “To the best of our knowledge, the current research is the first to highlight a unique role of men’s ambivalent sexism in predicting infidelity.”
In a subsequent study, the researchers sought to replicate the findings and explore the mechanisms behind the link between sexist attitudes and infidelity. This time, the sample size was increased to 544 American heterosexual men, again with experience in romantic relationships. The methodology was similar to Study 1, with participants completing the same measures of hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and intentions and behaviors related to infidelity. However, Study 2 introduced an additional variable: the importance placed on power in intimate relationships.
To measure this, participants responded to items adapted from the Sense of Power Scale, which was modified to assess how much importance they placed on having power over their intimate partner. This allowed the researchers to examine whether the desire for power served as an intermediary between sexist attitudes and infidelity.
The findings confirmed the previous results, showing that both hostile and benevolent sexism were related to infidelity. Importantly, the study also revealed that the importance placed on power in relationships acted as a mediator. Men who endorsed sexist attitudes were more likely to value power in their relationships, and this desire for power, in turn, was linked to a higher likelihood of infidelity.
Next, the researchers sought to better understand how women perceive the link between sexist attitudes and risk of infidelity. Specifically, the researchers wanted to know whether women could accurately gauge the infidelity risk associated with men who exhibit hostile or benevolent sexism.
To test this, 240 American women were recruited to participate in an experimental study. The women were randomly assigned to one of three conditions, each involving a fictional profile of a man named Mark.
In the hostile sexism condition, Mark was described as holding overtly negative attitudes toward women (e.g. “He holds the view that most women use men for their own ends and, when in a relationship, attempt to restrain a man’s independence and exert undue control over his behavior”). In the benevolent sexism condition, Mark was portrayed as having seemingly positive but paternalistic beliefs about women (e.g. “He sees women as being in need of male protection […] He holds the view that it is a man’s obligation to provide financial support and economic security for a woman”). In the control condition, Mark was depicted as having no sexist attitudes.
After reading the profiles, the women were asked to rate how likely they thought Mark was to be unfaithful to a romantic partner. They were also asked to rate how patronizing and controlling they believed Mark would be in a relationship.
Women correctly identified that a man with hostile sexist attitudes was more likely to be unfaithful. However, they did not perceive men with benevolent sexist attitudes as being at a higher risk for infidelity compared to non-sexist men. In fact, women rated the likelihood of infidelity for benevolently sexist men as similar to that of men with no sexist attitudes. This suggests that women may underestimate the infidelity risk posed by men who display benevolent sexism, likely because these attitudes are often mistaken for positive traits like protectiveness and commitment.
“Our findings are consistent with prior work showing that men with benevolent sexism are perceived as willing to commit to their relationships. Thus, women find them attractive even though women also perceive these men as patronizing and undermining,” the researchers wrote.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2338743) Both Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Predict Men’s Infidelity,” was authored by Qianying Huang, Xijing Wang, and Fei Teng.

(https://www.psypost.org/brains-in-sync-sisters-show-fascinating-neural-similarity-in-new-study/) Brains in sync: Sisters show fascinating neural similarity in new study
Aug 19th 2024, 08:00

A recent neuroimaging study conducted in Finland revealed that sisters exhibit more similar brain activity than friends or acquaintances when watching a movie. This increased similarity was particularly evident in brain areas associated with complex cognitive functions, including the default-mode network and sensory processing regions. The study, published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120712) NeuroImage, sheds light on the potential neural underpinnings of social bonds, suggesting that the closeness of relationships is reflected in the way our brains process shared experiences.
Homophily refers to the tendency for individuals to form connections with others who are similar to them in various ways, such as beliefs, values, social status, or demographic characteristics. This phenomenon is often observed in social networks, where people with similar backgrounds or interests are more likely to become friends, collaborate, or form communities. While homophily can strengthen social cohesion within groups, it can also contribute to divisions between different groups by limiting exposure to diverse perspectives.
In addition to homophily, people tend to exhibit a preference for family members, known as kinship premium. Kinship premium refers to the stronger bonds and preference for kin over non-kin, stemming from shared ancestry and genotypes. These connections result in relationships that are often more stable and enduring, even across generations and despite physical separation. Family ties, particularly between siblings, are reinforced by shared experiences, upbringing, and emotional closeness.
Previous research has indicated that friends tend to have more similar brain activity patterns than acquaintances when watching the same movie, hinting at a form of neural homophily. However, Mareike Bacha-Trams and her colleagues sought to investigate whether this neural similarity extends to family members, particularly sisters. Specifically, they aimed to determine if the brain activity of sisters is more similar than that of female friends. The researchers also examined whether these similarities could be explained by other factors such as anatomical similarities, eye movements, heart rates, or breathing patterns.
The study involved 30 healthy women aged 19 to 39, organized into 10 triplets. Each triplet consisted of two sisters and a female friend of one of the sisters, who was an acquaintance of the other sister. This setup allowed the researchers to compare brain activity across three types of relationships: sisters, friends, and acquaintances.
Participants watched a 24-minute edited version of the movie My Sister’s Keeper, which presents a moral dilemma involving two sisters: Anna, who is asked to donate a kidney to her terminally ill sister Kate, but refuses. The emotional and ethical complexity of the film made it an ideal stimulus for exploring how different social relationships might influence brain activity.
Each participant underwent four fMRI sessions, watching the movie under different conditions. In each session, participants were instructed to view the movie from the perspective of one of the sisters, combined with information that the sisters in the movie were either genetically related or that one was adopted. After the second session, participants viewed the original ending of the movie, which reveals that the sick sister had asked her healthy sister to refuse the donation. The participants then reported whether this revelation altered their perception of the characters.
Following the fMRI sessions, participants completed various assessments, including questions about the movie, the Hatfield’s Emotional Contagion Scale (which measures emotional empathy), and the BIS/BAS scale (which assesses behavioral inhibition and activation). They also rated their arousal levels during the movie.
The results showed that the brain activity of sisters was more similar than that of friends, and the brain activity of friends was more similar than that of acquaintances. This increased similarity in brain activity was found in widespread areas of the parietal, temporal, and occipital cortices, as well as in parts of the frontal cortex, both laterally and medially. These regions are involved in higher cognitive processes, not just basic sensory perception.
One of the most significant findings was the increased similarity in the default-mode network, a group of brain regions that are active when the mind is at rest and not focused on external stimuli. The default-mode network is associated with self-reflection, daydreaming, and thinking about past or future events. The researchers found that sisters, more than friends or acquaintances, processed and evaluated the movie’s events in a similarly complex and reflective manner.
Interestingly, the similarity in brain activity among sisters could not be attributed to shared eye movements, emotional responses, or physiological factors like heart rate and breathing. This suggests that the resemblance in brain activity is likely due to deeper, possibly intrinsic factors related to their relationship.
“Our findings show that sisters, beyond the simple perception of the stimulus, process and evaluate the events in the movie in a more similar way than subjects with a different relationship. The close resemblance in brain activity between sisters may be a result of common genes, although this possibility is not very likely, as within this study we controlled for the possibility that sisters have higher structural brain similarities. Overall, these results might partly help explain why more cognitive effort is exerted when thinking about friends than when thinking about kin as higher similarity in how one perceives the world makes it less effortful to mentalize about kin than friends, and about friends than about acquaintances.”, study authors concluded.
The study demonstrates that homophily likely has a neural basis. However, it should be noted that the number of study participants was very small, all were women, and they watched only a single movie. Results from studies involving males, different movies, or larger groups of participants might not be identical.
The paper, “(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924002064) Sisterhood predicts similar neural processing of a film,” was authored by Mareike Bacha-Trams, Gökce Ertas Yorulmaz, Enrico Glerean, Elisa Ryyppö, Karoliina Tapani, Eero Virmavirta, Jenni Saaristo, Iiro P. Jääskeläinen, and Mikko Sams.

(https://www.psypost.org/emotional-distress-among-voters-tied-to-trumps-populist-appeal-research-shows/) Emotional distress among voters tied to Trump’s populist appeal, research shows
Aug 19th 2024, 06:00

Feelings of sadness, anger, and despair might hold the key to understanding the rise of populist leaders like Donald Trump in recent years. A large-scale study published in (https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001326) American Psychologist suggests that negative emotions among voters are not only linked to populist attitudes but are also significant predictors of populist voting behavior in major elections. This research, which spans over 150 countries and includes the analysis of more than 2 billion tweets, emphasizes the overlooked role of emotions like sadness and depression in driving the demand for populism.
Populism is characterized by three main tenets: anti-elitism, a Manichean worldview (dividing society into good, ordinary people versus evil elites), and people-centrism, which holds that politics should directly reflect the will of the people. Populism can manifest across the political spectrum, from right-wing nationalism to left-wing socialism, depending on the context and the issues at hand.
The study was motivated by the growing prominence of populist leaders and movements across the globe, from the United Kingdom’s Brexit referendum to the election of Trump in the United States. Despite numerous studies exploring economic and cultural reasons for the rise of populism, the psychological aspects, particularly the role of emotions, have been less thoroughly examined.
Given the increasing levels of negative emotions worldwide, as reported in various large-scale surveys, the researchers aimed to investigate whether these emotions could be a significant factor in driving the popularity of populist ideologies and candidates.
The research was carried out in several phases across multiple studies, employing both survey data and advanced text analysis techniques.
In the first phase (Studies 1a and 1b), the researchers used data from large international surveys, including the Gallup World Poll, which surveyed over 1.3 million respondents from more than 150 countries. These surveys asked participants about their recent emotional experiences — specifically whether they felt anger, worry, or sadness — and measured their political attitudes toward populism.
The findings from Study 1a revealed a strong and consistent relationship between negative emotions and populist attitudes. Individuals who reported experiencing higher levels of anger, worry, or sadness were significantly more likely to endorse populist beliefs. This pattern held across a diverse range of countries, suggesting that negative emotions may be a global driver of populist attitudes, irrespective of cultural or political context.
Study 1b corroborated and extended the findings of Study 1a. Negative emotions were again found to be positively correlated with populist attitudes. However, the study also revealed some nuances. For instance, while anger, worry, and stress were strongly associated with anti-elitism and a Manichean worldview, sadness and anxiety showed weaker associations. Interestingly, people-centrism, a key component of populism, was negatively associated with negative affect, suggesting that not all aspects of populism are driven by negative emotions.
Jochen Menges, an associate professor in organizational behavior at Cambridge Judge Business School and director of the Center for Leadership in the Future of Work at the University of Zurich, and a co-author of the study, said: “Emotions matter for how people vote. Negative emotions such as anger, fear and sadness are a fertile ground for populists. In a year in which half of humanity goes to vote, our research calls for all politicians to alleviate rather than avail themselves of negative emotions.”
In the second phase (Study 2), the researchers examined how changes in negative emotions over time within a country could predict the vote shares of populist parties in general elections across 24 European countries. This analysis used data from the Gallup World Poll, comparing emotions such as anger, worry, and sadness with subsequent election results.
The findings from Study 2 provided strong evidence that increases in national levels of negative emotions were associated with higher vote shares for populist parties. Specifically, the researchers found that a one standard deviation increase in negative affect within a country was associated with a 5.6 percentage point increase in the populist vote share.
This relationship was robust even after controlling for macroeconomic factors, suggesting that negative emotions may play a more direct role in driving populist electoral success than previously understood. Furthermore, the researchers found that while all three negative emotions — anger, worry, and sadness — were linked to increased populist voting, sadness emerged as a particularly strong predictor, challenging the common focus on anger and fear in discussions of populism.
The third phase (Studies 3, 4a, and 4b) involved analyzing over 2 billion tweets from the United Kingdom and the United States to measure expressed emotions at a regional level. This method used natural language processing to assess how often words related to anger, anxiety, and depression appeared in tweets. The researchers then compared these findings with voting patterns in key events such as the Brexit referendum and the U.S. presidential elections in 2016 and 2020.
Andrew Schwartz, an associate professor in computer science and director of HLAB (Human Language Analysis Beings) at Stony Brook University and a co-author of the study, said: “Analyzing digital language has come a long way. It can supplement traditional surveys with measurements of life, as lived online, and recent methods are making such measurement accurate by, for example, producing more representative statistics from biased samples. All of this makes it possible to measure emotion at scales never before possible.”
The results from Study 3 showed a strong correlation between expressed negative emotions and support for Brexit. Areas with higher levels of anger, anxiety, and depression in tweets were significantly more likely to vote for Leave. Notably, anger was the most robust predictor, with a one standard deviation increase in anger levels associated with a 3 percentage point increase in the Leave vote share. These findings suggest that the emotional tone of public discourse, as reflected on social media, can be a powerful predictor of populist voting behavior.
George Ward, a junior research fellow in economics at the University of Oxford, where he is affiliated with Somerville College and the Wellbeing Research Centre, and lead author of the study, said: “It has become political lore that the state of the main economic indicators is what determines elections. But a growing body of evidence shows that how people are feeling matters just as much, if not more.”
“Even if the economy is doing well from an objective standpoint, if voters are regularly experiencing large amounts of negative emotions – like sadness, anger, and fear – then the data suggests that there is fertile ground for populists to make electoral gains.”
The findings from Study 4a revealed that expressed negative emotions were strongly predictive of Trump’s vote share. Counties where tweets contained higher levels of anger, anxiety, and depression were more likely to support Trump. Interestingly, while anger was a strong predictor, anxiety and depression were equally, if not more, strongly associated with Trump voting. This challenges the common narrative that focuses primarily on anger as the driving emotion behind populist support.
Study 4b provided insights into how changes in public sentiment influenced electoral outcomes over time. The findings indicated that counties experiencing a reduction in negative emotions were less likely to support Trump in 2020 compared to 2016. Conversely, counties where negative affect increased were more likely to maintain or increase their support for Trump. This suggests that while populist candidates can capitalize on negative emotions to gain power, sustaining that support may require addressing the underlying causes of those emotions.
Sandra Matz, the David W. Zalaznick Associate Professor of Business at Columbia Business School and a co-author of the study, said: “Populist leaders thrive on tapping into negative emotions to gain power at the ballot box, but their hold on power becomes precarious once in office. Once elected, they need to deliver on their promises of radical change to keep the backing of an emotionally charged electorate.”
“Our research challenges conventional wisdom, revealing that negative emotions among voters not only call for change but also demand accountability from those in power. In today’s turbulent political landscape, understanding these dynamics is vital for any populist incumbent seeking to stay in the voters’ good graces.”
While the study provides evidence of the link between negative emotions and populist support, there are some limitations to consider. For instance, the study is largely correlational, meaning it cannot definitively prove that negative emotions cause increased support for populism. While the researchers took steps to rule out reverse causality (e.g., the possibility that populist campaigns increased negative emotions), the complex interplay between emotions and political behavior requires further investigation.
“Across a range of geographical and political contexts, we establish a clear link between negative affect and support for populism. While each of our settings, samples, and methodologies has both advantages and disadvantages, taken together, the analyses tell a compelling story of a robust empirical link between negative affect and the demand for political populism,” the researchers concluded.
The study, “(https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2025-06636-001.html) The Role of Negative Affect in Shaping Populist Support: Converging Field Evidence From Across the Globe,” George Ward, H. Andrew Schwartz, Salvatore Giorgi, Jochen I. Menges, and Sandra C. Matz.

(https://www.psypost.org/meditation-can-backfire-worsening-mental-health-problems/) Meditation can backfire, worsening mental health problems
Aug 18th 2024, 16:00

Since mindfulness it’s something you can practice at home for free, it often sounds like the perfect tonic for stress and mental health issues. Mindfulness is a type of Buddhist-based meditation in which you focus on being aware of what you’re sensing, thinking and feeling in the present moment.
The first recorded evidence for this, found in India, is over 1,500 years old. The Dharmatrāta Meditation Scripture, written by a community of Buddhists, describes various practices and includes reports of (https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/40700/chapter/348434857?login=true) symptoms of depression and anxiety that can occur after meditation. It also details cognitive anomalies associated with episodes of psychosis, dissociation and depersonalisation (when people feel the world is “unreal”).
In the past eight years there has been a surge of scientific research in this area. These studies show that adverse effects are not rare. A (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10503307.2021.1933646) 2022 study, using a sample of 953 people in the US who meditated regularly, showed that over 10% of participants experienced adverse effects which had a significant negative impact on their everyday life and lasted for at least one month.
According to a (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acps.13225) review of over 40 years of research that was published in 2020, the most common adverse effects are anxiety and depression. These are followed by psychotic or delusional symptoms, dissociation or depersonalisation, and fear or terror.
Research also found that (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-022-01915-6) adverse effects can happen to people without previous mental health problems, to those who have only had (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-open/article/prevalence-predictors-and-types-of-unpleasant-and-adverse-effects-of-meditation-in-regular-meditators-international-crosssectional-study/81E6E9CF2FEE32BC8E97AE9853FD13BC) a moderate exposure to meditation and they can lead to (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176239) long-lasting symptoms.
The western world has also had evidence about these adverse affects for a long time. In 1976, Arnold Lazarus, a key figure in the cognitive-behavioural science movement, said that meditation, when used indiscriminately, (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.2466/pr0.1976.39.2.601?src=getftr) could induce “serious psychiatric problems such as depression, agitation, and even schizophrenic decompensation”.
There is evidence that mindfulness (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1809754) can benefit people’s wellbeing. The problem is that mindfulness coaches, videos, apps and books rarely warn people about the potential adverse effects.
Professor of management and ordained Buddhist teacher Ronald Purser wrote in his 2023 book (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/06/mcmindfulness-ronald-purser-mindfulness-christina-feldman-willem-kuyken-review) McMindfulness that mindfulness has become a kind of “capitalist spirituality”. In the US alone, meditation is worth US$2.2 billion (£1.7 billion). And the senior figures in the mindfulness industry should be aware of the problems with meditation. Jon Kabat-Zinn, a key figure behind the mindfulness movement, admitted in a (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/22/mindfulness-jon-kabat-zinn-depression-trump-grenfell) 2017 interview with the Guardian that “90% of the research [into the positive impacts] is subpar”.
In his (https://www.themindfulnessinitiative.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=1af56392-4cf1-4550-bdd1-72e809fa627a) foreword to the 2015 UK Mindfulness All-Party Parliamentary Report, Jon Kabat-Zinn suggests that mindfulness meditation can eventually transform “who we are as human beings and individual citizens, as communities and societies, as nations, and as a species”.
This religious-like enthusiasm for the power of mindfulness to change not only individual people but the course of humanity is common among advocates. Even many atheists and agnostics who practice mindfulness (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-023-02164-x) believe that this practice has the power to increase peace and compassion in the world.
Media discussion of mindfulness has also been somewhat imbalanced. In 2015, my book with clinical psychologist Catherine Wikholm, (https://literaryreview.co.uk/mindfulness-over-matter) Buddha Pill, included a chapter summarising the research on meditation adverse effects. It was widely disseminated by the media, including a (https://miguelfarias.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/new-scientist2015_darksidemeditation.pdf) New Scientist article, and a (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0738hm2) BBC Radio 4 documentary.
But there was little media coverage in 2022 of the (https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/25/3/117) most expensive study in the history of meditation science (over US$8 million funded by research charity the Wellcome Trust). The study tested more than 8,000 children (aged 11-14) across 84 schools in the UK from 2016 to 2018. Its results showed that mindfulness failed to improve the mental wellbeing of children compared to a control group, and may even have had detrimental effects on those who were at risk of mental health problems.
Ethical implications
Is it ethical to sell mindfulness apps, teach people meditation classes, or even use mindfulness in clinical practice without mentioning its adverse effects? Given the evidence of how varied and common these effects are, the answer should be no.
However, many meditation and mindfulness instructors believe that these practices can only do good and don’t know about the potential for adverse effects. The most common account I hear from people who have suffered adverse meditation effects is that the teachers don’t believe them. They’re usually told to just (https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbaedd/meditation-is-a-powerful-mental-tool-and-for-some-it-goes-terribly-wrong) keep meditating and it will go away.
Research about how to safely practice meditation has only recently begun, which means there isn’t yet clear advice to give people. There is a wider problem in that meditation deals with unusual states of consciousness and we don’t have psychological theories of mind to help us understand these states.
But there are resources people can use to learn about these adverse effects. These include websites (https://meditatinginsafety.org.uk) produced by meditators who experienced serious adverse effects and (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-meditation-9780198808640?cc=us&lang=en&#) academic handbooks with dedicated sections to this topic. In the US there is a (https://www.cheetahhouse.org/about) clinical service dedicated to people who have experienced acute and long term problems, led by a mindfulness researcher.
For now, if meditation is to be used as a wellbeing or therapeutic tool, the public needs to be informed about its potential for harm.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/meditation-can-be-harmful-and-can-even-make-mental-health-problems-worse-230435) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/psychiatrists-observe-a-bizarre-case-of-orgasm-induced-synesthesia/) Psychiatrists report a bizarre case of orgasm-induced synesthesia
Aug 18th 2024, 14:00

A case study published in the (https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v17i2.8915) Iranian Journal of Psychiatry has brought to light a bizarre phenomenon: a man who experiences orgasm in a vibrant burst of color and intense chest pain as a sensation of whiteness. This case offers a unique perspective on synesthesia, a condition where the boundaries between the senses become intriguingly blurred.
Synesthesia is a rare neurological phenomenon where stimulation of one sense involuntarily triggers another. For instance, some people might see colors when they hear music or taste flavors when they read words. This condition has been recognized since the eighteenth century, but it wasn’t until recent decades that researchers began to understand its prevalence and diversity. It’s now estimated that around 4% of the population experiences some form of synesthesia, with certain groups, such as artists, displaying even higher rates.
The case in question revolves around “Mr. R,” a 31-year-old Caucasian male with no significant psychiatric history or developmental abnormalities. His life took an unusual turn when, during an episode of sexual intercourse, he experienced a dramatic change in his vision at the moment of orgasm. He described the phenomenon as seeing objects with increased sharpness and brightness, all tinted with a dominant pink hue. Even in a dark room, his surroundings seemed as if bathed in early morning light, a surreal experience that he found difficult to explain.
Upon consulting with specialists, Mr. R was introduced to the concept of synesthesia. He then recalled another peculiar experience from his youth: during episodes of severe chest pain linked to a heart condition known as mitral valve prolapse, he would feel a sensation he described as “white.” This feeling of whiteness was distinct and not associated with any visual disturbance or common symptoms like lightheadedness, often reported by others with similar heart conditions. Interestingly, this “white” sensation was only tied to the intense chest pains he experienced during childhood and did not persist into adulthood.
To understand Mr. R’s experiences better, a series of tests were conducted, including visual organization and imagery assessments. The results showed no abnormalities, confirming that his visual perceptions were otherwise typical. Given these findings, the diagnosis of synesthesia was made, recognizing that Mr. R’s case involved two particularly rare forms: colored pain and orgasm in color.
Synesthesia, while fascinating, is not fully understood. The condition’s rarity and the wide variety of manifestations it can take make it a challenging subject for study. There are over 150 reported types of synesthesia, each with unique characteristics. Common forms include seeing colors when hearing sounds or associating specific tastes with particular words. However, experiences like colored pain and orgasm in color are among the rarest, reported in only a small fraction of cases.
The case of Mr. R is especially noteworthy because it involves the coexistence of these two rare forms. While synesthesia is generally consistent—meaning that once a particular trigger is associated with a sensory response, it remains stable over time—Mr. R’s experience was less consistent. He could not recall if the colored orgasm sensation was present earlier in his life, and the pain-color synesthesia was specific to his childhood chest pains. This variability adds another layer of complexity to understanding how synesthesia operates.
The study also explored whether Mr. R’s synesthetic experiences impacted his sexual satisfaction. Previous research has suggested that synesthesia during sexual activity might influence one’s overall sexual experience, potentially enhancing some aspects while diminishing others. For example, a study cited in the case report indicated that women with synesthesia might experience increased sexual desire but also reduced engagement with their partner during intercourse due to being more absorbed in the synesthetic experience. However, in Mr. R’s case, his sexual life was unaffected by the colored orgasms, and he reported no dysfunction or dissatisfaction.
The report also highlights some limitations, particularly the absence of advanced diagnostic workups such as brain imaging. Such imaging could have provided more insights into the neurological basis of Mr. R’s synesthesia, potentially shedding light on how his brain processes sensory information in such an atypical way. Without these data, the exact mechanisms underlying his condition remain speculative.
The case report, “(https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v17i2.8915) Experiencing Pain or Orgasm with Color Synesthesia: A Rare Case in a Young Previously Healthy Male,” was authored by Afsaneh Rezaei Kalat, Reza Jafarzadeh Esfehani, and Farhad Farid Hosseini.

(https://www.psypost.org/taiwanese-public-largely-rejects-gender-self-identification-survey-finds/) Taiwanese public largely rejects gender self-identification, survey finds
Aug 18th 2024, 12:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02819-3) Archives of Sexual Behaviour reveals that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese respondents strongly oppose gender self-identification for transgender women.
Gender self-identification, particularly for transgender individuals, is a contentious issue in Taiwan, despite the progressive stance on LGBTQ rights in other areas. The Gender Recognition Act mandates proof of sex-reassignment surgery (SRS) for legal gender change on identification documents. This requirement has faced backlash, with debates intensifying after a 2021 court ruling allowed a transgender individual to change their gender on official documents without SRS, provided psychiatric evaluations were submitted.
Kuo-Yu Chao and colleagues recruited residents across Taiwan and its outlying islands, gathering responses between April 16 and 30, 2022. The survey included demographic questions and 14 statements related to transgender women and their rights (e.g., “Trans women can be housed in female jails”), with responses recorded on a binary agree-disagree scale. The survey was divided into three categories: women’s safety, women’s rights, and law and society. A total of 10,158 valid responses were analyzed.
The survey revealed overwhelming opposition to gender self-identification among the respondents. A surprising 91.6% of participants disagreed with all 14 survey statements, indicating strong resistance to the idea that transgender women should be granted rights and access typically afforded to cisgender women. For instance, only 6.1% agreed that transgender women should use women’s public toilets, and 4.2% supported their participation in women’s sporting events.
Female respondents, parents, and older individuals (≥ 36 years) showing stronger opposition compared to their counterparts. While respondents with a college degree and those without showed no significant differences in their levels of opposition, supporters of same-sex marriage and teaching gender identity had higher agreement scores but still exhibited low overall support. Open-ended feedback emphasized concerns about women’s safety, rights, and the impact on children, with only a minority supporting gender diversity and opposing rigid gender binaries. These findings suggest that any legislative changes in this area may encounter significant public resistance.
A limitation is the predominantly female sample which may not fully reflect the broader population’s view.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02819-3) Gender Self-Identification: Opinions About Transgender Women from a National Online Survey in Taiwan”, was authored by Kuo-Yu Chao, Chih-Chiang Chou, Ching-I Chen, and Wei Cheng.

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/20240819/d3a699b5/attachment.htm>