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/magic-mushrooms-may-help-reverse-stress-induced-memory-deficits-new-study-suggests/) Magic mushrooms may help reverse stress-induced memory deficits, new study suggests
Dec 6th 2024, 08:00

Researchers have discovered that extracts from Psilocybe cubensis, commonly known as magic mushrooms, may play a role in reversing memory deficits caused by chronic stress. The study, published in the (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02791072.2024.2428241) Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, found that when administered under specific conditions, the mushroom extract restored spatial learning and memory impairments and increased levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein essential for brain plasticity. These effects were observed in rats subjected to a chronic unpredictable mild stress protocol, a widely used animal model for inducing stress-related cognitive deficits.
Magic mushrooms have long been recognized for their psychoactive effects, primarily due to their active components, psilocybin and psilocin. These compounds influence serotonin receptors, particularly 5-HT2A, which are associated with mood regulation, cognitive processes, and neuroplasticity. Previous studies have shown that psilocybin can enhance synaptic plasticity, increase dendritic spine density, and upregulate genes related to neuroplasticity.
Chronic unpredictable mild stress is a model often used to mimic the effects of long-term stress in humans. It involves exposing animals to a series of mild but unpredictable stressors over several weeks, leading to behavioral and physiological changes such as anxiety, depression-like symptoms, and cognitive impairments. Previous research has demonstrated that chronic stress reduces BDNF levels in the hippocampus, a brain region critical for memory and learning. In their new study, the researchers sought to explore whether Psilocybe cubensis extract could mitigate these effects.
“Psychedelics have very interesting mechanisms. These substances are like a double-edged sword. It seems that most psychedelics, at very low doses, can have very powerful and rapid effects on stimulating neurogenesis and improving mental disorders, especially depression,” said study author Salar Vaseghi, the head of the Cognitive Neuroscience Lab at the Iranian Institute of Medicinal Plants.
“Since in depression, a person seriously needs to ‘change their perspective and mindset,’ significant and rapid stimulation of neurogenesis can be a lifesaver, especially for treatment-resistant depression. Also, psychedelics such as psilocybin can be very beneficial for cognitive impairments.”
The researchers used male Wistar rats as their subjects, dividing them into groups based on whether they were exposed to chronic stress and whether they received Psilocybe cubensis extract or a placebo. In total, 140 rats participated, with each experimental group containing seven rats. Stress was induced using a chronic unpredictable mild stress protocol over four weeks, involving a rotation of stressors such as food and water deprivation, exposure to cold water, and heat stress. Rats not subjected to stress served as controls.
The effects of the Psilocybe cubensis extract were tested at varying times relative to training sessions in a water maze, a standard tool for evaluating spatial learning and memory in rodents. This maze requires rats to locate a hidden platform using visual cues, and their performance provides insights into their spatial memory and learning capabilities. The researchers measured escape latency (time taken to find the platform) and the distance traveled during the trials. A subsequent probe test assessed memory retention.
To examine the molecular effects, particularly on BDNF levels, researchers collected hippocampal tissue after the tests and analyzed it using real-time polymerase chain reaction.
The researchers found that rats exposed to chronic stress showed impairments in spatial learning and memory compared to unstressed controls, confirming the cognitive deficits induced by chronic unpredictable mild stress. These stressed rats also had lower levels of BDNF in their hippocampus, aligning with prior research on the impact of stress on brain plasticity.
When Psilocybe cubensis extract was administered 24 or 48 hours before training, it restored spatial learning and increased BDNF levels in stressed rats. Notably, only the 48-hour pre-training administration also reversed memory deficits observed during the probe test. In contrast, administering the extract immediately before or after training, or shortly before the probe test, had no beneficial effects on stressed rats.
Interestingly, in non-stressed control rats, the extract impaired both spatial learning and memory when given at most time points, except when administered 48 hours before training. Under these conditions, it increased BDNF levels without negatively affecting cognitive performance.
“The most important point to note is the dose- and time-dependent properties of psychedelic substances,” Vaseghi told PsyPost. “Psilocybin in this study showed that it acts very time-dependently. Importantly, psychedelics behave very unpredictably.”
But as with all research, there are caveats to consider. First, the study focused exclusively on male rats, leaving open the question of whether similar effects would be observed in females. Additionally, the long-term consequences of Psilocybe cubensis administration remain unclear, as the study only assessed short-term outcomes. The specific dose used in the study (20 mg/kg) might not generalize to other doses or forms of psilocybin.
Another limitation is the use of the mushroom extract rather than purified psilocybin or psilocin, making it challenging to pinpoint the active compound responsible for the observed effects. Furthermore, while the Morris water maze is a well-established tool for studying spatial memory, it does not capture all dimensions of cognitive function or the broader behavioral changes associated with chronic stress.
Future research could explore the mechanisms underlying the time-dependent effects of Psilocybe cubensis observed in this study. For example, why did only the 48-hour pre-training administration restore both spatial learning and memory in stressed rats? Investigating the role of other plasticity-related molecules and pathways, as well as expanding the range of behavioral and cognitive tests, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how psilocybin-containing mushrooms affect the brain. Clinical studies in humans would also be necessary to determine whether these findings translate to stress-related cognitive impairments in people.
“The most important warning is the general use of psychedelics,” Vaseghi said. “Psychedelic drugs can be very dangerous and should not be freely available to the public. The best thing to do is to make psychedelics available at medical centers in microdoses.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2024.2428241) The Effect of Psilocybe cubensis on Spatial Memory and BDNF Expression in Male Rats Exposed to Chronic Unpredictable Mild Stress,” was authored by Reza Ghaffarzadegan, Mokhtar Karimi, Behnaz Hedayatjoo, Hamidreza Behnoud, Eghbal Jasemi, Mahsa Mohammadi, Samira Roustaei, Ali Razmi, and Salar Vaseghi.

(https://www.psypost.org/brain-imaging-study-links-reduced-synaptic-density-to-social-challenges-in-autism/) Brain imaging study links reduced synaptic density to social challenges in autism
Dec 6th 2024, 06:00

A new study published in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02776-2) Molecular Psychiatry has provided groundbreaking insights into the biological underpinnings of autism, revealing that adults with autism have fewer synapses in their brains than neurotypical individuals. Using a type of brain imaging called positron emission tomography, researchers measured synaptic density directly in living individuals for the first time. They discovered a strong link between reduced synaptic density and difficulties in social interaction and communication, offering a potential explanation for some of the challenges faced by autistic people.
Autism spectrum disorder is a complex condition that affects communication, behavior, and social interaction. Although it is well established that genetic and environmental factors play roles in autism, the biological mechanisms behind its features remain unclear. Many researchers have speculated that synapses, the connections that allow brain cells to communicate, are altered in autism. Previous studies have suggested this possibility based on animal models and post-mortem brain tissue, but these methods provide only indirect evidence.
To address this gap, the research team at Yale School of Medicine aimed to directly measure synaptic density in living individuals with autism. They hoped to uncover whether reduced synapses might be a factor in the social and communicative challenges experienced by autistic people, as well as to explore how these changes might inform future therapeutic approaches.
The study involved 32 adults between the ages of 18 and 35. Of these, 12 were autistic, and 20 were neurotypical. The two groups were matched for age and gender, ensuring comparability. All participants underwent extensive health and psychological screening, with autistic participants meeting rigorous diagnostic criteria through clinical evaluation and standardized assessments. To ensure the validity of the findings, participants with other medical or psychiatric conditions, a history of substance abuse, or current use of medications affecting synaptic density were excluded.
The researchers utilized an advanced form of positron emission tomography featuring a radioactive tracer, 11C-UCB-J, developed in collaboration with the Yale PET Center. This tracer binds to a protein uniquely located in synaptic vesicles, enabling precise quantification of synapses across different brain regions. To complement the positron emission tomography scans, participants also underwent magnetic resonance imaging, ensuring accurate mapping of the collected data. Each imaging session lasted approximately 90 minutes, during which detailed information on synaptic density was gathered and analyzed.
The findings revealed a consistent pattern: adults with autism had fewer synapses throughout their brains compared to neurotypical individuals. On average, synaptic density was about 10% lower in the autistic group, with particularly pronounced differences in regions known to be important for social and cognitive functions, such as the parietal cortex.
One of the most striking discoveries was the strong correlation between synaptic density and social-communicative function. Participants with fewer synapses were more likely to exhibit greater difficulties in social interaction and communication, as measured by clinical assessments. These relationships were observed across the entire brain, not limited to regions traditionally associated with social behavior. This suggests that the challenges faced by autistic individuals might stem from widespread differences in how their brains process and transmit information.
The findings align with previous research indicating that genetic and developmental factors affecting synaptic plasticity may play a role in autism. However, this study is unique in its ability to directly measure synapses in living individuals, providing the first clear evidence of reduced synaptic density as a characteristic feature of autism.
“As simple as our findings sound, this is something that has eluded our field for the past 80 years,” said James McPartland, the Harris Professor of Child Psychiatry and Psychology at the Yale Child Study Center and the study’s principal investigator. “And this is truly remarkable—because it’s very unusual to see correlations between brain differences and behavior this strong in a condition as complex and heterogeneous as autism.”
Despite its groundbreaking nature, the study has some limitations. The sample size, while typical for a study involving positron emission tomography, was relatively small, and the findings need to be replicated in larger and more diverse groups. Additionally, all participants were adults, meaning the study could not address how synaptic density might change over the course of development. Future research will need to explore these changes in younger individuals to determine whether reduced synaptic density is a cause of autism or a result of living with the condition.
This research marks a significant step forward in understanding the biology of autism. By identifying synaptic differences as a key feature of the condition, the findings offer a potential pathway for developing new interventions. For instance, therapies aimed at improving synaptic function might help alleviate some of the social and communicative challenges faced by autistic individuals.
The researchers are already exploring less invasive and more affordable imaging methods that could make it easier to study these brain differences in larger and younger populations. They are also investigating how reduced synaptic density might relate to other challenges commonly associated with autism, such as heightened risks for anxiety and depression. “This is something that’s really important for us to investigate to serve our overarching goal, which is to get information that can maximize the quality of life for autistic people,” McPartland explained.
The study, “11C-UCB-J PET imaging is consistent with lower synaptic density in autistic adults,” was authored by David Matuskey, Yanghong Yang, Mika Naganawa, Sheida Koohsari, Takuya Toyonaga, Paul Gravel, Brian Pittman, Kristen Torres, Lauren Pisani, Caroline Finn, Sophie Cramer-Benjamin, Nicole Herman, Lindsey H. Rosenthal, Cassandra J. Franke, Bridget M. Walicki, Irina Esterlis, Patrick Skosnik, Rajiv Radhakrishnan, Julie M. Wolf, Nabeel Nabulsi, Jim Ropchan, Yiyun Huang, Richard E. Carson, Adam J. Naples, and James C. McPartland.

(https://www.psypost.org/women-in-strength-sports-confront-gender-norms-and-find-empowerment/) Women in strength sports confront gender norms and find empowerment
Dec 5th 2024, 14:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01521-x) Sex Roles highlights the experiences of women athletes and coaches in traditionally male-dominated strength sports like Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, CrossFit, and strongman. Researchers found that women in these fields confront societal expectations about femininity and strength while navigating challenges related to body image, relationships with male athletes and coaches, and underrepresentation in the sport. Despite these obstacles, the women expressed empowerment through their participation.
Strength sports remain predominantly male-dominated, with limited representation of women as athletes, coaches, and leaders. Women face societal stereotypes that label muscularity and physical strength as masculine traits, perpetuating barriers to participation and recognition in these fields.
Previous research has shown that women in male-dominated sports are often subjected to discrimination, exclusion from key networks, and systemic bias, particularly in coaching roles. The researchers aimed to explore how women athletes and coaches experience these dynamics in strength sports, which have been slow to integrate women into their traditions.
“I’ve always been interested in why and how people participate in sport. As a weightlifter myself, my own experiences deepened my curiosity of other women’s experiences in a sport that is typically dominated by men in competition, coaching, and recreational participation,” said study author (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brianna-Newland-2) Brianna Newland, the Associate Dean of the College of Business at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.
The researchers employed a qualitative approach, interviewing 21 women athletes aged 18–44 and four coaches actively engaged in strength sports. Participants were selected based on their identification as women and their recent experience competing or coaching in Olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, CrossFit, or strongman. Semi-structured interviews lasting 30 to 90 minutes were conducted, during which participants shared their experiences and perspectives on training, competition, body image, and relationships with male peers and coaches.
The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis, a method that focuses on understanding personal lived experiences and the meaning participants attach to them.
Participants described complex relationships with their bodies, often shaped by societal pressures to conform to traditional feminine ideals. Many noted feeling self-conscious about their muscularity in social settings, where larger or visibly strong bodies are perceived as unfeminine or unattractive. However, within the gym or competition settings, these same characteristics were viewed as markers of strength and athleticism, fostering a sense of pride and empowerment.
Several women expressed frustration with stereotypes that equate muscularity with aggression or violence, noting that men often assume strong women are combative or unapproachable. Others described how cultural myths about women’s bodies—such as fears of “bulky muscles” or injury from lifting weights—continue to discourage young girls from participating in strength sports.
Participants shared mixed experiences regarding their interactions with men in strength sports. Many reported positive support from male peers who respected their abilities and were eager to learn about their training. However, negative experiences were also common, particularly in general fitness settings, where women encountered dismissive or sexualized comments from men. Some male coaches were praised for their willingness to educate themselves on women-specific training needs, such as the effects of hormonal cycles, but others were criticized for lacking awareness or empathy in this area.
Women coaches highlighted systemic barriers to advancement in their field. They described feeling “invisible” or “outnumbered” in male-dominated coaching environments and noted that they often had to prove their expertise repeatedly to gain the same respect afforded to their male counterparts.
“Sport is one area where sexism and patriarchy still have a very strong foothold,” Newland told PsyPost. “Women have made many strides in debunking long held beliefs about girls’ and women’s participation in sport, but we still see these beliefs and a lack of growth in coaching/leadership opportunities more so in strength-based sports and those that are more violent in nature (e.g., gridiron football, MMA, boxing, etc.).”
Despite these challenges, the women emphasized the personal and social benefits of participating in strength sports. Many described feeling stronger, more confident, and more capable in their everyday lives as a result of their training. They also valued the camaraderie of training groups, which provided encouragement and fostered a sense of belonging.
For some, competing was less about winning and more about setting personal milestones and achieving mastery over their craft. These athletes viewed strength sports as opportunities for self-improvement and goal-setting rather than simply a pursuit of external validation.
“I think my own experiences were quite on par with the other women in the study,” Newland said. “I think what was so wonderful to see was the positivity in their strength and how that was reshaping long held societal beliefs about what it means to be a strong sportswoman, and a woman in society more generally because of their sport.”
Participants underscored the need for greater representation of women as athletes, coaches, and leaders in strength sports. They argued that more visible role models could inspire young girls to enter the field and challenge persistent gender stereotypes. CrossFit, which has prioritized gender inclusivity since its inception, was cited as a positive example of how strength sports can create inclusive spaces for women.
“With all studies, there are limitations,” Newland noted. “While we had a nice mix of race and nationality, we don’t understand the experience of non-binary athletes. We also did not get the perspectives of men who are engaging in the sport with women. Because of the nature of the sport, all genders can train together, which offers and opportunity to learn and grow from one another through these experiences. These environments are different than traditional gym settings where all genders might be working out in the same room but are not ‘training’ together. So, as next steps, we would like to explore the experiences of all strength-based athletes to get a deeper understanding of the experiences.”
“We would like to extend the study to include men, non-binary, and the LGTBQ community. We would also like to explore the experiences of girls who are interested in these sports and the infrastructure they have in place to support their participation. We also plan to see what happens at the governance level, especially in terms of how women coaches are mentored and developed.”
The study, “(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-024-01521-x) Beyond the Barbell: Women in Strength-Based Sports and the Reshaping of Gender Norms,” was author Monica Knowlton and Brianna L. Newland.

(https://www.psypost.org/can-you-change-your-personality-psychology-research-says-yes-heres-how/) Can you change your personality? Psychology research says yes — here’s how
Dec 5th 2024, 12:00

Have you ever taken a personality test? If you’re like me, you’ve consulted BuzzFeed and you know exactly which Taylor Swift song “(https://www.buzzfeed.com/goveganallanimalsfeel/which-taylor-swift-song-are-you-quiz) perfectly matches your vibe.”
It might be obvious that internet quizzes are not scientific, but many of the seemingly serious personality tests used to guide educational and career choices are also not supported by research. Despite being a (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/05/business/remote-work-personality-tests.html) billion-dollar industry, commercial personality testing used by schools and corporations to funnel people into their ideal roles (https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23097) do not predict career success.
Beyond their lack of scientific support, the most popular approaches to understanding personality are problematic because they assume your traits are static – that is, you’re stuck with the personality you’re born with. But modern personality science studies find that (https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365) traits can and do change over time.
In addition to watching my own personality change over time from messy and lazy to off the charts in conscientiousness, I’m also a (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nVrVvZoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) personality change researcher and clinical psychologist. My research confirms what I saw in my own development and in my patients: People can intentionally shape the traits they need to be successful in the lives they want. That’s contrary to the popular belief that your personality type places you in a box, dictating that you choose partners, activities and careers according to your traits.
What personality is and isn’t
According to psychologists, personality is your (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-11667-005) characteristic way of thinking, feeling and behaving.
Are you a person who tends to think about situations in your life more pessimistically, or are you a glass-half-full kind of person?
Do you tend to get angry when someone cuts you off in traffic, or are you more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt – maybe they’re rushing to the hospital?
Do you wait until the last minute to complete tasks, or do you plan ahead?
You can think of personality as a collection of labels that summarize your responses to questions like these. Depending on your answers, you might be labeled as optimistic, empathetic or dependable.
Research suggests that all these descriptive labels can be (https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.48.1.26) summarized into five overarching traits – what psychologists creatively refer to as the “Big Five.”
As early as the 1930s, psychologists literally combed through a dictionary to pull out all the words that describe human nature and sorted them in categories with similar themes. For example, they grouped words like “kind,” “thoughtful” and “friendly” together. They found that thousands of words could be accounted for by sorting them between five traits: neuroticism, extroversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness.
What personality is not: People often feel protective about their personality – you may view it as the core of who you are. According to scientific definitions, however, personality is not your likes, dislikes or preferences. It’s not your sense of humor. It’s not your values or what you think is important in life.
In other words, shifting your Big Five traits does not change the core of who you are. It simply means learning to respond to situations in life with different thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
Can you change your personality?
Can personality change? Remember, personality is a person’s characteristic way of thinking, feeling and behaving. And while it might sound hard to change personality, people change how they think, feel and behave all the time.
Suppose you’re not super dependable. If you start to think “being on time shows others that I respect them,” begin to feel pride when you arrive to brunch before your friends, and engage in new behaviors that increase your timeliness – such as getting up with an alarm, setting appointment reminders and so on – you are embodying the characteristics of a reliable person. If you maintain these changes to your thinking, emotions and behaviors over time – voila! – you are reliable. Personality: changed.
Data confirms this idea. In general, (https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365) personality changes across a person’s life span. As people age, they tend to experience fewer negative emotions and more positive ones, are more conscientious, place greater emphasis on positive relationships and are less judgmental of others.
There is variability here, though. Some people change a lot and some people hold pretty steady. Moreover, studies, (https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000520) including my own, that test whether personality interventions change traits over time find that people can speed up the process of personality change by (https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088) making intentional tweaks to their thinking and behavior. These tweaks can lead to meaningful change in less than 20 weeks, instead of 20 years.
Cultivating personality traits that serve you best
The good news is that these (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279297/) cognitive-behavioral techniques are relatively simple, and you don’t need to visit a therapist if that’s not something you’re into.
The first component involves changing your thinking patterns – this is the cognitive piece. You need to become aware of your thoughts to determine whether they’re keeping you stuck acting in line with a particular trait. For example, if you find yourself thinking “people are only looking out for themselves,” you are likely to act defensively around others.
The behavioral component involves becoming aware of your current action tendencies and testing out new responses. If you are defensive around other people, they will probably respond negatively to you. When they withdraw or snap at you, for example, it then confirms your belief that you can’t trust others. By contrast, if you try behaving more openly – perhaps sharing with a co-worker that you’re struggling with a task – you have the opportunity to see whether that changes the way others act toward you.
These cognitive-behavioral strategies are so effective for nudging personality because personality is simply your characteristic way of thinking and behaving. Consistently making changes to your perspective and actions can lead to lasting habits that ultimately result in crafting the personality you desire.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/can-you-change-your-personality-psychology-research-says-yes-by-tweaking-what-you-think-and-do-237190) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/huge-study-reveals-who-fakes-orgasms-and-why-they-stop/) Huge study reveals who fakes orgasms—and why they stop
Dec 5th 2024, 10:00

A new large-scale study published in (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2024.2401019) The Journal of Sex Research provides a deep dive into the phenomenon of faking orgasms. The research is among the first to examine not only the prevalence of faking orgasms among both women and men but also the reasons people stop, shedding light on a rarely explored aspect of sexual dynamics.
While often treated as a lighthearted topic in popular culture, faking orgasms reflects deeper dynamics in relationships, sexual communication, and personal satisfaction. People may fake orgasms for various reasons, including a desire to end sexual activity, wanting to please a partner, or feeling pressured to conform to societal norms about sexual performance and satisfaction.
Despite being a relatively common behavior, especially among women with male partners, the act of faking orgasms has primarily been studied in terms of why people engage in it. Far less attention has been given to understanding why some individuals stop faking orgasms and how that decision impacts their sexual and relational well-being. This gap in research motivated the current study.
“Given how much attention is given to reasons for faking orgasms, I thought it would be interesting to look at the other side of the coin and see whether people stop faking and reasons for stopping,” said study author (https://researchprofiles.ku.dk/da/persons/silvia-pavan) Silvia Pavan, a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen. “It was also interesting to be able to shed light on the fact that it is not just women who fake orgasms, and that there might be more to faking than just the act itself.”
For their study, the researchers used an online survey to collect data from 11,541 participants across six European countries: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, and the United Kingdom. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 80 and were selected to represent their respective national populations in terms of gender, age, and geographic region.
The recruitment process was facilitated by Cint, a market research platform that used a variety of outreach methods, such as email invitations and newsletters, to gather a diverse and representative sample. The survey was conducted between May and June 2022.
The researchers found that just over half of the participants, approximately 51%, reported never having faked an orgasm. Among men, 65.79% reported never faking an orgasm, compared to 36.41% of women. In contrast, 18.74% of men and 34.41% of women had faked orgasms in the past but stopped, while 8.59% of men and 18.11% of women were currently faking orgasms.
Regarding reasons for stopping, both genders reported similar rates for improvements in partner attentiveness (24.21% of men, 24.42% of women) and communicating preferences (26.51% of men, 26.54% of women).
However, notable differences emerged in other categories: more women reported stopping due to becoming comfortable without having an orgasm (29.30% vs. 25.36%) or exploring ways to achieve orgasms on their own (18.51% of women vs. 19.33% of men). Men were more likely than women to stop because they were caught faking (11.96% vs. 2.61%) or because they were no longer sexually active (14.55% vs. 10.44%).
“We believe that when it comes to experiencing pleasure with a partner, having transparent communication with them is key,” Pavan told PsyPost. “When looking at reasons why people stopped faking orgasms, the main reason for stopping was being more comfortable with not having one, indicating a shift in perspective about the expectations one has from sex and the experience of pleasure.”
“Also, telling their partner what their desires and preferences are and having a partner that is responsive to those desires and preferences were mentioned as reasons for stopping, indicating transparent and active communication between two individuals was pivotal.”
Those who were currently faking orgasms tended to report lower satisfaction across sexual, relationship, and life domains compared to individuals who had never faked orgasms or had stopped faking. However, the overall effect was very small. In other words, while the association between faking orgasms and reduced satisfaction was statistically significant, the practical impact on overall satisfaction levels was minimal.
The findings highlight “that having an orgasm does not equal having good sex—you do not need to have an orgasm to enjoy sex and feel pleasure,” Pavan said.
Participants who had faked orgasms—either currently or in the past—were more likely to own and use sex toys, especially for solo activities. On the other hand, those who had never faked orgasms were more likely to use sex toys with a partner.
“It was interesting to find a connection between faking orgasms and the context of sex toy use,” Pavan told PsyPost. “This may be to achieve different objectives: individuals who fake orgasms might be seeking pleasure and orgasms independently, while individuals who stopped or have never faked might be using sex toys for further exploration and adding new elements to their coupled sex lives.”
The analysis also identified key factors associated with currently faking orgasms compared to never having faked. Women, individuals identifying as homosexual, those with children, individuals with more lifetime sexual partners, and participants from France and Norway were more likely to report currently faking orgasms. In contrast, older participants, those in relationships and living with their partners, those experiencing orgasms more frequently, and participants from Finland and Norway were less likely to fake orgasms.
Further analysis among individuals in relationships revealed that those in open relationships were more likely to have faked orgasms in the past and to currently fake orgasms compared to those who never faked. Individuals in longer-lasting relationships were less likely to have faked orgasms, whether currently or in the past, suggesting that relationship stability may reduce the likelihood of faking orgasms.
While the study provides valuable insights, it has limitations. The data came from self-reported surveys, which are subject to social desirability bias—participants may have underreported or misrepresented their behaviors.
Future research could explore cultural differences more deeply and examine the role of sex toys in mitigating or exacerbating orgasm-related challenges. Longitudinal studies could also help clarify how faking behaviors evolve over time and what factors contribute to sustained changes in sexual practices.
The long-term goal of this line of research is “to normalize sex and pleasure, as sexual health is one of the main pillars of health,” Pavan explained. “To put it simply, ‘the birds do it, the bees do it,’ it is human nature to seek pleasure and have sex.”
“It is unfortunate how often sex is considered wrong or dirty, and to be abstained from, because avoiding talking about it and not being properly informed puts us and our well-being at risk. I believe it is important to have the knowledge and information to be able to protect ourselves and make informed choices throughout our lives, including about sex. This may relate to knowing oneself well enough to recognize what we like and what we dislike so that we can keep doing what we like and stop or avoid doing something that we don’t, especially when there is a partner involved.”
“On one hand, having this awareness can help keep us safe, recognize when our boundaries are being violated, and alert us about whether we might be in a harmful situation,” Pavan continued. “On the other hand, it is also about exploring the beautiful things in life, including pleasure, and what our personal preferences might be, to keep pursuing things that bring us enjoyment and satisfaction.”
“Our research showed how people who faked orgasms reported lower sexual, relationship, and life satisfaction. It may be that faking orgasms is a behavior that masks other things one is unsatisfied with or unhappy about in their lives, so I believe it is in our best interest to continue this research in the name of promoting (sexual) health and well-being.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2401019) Why Did You Stop? Reasons for Stopping Faking Orgasms and Its Association with Sexual, Relationship, and Life Satisfaction in Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, Sweden, and the UK,” was authored by Silvia Pavan, Camilla S. Øverup, and Gert Martin Hald.

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/20241206/dae5fece/attachment.htm>