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/new-research-uncovers-the-moral-foundations-underlying-support-for-christian-nationalism/) New research uncovers the moral foundations underlying support for Christian nationalism
Nov 19th 2024, 08:00

A study recently published in (https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srae029) Sociology of Religion explores the moral values behind support for and opposition to Christian nationalism. The findings show that loyalty and sanctity are key motivators for supporters, while fairness drives opposition. Contrary to popular belief, authority and care were found to have minimal influence.
Christian nationalism is the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and has a divine mission to uphold Christian identity, values, and traditions. Proponents argue that America’s success depends on maintaining its Christian heritage, viewing the nation as a “city on a hill” with a sacred obligation to God. This ideology often intertwines religious and patriotic symbols, promoting policies that emphasize traditional Christian values. However, critics see Christian nationalism as a threat to the principles of equality and pluralism, arguing that it privileges a single religious tradition at the expense of others.
Moral foundations theory provides a framework for understanding the values and intuitions that shape individuals’ ethical beliefs and social attitudes. It identifies six basic moral foundations: care (concern for others’ well-being), fairness (emphasis on justice and equality), loyalty (commitment to one’s group), authority (respect for tradition and hierarchy), sanctity (protection of sacred values), and liberty (sensitivity to individual autonomy). While all individuals possess these moral foundations to varying degrees, political and cultural differences often reflect how people prioritize them.
Although Christian nationalism has been extensively debated, little is known about the moral intuitions that underpin its appeal and opposition. Previous research has focused on its demographic and political associations—such as its links to conservative religiosity or racial resentment—but has often overlooked the foundational moral concerns driving these attitudes.
“In other research, my co-authors and I have found Moral Foundations Theory to bring a lot of clarity to why people support or oppose different political and policy positions,” said study author (https://kerbygoff.com/) Kerby Goff, the associate director of research at (https://boniuk.rice.edu/) The Boniuk Institute for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance at Rice University.
“We were curious whether common assumptions about Christian nationalism’s moral (or immoral) motivations would hold when examined through the lens of Moral Foundations Theory. We also think this kind of research provides the kind of knowledge which is necessary for increasing mutual understanding and bridging deep difference.”
The researchers examined the moral foundations underlying support for or opposition to Christian nationalism using data from a survey of 1,125 adults in the United States. The survey, conducted in June 2021, included participants from diverse demographic, racial, and political backgrounds, with an oversample of Black respondents to improve representation. To ensure the findings were generalizable to the broader U.S. population, the researchers employed statistical weighting to match the sample’s characteristics to those of the 2019 American Community Survey.
Participants completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, a tool designed to measure six core moral values. The researchers also collected responses to a widely used six-item Christian nationalism scale. This scale asked participants to rate their agreement with statements like, “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation,” and “The success of the United States is part of God’s plan.”
Participants who scored high on the Christian nationalism scale tended to emphasize moral values related to loyalty and sanctity. Interestingly, authority — often linked to nationalism — was not a significant predictor of support for Christian nationalism in this study.
On the other hand, participants who opposed Christian nationalism were more likely to prioritize fairness, reflecting a concern for justice and equal treatment of all people. Surprisingly, care—concern for the harm or well-being of others—was not strongly associated with opposition. This suggests that critics of Christian nationalism are more focused on its perceived violation of fairness, such as privileging one religious tradition over others, than on the harm it may cause to specific groups.
“We were surprised that the moral foundations of care and authority were not related to Christian nationalism,” Goff told PsyPost.
The liberty foundation showed a weak but positive association with support for Christian nationalism. However, this association became less significant when controlling for other variables. The researchers found that supporters of Christian nationalism tended to prioritize economic and governmental liberty (freedom from state interference) over personal lifestyle liberty (freedom in personal choices).
These results challenge some common assumptions about Christian nationalism. For example, while Christian nationalism is often described as authoritarian, this study found little evidence that authority is a driving moral concern for its supporters. Instead, loyalty and sanctity—the desire to protect group identity and sacred symbols—appear to be the key moral drivers. Similarly, opposition to Christian nationalism is less about concern for harm and more about a commitment to fairness, highlighting the ideological divide between prioritizing group cohesion versus individual equality.
“Our findings help reframe the debate about Christian nationalism in the general population by looking beyond religious or political tribalism and by dispelling assumptions about the moral motivations behind support or opposition to Christian nationalism,” Goff explained. “Support is less about a thirst for power or authority for its own sake, and rather is more about a concern for national loyalty and the sanctity of the nation as a symbol of Christian faith and identity. Opposition to Christian nationalism is less about concerns for the harm it creates and more about the unfairness Christian nationalism introduces in religiously pluralistic nation.”
“A second takeaway builds on research which shows how research on Christian nationalism in the general population often conflates the desire for what scholars Richie Li and Paul Froese call ‘Christian Statism’ and a Christian civil religion. We add that there are distinct moral motivations behind these two orientations. The difference between supporting a statist orientation or a civil one is whether one is particularly sensitive to violations of loyalty, leading to Christian Statism, or liberty, leading to Christian civil religion.”
“Based on this research, I think that there are bridges to be built by articulating alternatives to Christian nationalism around shared moral concerns, such as loyalty to the country and the importance of liberty in religious practice and expression, which could create space for compromise rather than intractable conflict,” Goff added.
But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider. The study’s cross-sectional design makes it difficult to establish causation, leaving open questions about whether moral foundations influence support for Christian nationalism or if support for Christian nationalism shapes individuals’ moral priorities. While the survey included an oversample of Black respondents, the relatively small sample sizes for other racial and religious minorities limit the ability to generalize findings across diverse groups.
“Some research suggests that Christian nationalism in the general population is connected to white ethnocentrism and racism, and that Christian nationalism has different meanings for Americans of color, particularly Black Americans,” Goff said. “We did not find any differences across racial groups in our analysis, but our sample size prevented us from drawing strong conclusions. ”
“Additionally, attempts to measure Christian nationalism in the general population have changed some since our study, but there is still a dearth of research on various orientations people have towards the relationship between religion and the state. Therefore our ability to speak about the diversity of orientations towards Christianity and the state are limited by available measures and the current state of research on this topic.”
Future research could address these limitations by employing longitudinal designs, expanding sample diversity, and refining measurement tools. Looking forward, Goff hopes “to expand the research on the moral dimension of orientations towards religion and the state.”
The study, “(https://academic.oup.com/socrel/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socrel/srae029/7841527) The Moral Foundations of Christian Nationalism,” was authored by Kerby Goff, Eric Silver, and John Iceland.

(https://www.psypost.org/study-challenges-assumption-of-universal-improvement-in-antidepressant-side-effects/) Study challenges assumption of universal improvement in antidepressant side effects
Nov 19th 2024, 06:00

Antidepressant side effects may not universally improve as treatment progresses, a new study published in (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/acps.13764) Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica reveals. Researchers found that patients experiencing severe side effects early in their treatment are more likely to discontinue their medication, which skews the overall perception of side effect reduction. Instead of a uniform improvement, the drop in reported side effects may reflect the absence of those who could not tolerate the medication.
Citalopram (commonly known as Celexa) is a widely used antidepressant that belongs to a class of medications called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Like others in this class, citalopram works by increasing serotonin levels in the brain, which is believed to improve mood, emotional regulation, and overall mental health. Despite its benefits, citalopram, like other antidepressants, is associated with side effects ranging from mild to severe, including nausea, fatigue, sexual dysfunction, and sleep disturbances.
The need for this study arose from conflicting narratives about side effects and their progression during antidepressant treatment. Conventional wisdom and clinical guidance often reassure patients that side effects subside as the body adjusts to the medication. However, in practice, many patients report persisting or worsening side effects, which often lead to early discontinuation of treatment. This mismatch between expected and actual patient experiences prompted the researchers to question whether the perceived improvement in side effects over time is due to physiological adaptation or if it reflects the dropout of patients who cannot tolerate the medication.
“I became really interested in this topic while discussing side effects with friends and collaborators who are psychiatrists,” explained study author (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4oOZ2V4AAAAJ&hl=en) Thomas T. Kim, a fellow of psychology in psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College.
“They commented that: 1) they wished there was more information about the frequency of side effect symptoms over the course of antidepressant treatment; and 2) while they were taught that the severity of side effect complaints improved over time with medication persistence, they rarely saw this in practice (either they opted to change their patient’s medication for those experiencing severe side effect complaints or patients dropped out of treatment).”
“The ‘traditional belief’ that is taught is the following: ‘[Antidepressant] side effects usually do not get in the way of daily life, and they often go away as your body adjusts to the medication’ (CDC, 2023). When I examined the literature further, I didn’t find that studies controlled for patients who dropped out across time. Generally, studies concluding that side effect complaints improved over time were conducted on treatment completers. So, in short, I found the research to be inconclusive: there was evidence for both sides, and I just wanted to know exactly what the truth was.”
The study utilized data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STARD) trial, a large-scale clinical investigation designed to assess antidepressant treatment in real-world settings. STARD included 2,833 participants aged 18 to 75, all diagnosed with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder. These participants underwent an initial 12-week treatment course with citalopram. Patients who did not achieve satisfactory outcomes during this phase could opt for subsequent treatment steps, but this study focused solely on the first step with citalopram.
Participants attended regular follow-up visits at weeks 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12, during which they completed self-reported assessments of depressive symptoms and side effects. To measure side effects, the researchers used validated tools such as the Patient Rated Inventory of Side Effects (PRISE) and the Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating (FIBSER). These tools captured various aspects of side effects, including their frequency, intensity, and overall impact on daily functioning.
To account for differences in when patients dropped out of treatment, participants were categorized into five groups based on their last recorded visit: those who dropped out by weeks 2, 4, 6, or 9, and those who completed the full 12 weeks. The researchers used a statistical approach called pattern-mixture modeling, which allowed them to analyze changes in side effects over time within each group while accounting for the influence of dropout patterns.
The researchers found differences in side effect trajectories depending on whether and when patients discontinued treatment. For those who completed the 12-week course, side effects generally decreased over time in terms of frequency, intensity, and burden. This aligns with the traditional belief that side effects diminish with continued use of the medication.
“Interestingly, if you only look at treatment completers (or patients who drop out later), you will find that side effect complaints are mild and do improve over time,” Kim told PsyPost.
However, the findings for those who dropped out early told a different story. Patients who discontinued treatment within the first six weeks (weeks 2, 4, or 6) reported persistently severe or even worsening side effects before they stopped. For these individuals, side effect burden increased rather than decreased, suggesting that early discontinuation was closely tied to an inability to tolerate the medication.
The most common side effects reported by patients included sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunction, and fatigue. These side effects were often rated as distressing, particularly in the early weeks of treatment. Importantly, the analysis demonstrated that the average decline in side effects across all participants was partly due to the dropout of patients with the most severe side effects, rather than a universal improvement among all patients.
“There is a ‘traditional belief’ in psychiatry that ‘[antidepressant] side effects usually do not get in the way of daily life, and they often go away as your body adjusts to the medication,'” Kim said. “However, we did not find this to be true for all depressed patients. If your side effect complaints are severe or are worsening early on in treatment, you and your doctor might want to consider changing treatments (e.g., psychotherapy or a different antidepressant).”
While the study provides valuable insights, it also has limitations. The analysis focused solely on citalopram, and it remains unclear whether the findings apply to other types of antidepressants. The study also lacked a placebo group, which would have provided a baseline for comparing side effects attributable to medication versus other factors.
Future research could explore several avenues to build on these findings. For instance, collecting pre-treatment data on symptoms could clarify how much of the reported side effects are directly related to the medication. The researchers are also interested in developing predictive tools to identify patients at risk of early dropout due to severe side effects. These tools could help clinicians tailor treatment plans to improve adherence.
“My colleague, Dr. Colin Xu, and I want to use machine-learning algorithms to develop a model that identifies which types of antidepressant side effect symptoms predict early attrition,” Kim explained. “We just submitted a grant to conduct this study: once we have a predictive model, we aim to conduct an implementation trial in which we compare dropout rates between clinicians equipped with this model versus treatment-as-usual.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13764) Not all types of depressed patients who persist with their antidepressant treatment improve in side effect complaints: A comparison of treatment completers and dropouts in the STAR*D trial,” was authored by Thomas T. Kim and Colin Xu.

(https://www.psypost.org/humans-evolved-to-share-beds-how-your-sleeping-companions-may-affect-you-now/) Humans evolved to share beds – how your sleeping companions may affect you now
Nov 18th 2024, 16:00

(https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(24)00176-9) Recent research on animal sleep behaviour has revealed that sleep is influenced by the animals around them. Olive baboons, for instance, sleep less as group sizes increase, while mice can synchronise their rapid eye movement (REM) cycles.
In western society, many people expect to sleep alone, if not with a romantic partner. But as with other group-living animals, human co-sleeping is common, despite some (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389945710000377) cultural and (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352721820303053?via%3Dihub) age-related variation. And in many cultures, bedsharing with a relative is considered typical.
Apart from (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389945710000377) western countries, caregiver-infant co-sleeping is common, with rates as high as (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1087079216000265) 60-100% in parts of South America, Asia and Africa.
Despite its prevalence, infant co-sleeping is controversial. Some western perspectives, that value self-reliance, argue that sleeping alone promotes self-soothing when the baby wakes in the night. But (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.2021.1905599) evolutionary scientists argue that co-sleeping has been important to help keep infants warm and safe throughout human existence.
(https://www.sleephealthjournal.org/article/S2352-7218(22)00077-8/abstract) Many cultures do not expect babies to self-soothe when they wake in the night and see night wakings as a normal part of breastfeeding (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945713002220?via%3Dihub) and development.
Concerns about Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Sids) have often led paediatricians to discourage bed-sharing. However, when studies control for (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107799) other Sids risk factors including unsafe sleeping surfaces, Sids risk does not seem to differ statistically between co-sleeping and solitary sleeping infants.
This may be one reason why agencies such as the (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/1/e2022057990/188304/Sleep-Related-Infant-Deaths-Updated-2022?autologincheck=redirected) American Academy of Pediatrics, the (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs37/chapter/Quality-statement-5-Safer-practices-for-bed-sharing) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/baby/caring-for-a-newborn/reduce-the-risk-of-sudden-infant-death-syndrome/) NHS either (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/1/e2022057990/188304/Sleep-Related-Infant-Deaths-Updated-2022) recommend that infants “sleep in the parents’ room, close to the parents’ bed, but on a separate surface,” or, if bedsharing, to make sure that the infant (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs37/chapter/Quality-statement-5-Safer-practices-for-bed-sharing) “sleeps on a firm, flat mattress” without pillows and duvets, rather than discouraging co-sleeping altogether.
Researchers don’t yet know whether co-sleeping causes differences in sleep or, whether co-sleeping happens because of these differences. However, experiments in the 1990s suggested that co-sleeping can (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20736) encourage more sustained and frequent bouts of breastfeeding. Using sensors to measure brain activity, this research also suggested that infants’ and caregivers’ sleep may be lighter during co-sleeping. But researchers speculated that this lighter sleep may actually (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221325.2021.1905599) help protect against Sids by providing infants more opportunities to rouse from sleep and develop better control over their respiratory system.
Other advocates believe that co-sleeping (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163638319301237) benefits infants’ emotional and mental health by promoting parent-child bonding and aiding infants’ (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/10253890.2012.742057) stress hormone regulation. However, current data is inconclusive, with most studies showing (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163638319301249?via%3Dihub) mixed findings or (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616734.2024.2380427) no differences between co-sleepers and solitary sleepers with respect to short and long-term mental health.
Co-sleeping in childhood
Childhood co-sleeping past infancy is also fairly common according to (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389945713011076?via%3Dihub) worldwide surveys. A (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/126/5/e1119/65347/Relationship-Between-Bed-Sharing-and-Breastfeeding) 2010 survey of over 7,000 UK families found 6% of children were constant bedsharers up to at least four years old.
Some families adopt co-sleeping (https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13034-023-00607-w) in response to their child having trouble sleeping. But child-parent bedsharing in many countries, including some western countries (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2005.00358.x) like Sweden where children often co-sleep with parents until school age, is viewed culturally as part of a nurturing environment.

It is also common for siblings to share a room or even a bed. A (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221325.2021.1916732) 2021 US study found that over 36% of young children aged three to five years bedshared in some form overnight, whether with caregivers, siblings, pets or some combination. Co-sleeping decreases but is still present among older children, with up to (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fare.12955) 13.8% of co-sleeping parents in Australia, the UK and other countries reporting that their child was between five and 12 years old when they engaged in co-sleeping.
Two recent US studies using wrist-worn actigraphs (motion sensors) to track sleep indicated that kids who bedshare may have (https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.11352) shorter sleep durations than children who sleep alone. But this shorter sleep duration (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221325.2021.1916732) is not explained by greater disruption during sleep. Instead, bedsharing children may lose sleep by (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221325.2021.1916732) going to bed later than solitary sleepers.
The benefits and downsides of co-sleeping may also differ in children with conditions such as (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389945717303842) autism spectrum disorder, (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10802-017-0387-1) mental health disorders and (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dmcn.13300) chronic illnesses. These children may experience heightened anxiety, sensory sensitivities and physical discomfort that make falling and staying asleep difficult. For them, co-sleeping can provide (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11325-018-1710-y) reassurance.
Adults sharing beds
According to (https://www.sleepfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/NSF_Bedroom_Poll_Report_1.pdf) a 2018 survey from the US National Sleep Foundation, 80-89% of adults who live with their significant other share a bed with them. Adult bedsharing has shifted over time from pre-industrial (https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/106/2/343/64370?redirectedFrom=fulltext) communal arrangements, including whole families and other household guests, to (https://academic.oup.com/jdh/article-abstract/23/3/275/359439?redirectedFrom=fulltext) solo sleeping in response to hygiene concerns as germ theory became accepted.
Many couples find that bedsharing boosts their (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1978364/) sense of closeness. Research shows that bedsharing with your partner can lead to (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2017/8140672) longer sleep times and a (https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article-abstract/17/4/308/2753131) feeling of better sleep overall.
Bedsharing couples also often (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00583/full) get into sync with each other’s sleep stages, which can enhance that feeling of intimacy. However, it’s not all rosy. Some studies indicate that females in heterosexual relationships may struggle more with sleep quality when bedsharing, as they can be (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1111/j.1479-8425.2007.00320.x) more easily disturbed by their male partner’s movements. Also, bedsharers can have less (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27624285/) deep sleep than when sleeping alone, even though they feel like their sleep is better together.
Many questions about co-sleeping remain unanswered. For instance, we don’t fully understand the developmental effects of co-sleeping on children, or the benefits of co-sleeping for adults beyond female-male romantic partners. But, some work suggests that co-sleeping can (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11325-018-1710-y) comfort us, similar to other (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jsr.14174) forms of social contact, and help to enhance (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20736) physical synchrony between parents and children.
Co-sleeping doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all answer. But remember that western norms aren’t necessarily the ones we have evolved with. So consider factors such as (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389945716301265) sleep disorders, health and age in your decision to co-sleep, rather than what everyone else is doing.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/humans-evolved-to-share-beds-how-your-sleeping-companions-may-affect-you-now-241803) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/altruistic-behavior-as-a-mating-signal-evidence-from-online-interactions/) Altruistic behavior as a mating signal: Evidence from online interactions
Nov 18th 2024, 14:00

How do people showcase their best traits to potential partners? According to a new study published in (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-37794-001?doi=1) Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, altruism might be part of the answer. In an online charity game, heterosexual individuals spent more time contributing to a shared goal when paired with members of the opposite sex. The findings highlight how small acts of generosity could be linked to romantic motivation, even in digital interactions.
Altruism, at first glance, seems to conflict with the principles of natural selection, which emphasize survival and competition. Evolutionary theories have historically explained altruism through mechanisms like kin selection (helping relatives to boost shared genetic success) and reciprocal altruism (expecting help in return). However, researchers suggest that altruism may also serve as an important factor in sexual selection. Behaving altruistically could signal desirable qualities, such as genetic fitness or parental potential, making individuals more attractive as romantic partners.
Previous research has shown that people are more altruistic in the presence of potential mates, such as by donating more to charity or performing other prosocial acts. This study sought to investigate whether these patterns extend to online interactions, with time spent serving as a measure of altruistic cost.
“It is important to understand how Behaving altruistically can be adaptive, so that the costs incurred by the altruist are outweighed by the benefits they get,” said study author (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Farrelly) Daniel Farrelly, a principal lecturer in psychology at the University of Worcester. “Being more desirable as a long-term partner is a key benefit for an altruist, so it is interesting to see in this online game that people are willing to incur a real cost to help another individual, if that other individual might be a potential mate they would like to attract.”
To investigate how altruistic behavior might be influenced by mating motivation, the researchers recruited 146 heterosexual participants (68 men and 78 women), primarily university students, through social media and online platforms. The study centered around the Free Rice game, an online platform where participants answer trivia questions to earn grains of rice donated to the World Food Programme. The time and effort participants dedicated to this game served as a measure of altruistic behavior.
Participants played two rounds of the Free Rice game, each with a hypothetical partner represented by a gender-specific username (e.g., “John123” or “Emma456”). These usernames clearly indicated whether the partner was male or female, enabling the researchers to simulate interactions with same-sex and opposite-sex partners. Participants were told they needed to collectively earn 600 grains of rice with their partner, though they could contribute as much or as little as they wished, with the implication that their partner would cover the remainder.
The order of partner presentation (same-sex or opposite-sex first) was randomized to control for potential biases. After completing each round, participants recorded the amount of rice they contributed and returned to the study platform for debriefing. The researchers then analyzed the amount of rice participants earned in each condition to assess whether the sex of the hypothetical partner influenced their altruistic behavior.
The researchers found a complex pattern of altruistic behavior. On average, participants tended to contribute more rice when paired with opposite-sex partners—suggesting a potential mating motivation—compared to same-sex partners. However, this effect depended on the order in which participants interacted with their partners. When participants interacted with opposite-sex partners first, they displayed significantly higher altruistic behavior than when they started with same-sex partners. Interestingly, when same-sex partners were presented first, participants’ contributions to opposite-sex partners did not show the same significant increase.
The findings supported the idea that altruism could function as a signal of desirable traits in mate choice. Both men and women exhibited this pattern, reinforcing the notion that altruism is a mutually valued trait in mate selection. Additionally, participants showed a tendency to reduce their altruistic behavior toward same-sex partners over time, possibly due to declining motivation, but maintained consistent contributions with opposite-sex partners.
“When people are primed to think that they are interacting with an attractive potential romantic partner, they are more likely to behave in a way that is helpful to that individual,” Farrelly told PsyPost. “This is even the case when they interact online, with no prospect of meeting that person. This shows how powerful the motivation is to display altruistic behavior to others, as this is an important trait we all look for in long-term partners.”
The findings align with previous research suggesting that altruism can function as a signal of desirable traits, such as parental potential or genetic quality, in mate selection contexts. Importantly, both men and women demonstrated this behavior, reinforcing the concept that altruism is mutually valued in mate choice.
While the study provides evidence for the role of altruism in mate choice, it has limitations. The use of gender-specific usernames to simulate romantic contexts may not have strongly activated mating motivations. Other studies have used more vivid methods, such as displaying photos of attractive potential partners or asking participants to imagine romantic scenarios, to elicit stronger responses. Additionally, participants in this study had no opportunity for future interaction with their partners, which could have reduced their motivation to act altruistically.
“This research is still too heteronormative,” Farrelly said. “It would be great to have more data and more research that looked at the mate preferences of homosexual and/or bisexual participants when it comes to altruism (and other mate choice traits).”
Future research could also examine how factors such as age, relationship status, and cultural background influence altruistic behavior in romantic contexts. Extending these findings to environmentally friendly behaviors could further illuminate how mating motivations drive altruistic acts.
“I am exploring this topic with an applied form of altruism that is a key global issue; pro-environmentalism,” Farrelly explained. “I am planning on exploring, with colleagues, how mating motivations can cause individuals to behave in more environmentally-friendly ways. This follows on from work I have done previously that found that we report more pro-environmental behaviors when interacting with attractive potential partners ((https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921003391) Farrelly & Bhogal, 2021), and will now look at actual environmental behavior.”
“To do this we will use a novel measure of online pro-environmental behavior ((https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002159) Farrelly et al., 2024), and the hope is eventually to know more about the social influence that can increase sustainable behaviors. In doing so, it is my hope that potential interventions can be used that will lead to such increases, to the benefit of us all.”
The study, “(https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ebs0000371) Evidence of Mating-Motivated Altruistic Behavior in Time Spent on a Shared Online Task,” was authored by Theodore HibbertGreaves and Daniel Farrelly.

(https://www.psypost.org/after-exposure-to-anesthetics-females-regain-consciousness-and-cognition-faster-than-males/) After exposure to anesthetics, females regain consciousness and cognition faster than males
Nov 18th 2024, 12:00

A series of studies on humans and mice examined sex differences in reactions to anesthetics, revealing that female brains are more resistant to the hypnotic effects of these drugs. Testosterone administration increased sensitivity to anesthetics in mice, while castration enhanced anesthetic resistance. In humans, females regained consciousness and recovered cognitive function faster than males after identical exposure to anesthetics. The study was published in (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2312913120) Neuroscience.
General anesthetics are drugs that induce a reversible loss of consciousness, primarily used during surgical procedures to block pain and prevent awareness. They are essential in medicine because they enable complex surgeries that would otherwise be intolerable due to pain, allowing patients to undergo invasive procedures safely and comfortably.
The history of general anesthesia dates back to the 19th century, with the first successful public demonstration by Dr. William Morton in 1846. Before anesthetics, surgery was excruciating and dangerous, often performed only in dire cases due to the severe pain and risks. Over time, safer and more effective agents, such as chloroform and eventually modern inhaled and intravenous anesthetics, were developed. Today, general anesthesia is administered by specialized professionals called anesthesiologists, who monitor and adjust the dosage to ensure patient safety.
Study author Andrzej Z. Wasilczuk and his colleagues noted that the clinical literature on sex differences in sensitivity to anesthetics is controversial. While early studies reported that men and women are equally sensitive to anesthetics, some modern studies indicate that women are nearly three times more likely to regain awareness during a surgical procedure. To explore these differences further, the researchers conducted a series of studies on mice and humans.
The mice used in these studies were wild-type C57BL/6J, a strain of inbred laboratory mice frequently used in research and originating from the Jackson Laboratory. These mice have nearly identical genomes, and their physical and physiological characteristics are well-documented. They underwent various experiments, as well as biochemical and tissue analyses.
Human participants included 30 healthy adults aged 22 to 40 years, 18 of whom were men. As part of the study, participants received isoflurane, a commonly used inhaled anesthetic, for three hours. During anesthesia, the researchers recorded brain activity using electroencephalography (EEG). After recovering, participants underwent cognitive testing every 30 minutes for three hours, allowing the researchers to monitor how quickly their cognitive abilities recovered from the anesthetic’s effects.
The experiments on mice revealed that female brains are more resistant to the hypnotic effects of anesthetics. Female mice regained consciousness and awareness more quickly than male mice. Similarly, women regained consciousness faster than men, on average. Female participants were able to follow auditory cues 29 minutes after anesthesia, while male participants required 45 minutes. Women also regained speed and accuracy on cognitive tests more quickly than men.
Further experiments on mice showed that administering testosterone, the primary male sex hormone, increased their sensitivity to anesthetics. Castration, which involves surgically removing the reproductive organs, made mice more resistant to anesthetics and eliminated sex-based differences in anesthetic responses. However, these differences were not detectable in EEG recordings of neural activity.
“We directly demonstrate that the female brain is more resistant to the hypnotic effects of volatile anesthetics. Sex differences in anesthetic sensitivity are predominantly due to testosterone. Finally, we demonstrate that sex differences in anesthetic sensitivity are conserved between mice and humans,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on sex differences in reactions to anesthetics. Gender-based differences were not reflected in EEG recordings of brain activity during the procedures. However, the researchers noted that EEG recordings do not always reliably reflect the state of consciousness. Previous studies have reported substantial discrepancies between assessments of anesthetic depth based on EEG and those based on patient behavior. Conventional methods for estimating anesthetic depth sometimes fail to detect episodes of awareness during anesthesia. Anesthetic depth refers to the level of nervous system depression achieved using anesthesia, ranging from mild sedation to deep unconsciousness.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2312913120) Hormonal basis of sex differences in anesthetic sensitivity,” was authored by Andrzej Z. Wasilczuk, Cole Rinehart, Adeeti Aggarwal, Martha E. Stone, George A. Mashour, Michael S. Avidan, Max B. Kelz, Alex Proekt, and ReCCognition Study Group.

(https://www.psypost.org/ghosting-and-stress-emerge-as-predictors-of-maladaptive-daydreaming-and-narcissism/) Ghosting and stress emerge as predictors of maladaptive daydreaming and narcissism
Nov 18th 2024, 10:00

Ghosting, a common form of rejection in the digital era, can leave individuals feeling abandoned and confused. New research suggests that the effects may be even deeper, linking ghosting and stress to maladaptive daydreaming and vulnerable narcissism. The study was published in the journal (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-23945-001?doi=1) Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice.
Ghosting refers to the sudden and unexplained cessation of communication in a relationship. This behavior can occur in romantic, platonic, or professional contexts and often leaves the ghosted individual feeling confused, rejected, and abandoned. The lack of closure associated with ghosting can lead to rumination and self-doubt, as individuals struggle to understand why the relationship ended.
Previous studies suggest that ghosting can diminish self-esteem, create feelings of isolation, and even trigger symptoms of trauma. These effects are particularly relevant in young adults, who often rely heavily on digital communication for social interactions and are navigating significant emotional and developmental challenges.
Maladaptive daydreaming involves excessive and immersive fantasy activity that disrupts daily functioning, such as academic performance or social relationships. People who engage in maladaptive daydreaming often create elaborate, emotionally satisfying inner worlds to escape negative real-life experiences. The researchers were interested in whether ghosting and stress act as triggers for this behavior, as both stressors could drive individuals to retreat into fantasy as a coping mechanism.
They also examined vulnerable narcissism, a personality trait characterized by hypersensitivity to criticism, feelings of inadequacy, and defensiveness. Unlike grandiose narcissism, which involves overt arrogance and entitlement, vulnerable narcissism is more inwardly focused, often stemming from deep-seated insecurities and attachment anxieties.
Mindfulness and rumination were included as key mediators in the study, as both are known to influence how individuals process stress and rejection. Mindfulness refers to the ability to focus on the present moment with a non-judgmental attitude. It is associated with improved emotional regulation, reduced stress, and better coping strategies.
Conversely, rumination involves repetitive, negative thought patterns that often exacerbate emotional distress. When people ruminate, they dwell on their problems without actively seeking solutions, which can lead to feelings of helplessness and prolonged suffering.
“The topic of stress and ghosting intrigued me because of its prevalence and the negative impacts it has on its victims—not only in romantic relationships but also in professional settings,” said study author Quang Dao Pham of Ural Federal University.
“I’ve heard personal accounts from individuals who reported experiencing repetitive negative thought cycles and becoming trapped in these patterns, which caused significant distress. In my view, this distress can trigger defensive mechanisms such as maladaptive daydreaming and narcissistic tendencies, leading individuals to focus excessively on themselves without accurate and comprehensive self-reflection.”
“Considering this, mindfulness emerged as a promising approach to help bring the mind back to the present. Our research results showed that mindfulness could indeed have positive effects for those dealing with stress and ghosting experiences.”
For their study, the researchers surveyed 301 university students in Vietnam to examine the effects of ghosting and stress on maladaptive daydreaming and vulnerable narcissism. Participants were recruited through social media platforms, and all had experienced ghosting in some form, whether in romantic, platonic, or professional relationships.
The study revealed associations between ghosting, stress, and psychological outcomes such as maladaptive daydreaming and vulnerable narcissism. Participants who reported higher levels of stress or more frequent ghosting experiences tended to engage in more excessive and immersive daydreaming and displayed stronger tendencies toward vulnerable narcissism, including defensiveness and hypersensitivity to criticism. These experiences were also linked to lower levels of mindfulness, suggesting a reduced ability to focus on the present moment. Additionally, higher levels of stress and ghosting were associated with increased rumination.
Mindfulness and rumination were found to mediate the relationships between stress, ghosting, and the psychological outcomes studied. This suggests that the way in which people process their experiences—either by focusing on the present moment or becoming trapped in repetitive negative thoughts—might influence the extent to which stress and ghosting are linked to maladaptive daydreaming and vulnerable narcissism.
The findings also pointed to a relationship between mindfulness and rumination, indicating that these factors might interact. Lower mindfulness was associated with higher rumination, and this combination appeared to coincide with more frequent maladaptive behaviors and personality traits. For instance, reduced mindfulness linked to stress or ghosting could correspond to greater immersion in negative thought patterns, which in turn might relate to feelings of inadequacy or an inclination toward daydreaming.
“It is crucial to understand that stress and ghosting can occur in various contexts and at different levels, often pulling us into maladaptive coping mechanisms,” Pham told PsyPost. “When you sense that something is amiss, allow yourself to experience those feelings, but also take care to observe your experiences carefully—this practice, which we call mindfulness, can help you gradually discern the meaning of those experiences without becoming overwhelmed by them.”
But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider. Although stress and ghosting were associated with maladaptive daydreaming and vulnerable narcissism, these factors explained only part of the variation in the outcomes. The combined influence of stress, ghosting, mindfulness, and rumination accounted for 38% of the variability in maladaptive daydreaming and 34% in vulnerable narcissism. This suggests that other factors, such as personal resilience, social support, or additional stressors, may also play a role in these psychological outcomes.
Furthermore, as a cross-sectional study, it cannot establish causality, only associations. “In the future, longitudinal studies are necessary to confirm causal relationships,” Pham said. “Additionally, examining the differences in mindfulness approaches across cultures holds great potential for uncovering fascinating insights.”
The study, “(https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cns0000403) How ghosting and stress impact vulnerable narcissism and maladaptive daydreaming: The role of mindfulness and rumination,” was authored by Quang Dao Pham and Anna Alexandrovna Pecherkina.

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/20241119/a7f9d50e/attachment.htm>