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/feminist-women-gamers-blamed-more-for-sexism-study-finds/) Feminist women gamers blamed more for sexism, study finds
Oct 4th 2024, 10:00

A recent study published in the journal Sex Roles highlights a troubling reality for many women in the world of online gaming. The research shows that women gamers who identify as feminists or engage in actions promoting gender equality are often blamed more for experiencing sexist incidents while playing online. Notably, this pattern of blame was most pronounced among participants who held stronger sexist attitudes towards women gamers.
Online video games have become one of the most popular forms of entertainment worldwide, connecting millions of people in shared virtual environments. Although gaming has historically been viewed as a male-dominated activity, recent data shows that nearly half of gamers are women. Despite this, many women gamers report feeling unwelcome in online gaming spaces and regularly encounter sexist attitudes and behaviors.
The study’s authors sought to explore why women gamers are often blamed for experiencing sexism in online gaming. They were particularly interested in understanding how certain characteristics of women gamers, such as identifying as feminists or engaging in gender equality activism, might influence perceptions of blame in sexist incidents.
“I was interested in this topic because of the increasing problematic about sexism in gaming communities and the different experiences between women and men in online video games. For this reason, being a highly masculinized environment dominated by sexist attitudes, we propose to analyze the perception of the feminist positions carried out by women gamers,” said study author Mariela Bustos-Ortega, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Granada.
To investigate this, the researchers conducted two experimental studies, both of which were administered online. The participants were regular video gamers, with nearly equal representation of men and women, ranging in age from 18 to 52. They were recruited via social media platforms and gaming forums.
In the first study, the researchers presented 291 participants with a hypothetical scenario in which a female gamer, named Lucía, was ridiculed by male teammates after making a mistake while playing the game League of Legends (e.g., “I knew you couldn’t trust girls for LoL”, “yeah, and they want to be treated the same and want us to let them play hahaha”).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: in one, Lucía was described as a feminist and a member of a feminist association that advocates for gender equality in video games; in the other, she was described simply as a regular gamer, with no mention of feminist affiliations. After reading the scenario, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they blamed Lucía for the sexist comments she received.
The second study introduced a different manipulation. This time, 400 participants were presented with a scenario in which Lucía either engaged in normative collective actions (e.g., signing petitions, organizing peaceful protests) or non-normative collective actions (e.g., hacking a website, disrupting an event) in support of gender equality in gaming. A control condition, similar to the first study, presented Lucía as a regular gamer. Participants then rated their level of victim blame towards Lucía after reading about her sexist interactions with teammates.
In both studies, participants’ levels of sexist attitudes towards women gamers were measured using the newly developed (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03616843231162837) Sexism Against Women Gamers Scale (SAWGS). This tool, specifically designed to assess sexism in the gaming context, helped researchers understand how these attitudes influenced participants’ judgments of Lucía.
In the first study, the researchers found women who were described as feminists were more likely to be blamed for the sexist incident, but only by participants who held stronger sexist attitudes towards women gamers. In contrast, participants with lower levels of sexist attitudes did not differentiate between the feminist and non-feminist Lucía when assigning blame.
Similarly, in the second study, participants with higher levels of sexist attitudes blamed Lucía more if she engaged in non-normative collective actions than if she engaged in normative actions. Participants with lower levels of sexist attitudes did not show this bias.
“Both studies highlight the significance of the interaction between sexist attitudes and specific characteristics of women gamers in shaping perceptions of sexist incidents,” Bustos-Ortega told PsyPost. “These findings represent a crucial advancement in understanding these issues and can help prevent negative experiences for women in online gaming.”
“I was surprised by the existing opposition against any feminist movement or action that promotes gender equality in video games. In this regard, our article points out that individuals with higher sexist attitudes toward women gamers are more likely to view a feminist woman who engages in extreme or non-normative behaviors to promote gender equality in gaming as negative. This perception may lead them to blame her for sexist incidents and foster increased rejection of this ideology, which is often seen in the gaming community.”
But the study, like all research, has some caveats. The study only focused on a Spanish-speaking sample of gamers, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or linguistic groups. Another limitation is the reliance on hypothetical scenarios, which may not capture the full complexity of real-life gaming experiences.
“Further research is needed to generalize these findings across different ethnic groups and demographics,” Bustos-Ortega noted. “We also should consider other methods such as the behavior of players in a real-time game, or the recording and subsequent analysis of data provided by the online game itself.”
Future studies could investigate how changes in industry practices or stricter enforcement of community guidelines might reduce the prevalence of sexist harassment in gaming environments.
“Our long-term goal is to continue examining the impact of sexism in gaming and develop interventions that promote inclusivity and awareness,” Bustos-Ortega said. “Furthermore, our scale can be a very useful tool for programs focused on preventing sexism, contributing to the creation of a safer and more welcoming space for women gamers.”
The study, “Gaming with a Feminist: Sexism and Perception of Sexist Incidents in Online Video Games,” was authored by Mariela Bustos-Ortega, Mónica Romero-Sánchez, Jesús L. Megías, and Hugo Carretero-Dios.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-research-finds-association-between-feeling-like-an-adult-and-mental-health/) New research finds association between feeling like an adult and mental health
Oct 4th 2024, 08:00

A study conducted in Spain found that individuals’ perceptions of adulthood—specifically, how much they believe they have achieved what it takes to be an adult—are associated with their mental health. These perceptions were linked to nearly every index of mental health, particularly those assessing negative emotions. The research was published in the (https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/6/773) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), adulthood is the stage of life that follows adolescence, typically beginning around age 18, when individuals achieve physical, cognitive, and emotional maturity. During adulthood, people take on various responsibilities, such as maintaining a career, forming long-term relationships, and raising families. This stage is marked by ongoing personal development, including self-identity formation and the pursuit of goals.
While all societies recognize the existence of adulthood, there is considerable debate about what the defining characteristics of an adult are. Cultures differ significantly in their views regarding which traits and behaviors qualify an individual as an adult. These views also vary within each culture, and the concept of adulthood tends to evolve over generations. Initially, milestones such as completing education, starting a career, marrying, or parenting were used as markers of adulthood, but in recent times, this concept has become more ambiguous.
Study author Mediss Tavakkoli and his colleagues aimed to explore the associations between perceptions of adulthood—specifically, what traits and behaviors define adulthood—and various dimensions of mental health. They note that the World Health Organization’s definition of a mentally healthy individual aligns closely with what are usually considered components of successful adulthood, including psychological and emotional well-being, having life skills, and being integrated into society.
The study involved 1,772 individuals recruited from the general population of Spain, 754 of whom were men. The participants’ average age was 40, ranging from 16 to 93. The study authors divided them into four groups based on age, corresponding to different developmental stages of adulthood: emerging adulthood (18–29), established adulthood (30–45), midlife (46–59), and older adulthood (60+ years).
The participants completed assessments of their life milestones using the Hollinghead’s Social Position Index, as well as two assessments of adulthood perceptions: the Markers of Adulthood scale and the Subjective Adult Status scale. They also completed a set of mental health indexes evaluating well-being, life satisfaction, optimism, self-esteem, alexithymia (difficulty identifying and expressing emotions), dark personality traits, general health, social well-being, and symptoms of personality disorders.
The results showed that mental health indicators were associated with markers of adulthood, with stronger associations observed in participants in established adulthood and midlife compared to those in emerging or older adulthood. In the overall sample, the strongest correlations were with optimism, self-esteem, and the absence or lower levels of alexithymia and Machiavellianism (one of the dark personality traits). In other words, individuals who believed they had achieved what is needed to be considered an adult tended to have better mental health.
When the researchers grouped the mental health markers based on their similarity, the results showed that the absence of negative emotions and alexithymia were most strongly associated with the achievement of adulthood markers. Interestingly, there were no associations between mental health indices and how important participants perceived various adulthood indicators to be. On the other hand, subjective adult status—how much one feels like an adult—was associated with better subjective well-being and lower disinhibition.
“The present study supports the association between perceptions of adulthood and mental health, particularly in relation to the risk of experiencing negative emotions. The findings also suggest that psychological aspects of adulthood are key to this association, opening an intriguing framework for the prevention and treatment of mental health issues,” the study authors concluded.
The study provides valuable insights into the relationship between mental health and perceptions of adulthood. However, it should be noted that most of the associations observed in the study were modest in strength.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21060773) Perceptions of Adulthood and Mental Health,” was authored by Mediss Tavakkoli, Erick Valarezo, and Luis F. García.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-reveal-how-the-brain-responds-to-six-different-types-of-love/) Scientists reveal how the brain responds to six different types of love
Oct 4th 2024, 06:00

A recent study published in Cerebral Cortex has deepened our understanding of how the brain processes six distinct types of love. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers examined the neural activity triggered when people experience love for romantic partners, children, friends, strangers, pets, and nature. The findings revealed that the brain’s response to love varies depending on the type of relationship, highlighting the different neural pathways activated by each form of affection.
Although previous research has established that feelings of romantic and maternal love are closely linked to certain brain regions, such as those involved in reward and attachment, less is known about other forms of love. For instance, love for friends, pets, or nature may engage the brain in different ways. By expanding the focus to multiple types of love, the researchers aimed to uncover whether all forms of love share common neural foundations or if distinct brain networks are involved depending on the object of affection.
The researchers also wanted to explore whether the intensity of love for different objects, like friends versus strangers, is reflected in specific brain activations. This could help explain why certain forms of love feel more powerful or emotionally charged than others, while also contributing to broader theories about human attachment and affiliation.
“My own background is in scriptwriting and philosophy, and I have been working on the concept of love for over a decade,” said study author Pärttyli Rinne, a researcher in the Brain and Mind Laboratory at Aalto University. “I see love as one of the most significant human phenomena both personally and culturally. Yet, love is an understudied topic within the scientific community. Considering the ubiquity of negative social phenomena like hatred, violence, and wars, love is also still poorly understood by the global human community.”
For their study, the researchers recruited 55 healthy adults, consisting of 29 women and 26 men, aged between 28 and 53 years old. All participants reported being in loving relationships, having at least one child, and 27 participants were pet owners. Participants listened to short, pre-recorded audio stories designed to evoke feelings of love for various objects: romantic partners, children, friends, strangers, pets, and nature.
Each story described an everyday situation that concluded with an emotional statement such as “You feel love for your child” or “You love nature.” For comparison, the researchers also included neutral stories describing mundane activities, such as sitting on a bus, where no strong emotional response was expected.
While participants listened to these narratives, their brain activity was measured using fMRI, a technique that detects changes in blood flow to different areas of the brain, providing insights into which regions are more active during specific tasks. After listening to each story, participants were instructed to imagine and focus on the emotions that the story evoked. This allowed the researchers to observe brain activity both during the storytelling and during a period of mental immersion in the feelings of love.
The researchers also gathered behavioral data, asking participants how strongly they felt the emotions described in each story and how similar these feelings were across different objects of love. This helped the team link subjective emotional experiences to the observed brain activity.
“We use state-of-the-art technology to measure what happens in the brain when a person feels love,” Rinne told PsyPost. “We studied many different types of love and were able to show how different types of love activate the brain in different ways. Our results help explain why the word ‘love’ is used in so many different contexts. Our research also offers insights into why we feel stronger affection for those we are close to compared to strangers, even though the underlying brain processes of affection are the same for all types of interpersonal relationships.”
The study found that different types of love engage both shared and distinct regions of the brain. At a general level, all types of love activated areas associated with social cognition, including the medial prefrontal cortex, the temporoparietal junction, and the precuneus. These regions are involved in understanding others’ thoughts and emotions, a process known as theory of mind. This suggests that even when we experience love for non-human objects, like nature, our brain still engages these neural pathways.
However, the intensity and breadth of brain activation differed significantly depending on the type of love. The most widespread and strongest activation occurred when participants experienced love for their romantic partners and children. These forms of love activated the brain’s reward system, including areas such as the striatum and thalamus, which are associated with feelings of pleasure, motivation, and reinforcement. These forms of love also engaged subcortical regions, including parts of the brainstem, which are associated with bodily arousal and emotional regulation, reinforcing their intense emotional nature.
In contrast, love for friends and strangers activated the reward system to a lesser degree. The activation was still present in key brain regions related to social cognition, such as the prefrontal cortex and temporoparietal junction, but it was not as strong or widespread as in romantic or parental love. Love for strangers, in particular, showed the weakest activation in both reward-related areas and brainstem regions.
This diminished activation corresponds with the behavioral findings, where participants reported that love for strangers felt less intense, less arousing, and less pleasurable than love for closer relationships. The neural response to love for strangers was primarily linked to regions involved in empathy and altruism, indicating that while it shares some features with other forms of love, it may be more aligned with feelings of compassion rather than deep emotional attachment.
Love for pets showed an interesting pattern in the data. For participants who were pet owners, love for their pets activated regions related to emotion processing, empathy, and social cognition, similar to interpersonal love. Specifically, the precuneus and posterior cingulate cortex, areas often associated with emotional connection and reflection, were more strongly activated in pet owners compared to non-pet owners.
This suggests that for people who have a strong attachment to their pets, the neural experience of love for animals can closely resemble love for humans. However, for participants without pets, the neural activation was weaker, indicating that personal experiences and relationships can shape how the brain responds to love for different objects.
“I was personally surprised that all the interpersonal love types (i.e. where the object of love is a person: romantic partner, one’s child, friend, stranger) activate so similar brain areas,” Rinne said. “The difference is mainly in the strength of activation, especially in the reward system of the brain such that closer affiliations activate the reward system more intensely.”
“All interpersonal love types activate brain areas associated with social cognition. It was also thrilling to find that in pet owners, love for pets activates these same social brain regions significantly more than in participants without pets. That is, for pet owners love for pets is neurally more resemblant of interpersonal love than for participants without pets.”
Perhaps one of the most distinct findings was related to love for nature. Unlike interpersonal love, love for nature activated brain regions involved in visual and spatial processing, such as the parahippocampal gyrus, which is typically associated with the appreciation of landscapes. This suggests that love for nature might engage more aesthetic and sensory pathways in the brain, rather than the social and emotional networks that are engaged by love for people or pets.
Interestingly, love for nature did not activate areas typically associated with theory of mind, reinforcing the idea that this form of love is fundamentally different from love for living beings. Nonetheless, it still engaged some reward-related areas, indicating that the experience of nature can evoke feelings of pleasure and emotional satisfaction, albeit through different neural pathways than interpersonal love.
The study also explored the differences in brain activation between the storytelling phase, when participants listened to narratives about love, and the imagery phase, when they were asked to immerse themselves in the feeling of love. Across all types of love, the neural activation was stronger during the storytelling phase, particularly in regions associated with auditory processing and narrative comprehension.
However, even during the imagery phase, which involved no external stimuli, significant activation was still observed in brain areas related to social cognition and reward. This suggests that simply imagining feelings of love is enough to engage the brain’s emotional and reward systems, though the activation is less pronounced than when those feelings are triggered by external stimuli.
The study provides important insights into the neural basis of different types of love, but it has some limitations. One key limitation is that all participants were from a relatively homogenous group, living in the same geographic area and sharing similar life circumstances.
“While our cohort of participants is to date the largest in a neuroscientific study on love, the generalizability of our results is limited by the demographics of our sample,” Rinne noted. “Love is a complex and multifaceted set of biologically grounded and culturally modified phenomena, and further cross-cultural research is still required for a better understanding of how cultural and demographic factors influence various feelings of love and their correlates in the human brain.”
The researchers suggest that future studies should explore the neural basis of love across different cultures to see whether the findings hold true in diverse populations. It would also be interesting to examine how love for abstract objects, such as nature or spiritual beings, might vary in different cultural contexts. For instance, love for nature might be experienced differently in cultures where people have a closer relationship with the environment compared to those in urbanized settings.
“We are currently interested in cross-cultural measurements of experiences of love,” Rinne said. “It would be fascinating to understand whether subjective experiences of different types of love are cross-culturally universal, what types of cultural differences may exist between these experiences, and what the global neural correlates of love are based on cross-cultural neuropsychological research.”
The study, “Six types of loves differentially recruit reward and social cognition brain areas,” was authored by Pärttyli Rinne, Juha M Lahnakoski, Heini Saarimäki, Mikke Tavast, Mikko Sams, and Linda Henriksson.

(https://www.psypost.org/men-experience-stronger-social-disconnect-due-to-smartphones-than-women/) Men experience stronger social disconnect due to smartphones than women
Oct 3rd 2024, 16:26

A recent study published in the journal (https://tmb.apaopen.org/pub/rej2ttk2/release/1) Technology, Mind, and Behavior found that smartphones can negatively impact social connectedness and well-being, but the extent of these effects depends on the situation and varies by the gender of the user. Men, in particular, tend to experience a greater negative impact on social connection than women.
In recent years, debates have intensified about whether smartphones and other digital media negatively affect well-being. Some studies have linked increased smartphone use to worsening mental health, while others suggest the impact may be as minor as eating certain foods. One issue with past research is that much of it has been correlational, meaning it can’t definitively say whether phone use causes negative outcomes or if people already feeling disconnected or unhappy turn to their phones more often.
In their new study, the researchers aimed to overcome these limitations by analyzing experimental data to provide clearer insights into how phone use affects well-being in various real-world situations. They wanted to understand not only if phones harm social connection and well-being, but also if the effects depend on the situation.
The researchers conducted a mini mega-analysis, a method that combines and re-analyzes raw data from multiple studies to explore consistent patterns. This approach differs from a typical meta-analysis, which pools summary statistics rather than raw data from the original studies. They compiled data from eight different experiments, involving a total of 1,778 participants. The data came from both published and unpublished experiments, which allowed the researchers to include studies with varying levels of significance, reducing the risk of publication bias and giving a more accurate representation of phone use effects.
Each of the eight experiments manipulated phone use in different settings, such as meals with friends or strangers, waiting alone or with others, or navigating unfamiliar locations. The participants were randomly assigned to either have access to their phones or not. For example, some participants were asked to keep their phones on the table while dining with friends, while others were instructed to put their phones away. After completing the task, participants reported their sense of social connection (e.g., how close or distant they felt from others) and their emotional well-being (measured by their feelings of positivity or negativity during the experiment).
The study was organized into six distinct experimental paradigms:

Getting directions: College students were tasked with finding an unfamiliar building with or without the use of their phones, focusing on practical information gathering rather than social interaction.
Parents with children: Parents at museums or festivals were instructed either to use their phones frequently or to minimize phone use during their visits with their children.
Strong ties meal: Participants shared a meal with close friends or family, with some keeping their phones on the table and others asked to put them away.
Weak ties meal: Strangers had lunch together, with some keeping their phones out and others putting them away.
Waiting room together: Participants waited in a room with a stranger, with half allowed to use their phones and the other half restricted from phone use.
Waiting room alone: Participants waited alone, either with or without their phones.

The researchers found that phones consistently reduced feelings of social connection across all social contexts. In scenarios where participants had their phones, they reported feeling less socially connected to those around them compared to those without phones.
However, when it came to emotional well-being, the effects of phone use were more nuanced and depended on the context. The researchers found that phones negatively affected well-being when used during social interactions, such as meals or shared experiences. In contrast, phones did not have the same negative impact when used for specific tasks, such as finding directions.
An interesting finding was that gender moderated the impact of phones on social connectedness. While both men and women experienced reduced social connection when they had their phones, the effect was significantly stronger in men. In fact, the negative impact of phones on men’s social connectedness was three times larger than it was for women.
The researchers speculated that men and women may have different norms and behaviors when it comes to phone use. For example, women may be more conscious of social etiquette, using their phones more selectively during conversations, which might mitigate the negative impact on social connectedness. Another possibility is that women might use their phones in more socially connected ways, such as texting friends or using social media, which could potentially offset some of the negative effects on social connection. However, these are just hypotheses, and future studies would need to explore these gender dynamics in more detail.
The study also identified several limitations that could be addressed in future research. For one, most participants were undergraduate students and parents from British Columbia, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The effects of phone use may differ in other age groups, cultures, or populations with different social norms around phone usage.
Another limitation was that the study focused on a broad measure of phone use, rather than looking at specific activities. The researchers suggested that future studies should explore how different types of phone use—such as browsing social media, sending text messages, or using apps for work—affect well-being.
Despite these limitations, the study offers important insights into how phone use affects well-being. Its strength lies in the variety of real-world situations it examined, from casual social gatherings to solo activities. The findings suggest that while smartphones are an integral part of modern life, their presence during social interactions may subtly undermine our sense of connection with others.
The study, “(https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/tmb0000125) Smartphones Undermine Social Connectedness More in Men Than Women: A Mini Mega-Analysis,” was authored by Matthew R. Leitao, Jason D. E. Proulx, and Kostadin Kushlev.

(https://www.psypost.org/social-media-connectedness-trump-endorsements-and-gop-outcomes-in-2022-senate-races/) Social media connectedness, Trump endorsements, and GOP outcomes in 2022 Senate races
Oct 3rd 2024, 14:00

A study published in the (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15377857.2024.2383138) Journal of Political Marketing sheds light on the relationship between online social networks and voting behavior. The analysis of Republican Twitter users during the 2022 U.S. Senate elections found that individuals in tightly connected social groups were more inclined to support GOP candidates, except in cases involving an endorsement from former President Donald Trump.
The researchers behind the study aimed to explore how online social networks influence real-world political outcomes, particularly within the context of growing political polarization and the spread of misinformation. With increasing evidence suggesting that social media plays a critical role in shaping political opinions, the researchers wanted to understand whether being embedded in a close-knit online community of like-minded individuals would influence voting behavior in U.S. Senate races.
“As a general matter, we wanted to explore the relationship between people’s information environments and their voting behavior,” explained study author (https://costaspanagopoulos.com/) Costas Panagopoulos, a Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University and coauthor of (https://amzn.to/3Nb45iY) Battleground: Electoral College Strategies, Execution and Impact in the Modern Era.
“We were especially interested in how likely exposure on social media to misinformation about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in the U.S. affected subsequent voting in the midterm elections that followed in November 2022. In particular, we investigated how social media connectedness, or embeddedness, was linked to voting decisions in U.S. Senate elections in the midterm cycle.”
The study focused on data from Twitter, particularly looking at Republican users during the 2022 U.S. Senate elections. The researchers gathered data from a large panel of Twitter users and analyzed the structure of their social networks. They calculated a measure called the “clustering coefficient” for each user, which indicates how interconnected a user’s social network is. In other words, this coefficient measures how many of a person’s contacts are also connected to each other. A higher clustering coefficient means the user is part of a more tightly-knit social group.
To conduct the analysis, the researchers aggregated these Twitter users by county and calculated an average clustering coefficient for each county. This served as their key independent variable. They then compared these network characteristics with voting outcomes in the 2022 Senate elections, examining whether counties with higher clustering among Republican Twitter users were more likely to vote for Republican Senate candidates.
In addition to looking at social networks, the study also accounted for several other factors. For example, they included data on the results of the 2020 presidential election in each county, whether the Republican candidate in the Senate race was an incumbent, and whether the candidate had been endorsed by Donald Trump. They used these variables to try to isolate the impact of social network clustering on election outcomes.
The study’s findings showed that higher levels of social network embeddedness were associated with greater support for Republican Senate candidates. In counties where Republican Twitter users were more closely connected within their networks, GOP candidates tended to perform better.
This result aligns with the theory of complex contagion, which suggests that people are more likely to adopt behaviors or beliefs—such as political preferences—when they are reinforced by multiple close contacts. In the case of the 2022 Senate elections, Republican voters embedded in tightly connected networks appeared more likely to vote for the GOP candidate.
“Overall, we found that the more embedded Republican Twitter users were in social networks, the more they supported GOP U.S. Senate candidates in the 2022 general elections on average,” Panagopoulos told PsyPost.
However, the study also found that the effect of social network embeddedness changed depending on whether the Republican candidate had been endorsed by Donald Trump. In races where Trump endorsed the GOP candidate, higher levels of social network embeddedness were linked to lower support for that candidate. This suggests that Trump’s endorsement may have had a polarizing effect, particularly in networks where users were closely connected.
The researchers speculate that Trump’s association with election fraud narratives and conspiracy theories might have contributed to this dynamic. In these highly connected networks, the spread of such narratives could have led to decreased confidence in the endorsed candidate, even among Republican voters.
In other words, while embeddedness in Republican-leaning networks generally boosted support for GOP candidates, Trump’s endorsement had a counteracting effect, possibly due to the influence of conspiracy theories that undermined trust in the electoral process.
“We were somewhat surprised to find heterogeneity in the impact of social media embeddedness,” Panagopoulos said. “The overall effect, for example, was the opposite for Trump-endorsed candidates, perhaps because stronger embeddedness in these networks affected the composition of the voting electorates.”
But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider. “First and foremost, this is an observational study, so claims about causal impact are not possible,” Panagopoulos noted. “Second, we focus mainly on Republicans in this study, so our findings cannot extend more generally to Democrats or independents. We also make some assumptions about likely exposure to political (mis)information on social media, but we do not actually measure it. We rely mainly on extant work on social and complex contagion to advance these claims.”
“We view this study as a first cut in trying to link individuals’ embeddedness in social media networks to their social and political behaviors. Our initial results suggest such linkages exist, but we have a long way to go to disentangle the nuances of these relationships. We hope to continue this work.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2024.2383138) Embeddedness, Social Contagion, and Vote Choice in the 2022 U.S. Senate Elections,” was authored by Costas Panagopoulos and Nunzio Lore.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-trained-ai-to-talk-people-out-of-conspiracy-theories-and-it-worked-surprisingly-well/) Scientists trained AI to talk people out of conspiracy theories — and it worked surprisingly well
Oct 3rd 2024, 13:11

New research (http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads0433) published in Science shows that for some people who believe in conspiracy theories, a fact-based conversation with an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot can “pull them out of the rabbit hole”. Better yet, it seems to keep them out for at least two months.
This research, carried out by Thomas Costello at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and colleagues, shows promise for a challenging social problem: belief in conspiracy theories.
Some conspiracy theories are relatively harmless, such as (https://www.vice.com/en/article/this-dude-accidentally-convinced-the-internet-that-finland-doesnt-exist/) believing Finland doesn’t exist (which is fine, until you meet a Finn). Other theories, though, reduce trust in (https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/leaders/public-trust-falls-as-division-and-conspiracies-take-hold-20220215-p59wjy) public institutions and (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2120755119) science.
This becomes a problem when conspiracy theories persuade people not to (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/25/no-no-no-avoid-them-all-anti-vaccine-conspiracies-spread-as-uk-cases-of-measles-increase) get vaccinated or not to (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101980) take action against climate change. At its most extreme, belief in conspiracy theories has been associated with (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65031382) people (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/04/24/1089786147/covid-conspiracy-theories) dying.
Conspiracy theories are ‘sticky’
Despite the negative impacts of conspiracy theories, they have proven very “sticky”. Once people believe in a conspiracy theory, changing their mind is hard.
The reasons for this are complex. Conspiracy theorist beliefs are (https://ischool.uw.edu/research/research-fair/what-makes-people-join-conspiracy-communities-role-social-factors-conspiracy?research_area=hci) associated with communities, and conspiracy theorists have (https://doi.org/10.1145/3627508.3638321) often done (https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24885) extensive research to reach their position.
When a person no longer trusts science or anyone outside their community, it’s hard to change their beliefs.
Enter AI
The explosion of generative AI into the public sphere has increased concerns about people believing in things that aren’t true. AI makes it (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68471253) very (https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165146797/it-takes-a-few-dollars-and-8-minutes-to-create-a-deepfake-and-thats-only-the-sta) easy to create (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/27/pope-coat-ai-image-baby-boomers) believable fake content.
Even if used in good faith, AI systems can get facts wrong. (ChatGPT and other chatbots even warn users that they might be wrong about some topics.)
AI systems also contain (https://theconversation.com/ai-bias-the-organised-struggle-against-automated-discrimination-223988) widespread biases, meaning they can promote negative beliefs about some groups of people.
Given all this, it’s quite surprising that a chat with a system known to produce fake news can convince some people to abandon conspiracy theories, and that the change seems to be long lasting.
However, this new research leaves us with a good-news/bad-news problem.
It’s great we’ve identified something that has some effect on conspiracy theorist beliefs! But if AI chatbots are good at talking people out of sticky, anti-scientific beliefs, what does that mean for true beliefs?
What can the chatbots do?
Let’s dig into the new research in more detail. The researchers were interested to know whether factual arguments could be used to persuade people against conspiracy theorist beliefs.
This research used over 2,000 participants across two studies, all chatting with an AI chatbot after describing a conspiracy theory they believed. All participants were told they were talking to an AI chatbot.
The people in the “treatment” group (60% of all participants) conversed with a chatbot that was personalised to their particular conspiracy theory, and the reasons why they believed in it. This chatbot tried to convince these participants that their beliefs were wrong using factual arguments over three rounds of conversation (the participant and the chatbot each taking a turn to talk is a round). The other half of participants had a general discussion with a chatbot.
The researchers found that about 20% of participants in the treatment group showed a reduced belief in conspiracy theories after their discussion. When the researchers checked in with participants two months later, most of these people still showed reduced belief in conspiracy theories. The scientists even checked whether the AI chatbots were accurate, and they (mostly) were.
We can see that for some people at least, a three-round conversation with a chatbot can persuade them against a conspiracy theory.
So we can fix things with chatbots?
Chatbots do offer some promise with two of the challenges in addressing false beliefs.
Because they are computers, (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10447318.2023.2266244) they are not perceived as having an “agenda”, making what they say more trustworthy (especially to someone who has lost faith in public institutions).
Chatbots can also put together an argument, which is better than facts alone. A simple recitation of facts (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-you-fight-conspiracy-theories/) is only minimally effective against fake beliefs.
Chatbots aren’t a cure-all though. This study showed they were more effective for people who didn’t have strong personal reasons for believing in a conspiracy theory, meaning they probably won’t help people for whom conspiracy is community.
So should I use ChatGPT to check my facts?
This study demonstrates how persuasive chatbots can be. This is great when they are primed to convince people of facts, but what if they aren’t?
One major way chatbots can promote misinformation or conspiracies is when their underlying data is wrong or biased: (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/16/ai-racism-chatgpt-gemini-bias) the chatbot will reflect this.
Some chatbots are designed (https://www.wired.com/story/fast-forward-meet-chatgpts-right-wing-alter-ego/) to deliberately reflect biases or (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626772.3657768) increase or limit transparency. You can even chat to versions of ChatGPT customised to (https://chatgpt.com/g/g-bk5lD9B5K-flat-earth-scholar) argue that Earth is flat.
A second, more worrying probability, is that as chatbots respond to biased prompts (that searchers may not realise are biased), they may perpetuate misinformation (including conspiracy beliefs).
We already know that people are bad at fact checking and when they use search engines to do so, those search engines respond to their (unwittingly biased) search terms, (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y) reinforcing beliefs in misinformation. Chatbots are (https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-ai-copilot-chatbot-election-conspiracy/) likely to be the same.
Ultimately, chatbots are a tool. They may be helpful in debunking conspiracy theories – but like any tool, the skill and intention of the toolmaker and user matter. Conspiracy theories start with people, and it will be people that end them.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/can-ai-talk-us-out-of-conspiracy-theory-rabbit-holes-238580) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/screen-heavy-households-linked-to-poor-language-development-in-kids/) Screen-heavy households linked to poor language development in kids
Oct 3rd 2024, 12:00

Screen devices are everywhere: we use them for entertainment, connection, and critical day-to-day functions. But Estonian scientists find that screens can have a negative effect on children’s language development. They surveyed hundreds of families about their screen use and their young children’s language abilities, and found that no form of screen use had a positive effect on language skills. Time spent gaming had a notable negative effect on language skills, regardless of whether the child or adults in the family played.
Screens have become ubiquitous in our daily lives — which means they’ve also become part of children’s lives too. So what effect does this have on children’s developing brains, especially critical language skills? To understand this, scientists in Estonia surveyed the parents of more than 400 children about their screen use, their children’s screen use, and their children’s language skills. They found that parents who use screens a lot also have children who use screens a lot, and that children’s higher screen time is associated with poorer language skills.
“Our study reveals that children’s screen use patterns are similar to those of their parents,” said Dr Tiia Tulviste of the University of Tartu, lead author of the study in(https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/developmental-psychology/articles/10.3389/fdpys.2024.1404235/full)  Frontiers in Developmental Psychology. “Child language researchers emphasize the importance of everyday interactions with adults in early language development, where children are actively involved. At the same time, we know that all family members tend to their screen devices. Because time is finite, we need to find out how this fierce competition between face-to-face interaction and screen time affects child language development.”
Talking or technology
In many cultures, most of children’s language development occurs because they talk to adults: having conversations exposes them to more vocabulary and grammatical structures. The presence of screens can disrupt this, especially if an adult is being interrupted by texts or notifications. But understanding how this affects children’s development requires accounting for the different types of screen children may be using and what they’re using them for, as well as the screens that adults around them use.
Tulviste and co-investigator Dr Jaan Tulviste surveyed a representative sample of Estonian families, including 421 children aged between two and a half and four years old. The survey asked parents to estimate how long each member of the family would spend using different screen devices for different purposes on a typical weekend day. It also asked how much of this time would be spent using a screen as a family, for example watching a film together. Finally, parents were asked to fill out a questionnaire evaluating their children’s language ability.
The researchers sorted both children and adults into three screen use groups — high, low, and moderate. They then analyzed this data to see if there was a link between parental screen use and children’s screen use. They found that parents and children generally belonged to the same groups: parents who used screens a lot had children who also used screens a lot. Controlling for age, they looked at the language development of these children, and found that children who used screens less scored higher for both grammar and vocabulary. No form of screen use had a positive effect on children’s language skills.
“While reading ebooks and playing some educational games may offer language learning opportunities, especially for older children, research shows that during the first years of life, the most influential factor is everyday dyadic face-to-face parent-child verbal interaction,” said Tulviste.

(https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/developmental-psychology/articles/10.3389/fdpys.2024.1404235/full) Read and download the original article

Fun and games?
Using screens for videogames had a notable negative effect on children’s language skills, regardless of whether parents or children were gaming. Tulviste explained cultural factors could be involved in this result: “For Estonian children, few developmentally appropriate computer games exist for this age group. Games in a foreign language with limited interactivity or visual-only content likely do not provide rich opportunities for learning oral language and communication skills.”
The authors pointed out that more research will need to be done to understand how the pandemic has affected these patterns: they originally collected their data in 2019. It would also be important to learn how these whole-family profiles change over time, using longitudinal studies that follow families as children grow up.
“The study has a cross-sectional design — we studied each participant only once and did not follow their developmental trajectory over a longer time period,” cautioned Tulviste. “Also, the data were collected before the Covid-19 pandemic. It will be interesting to look at future research findings addressing language development and the impact of screen use during the pandemic.”

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/20241004/76d0c0ea/attachment.htm>