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

[Article Digests for Psychology & Social Work]

PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

 

(https://www.psypost.org/women-drive-the-rise-in-vegetarianism-over-time-according-to-new-study/) Women drive the rise in vegetarianism over time, according to new study
Oct 11th 2024, 10:00

New research published in (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01504-y) Sex Roles suggests that increases in vegetarianism over the past 15 years are primarily limited to women, with little change observed among men.
Previous research has consistently shown that women are more likely than men to adopt vegetarian diets, driven by concerns over health, animal welfare, and the environment. While vegetarianism has been on the rise globally, little research has focused on how gender influences this trend over time.
Existing literature also highlights how meat consumption is culturally linked to masculinity, with men being more likely to associate meat with health and strength. These associations might discourage men from adopting vegetarian diets despite growing recognition of the health and environmental benefits of plant-based eating. John B. Nezlek and Catherine A. Forestell examined whether these gender differences in attitudes toward meat have influenced trends in vegetarianism over the past 15 years.
The study analyzed dietary data from 12,704 undergraduate students at a U.S. university who participated in surveys between 2008 and 2023. Participants were asked to describe their dietary habits, indicating whether they followed a vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, or omnivorous diet. Gender data was also collected. The dietary categories were grouped into two main measures: one for strict vegetarians (including vegans and lacto-vegetarians) and another that included pescatarians.
To further investigate gender differences in motivations for following a vegetarian diet, a second study was conducted using a sample of 363 U.S. adults recruited through Qualtrics. These participants identified their dietary habits in a similar manner and indicated their primary motivations for adopting a vegetarian diet. Participants ranked ethical, environmental, and health concerns as their main reasons for avoiding animal products.
The results of the first study revealed that over the 15-year period, the percentage of women identifying as vegetarian increased significantly, while the percentage of men remained relatively stable. Among women, the proportion of those who followed a vegetarian diet (excluding pescatarians) rose from 4.3% in 2008 to 8.7% in 2023. Including pescatarians, this percentage was even higher, reaching 12.2% by 2023.
In contrast, men showed no significant increase in vegetarianism over time, with only 2.7% identifying as vegetarian in 2023, compared to 3.2% in 2008. These findings highlight a growing gender gap, where women are increasingly adopting plant-based diets, while men’s dietary habits have remained relatively unchanged.
The second revealed that women were significantly more likely than men to cite ethical concerns, such as animal rights, as their primary reason for adopting a vegetarian diet. Men, on the other hand, were more likely to prioritize environmental concerns as their main motivation. Health concerns were frequently mentioned by both genders, though no significant gender difference was observed in this regard.
One limitation is that the study focused primarily on young adults, limiting the generalizability of the findings to older populations.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01504-y) Recent Increases in Vegetarianism may be Limited to Women: A 15-Year Study of Young Adults at an American University”, was authored by John B. Nezlek and Catherine A. Forestell.

(https://www.psypost.org/is-the-trip-crucial-for-psychedelic-therapys-effectiveness-new-research-sheds-light-on-its-role-in-healing/) Is the “trip” crucial for psychedelic therapy’s effectiveness? New research sheds light on its role in healing
Oct 11th 2024, 08:00

In a recent study published in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-024-00091-w) npj Mental Health Research, scientists sought to clarify the role of subjective experiences, such as dissociation and mystical states, in the therapeutic outcomes of treatments involving psychedelics like ketamine and psilocybin. They found that subjective effects had a modest influence on therapeutic improvements in conditions like depression and substance use disorders, with the impact of psilocybin being somewhat stronger than that of ketamine. The findings suggest that these subjective experiences might play a limited, but not insignificant, role in the efficacy of psychedelic treatments.
Psychedelics, once primarily associated with recreational drug use, have recently gained attention for their potential therapeutic effects. Both ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, and psilocybin, the active compound in magic mushrooms, have shown promise in treating conditions such as depression and substance use disorders.
These treatments differ from traditional medications because they often produce profound subjective experiences during their use. Some researchers and clinicians believe these experiences might contribute to the therapeutic effects of these drugs. However, the exact relationship between the subjective effects and clinical benefits remains unclear.
“Psychedelic science is an emerging research area in the field of psychiatry and pain medicine that has gained much attention in the last couple of years. Trials on, among others, the classical psychedelic psilocybin and the dissociative drug ketamine have produced very promising results with large effect sizes and very rapid onset of effect (after one or a few doses),” said study author Jack Dahan, a medical student at Amsterdam University Medical Center.
“What makes these drugs especially intriguing is that each psychedelic compound produces very distinct subjective experiences or ‘trips.’ The effect of these drugs is often attributed to the psychological impact of these subjective experiences, but the true role of subjective effects and differences between classes of psychedelics remained unclear.”
To investigate the link between subjective effects and therapeutic outcomes, the researchers performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. This method allowed them to combine data from multiple studies to examine overall trends in the research. “Meta-analyses on this topic (with hard data) were lacking,” Dahan said. “That is why we decided to perform this study.”
They searched electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies that focused on the use of ketamine and psilocybin to treat depression or substance use disorder. To be included, the studies had to meet several criteria: they had to be human trials, report on the effects of the treatment on the condition being studied, and provide quantitative data on the correlation between subjective effects and therapeutic outcomes. The researchers only included randomized controlled trials or open-label studies, which are commonly used to evaluate drug treatments.
In total, they reviewed 23 studies, 15 of which focused on ketamine and 8 on psilocybin. These studies included patients being treated for either depression or substance use disorder, and the subjective effects they experienced were measured using tools such as the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS) for ketamine and questionnaires designed to capture mystical experiences for psilocybin.
The results of the meta-analysis revealed that subjective effects do have a modest role in mediating the therapeutic outcomes of both ketamine and psilocybin. However, the strength of the correlation varied between the two substances and the conditions being treated.
For ketamine, the correlation between subjective effects and therapeutic outcomes was found to explain about 5-10% of the drug’s effectiveness in treating depression. In contrast, for psilocybin, the correlation was stronger, accounting for around 24% of the therapeutic effect. This suggests that psilocybin’s subjective effects, such as mystical experiences, might be more directly related to its therapeutic benefits than the dissociative effects of ketamine.
“Beforehand, we imagined that the mediating effect of ketamine would show to be greater,” Dahan told PsyPost. “This may be due to the very nature of the dissociative effects of ketamine or due to the fact that its effects are short-lived—30 minutes to an hour—while psilocybin’s effects remain noticeable for hours to days after the treatment session.”
The researchers also found differences between the conditions being treated. In both ketamine and psilocybin studies, the correlation between subjective effects and therapeutic outcomes was stronger for substance use disorder than for depression.
Specifically, in substance use disorder treatments, the subjective effects accounted for up to 54% of the therapeutic improvement for ketamine and 60% for psilocybin. This may indicate that the psychological or perceptual changes brought about by these drugs play a more significant role in treating substance use disorder compared to depression.
“Although this meta-correlation analysis on the role of subjective effects of ketamine and psilocybin versus therapeutic outcome in depression and substance use disorder is exploratory and the results should be considered with caution, it points to the direction that the mediating role of subjective states is greater in psilocybin compared to ketamine, especially when restricting the analysis to depression,” Dahan explained.
But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider.
First, the analysis was based on a relatively small number of studies, especially for substance use disorder, where only four studies were included. This limits the generalizability of the findings, and more research is needed to confirm these results in larger and more diverse populations.
Second, the results do not prove that the subjective experiences caused by the drugs are directly responsible for the therapeutic benefits. It is possible that both the experiences and the benefits co-occur because the same brain processes are being triggered, rather than one directly causing the other.
“In this study, we collated correlation coefficients,” Dahan said. “As such, our results cannot affirmatively determine causality. And, we cannot exclude with certainty that subjective effects are epiphenomena that arise from activated brain networks with similar pharmacodynamic properties as the therapeutic effects.”
Moving forward, the researchers suggest exploring other approaches to better understand the role of subjective effects. One possible approach is to study patients who receive these treatments while under general anesthesia, preventing them from experiencing the subjective effects, to see if the therapeutic outcomes are the same. Additionally, future studies could investigate whether reducing the intensity of subjective effects, for example by using smaller doses of the drugs, impacts their overall effectiveness.
“The role of subjective effects remains intriguing,” Dahan said. “In future research, we hope to further untangle the role of subjective effects of psychedelics in mediating therapeutic outcomes, possibly taking into account the role of psychotherapy and performing different kinds of analyses, such as PKPD-analyses. Furthermore, we hope to delve into the effect of ketamine at the opioid receptor site and the role of opioids in general in depression and other mood disorders.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-024-00091-w) Meta-correlation of the effect of ketamine and psilocybin induced subjective effects on therapeutic outcome,” was authored by Jack D. C. Dahan, David Dadiomov, Tijmen Bostoen, and Albert Dahan.

(https://www.psypost.org/neuroscientists-uncover-a-brain-circuit-linked-to-anhedonia-in-psychiatric-patients/) Neuroscientists uncover a brain circuit linked to anhedonia in psychiatric patients
Oct 11th 2024, 06:00

A new study published in the (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032724013454) Journal of Affective Disorders has found that a specific brain connection may help explain anhedonia, the inability to experience pleasure, particularly in males with psychiatric symptoms. Researchers identified that stronger connectivity between the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) and the nucleus accumbens (NAc)—two brain regions important for reward processing—was linked to more severe symptoms of anhedonia in these individuals. This finding could be a step forward in understanding the brain’s role in pleasure and motivation and may lead to improved treatments for anhedonia.
Mental illness is a widespread issue, with over 20% of U.S. adults reporting a mental health condition in 2021. Many psychiatric symptoms do not fit neatly into specific diagnoses, which has led researchers to focus on “transdiagnostic” symptoms—those that cut across various mental health disorders.
Anhedonia is one such symptom, affecting people with different psychiatric conditions like depression and anxiety. It is also linked to increased risk of suicide, substance abuse, and poorer treatment outcomes. Understanding the brain mechanisms that contribute to anhedonia is therefore crucial for improving mental health treatments.
“Mental health research is of utmost importance right now and the way we understand it is changing,” explained study author (https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/myassa/bianca-leonard/) Bianca T. Leonard, a MD/PhD candidate at University of California, Irvine. “There are symptoms of mental health that go beyond the boundaries of traditional diagnoses. Anhedonia, or the inability to experience pleasure, is one of those symptoms. Anhedonia is a serious and life-threatening transdiagnostic symptom because it leads to poorer outcomes, and the brain biology that contributes to it has become critical for neuroscientists to understand in the quest to innovate new treatments in psychiatry.”
The research team recruited 75 participants from the community, but due to incomplete data or poor scan quality, the final sample consisted of 63 participants, including 48 women and 15 men. The participants underwent neuropsychiatric evaluations to assess symptoms of depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions, as well as anhedonia. The group was divided into those with psychiatric symptoms (47 participants) and those without (16 participants).
Participants also underwent brain scans using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a technique that allows researchers to measure how different regions of the brain communicate with each other when the brain is not actively engaged in a task. The researchers focused on the functional connectivity between the PVT and the NAc. To assess anhedonia, they used a factor score based on a subset of items from the Beck Depression Inventory, which included symptoms like loss of interest and lack of pleasure.
The study found that the overall strength of the PVT-NAc connection was not significantly related to anhedonia across the entire sample. However, when the researchers looked specifically at participants with psychiatric symptoms, a different pattern emerged. In this group, there was a trend suggesting that stronger connectivity between the PVT and NAc was linked to more severe anhedonia. This was not observed in participants without psychiatric symptoms.
Moreover, when the researchers analyzed the data by sex, they found that the relationship between PVT-NAc connectivity and anhedonia was stronger in males than in females. In males with psychiatric symptoms, the connection between these brain regions was significantly related to their anhedonia scores, while in females, this relationship was weaker and not statistically significant. This suggests that brain connectivity between the PVT and NAc may play a more prominent role in anhedonia for males experiencing psychiatric symptoms.
“Neuroscientists are learning more about which parts of the brain contribute to anhedonia so that we can develop better treatments for it,” Leonard told PsyPost. “It was known in the field that the nucleus accumbens (NAc) contributes to reward processing in the brain and is affected in anhedonia. However, this study introduced a new brain region, the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT), to the understood neurocircuitry of human anhedonia. We showed that communication between the PVT-NAc is important in anhedonia, particularly for males experiencing psychiatric symptoms.”
“These findings are very well supported by rodent literature, and there is a growing body of research on the dopaminergic neurons in the nucleus accumbens that may underlie these findings. But it was surprising to detect an effect between these small regions of the brain in a modest-sized cohort.”
The researchers did not find any significant relationships between anhedonia and connectivity involving other parts of the thalamus, which suggests that the link between the PVT and NAc is particularly important in this context. These findings align with previous studies in animals that have shown the PVT’s involvement in regulating motivation and reward-seeking behaviors.
While the study provides new insights into the brain mechanisms involved in anhedonia, it also has some limitations. One such limitation is the relatively small sample size, particularly when analyzing sex differences. With only 15 males in the final sample, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about whether the observed differences between males and females are meaningful.
“The sex-dependent effect should not be interpreted too strongly because our numbers are low, and we did not ask specific enough questions about sex and gender identities,” Leonard noted.
The researchers suggest that future work could explore how these brain circuits contribute to decision-making in people with anhedonia, particularly in situations involving reward or motivation.
“Next, we will be studying the role of the PVT in motivational conflict resolution in people experiencing anhedonia,” Leonard explained. “We want to understand how anhedonia affects decision-making and which parts of the brain, including the PVT and NAc are involved in this process. Our larger goal is to develop better therapeutics and diagnostics for anhedonia that are upheld by neurobiology and cognitive neuroscience.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.113) Anhedonia is associated with higher functional connectivity between the nucleus accumbens and paraventricular nucleus of thalamus,” was authored by Bianca T. Leonard, Sarah M. Kark, Steven J. Granger, Joren G. Adams, Liv McMillan, and Michael A. Yassa.

(https://www.psypost.org/evening-types-take-longer-to-fall-asleep-especially-those-with-a-history-of-depression-study-finds/) Evening types take longer to fall asleep, especially those with a history of depression, study finds
Oct 10th 2024, 16:00

A new study published in the (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejn.16551) European Journal of Neuroscience sheds light on the relationship between being an evening person and experiencing longer delays in falling asleep. The study confirmed that individuals who are naturally inclined to stay up late take more time to fall asleep compared to morning types. Individuals with a history of depression showed even longer delays in falling asleep if they identified as evening types, potentially increasing their risk for future depressive episodes.
Previous research has consistently linked eveningness, the natural tendency to stay awake later, with poorer sleep quality. Evening types report more trouble falling asleep, shorter sleep durations, and waking up more often during the night. However, many of these findings rely on self-reported data, which might not always reflect actual sleep patterns.
The research team wanted to assess whether these sleep disturbances could be confirmed with objective measurements using an actigraph, which tracks sleep by measuring movements. They also explored whether rumination, or repetitive thinking before sleep, could explain these sleep difficulties, and whether having a history of depression made these issues worse.
“The biological clock, or otherwise a person’s circadian rhythm, plays a crucial role in several bodily processes, including sleep-wake cycles but also possibly mood. Maintaining a healthy clock function is a foundational/basic process that is often neglected in psychology. I want to know more about how the circadian rhythms affect psychological processes, because we know so little,” said study author (https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/staffmembers/niki-antypa#tab-1) Niki Antypa, an associate professor of clinical psychology at Leiden University.
The study included 88 Dutch-speaking participants, mostly women (87.5%), with an average age of around 21. Participants were selected based on their chronotype, which refers to whether they were naturally inclined to be morning or evening types. Intermediate types were excluded from the study, leaving 53 evening types and 35 morning types. Importantly, the researchers also noted whether participants had a history of depression.
To track sleep patterns, participants wore an actigraph for seven days, which provided objective data on how long it took them to fall asleep, how much time they spent awake after initially falling asleep, and their total sleep duration. Additionally, participants kept a sleep diary each morning, where they recorded similar sleep information based on their own perceptions.
The researchers also wanted to investigate whether pre-sleep rumination, or the tendency to think repetitively before bed, might explain any differences in sleep between the two groups. To measure this, participants completed a questionnaire that asked about their rumination levels during the week of the study.
The study found that evening types took significantly longer to fall asleep than morning types, a pattern confirmed by both self-reported data and actigraphy. On average, evening types took about 21 minutes to fall asleep according to the actigraph, compared to just 14 minutes for morning types. The same difference was observed in participants’ self-reports, with evening types reporting longer delays in falling asleep than morning types. These findings suggest that evening types experience real, measurable difficulties with sleep onset, rather than simply perceiving their sleep as more disrupted.
“Our study is among the first to show that the disturbances in sleep often reported by evening types can be observed using objective data (actigraphy watch),” Antypa told PsyPost. “We see a distinct pattern: evening types take longer to fall asleep and this is found both in self report (subjective data) and using an actigraph (objective data).”
However, contrary to what the researchers expected, pre-sleep rumination did not explain why evening types took longer to fall asleep. While higher rumination levels were associated with longer delays in falling asleep, they did not differ significantly between evening and morning types. This suggests that other factors, beyond pre-sleep rumination, might be responsible for the longer sleep onset seen in evening types.
“We measured rumination retrospectively, meaning that we asked participants if they had negative thoughts before going to sleep the week before,” Antypa noted. “This can be assessed better in future research by assessing negative thoughts before sleep through an app in real time.”
One of the most striking findings of the study was that a history of depression made the sleep difficulties of evening types even worse. Evening types with a history of depression reported much longer delays in falling asleep than both healthy evening types and morning types. This was true even after accounting for factors like alcohol consumption.
“It is astonishing that if participants were an evening type and had depression in the past, it took them much longer to fall asleep compared to the participants who were morning types (with a history of depression) and morning and evening types without a history of depression,” Antypa explained. “So somehow, if you had a history of depression and you are an evening type, you are more susceptible to taking longer to fall asleep. We know from other research that sleep problems are an important predictor of depressive relapse. So this is quite interesting to see that eveningness might be a factor that maintains this problem of taking longer to fall asleep.”
But the study found no significant differences between evening and morning types in terms of other sleep measures, such as how long they stayed awake during the night or their total sleep time. This suggests that the primary sleep problem faced by evening types is a delayed onset of sleep, rather than frequent awakenings or shortened sleep duration.
While the study focused on evening and morning types, it did not measure other factors that might influence sleep, such as physiological markers of circadian rhythms. Future studies could include these measures to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between chronotype and sleep.
“The biological clock plays an important role in processes regulating sleep but also depression,” Antypa said. “We need to understand this role better. We know that light affects the biological clock. Light therapy works for most depressed people even if they don’t have seasonal depression. We don’t really know how or why light therapy works, so I plan to do more research on this.”
“I want to say that people should not immediately worry if they read this and they are an evening type. Being an evening type per se does not make you vulnerable, it is probably a range of factors, habits and traits that some evening types have (and we researchers need to uncover all those) that could make them more vulnerable to poor sleep and depression. ”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16551) Chronotype, sleep quality, depression and pre-sleep rumination: A diary and actigraphy study,” was authored by Efthymia Lamprou, Liia M. M. Kivelä, Jos H. T. Rohling, Johanna H. Meijer, Willem van der Does, and Niki Antypa.

(https://www.psypost.org/ambivalence-in-love-conflicted-feelings-towards-ones-partner-might-have-a-surprising-upside/) Ambivalence in love: Conflicted feelings towards one’s partner might have a surprising upside
Oct 10th 2024, 14:00

A series of three studies found that when people experience mixed and conflicted feelings about their partner, they spend more time thinking about the difficulties in the relationship and ways it can be improved. This leads them to engage in both constructive and destructive behaviors towards their partner. The research was published in (https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/emo0001340) Emotion.
There are certain things in life that people universally like or dislike. For example, people generally like puppies, which tend to elicit only positive feelings. Conversely, people dislike being ill, and thoughts of illness generally elicit negative emotions. When thinking about one’s romantic partner, the general expectation might be that this person would also elicit positive emotions and feelings of love.
However, romantic relationships can be more complex. Individuals often experience both positive and negative emotions towards their partners, depending on the aspect of the relationship or the partner’s behavior they are considering. This phenomenon is referred to as ambivalence.
Ambivalence in romantic relationships refers to mixed or contradictory feelings toward a partner, where an individual experiences both positive and negative emotions simultaneously. This might manifest as loving someone deeply but feeling uncertain or dissatisfied with certain aspects of the relationship. People in relationships characterized by high ambivalence often oscillate between wanting closeness and feeling the need for distance, leading to emotional instability. Ambivalence can stem from unresolved conflicts, unmet expectations, or fear of commitment, making the relationship feel unpredictable.
Study author Guilika Zoppolat and her colleagues sought to explore how feelings of ambivalence towards a romantic partner are associated with both constructive and destructive thoughts about the relationship, as well as with constructive and destructive relationship behaviors. They conducted a series of three studies.
The first study aimed to determine whether people who experience more ambivalence towards their partner tend to report more constructive and destructive thoughts and behaviors towards them. The second study tested whether individuals report more constructive and destructive thoughts and behaviors on days when they feel more ambivalent. The third study, a 12-day daily diary study with couples, examined fluctuations in behavior across the days of the study and over six months.
The participants in the first study were 665 individuals in romantic relationships from various countries, drawn from a larger study of wellbeing and social relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. They completed a survey assessing subjective ambivalence towards their partner (e.g., “In the past two weeks, to what extent did you have mixed feelings towards your partner?”), relationship thoughts (both constructive and destructive), and relationship behaviors (approach behaviors, e.g., “In the past two weeks, I wanted to enjoy my relationship and spend time with my partner,” and avoidance behaviors, e.g., “In the past two weeks, I wanted to avoid my relationship and/or avoid spending time with my partner”).
The second study involved 171 romantically involved young adults living in the Netherlands. Each evening, for 10 consecutive days, they completed a survey similar to the one used in the first study but focused on their experiences from that day.
The third study included 176 Dutch couples with an average age of 39 years. For 12 days, they completed a daily diary similar to the one used in the second study. Additionally, six months later, they completed follow-up surveys with similar assessments.
The results of the first study showed that individuals who felt more ambivalence about their partner tended to report more constructive thoughts (e.g., “Over the course of the pandemic, I have spent a lot of time reflecting on how I can improve my relationship”) and destructive thoughts (e.g., “Over the course of the pandemic, I have spent a lot of time reflecting on the problems, difficulties, or differences of opinion in my relationship”).
They also tended to report more avoidance and fewer approach behaviors towards their partner. However, constructive thoughts were associated with more approach behaviors, and individuals who felt more ambivalence also tended to report more constructive thoughts.
The second study found that greater daily ambivalence was associated with more thinking about the relationship, both constructively and destructively. The researchers tested statistical models proposing that ambivalence leads to increased thinking in both directions—constructive thoughts leading to more constructive behaviors and destructive thoughts leading to more avoidance behaviors. The results suggested that this relationship between ambivalence, thoughts, and behaviors is possible.
The third study also showed that individuals feeling more ambivalence spent more time thinking about the relationship, both constructively and destructively. However, this time, statistical modeling suggested that destructive thoughts led to more destructive behaviors, but there was no clear link between constructive thoughts and constructive behaviors towards one’s partner.
“Our work indicates that ambivalence plays a complex role in people’s daily thoughts and behaviors, suggesting that people are not only managing competing evaluations but also competing thoughts and actions within their relationship. This insight is important because most people experience, or will experience, ambivalence at some point in their relationship—and certainly towards other important areas of life. Therefore, examining the dual nature of ambivalence in contexts where evaluations matter greatly is crucial for understanding the common experience of mixed and conflicting feelings in important life domains,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the complex effect ambivalence has on interpersonal relationships. However, it should be noted that the study relied solely on self-reports, leaving room for reporting bias to affect the results.
The paper, “(http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0001340) It’s Complicated: The Good and Bad of Ambivalence in Romantic Relationships,” was authored by Guilika Zoppolat, Francesca Righetti, Mirna Đurić, Rhonda Nicole Balzarini, and Richard Slatcher.

(https://www.psypost.org/conservatives-close-the-boycott-gap-new-study-highlights-shift-toward-cancel-culture/) Conservatives close the boycott gap: New study highlights shift toward “cancel culture”
Oct 10th 2024, 12:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X241263090) American Politics Research highlights an evolving trend in the United States. The research found that in 2016, strong liberals were significantly more likely to engage in boycotts than strong conservatives. However, by 2020, this gap had largely closed, with both liberals and conservatives showing a strong inclination toward boycotts. Additionally, attitudes of grievance, particularly those related to racial or ethnic minorities and perceptions of discrimination, were associated with higher boycott activity.
Political consumerism, which involves using economic choices to express political views, has gained prominence in recent decades. Consumers may engage in boycotts—avoiding specific products or services to protest company policies—or “buycotts,” deliberately purchasing from companies that align with their values. This form of activism has become a way for individuals to make political statements outside traditional venues, such as voting or demonstrations.
A significant part of today’s political consumerism is linked to what is often referred to as “cancel culture.” Cancel culture generally involves calling out individuals or organizations for perceived offensive actions or behaviors, leading to public disapproval, social ostracism, and, frequently, boycotts. In many cases, political consumerism becomes the tool by which “canceled” entities face economic consequences. Ideological consumers can collectively choose to stop purchasing products from companies that are seen as supporting harmful practices or ideologies.
The researchers wanted to understand the factors that drive individuals to engage in political consumerism, particularly boycotts. They were interested in how political ideology, partisanship, and perceptions of social grievances, such as discrimination against marginalized groups, influenced this behavior. By analyzing data from two major election years—2016 and 2020—the study aimed to capture any changes in the patterns of boycott behavior, particularly the role of political ideology and the impact of broader social movements.
To investigate these questions, the researchers analyzed data from the 2016 and 2020 American National Election Study (ANES), a comprehensive survey of U.S. voters that collects information on their political beliefs, behaviors, and demographics. The 2016 ANES sample included over 4,000 respondents, and the 2020 sample involved more than 7,000. Both surveys were conducted before and after the respective presidential elections and included a mix of in-person and online interviews.
The primary measure of boycott behavior was based on a survey question asking participants how often, in the past 12 months, they had avoided purchasing certain products or services due to the company’s social or political values. Responses were scored on a five-point scale, ranging from “never” to “always.”
In 2016, the researchers found that strong liberals were significantly more likely to engage in political boycotts than strong conservatives. As liberals became more ideologically intense, their likelihood of boycotting products increased. On the other hand, conservatives showed relatively low participation in boycott activities, even among those who identified strongly with conservative views.
By 2020, the situation had shifted notably. While strong liberals continued their high levels of boycott participation, conservatives saw a sixfold increase in their boycott activity compared to 2016. This closed the ideological gap significantly, suggesting that both liberals and conservatives were nearly equally likely to use boycotts as a form of political expression.
“In 2016 liberals had a major advantage in terms of boycott behavior, but this gap closed considerably in 2020 as conservatives increased their level of boycott activism,” the researchers explained. “What activated conservatives to become more active in boycott behavior from 2016 to 2020? One possibility is that high-profile police killings of black Americans, the subsequent protest movement led by groups such as Black Lives Matter, and the corporate response embracing the “anti-racism” narrative all worked together to create a backlash and increase conservative boycott activity.
“The corporate embrace of anti-racism—in particular, as reflected by the highly-visible response by professional sports teams—may have motivated many conservatives to engage in political consumerism by boycotting corporations, sports leagues, and other institutions that embraced a racial narrative with which they disagreed. An empirical test of this speculation is beyond the scope of this paper and awaits further study, but it is important to explore why conservatives became active in political boycotts as we move from 2016 to 2020.”
Another major finding of the study was that attitudes toward marginalized racial and ethnic groups were associated with higher levels of boycott participation. For instance, individuals who held favorable views of groups like Blacks, Latinos, and Asians were more likely to engage in boycotts, particularly in 2016. Similarly, personal experiences with discrimination, whether based on race or gender, were linked to greater boycott activity. In 2020, the data showed that individuals who perceived high levels of discrimination against marginalized groups were also more inclined to boycott.
Interestingly, the results regarding support for LGBTQ rights were mixed. In 2020, the study found that strong advocates for LGBTQ rights were somewhat less likely to participate in boycotts, a surprising finding given the expectation that progressive social views would generally predict higher boycott activity.
The researchers also found that certain traits related to political engagement were strongly linked to an individual’s likelihood of participating in boycotts. Specifically, people who reported a high interest in politics, those who distrusted the government, and those who were active in their communities or made political donations were more likely to use boycotts.
While this study sheds light on the relationship between ideology and boycott behavior, it also has some limitations. First, the research relies on self-reported survey data, which may be influenced by social desirability bias—respondents might overstate or understate their participation in boycotts based on what they think is socially acceptable. Second, the study’s focus on 2016 and 2020 data means it cannot capture longer-term trends in boycott behavior over multiple decades.
Future research could explore several key questions that emerged from this study. For example, why did conservatives increase their boycott participation between 2016 and 2020? What specific political events or corporate actions triggered this shift? Researchers could also examine how boycotts impact corporate behavior. Do companies change their policies or public stances when faced with boycotts from different ideological groups?
The study, “(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X241263090) Voting in the Mall: Ideology, Grievance, and Political Consumerism,” was authored by Kwadwo Poku-Agyemang and James C. Garand.

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/20241011/a62209e0/attachment.htm>