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-study-links-stress-to-bedtime-procrastination-in-university-students/) New study links stress to bedtime procrastination in university students
Oct 13th 2024, 10:00

A study of German university students found that they tended to delay their bedtime on days when they experienced higher levels of stress. Their sleep quality also declined during these periods. The research was published in (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smi.3330) Stress and Health.
Sleep is essential for maintaining overall health, as it allows the body and brain to rest, recover, and perform critical functions like memory consolidation, hormone regulation, and tissue repair. During sleep, the brain processes information from the day, which strengthens learning and supports cognitive functions such as problem-solving and decision-making. Adequate sleep is also crucial for emotional regulation, as it helps manage stress and promotes mood stability.
In contrast, insufficient sleep negatively affects cognitive performance, leading to issues such as impaired concentration, slower reaction times, and poor judgment. Chronic sleep deprivation can weaken immune function, making the body more susceptible to infections and illnesses. It also disrupts metabolic processes, increasing the risk of weight gain, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. A lack of sleep raises stress hormone levels, contributing to high blood pressure and heart problems. Over time, consistent sleep deprivation has been linked to an increased risk of chronic health conditions and an overall decline in quality of life.
Study author Laura I. Schmidt and her colleagues aimed to examine how daily stress contributes to sleep quality and bedtime procrastination. Bedtime procrastination occurs when a person delays going to bed as planned without any external reasons for doing so (i.e., without anything preventing them from going to bed on time). The researchers hypothesized that high daily stress might contribute to bedtime procrastination, as well as to shorter and poorer quality sleep.
They conducted a daily diary study with 96 students from Heidelberg University in Germany, recruited through online psychology student groups. Participants received course credit for their participation. Eighty-four percent of the participants were female, and their average age was 22 years.
Over the course of 14 days, participants wore an actigraphy device (the Fitbit Charge HR) that monitored their movements to record their total sleep duration and timing. Participants also completed subjective assessments of sleep quality (the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary), daily stress (the Heidelberger Stress-Index), and answered questions about engagement in unplanned but controllable late-night activities, as well as their intended time to go to sleep. The researchers calculated bedtime procrastination as the difference between the time participants reported planning to go to sleep and the time the actigraphy device registered them falling asleep.
On average, participants delayed their sleep time by 15 minutes and postponed their bedtime on 15% of the study days. When they postponed their bedtime, it was by an average of 102 minutes. Participants slept an average of 7.5 hours per night.
On nights when participants delayed their bedtime, their sleep duration was typically shorter, and their sleep quality tended to be worse. Higher symptoms of smartphone addiction were slightly associated with postponing bedtime. Some participants had a habit of delaying their sleep time, while others tended to go to bed on time. Participants were more likely to postpone their bedtime on days when they experienced higher levels of stress.
The study authors tested a statistical model proposing that bedtime procrastination mediates the link between daily stress and sleep duration/quality. The results suggested that this relationship is indeed plausible.
“Results of our study indicate that higher stress contributes to higher BP [bedtime procrastination] and additionally to decreases in sleep duration and quality. Daily BP was a mediating factor of the relationship between stress and sleep outcomes,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the links between stress and sleep quality. However, it should be noted that the study was conducted on psychology students. Results on other age and demographic groups might not be the same.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3330) Postponing sleep after a stressful day: Patterns of stress, bedtime procrastination, and sleep outcomes in a daily diary approach,” was authored by Laura I. Schmidt, Anke S. Baetzner, Marina I. Dreisbusch, Alica Mertens, and Monika Sieverding.

(https://www.psypost.org/misreading-the-data-moral-convictions-influence-how-we-interpret-evidence-of-anti-women-bias/) Misreading the data: Moral convictions influence how we interpret evidence of anti-women bias
Oct 13th 2024, 08:00

How do our moral beliefs shape the way we interpret evidence of societal issues like gender discrimination? A recent study in the (https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3071) European Journal of Social Psychology found that individuals with strong commitments to gender equality are more likely to trust rigorous studies showing bias against women. However, the study also points to a darker side: the same moral conviction can lead to biased reasoning, causing people to infer discrimination even when the evidence says otherwise.
“We hear a lot of worries about gender discrimination against women in the fields of Science, Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics (the so-called STEM). And it is clear that having more women in these fields would be a good thing,” explained study authors (https://www.antoinemariesci.com/) Antoine Marie and (https://sites.google.com/view/hualin-xiao) Hualin Xiao, a postdoctoral fellow at Ecole Normale Supérieure and a postdoctoral researcher at the Université Clermont Auvergne, respectively.
“Surprisingly, however, recent evidence is mixed with some studies suggesting this hiring discrimination (https://www.psypost.org/anti-women-bias-in-job-application-outcomes-has-declined-over-time-but-anti-male-bias-remains-stable/) has largely diminished, if not reversed, in the U.S. and European countries, while others suggest (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba7814) the persistence of implicit gender bias against women in hiring.”
“Also, we noticed that in everyday conversations, people often conflate the fact there are smaller numbers of women than men in some jobs with the idea of women being discriminated against during hiring processes just because they are women. This is a wrong interpretation: women may also apply less to some jobs (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0890-4) because they are less interested in them – and the same for men. This belief is in part due to the fact that many people believe that men and women are a blank slate at birth, which we don’t necessarily believe to be true.”
“There is some evidence from cross-cultural psychology that men and women are interested in different things in life and have different life goals, on average,” the researchers continued. “Notably, for instance, women are typically less interested on average to go through hyper-competitive career paths than men. They are also more constrained to choose between having children or staying in academia because of a shorter fertility window and greater maternal duties.”
“Women also tend to be less interested in jobs that make them analyze problems related to the non-organic world (e.g., engineering, coding, vs. human biology or developmental psychology, for instance). This is perfectly fine, people should be able to do whatever they want, but the inference is often that if there are gender differences in interests, this is bad news, because they will be used to prevent women from accessing male-typical jobs: politics, engineering, informatics, non-organic sciences, etc.”
To examine the influence of moral commitment to gender equality on perceptions of gender bias in hiring, the researchers conducted a series of experiments involving over 3,500 participants from the United States and the United Kingdom. Participants were recruited through online platforms such as Prolific and Amazon Mechanical Turk, and they were presented with summaries of scientific studies that either demonstrated or refuted the existence of gender discrimination in hiring practices.
In the first series of experiments, the researchers aimed to investigate whether participants’ moral commitment to gender equality influenced their evaluations of a study showing evidence of gender discrimination. The study used in these experiments was based on the well-known Moss-Racusin et al. (2012) research, which found that male applicants were rated more favorably than equally qualified female applicants for a lab manager position. Participants in experiments were asked to evaluate the quality of the study, the accuracy of its findings, and the reliability of its methods.
In addition to evaluating the study, participants also answered questions designed to measure their moral commitment to gender equality. This was done using a three-item scale, which asked participants to rate how much they agreed with statements like, “Achieving gender equality is a moral imperative” and “The fight for gender equality is central to my identity.”
The researchers found a clear relationship between participants’ moral commitment to gender equality and their evaluations of scientific evidence. Participants who expressed stronger moral convictions about gender equality were more likely to positively evaluate studies that provided rigorous evidence of gender discrimination against women in STEM hiring processes. These individuals rated the studies as more accurate, reliable, and of higher quality compared to participants with weaker moral commitments.
Interestingly, the researchers found that differences in how men and women evaluated these studies were largely explained by variations in their moral commitment to gender equality. While earlier studies had suggested that men were generally more skeptical about claims of gender discrimination, this research showed that moral commitment, not gender alone, was the key factor.
In another experiment, the researchers expanded the scope of their investigation by introducing a new variable: the direction of the hiring bias. Rather than presenting only evidence of discrimination against women, participants were randomly assigned to read summaries of studies showing either a bias against women or a bias in favor of women. The summaries were based on the same type of research designs as the earlier experiments, but the findings were manipulated to either confirm or contradict the common belief that women are disadvantaged in hiring.
The results confirmed that participants, on the whole, were more skeptical of studies showing a bias favoring women than those showing a bias against women. Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, however, moral commitment to gender equality was not significantly associated with skepticism toward studies showing a hiring bias favoring women. Participants with strong moral commitments did not show increased distrust in evidence of women being favored compared to the overall sample.
“I was personally surprised that there was no association between being more morally committed to gender equality and being more skeptical of evidence of gender bias favoring women,” Marie told PsyPost. “I would have expected more motivated skepticism towards this result, because it is somewhat contrary to people’s expectations and might be seen as bad news for the gender equalitarians’ struggle to mobilize people against sex-based hiring bias.”
In yet another experiment, the researchers sought to further explore the mechanisms behind the relationship between moral commitment and research evaluation by introducing a two-step process involving both prediction and evaluation. In the first step, participants were asked to predict the outcome of a study before being shown the results.
Specifically, they were presented with a study summary about gender discrimination in hiring, but unlike in previous experiments, the study was described as being about to be conducted rather than already completed. Participants were asked to predict what they thought the results would be, based on their expectations of gender bias in academia.
After making their predictions, participants were shown the actual results of the study, which either confirmed or contradicted their predictions. The study summaries were similar to those used in earlier experiments, showing either a hiring bias against women or a bias in favor of women.
As expected, participants with stronger moral commitments to gender equality predicted that the study would show bias against women. When the results aligned with their predictions, these participants rated the study as more credible and reliable.
Finally, in a set of experiments, the researchers presented participants with fallacious scientific studies that drew incorrect conclusions from their data. In these experiments, participants were shown a study summary that concluded there was discrimination against women, but the data within the study actually showed the opposite—women were more likely to be hired than men.
In one experiment, the researchers included a control group where participants read about discrimination against left-handed individuals instead of gender discrimination. In the other experiment, the control condition focused on discrimination based on height, allowing for a more direct comparison with the gender condition, as both height and gender involve population divisions close to 50/50.
The results showed that participants with higher moral commitment to gender equality were indeed more likely to accept the study’s faulty conclusion. Despite the data contradicting the idea of discrimination against women, these participants were more inclined to endorse the study’s findings, showing that their moral beliefs could lead them to overlook evidence that did not support their views.
Additionally, participants in these experiments were more likely to accept the flawed gender discrimination conclusion than the fallacious conclusions in the control conditions. This indicates that moral commitment to a highly charged issue like gender equality can lead people to reason in biased ways, accepting conclusions that align with their beliefs, even when those conclusions are unsupported by the data.
But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider.
“We only collected data in Western, English-speaking countries where there is already a good deal of concern for gender equality and for promoting gender parity,” Marie and Xiao noted. “(https://weirdpeople.fas.harvard.edu/) Most research in quantitative social science is based on Western samples. Collecting data in non-western countries would be desirable. There, men may care much less than women about the lack of females in intellectual professions – and may even see this as good news, especially in Middle Eastern and Asian patriarchal societies.”
“Our studies were correlational in nature because it would not be possible to assign a dose of high vs. low moral commitment to people and see how it affects their assessment of research on gender bias in hiring. Thus, it is not possible to completely disentangle the role of stronger prior beliefs about the size of gender discrimination from stronger moral convictions that equality must to be advanced. Whenever one measures moral attitudes, one captures a mix of factual or statistical beliefs, and some more hot moral cognition, and it’s hard to see in what proportion.”
Nevertheless, the findings offer valuable insights into how moral commitment influences the way people assess evidence of gender discrimination. While strong moral convictions can drive positive social change by fostering support for equality, they may also impair objective judgment, leading to biased evaluations of scientific evidence.
“We are interested in spreading the word about the negative effects of strong moral commitments,” the researchers said. “Moral convictions that gender equality must be promoted can motivate people to undertake beneficial action (e.g. making sure they are not biased against women in hiring processes; avoiding subtle things like mansplaining, etc.). At the same time, such moral convictions can also make them refuse nuanced and evidence-based discussions of the issue; or reject robust evidence that gender-based hiring discrimination might in some cases have gone down, etc. Morality binds and blinds.”
The study, “(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejsp.3071) Moral commitment to gender equality increases (mis)perceptions of gender bias in hiring,” was authored by Hualin Xiao, Antoine Marie, and Brent Strickland.

(https://www.psypost.org/a-unique-event-in-japan-gave-scientists-unprecedented-insight-into-gamings-mental-health-effects/) A unique event in Japan gave scientists unprecedented insight into gaming’s mental health effects
Oct 13th 2024, 06:00

A natural experiment born out of the COVID-19 pandemic’s supply chain disruptions has allowed scientists in Japan to uncover the causal effects of video gaming on mental health. The findings upend common perceptions of gaming as a threat to mental well-being.
By studying individuals who won lotteries to purchase gaming consoles like the Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 5, the researchers found that owning a console led to reduced psychological distress and improved life satisfaction. Their research has been published in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01948-y) Nature Human Behaviour.
With nearly three billion gamers worldwide, gaming has become a major part of daily life for many people. However, concerns have grown over the possible adverse impacts of gaming, especially as organizations like the World Health Organization have classified ‘gaming disorder’ — a condition characterized by persistent gaming behavior — as a mental health issue in the International Classification of Diseases.
The COVID-19 pandemic, which saw a surge in gaming activity, added fuel to this discussion. Many parents and policymakers began to worry about whether gaming was negatively affecting young people’s mental health. However, the psychological impact of gaming has remained uncertain, as most existing research has been based on observational studies that can’t establish cause and effect.
“As parents of three children ourselves, we became acutely aware of the widespread concerns about video gaming’s effects on youth, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said study author (https://sites.google.com/view/hiroyuki-egami/) Hiroyuki Egami, an assistant professor at Nihon University. “Many parents, including ourselves, felt guilty or anxious about their children’s gaming habits, fearing potential negative consequences. These worries often create tension at home and in families.”
“During lockdowns, when families were confined at home with parents working remotely and children unable to attend school or kindergarten, we noticed a surge in blog posts from parents expressing guilt and fear about their children’s increased digital media use. As policy study researchers, we became interested in whether these worries were backed by scientific evidence. Upon investigation of the literature, we were surprised to find no conclusive evidence supporting these concerns, which further motivated us to explore this topic through an evidence-based approach.”
The study took advantage of the pandemic-era supply shortages of the Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 5 in Japan. Due to these shortages, retailers organized lotteries that determined who could purchase the consoles. The researchers viewed this lottery system as a natural experiment, where winning the lottery served as a randomly assigned event that determined whether someone could purchase a console and begin gaming. This setup provided a unique opportunity to examine the effects of gaming in a real-world environment, free from many of the biases that typically affect observational studies.
The research team conducted five rounds of online surveys between December 2020 and March 2022, collecting data from 97,602 individuals aged 10 to 69 across Japan. The surveys asked participants about their gaming habits, mental health, life satisfaction, and other sociodemographic factors. Importantly, the researchers collected information about whether participants had won a gaming console lottery and whether they were using a console regularly.
The main outcomes of interest were psychological distress and life satisfaction, measured through widely used scales: the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). These tools provided a snapshot of each participant’s mental health and overall satisfaction with life. The researchers also tracked how much time participants spent playing video games and whether they owned a gaming console, in order to assess how these factors correlated with changes in well-being.
“Before our study, the existing literature on the association between video gaming and mental health showed mixed results,” Egami noted. “Without causal studies, the actual relationship remained unknown, and based on association studies, we anticipated effects that could range from positive to negative, or potentially show no significant impact at all.”
The researchers used advanced statistical techniques, including multivariate regression, propensity score matching, and instrumental variable methods, to ensure the results were as accurate as possible. They found that individuals who won the lottery to purchase a gaming console showed reductions in psychological distress and improvements in life satisfaction.
“The second author of this study, Md. Shafiur Rahman, an epidemiologist, was the one who was most surprised to see the results,” Egami told PsyPost. “In his field, concerns about gaming’s negative impacts are prevalent among researchers. However, our study’s robust methodology challenges these preconceptions, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to studying digital media’s effects on health.”
Specifically, owning a Switch reduced psychological distress by about 0.2 standard deviations, and owning a PS5 reduced distress by 0.1 standard deviations. Life satisfaction also improved for PS5 owners by approximately 0.2 standard deviations. While these numbers don’t represent transformative changes, they point to real and positive shifts in well-being.
“The stereotype that video games are particularly harmful to children is not supported by our data,” Egami said. “We found the Nintendo Switch actually showed more substantial benefits for children’s mental health compared to adults.”
“For parents: It’s natural to be concerned about your children’s gaming habits, but our research suggests these worries may be overstated,” he added. “Imposing unnecessary restrictions can create tension around gaming in your household, which may negatively affect both you and your children. A more balanced, individualized approach is recommended, keeping in mind that while gaming can be beneficial, moderation is key to maintaining those positive effects.”
Further analysis revealed that the positive effects of gaming on mental well-being were more pronounced for certain groups of people. For example, younger individuals and those with higher levels of initial distress experienced greater improvements in mental health from gaming. Younger individuals benefited more from owning a Nintendo Switch, while PlayStation 5 ownership had stronger positive effects for older participants.
Furthermore, hardcore gamers—those who played video games frequently and with more intensity—showed greater mental health improvements from owning a PlayStation 5, whereas more casual gamers saw stronger benefits from owning a Switch. However, the researchers also found that the benefits of gaming diminished when people played for more than three hours per day, suggesting that moderation is key to obtaining the mental health benefits of gaming.
“Balance is important,” Egami emphasized. “Gaming has diminishing returns when done in excess. While we observed positive effects, benefits started to level off after about 3 hours of play per day. Too much of anything can reduce its value.”
“Interestingly, we may not be the most surprised by our results,” he said. “In discussing our study with other scientists, we’ve encountered individuals who firmly believed that video gaming must have negative effects on mental well-being and overall life quality. Some seemed to hold these beliefs with unwavering conviction, despite the lack of scientific evidence. Our findings, therefore, are not just surprising, but also intriguing, challenging these long-held beliefs.”
Despite the positive findings, the study had some limitations. One important consideration is that the data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of heightened stress and limited physical activity. The researchers acknowledged that the unusual circumstances of the pandemic may have influenced their findings, potentially amplifying the positive effects of gaming. They suggested that future research in non-pandemic settings would be necessary to confirm whether these benefits hold in different contexts.
“With fewer opportunities for physical activity during lockdowns, people may have been less likely to substitute gaming for exercise — effectively removing one potential negative pathway through which gaming might impact mental health,” Egami explained. “Given these unique circumstances, it is possible that our current estimates of gaming’s positive effects may be higher compared to what we might find in pre- or post-pandemic settings.
“However, we do not believe the pandemic is solely responsible for the beneficial effects identified in our study. Multiple mechanisms through which gaming can positively impact mental health are outlined in our paper.”
Additionally, the study focused on two specific gaming consoles—Nintendo Switch and PS5—so the results may not apply to other types of gaming, such as mobile or PC gaming. The researchers also relied on self-reported data, which can sometimes be inaccurate, though the use of the lottery-based natural experiment helped reduce potential biases in the findings. Looking ahead, the researchers plan to investigate the mechanisms behind the positive effects of gaming on mental well-being.
“Our long-term research goals are multi-faceted,” Egami explained. “First, we aim to uncover the underlying mechanisms that explain the positive effects of gaming on mental well-being. This could include exploring whether video games provide physical activity through exergames, satisfy basic psychological needs, foster social connection, enhance cognitive engagement, offer meaningful experiences, and provide stress relief. Understanding these and other potential mediating variables could help explain why and how video gaming positively impacts mental health, and whether these effects persist across different contexts and gaming formats.”
“With a deeper understanding of these mechanisms, we hope to develop models that can predict the effect of specific gaming experiences on individuals. This knowledge could lead to practical applications, such as personalized game recommendations on online platforms. Unlike current systems that primarily aim to increase sales, these recommendations would be designed to enhance players’ enjoyment and well-being. Ultimately, our goal is to contribute to improving the overall gaming experience and well-being of players through evidence-based, personalized approaches.”
By leveraging a unique natural experiment, the researchers were able to move beyond the limitations of previous research and provide clearer insights into how gaming affects life satisfaction and psychological distress. While more research is needed to fully understand the long-term implications of these findings, the new study provides a solid foundation for future investigations into the relationship between video gaming and mental health.
“The widespread belief in gaming’s negative effects significantly impacts public perception,” Egami said. “Many parents feel guilty or excessively worried about their children’s video game habits, fearing potential negative consequences. These concerns can create unnecessary tensions at home, despite the lack of firm scientific evidence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we became particularly attuned to these worries and began exploring an evidence-based approach to address this topic. Our study now provides robust scientific evidence to ease some of those worries. As both a father (Hiroyuki Egami, first author) and a mother (Chihiro Egami, fourth author) of three wonderful children, we hope our research can offer some reassurance to parents in similar situations.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01948-y) Causal effect of video gaming on mental well-being in Japan 2020–2022,” was authored by Hiroyuki Egami, Md. Shafiur Rahman, Tsuyoshi Yamamoto, Chihiro Egami, and Takahisa Wakabayashi.

(https://www.psypost.org/why-ambitious-leaders-may-not-be-as-effective-as-they-think/) Why ambitious leaders may not be as effective as they think
Oct 12th 2024, 14:00

Ambition may help individuals rise to leadership positions, but does it make them better leaders? A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae295) PNAS Nexus suggests not. The research shows that although ambitious leaders often rate themselves as effective, third-party evaluations from colleagues and subordinates indicate that ambition is not a strong indicator of leadership success. This disconnect highlights the potential flaws in relying on self-selection for leadership roles.
The researchers were motivated to explore the assumption that ambitious individuals—those who actively seek leadership roles—are also likely to be more effective leaders. Leadership roles often come with substantial personal, financial, and professional rewards, so it’s common for ambitious people to strive for these positions.
Many organizations rely on self-selection, meaning that individuals put themselves forward for leadership roles, but this practice assumes that those with the drive to lead are the best candidates for the job. However, this belief hadn’t been rigorously tested.
“Leaders are critical to the success of individuals, teams, organizations, and society at large. Yet, human beings often struggle to select the best leaders,” explained study author (http://www.shilaan.com) Shilaan Alzahawi, a PhD candidate at Stanford Graduate School of Business and a Stanford Data Science Scholar.
“Our goal was to understand why, despite the strong incentives at play, we often fail to place the right person in charge. In this paper, we find that individuals with higher levels of ambition are more likely to emerge as leaders and to hold positive views of their own effectiveness; however, according to ratings by managers, direct reports, expert judges, team members, and peers, ambitious individuals are no more effective in a leadership role than their less-ambitious peers.”
To examine the link between ambition and leadership effectiveness, the researchers collected data from a sample of 472 managers who were enrolled in an executive education program at a prominent West Coast business school in the United States. These managers were part of a leadership development program and were required to participate in a 360-degree leadership assessment, which gathered feedback from multiple sources: their managers, peers, subordinates, and the leaders themselves.
The study was conducted in two waves. In the first wave, ambition and leadership effectiveness were measured at different time points, ranging from 27 days to several months apart. In the second wave, the time gap between these measurements was even longer, spanning 1.5 to 2 years. This approach was designed to minimize the potential bias that could occur if the leaders’ ambition and their effectiveness were measured at the same time.
Each executive was asked to complete a self-report questionnaire on their ambition, which included items like “I am highly motivated to get promoted quickly and often” and “It’s important to me to attain a high-status position in my career.” These responses were rated on a seven-point scale and averaged to form a single score for each leader’s ambition.
To assess leadership effectiveness, the researchers used data from the 360-degree evaluations. These evaluations measured ten leadership competencies, including motivating others, decision-making, managing collaborative work, and handling conflict. Managers, peers, subordinates, and the leaders themselves rated the leaders on these competencies. By comparing the self-ratings with 3,830 third-party ratings (i.e., feedback from others), the researchers could assess whether ambitious leaders were actually seen as more effective by the people they worked with.
The results of the study revealed a notable discrepancy between how ambitious leaders viewed themselves and how others perceived their effectiveness. Leaders who reported high levels of ambition consistently rated themselves as more effective across multiple leadership dimensions. This self-assessment aligns with the idea that ambitious individuals are driven to achieve and likely to see themselves as competent and capable in leadership roles.
However, when the researchers looked at how these leaders were evaluated by others—specifically their managers, peers, and subordinates—they found no evidence that ambition was linked to higher ratings of effectiveness. In other words, leaders with higher ambition were not seen as more effective by the people around them, regardless of the type of leadership competency being measured. This discrepancy was evident across various competencies, including decision-making, managing collaborative work, and coaching others.
For example, when looking at specific leadership competencies such as accountability, motivating others, and managing collaborative work, ambitious leaders consistently rated themselves higher. However, third-party raters did not observe the same level of effectiveness in these areas.
Interestingly, the feedback from different groups (managers, peers, and subordinates) was fairly consistent. None of these groups rated ambitious leaders as more effective than less ambitious ones, indicating that ambition alone does not make a leader more successful in the eyes of those they lead or work with.
“At first, the findings surprised us,” Alzahawi told PsyPost. “Ambition is a great example of agentic behavior, and we already know from the leadership literature that agency strongly predicts leadership evaluations. So, based on the overlap between ambition and agency, we should expect a positive relationship between leadership ambition and evaluations of effectiveness.”
“In addition, social scientists often assume that status hierarchies are relatively functional, where groups allocate status to members who contribute most to group success. This theorizing would suggest that people are incentivized to “calibrate” their ambition because they would be socially punished for being too ambitious.”
Previous research, Alzahawi noted, has also shown that individuals are typically accurate in assessing their status within groups and tend to pursue leadership roles only when they believe they can contribute significantly, suggesting that more competent people are likely to seek such positions.
“But then, we considered how many incompetent people end up running companies, schools, even countries, and we realized, ‘Yeah, maybe leadership selection is not perfectly efficient,'” Alzahawi said.
The findings challenge a common assumption in leader selection processes: that individuals who aspire to lead are also best suited for leadership roles. The study suggests that the ambition to lead doesn’t necessarily correlate with being more skilled or effective in leadership. Ambitious leaders might hold a more positive view of their own leadership abilities, but this self-perception is not necessarily shared by others.
“Most leader selection processes, in organizations, business schools, and even entire democracies, rely on some form of self-selection into the candidate pool for leadership roles,” Alzahawi said. “That is, individuals have to actively choose whether they’d like to be considered for leadership roles – in more formal terms, they have to ‘opt in’ to the pool.”
“Our work implies that this opt-in leader selection mechanism may result in candidate pools that are dominated by individuals with high ambition – a trait that is not indicative of high leadership potential. Based on these findings, we recommend that institutions de-emphasize ambition as a factor in the selection process and instead (1) solicit a wider, more representative pool of applicants, (2) emphasize factors that are known to predict leadership effectiveness, such as intelligence and prosociality, and (3) find ways to target and inspire individuals with low ambition and high leadership potential.”
Although this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between ambition and leadership effectiveness, it also has certain limitations, like any research. First, the sample was drawn from executives enrolled in a leadership development program at a specific business school, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study was conducted in a U.S.-based context, where ambition is often highly valued. In other cultural contexts, where modesty and collective success are more highly regarded, the link between ambition and leadership effectiveness may differ.
“Executives enrolled in a leadership development program at a West Coast University in the United States tend to be highly ambitious to start with, and they are relatively similar on important demographics such as their gender, age, race, and socioeconomic status,” Alzahawi told PsyPost. “As a result, one could argue that the findings stem from selection bias – perhaps we just didn’t find a relationship between ambition and effectiveness because of what’s called ‘range restriction’ in our ambition variable, and perhaps the findings apply only to this sample of people with high ambition.”
“To make sure this isn’t the case, we ran an additional study in which we circumvented selection bias and range restriction. We partnered with a company to recruit a nationally representative sample in terms of our participants’ gender, age, location, race/ethnicity, and income, which also led to a sample with greater variation in their ambition – some people were highly ambitious like our executive sample, but we also had many participants who were perfectly content not to vie for a leadership role. Next, rather than letting these participants self-select into leadership roles, we randomly assigned each participant to either a leader role or a team member role.”
“In this study, in which we circumvented selection effects and range restriction by relying on a nationally representative sample with random assignment of a leadership role, we again replicated the found null relationship between ambition and third-party evaluations of leader effectiveness,” Alzahawi explained. “In other words, we found that our findings generalize to this nationally representative sample.”
“While this does alleviate our concerns about the executive sample already being highly ambitious to start with, we do believe that this is very much a U.S. based finding. It’s possible that our work would not replicate in a non-Western context, in which ambition might not be as highly valued as it is in the United States. I think this would be a really interesting direction for future research.”
The researchers noted that ambitious individuals might emerge as leaders due to their drive for status, power, and recognition, rather than their ability to lead effectively. Future studies could investigate whether interventions aimed at fostering ambition in individuals with high leadership potential (but low initial ambition) could lead to better leadership outcomes.
“Ultimately, I hope to identify a systemic lever that can foster diversity in upper-level positions and promote workplace advancement for individuals with high leadership potential,” Alzahawi said.
The study, “(https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/8/pgae295/7736721) A legend in one’s own mind: The link between ambition and leadership evaluations,” was authored by Shilaan Alzahawi, Emily S. Reit, and Francis J. Flynn.

(https://www.psypost.org/frequent-cannabis-users-are-more-likely-to-miss-work/) Frequent cannabis users are more likely to miss work
Oct 12th 2024, 12:00

A new study published in the (https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(24)00258-7/abstract) American Journal of Preventive Medicine has found that individuals who use cannabis frequently or suffer from cannabis use disorder are more likely to miss work. The study analyzed data from over 46,000 employed adults in the United States, revealing that recent cannabis use is linked to increased absenteeism, both due to illness or injury and intentional skipping of work. This connection grows stronger with more frequent use and more severe cases of cannabis use disorder.
Cannabis use is becoming increasingly common in the United States, especially as laws continue to shift toward legalization for both medical and recreational purposes. Over 23% of adults in the U.S. report using cannabis in the past year, a trend that is expected to rise. Despite this, researchers have not yet fully understood how cannabis use impacts the workplace, especially in terms of absenteeism, which can significantly affect productivity and economic outcomes.
Previous studies on cannabis and absenteeism have been inconsistent. Some research has suggested that cannabis use increases absenteeism, while others have found no connection or even a decrease in absences following cannabis legalization. This study aimed to resolve these contradictions by analyzing recent, comprehensive data from a nationally representative survey. By looking at both cannabis use frequency and the severity of cannabis use disorder, the researchers hoped to provide clearer insights into how cannabis affects workplace attendance.
The researchers also drew inspiration from similar research on alcohol use. Alcohol use disorder has been shown to significantly increase workplace absenteeism. Given the similarities between alcohol and cannabis as commonly used substances, the researchers suspected a similar relationship might exist for cannabis use and cannabis use disorder.
“Cannabis use has increased dramatically in the United States over the past decade, likely driven by changes in legalization and decreasing perceived risk associated with use,” said study author Dr. Kevin H. Yang, a third-year resident physician in the Department of Psychiatry at UC San Diego School of Medicine. “As a researcher at UCSD, I’m part of a team interested in examining the various public health aspects of cannabis use, looking at both the benefits as well as risks. Given the changing landscape, we wanted to understand how cannabis use might impact important areas of life, including workplace absenteeism.”
To investigate this question, the researchers used data from the 2021-2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which surveyed over 46,000 adults who were employed full-time. The survey is designed to be representative of the U.S. population, meaning the findings could be generalized to the broader workforce.
Participants were asked about their cannabis use, including whether they had used cannabis in the past month, how frequently they used it during that time, and whether they met the criteria for cannabis use disorder. Cannabis use disorder is diagnosed based on the standards set by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which considers factors like how much control a person has over their cannabis use and whether it negatively impacts their life.
Workplace absenteeism was measured in two ways: the number of workdays missed due to illness or injury, and the number of days skipped for other reasons, such as not wanting to go to work. The researchers controlled for other factors that might affect absenteeism, such as age, sex, race, education level, household income, and the use of other substances like alcohol or nicotine.
The data were analyzed using statistical models that allowed the researchers to see how cannabis use and cannabis use disorder affected absenteeism after accounting for these other factors. They also conducted sensitivity analyses, which included part-time workers, to ensure their findings were robust across different employment situations.
The study found a clear link between recent cannabis use and increased workplace absenteeism. People who had used cannabis within the past 30 days missed more days of work than those who had not used cannabis recently. This was true both for absences due to illness or injury and for skipping work for other reasons.
Specifically, those who had used cannabis in the past month missed an average of 1.47 days due to illness or injury, compared to just 0.95 days for those who had never used cannabis. Similarly, recent cannabis users skipped an average of 0.63 workdays because they simply did not want to go, compared to 0.28 days for those who had never used cannabis.
The frequency of cannabis use also played a role. People who used cannabis more frequently—especially those who used it almost daily—were even more likely to miss work. For example, those who used cannabis between 20 and 30 days per month were 1.36 times more likely to miss work due to illness or injury and 1.83 times more likely to skip work compared to those who hadn’t used cannabis recently.
Cannabis use disorder also had a significant impact on absenteeism. Individuals with mild, moderate, or severe cannabis use disorder were more likely to miss work for both reasons compared to those without the disorder. The severity of the disorder was closely linked to how much work was missed, with individuals suffering from severe cannabis use disorder being nearly three times more likely to skip work than those without the disorder.
“One surprising finding was the dose-response relationship we observed between cannabis use disorder severity and skipping work; as cannabis use disorder severity increased from mild to moderate to severe, we saw a stepwise increase in the rate of skipping work,” Yang said.
These findings suggest that not only is cannabis use associated with more missed work, but the intensity of cannabis use and the presence of cannabis use disorder further exacerbate this trend.
“The key takeaway is that recent and frequent cannabis use, as well as cannabis use disorder, are associated with higher rates of workplace absenteeism due to both missing work because of injury/illness and skipping work,” Yang said. “These findings underscore the need for workplace drug prevention and treatment policies, as well as further research to better understand these relationships.”
As with any study, there are some limitations to consider. One limitation is that the study was cross-sectional, meaning it looked at data from one point in time. As a result, the researchers could not determine whether cannabis use caused the absenteeism or if other factors were at play.
“For instance, it’s possible that cannabis use leads to missing work, or that people who are more likely to miss work are also more likely to consume cannabis,” Yang explained. “Additionally, our data relies on self-reporting, which can be subject to various types of biases, including recall bias and social desirability bias.”
The study also did not differentiate between medical and recreational cannabis use, which could be an important factor. People using cannabis for medical reasons might have different patterns of absenteeism compared to those using it recreationally.
“We aim to conduct longitudinal studies to better understand the causal relationships between cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and workplace outcomes,” Yang said. “We’re also interested in qualitative studies to understand why people are consuming cannabis, why people are missing out on work, and what the relationship between those two are.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.07.021) Cannabis Use, Use Disorder, and Workplace Absenteeism in the U.S., 2021−2022,” was authored by Kevin H. Yang, Letitia Mueller, Omar El-Shahawy, and Joseph J. Palamar.

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/20241013/c53f4697/attachment.htm>