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/targeted-neurostimulation-shows-promise-in-reducing-ptsd-symptoms-in-veterans/) Targeted neurostimulation shows promise in reducing PTSD symptoms in veterans
Oct 22nd 2024, 10:00

A study published in (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-024-01772-7) Nature Neuroscience suggests that targeting specific brain circuits with non-invasive neurostimulation could offer new hope for treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in veterans. Researchers found that veterans with brain injuries affecting connections to the amygdala were less likely to develop PTSD. Moreover, reductions in functional connectivity within this circuit following transcranial magnetic stimulation were linked to improvements in symptoms. These findings highlight the potential of non-invasive brain stimulation therapies as an effective treatment option for PTSD.
PTSD is a mental health condition that can affect individuals after they have experienced or witnessed traumatic events, such as combat. Veterans, especially those who have been in war zones, are at a high risk of developing PTSD, with estimates suggesting that up to 30% of trauma survivors may be affected.
Unfortunately, the current treatments for PTSD—medications and psychotherapy—are only modestly effective. Many patients continue to experience debilitating symptoms like anxiety, flashbacks, depression, and substance use disorders, which often lead to a significant reduction in their quality of life. Because of these limitations, researchers have turned to brain stimulation therapies as a possible alternative.
Brain stimulation therapies, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), have been successfully used to treat other mental health disorders like depression. However, depression and PTSD involve different brain circuits, and applying the same stimulation methods for PTSD has not always been effective.
In some cases, depression-focused TMS treatments have even worsened PTSD symptoms. To address this issue, the research team sought to identify brain circuits that are specifically involved in PTSD, with the goal of finding more appropriate targets for neurostimulation therapies.
“As a psychiatrist, I have treated many patients with PTSD who just weren’t getting enough benefit from our standard psychotherapies and medications,” said study author (https://siddiqi.bwh.harvard.edu/) Shan Siddiqi, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and neuropsychiatrist at the (https://www.brighamandwomens.org/neurosciences-center/center-for-brain-circuit-therapeutics) Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics at Brigham & Women’s Hospital.
“For some disorders, such as depression, it’s been incredibly satisfying over the last few years to see new brain stimulation treatments that can completely change a patient’s life with as little as a week of treatment. In prior studies, we have tried to reverse engineer those successful depression treatments to develop a model for how to apply it to other disorders. In the present study, we applied that model to PTSD in an effort to help these patients who have been struggling with standard treatments.”
The research team focused on data from the Vietnam Head Injury Study, which included 193 Vietnam War veterans who had experienced penetrating brain injuries. These veterans were followed over a period of 20 years to assess whether they developed PTSD after their injuries. The study used brain scans to map the locations of the injuries and evaluated whether those with brain damage in certain areas were more or less likely to develop PTSD.
The researchers concentrated on brain regions connected to the amygdala, as previous studies have shown that this region plays a key role in fear processing and PTSD. They also looked at how brain lesions in these veterans affected the functional connections between different parts of the brain, using a tool called the human connectome. This allowed them to trace which brain circuits were disrupted by the injuries and to see how these disruptions related to the likelihood of developing PTSD.
The researchers found that veterans who had brain damage in areas connected to the amygdala were less likely to develop PTSD. Specifically, the team identified a brain circuit that, when disrupted, appeared to reduce the probability of PTSD. This circuit involved not only the amygdala but also the medial prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain associated with emotion regulation and fear extinction (the process of overcoming fear responses).
“People with brain damage were actually less likely to get PTSD than those with injuries that didn’t affect the brain,” Siddiqi told PsyPost. “Of course, brain damage alone is not a viable treatment, so we tried to figure out how to mimic the beneficial effects while avoiding the harmful effects.”
To extend their findings beyond the group of veterans with brain injuries, the researchers also examined data from 180 veterans without brain lesions, some of whom had PTSD and some who did not. This allowed them to study the brain’s connectivity in individuals without physical brain damage and to see if similar patterns emerged. They also tested the effects of TMS, a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, on 20 veterans with PTSD. They wanted to determine if changes in the brain circuits they identified were associated with improvements in PTSD symptoms after receiving TMS.
When the researchers analyzed the brain connectivity of the veterans without brain lesions, they found that functional connectivity within this same circuit was associated with the presence or absence of PTSD. In other words, individuals whose brains showed stronger connections in this specific network were more likely to have PTSD, while those with weaker connections were less likely to have the disorder. This finding was consistent across both groups, suggesting that this brain circuit plays a key role in PTSD, whether or not the individual has a physical brain injury.
Further, in the group of veterans who received TMS, the researchers found that reducing the connectivity within this PTSD-related brain circuit led to improvements in PTSD symptoms. Veterans who showed a decrease in connectivity in this circuit after TMS treatment experienced greater reductions in their PTSD symptoms compared to those who received a placebo treatment.
The findings were supported by a case study of a patient with severe PTSD who received fMRI-guided TMS treatment directly targeting this brain circuit. After just a few sessions, the patient experienced a rapid and significant reduction in symptoms, demonstrating the potential for this type of treatment to be both effective and fast-acting.
“Like many other mental illnesses, PTSD is a real brain disease that is driven by measurable changes in specific brain circuits,” Siddiqi said. “People suffering from this disease often fear that they’ll be judged for it, since they may have heard from others that mental illness is somehow related to the strength of your moral character. By finding where it lives in the brain, we can implicitly prove it is a physical condition — it’s just as real as a stroke or a brain tumor. And perhaps most importantly, we have new treatments that might provide some hope for patients (and clinicians) who may be frustrated with the old ones.”
Although this study provides evidence for the role of specific brain circuits in PTSD and the potential for neurostimulation therapies to target these circuits, there are some limitations. First, the research focused only on veterans, raising questions about whether the same brain circuits are involved in PTSD in non-veteran populations or individuals exposed to different types of trauma.
Future research will need to confirm these results in larger and more diverse populations and further refine the targeting of brain circuits for PTSD treatment. One important next step is to conduct clinical trials to test the effectiveness of TMS and other brain stimulation therapies on PTSD patients. Another avenue for future research is to explore whether stimulating these brain circuits immediately after a traumatic event could prevent the development of PTSD altogether.
“This is a new treatment target, but before we really know if it works, we need to test it in clinical trials,” Siddiqi said.
The researchers hope that their findings will lead to more personalized and effective treatments for PTSD, helping patients who have not responded to traditional therapies. They also plan to investigate whether similar brain circuits are involved in other mental health conditions and whether this approach could be expanded to treat a range of disorders. Ultimately, the goal is to improve the quality of life for individuals with PTSD by providing faster and more targeted treatment options.
“We hope to (1) test it in clinical trials to get it into the real world, (2) optimize the right target for the right patient at the right time, (3) expand it to other disorders, and (4) figure out if we can use this to prevent PTSD before it starts (for instance, if we treat people immediately after major trauma),” Siddiqi explained.
“This was part of a data sharing collaboration with many scientists around the country, including Jordan Grafman at Northwestern, Raj Morey at Duke, and Noah Philip at Brown.”
The study, “(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01772-7) A potential target for noninvasive neuromodulation of PTSD symptoms derived from focal brain lesions in veterans,” was authored by Shan H. Siddiqi, Noah S. Philip, Stephan T. Palm, David M. Carreon, Amanda R. Arulpragasam, Jennifer Barredo, Heather Bouchard, Michael A. Ferguson, Jordan H. Grafman, Rajendra A. Morey, and Michael D. Fox.

(https://www.psypost.org/difficult-children-are-only-slightly-more-likely-to-have-insecure-attachments-with-parents/) “Difficult” children are only slightly more likely to have insecure attachments with parents
Oct 22nd 2024, 08:00

Children with difficult temperaments, including personality tendencies such as irritability and having a hard time being comforted, are only slightly more likely than other children to have insecure attachment relationships with one or both of their parents, (https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001677) according to our research. This finding refutes the long-standing notion held by many psychologists that early attachment behaviors are mainly (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb02683.x) determined by a child’s temperament.
(https://seasinternational.org/explanations-of-attachment-theoretical-concepts/) An attachment relationship reflects the child’s expectations about their caregiver in times of need. A secure attachment is likely if a caregiver is consistently available and emotionally supportive when the child is alarmed. However, if a child learns that their caregiver will not be there when needed or will not effectively soothe them, chances are they will develop an insecure attachment relationship with that caregiver.
As researchers in (http://www.ordagan.com/) clinical psychology and (https://research.vu.nl/en/persons/carlo-schuengel) child and family studies, we are interested in how the quality of child-caregiver relationships affects children’s development.
Part of that is understanding what influences the way child-parent attachments form. Even infants show stark differences in temperament, and (https://doi.org/10.3109/10673229509017174) some psychologists have argued that these individual dispositions may also explain how youngsters interact with caregivers. Even the most sensitive and loving parent could feel challenged when caring for a difficult child – does that dynamic influence the quality of their attachment relationship?
How we do our work
With 29 other researchers, we started a research consortium to study the quality of children’s attachment relationships with their mothers and fathers – or what we call their (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12272) attachment networks.
For this (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/introduction-to-meta-analysis-a-guide-for-the-novice) meta-analysis, we combined data collected over the past 40 years on 872 children from North American families.
Researchers observed these kids interacting separately with their mothers and fathers and completed assessments designed to evaluate children’s attachment behaviors: How do they seek comfort in times of need? How easily do they find reassurance in their parents? How do they explore their environment in the presence of their parents?
In addition, parents reported on the degree of their children’s difficult temperament. How likely was the child to experience intense negative emotions, such as anger, sadness or fearfulness?
It seemed logical that children who have a more difficult temperament might tend to have more insecure attachment relationships within the family – but that’s not exactly what we found. Instead, (https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001677) a difficult temperament had very little to do with the number of insecure attachment relationships a child had with their parents.
Greater tendencies toward a difficult temperament had just a very small impact – less than 1%, according to our statistical analysis – on children’s likelihood to have multiple insecure attachment relationships. And temperament was only slightly more difficult in infants who had insecure attachment with both parents rather than with only one or neither of the parents.
Why it matters
(https://theconversation.com/secure-attachment-to-both-parents-not-just-mothers-boosts-childrens-healthy-development-213108) Recent research from our consortium has found that children who develop secure attachment relationships with both mom and dad tend to show (https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20450) fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression, as well as (https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13998) stronger language skills, compared with those who had only one or no secure attachment relationships in their two-parent families.
The results from our latest study suggest that even children with inborn characteristics of a difficult temperament can benefit from the advantages that come from multiple secure attachments. These findings may reassure worried parents.
What still isn’t known
Further research is needed to explain the small increase in insecure attachments we did identify for kids with difficult temperaments.
For example, children’s difficult temperament increases the likelihood of negative parenting, including (https://doi.org/10.2307/1129836) anger and coercing and overcontrolling behaviors. These in turn can (https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12355) intensify children’s negative emotions. Over time, it’s possible this two-way street of negative reactions increases the probability of insecure attachment relationships between child and parents.
Interventions that (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001462) promote positive parenting and sensitive discipline increase children’s attachment security with their parents. So, parents can foster secure attachment with deliberate efforts to be more sensitive to the child’s emotional needs.
One thing has become clear. The secure attachment relationships that play a critical role in cognitive and emotional development are not closed off to children born with difficult temperaments.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/difficult-children-are-only-slightly-more-likely-to-have-insecure-attachments-with-parents-236106) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/narcissism-alignment-between-leaders-and-followers-linked-to-higher-creativity/) Narcissism alignment between leaders and followers linked to higher creativity
Oct 21st 2024, 14:00

A new study investigates how narcissism in both leaders and followers affects creative performance in the workplace. The research finds that when leaders and followers have similar levels of narcissism, employees tend to identify more with their leaders, leading to higher creative output. However, when a leader’s narcissism exceeds that of their followers, this identification is weakened, resulting in reduced creativity. The findings have been published in the journal (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00187267241251983) Human Relations.
Narcissism is a personality trait characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. Narcissists often display grandiosity, seek constant attention, and believe they are superior to those around them. However, narcissism is multifaceted and can manifest in both positive and negative behaviors.
On the positive side, narcissists tend to be confident, assertive, and willing to take bold risks. These traits can make them seem charismatic and capable, which can sometimes translate into visionary leadership. On the negative side, narcissists can be exploitative, self-centered, and dismissive of others, which can hinder relationships and collaboration, particularly in team settings.
In the workplace, narcissistic individuals may exhibit a range of behaviors that can either promote or disrupt organizational performance. Leaders with high levels of narcissism often thrive on power and recognition, driving them to seek out opportunities to display their competence and achieve success. This can motivate them to lead creatively or pursue innovation. However, their arrogance and inability to take criticism can also alienate their followers, leading to toxic work environments.
The rationale behind the new study was to explore the relationship between narcissism and creative performance more deeply by considering the dynamic between both leader and follower narcissism. Previous research examining narcissism in leaders or followers separately yielded inconsistent findings, with some studies suggesting narcissism boosts creativity while others found it detrimental. The researchers posited that the interplay between leader and follower narcissism had been overlooked, and this could explain the mixed results.
The study gathered data from 421 employees and 54 direct supervisors at a bank in northern China. To avoid potential biases and increase the accuracy of their findings, the researchers used a multi-wave, multi-source approach. In the first phase, both leaders and followers completed self-assessments to measure their levels of narcissism using a 16-item scale. Around a month later, leaders were asked to evaluate their employees’ creative performance, while followers rated how strongly they identified with their leaders.
Narcissism was measured using a well-established psychological scale, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16). The creative performance of employees was rated by their supervisors on a scale assessing originality, adaptability, and practicality in the ideas or methods they proposed. The researchers also measured how much followers identified with their leaders, which is crucial because strong identification with a leader often motivates employees to contribute to the leader’s goals.
The team employed a statistical method known as cross-level polynomial regression to examine how different combinations of leader and follower narcissism affected follower identification with the leader and, ultimately, creative performance.
When leaders and followers had similar levels of narcissism—whether both were highly narcissistic or both had lower levels of narcissism—followers tended to report a stronger sense of identification with their leaders. This identification was associated with higher ratings of creative performance. Narcissistic followers appeared to be drawn to narcissistic leaders, perceiving them as bold and charismatic. They seemed more willing to tolerate negative traits like arrogance, possibly due to shared values and a mutual drive for achievement. This alignment may have fostered a sense of unity, which was linked to more creative output from followers.
In contrast, when a leader’s narcissism was higher than that of their followers, followers reported lower identification with their leaders, which was associated with lower levels of creative performance. Followers with lower narcissism, who tend to value empathy and close relationships, might have found it harder to connect with highly narcissistic leaders. This perceived disconnect may have contributed to a reduction in their creative contributions.
Interestingly, when a leader’s narcissism was lower than that of their followers, creative performance ratings were not as negatively affected. Narcissistic followers, motivated by their desire for status and self-enhancement, still appeared able to form a psychological bond with their leaders. This suggests that narcissistic followers might adapt better to leaders with lower narcissism compared to those with higher narcissism.
Organizations could use these findings to better manage their teams. For example, pairing highly narcissistic followers with equally narcissistic leaders might enhance creative performance, while avoiding placing non-narcissistic employees under the supervision of narcissistic leaders. Moreover, offering leadership training to help highly narcissistic individuals understand and manage their behaviors could mitigate the negative impacts of narcissism in the workplace.
While the study provides valuable insights, it has some limitations. First, the research was conducted within a specific organizational context—a bank in China—so the findings may not apply universally across different industries or cultural settings. The hierarchical and collectivistic nature of Chinese workplaces may influence how followers perceive and tolerate narcissistic behaviors in leaders. Future research could examine whether these findings hold true in other cultural contexts, particularly in more individualistic or egalitarian societies.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241251983) Paradoxical effects of narcissism on creative performance: Roles of leader–follower narcissism (in)congruence and follower identification with the leader,” was authored by Xin Liu, Xiaoming Zheng, Yucheng Zhang, Hui Liao, Peter D Harms, Xin Qin, and Yu Yu.

(https://www.psypost.org/want-friends-to-like-you-more-venting-can-help-but-theres-a-catch/) Want friends to like you more? Venting can help, but there’s a catch
Oct 21st 2024, 12:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2024.106608) Evolution and Human Behavior suggests that venting about a mutual friend can shift social dynamics in your favor. Researchers found that venting makes listeners feel closer to the speaker and less favorable toward the person being talked about. The effect, however, vanishes when the venting appears to be overtly derogatory or driven by personal competition. The new findings suggest that venting can serve as a subtle social tool.
Venting, the act of expressing frustrations about one person to another, is a familiar and widespread human behavior. Traditionally, most research has framed venting as a form of emotional release, rooted in the Freudian concept of catharsis. According to this theory, people vent to offload anger or frustration, expecting that doing so will provide emotional relief.
However, past studies have shown that venting does not reliably reduce negative emotions, and in some cases, it can even make people angrier. As lead author (https://www.kremslab.com/) Jaimie Krems, an associate professor of psychology at UCLA and director of the (https://www.center-for-friendship.com/) UCLA Center for Friendship Research, explained, “Since the 1950s, we’ve known the Freudian catharsis explanation for venting is wrong. It can feel good to vent, but venting doesn’t reliably decrease anger and sometimes even amplifies anger.”
This raised the question: if venting doesn’t consistently provide emotional relief, why do people continue to do it? The researchers suspected that venting might fulfill a strategic, social function rather than merely an emotional one. They proposed a novel “alliance view” of venting, suggesting that venting could be a tactic for securing more affection and support from friends.
In addition, the researchers aimed to fill a gap in relationship research. While much of the existing literature has focused on romantic relationships, they emphasized that friendship also plays a critical role in people’s lives, especially for younger individuals. The researchers recognized the need to better understand the complexities of friendships, particularly how people might compete for the attention and affection of their friends.
“We simply don’t study friendship enough,” Krems told PsyPost. “It’s a hugely important and massively understudied topic — and one where the (paucity of) existing work tends to focus on the unicorns and rainbows. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s like loneliness sucks and that friendship is hard. This work speaks a bit to the challenges of capturing friends’ affections.”
To test their theory, the researchers conducted six experiments with a total of 1,723 participants, who were recruited through CloudResearch, an online platform offering a diverse participant pool. These experiments were designed to investigate whether venting could indeed influence listeners to prefer and support the venter over the person being vented about.
In the first three experiments, the researchers used vignettes to create controlled scenarios in which participants took on the role of listeners hearing a mutual friend (the speaker) vent about another mutual friend (the target). Experiments 1 and 2 exclusively used female participants, based on research suggesting that venting might be more common or apparent among women. In Experiment 3, both male and female participants were included to test for potential gender differences in how venting is perceived.
Participants were randomly assigned to read one of several vignettes. In the venting condition, the speaker expressed frustration and hurt feelings about the target’s behavior, such as canceling dinner plans at the last minute. The key to the venting condition was that the speaker’s expression of frustration was emotional but not overtly hostile. By contrast, participants in the derogation condition read about the same situation, but the speaker’s reaction was far more aggressive, involving insults and harsh language directed at the target.
In some experiments, additional conditions were included for comparison: neutral gossip, in which the speaker shared non-controversial information about the target (e.g., what the target had been watching on Netflix), and venting about non-social problems, such as car troubles, to see if venting about a non-human subject had the same effects on listener perceptions.
After reading the vignettes, participants were asked to rate their feelings of closeness and liking toward both the speaker and the target on a sliding scale. The researchers aggregated these ratings to measure what they called “alliance feelings,” which reflect how much the listener likes and feels close to both the speaker and the target. In Experiments 2 and 3, additional exploratory questions were asked to examine other feelings like pity and sympathy, and whether the speaker was perceived as a victim of the target’s behavior.
In all three experiments, participants who read vignettes in which the speaker vented reported feeling closer to and liking the speaker more than the target. This effect was unique to venting; when the speaker used overtly derogatory language to criticize the target, listeners did not report liking the speaker more. In fact, derogation often backfired, leading to reduced feelings of closeness toward the speaker, suggesting that overt negativity harmed the speaker’s reputation.
Interestingly, in Experiments 2 and 3, when venters aired grievances about personal troubles, they were rated similarly to those who engaged in neutral gossip, suggesting that the positive effects of venting are tied to the emotional expression of frustration rather than the specific content. In other words, listeners seemed to appreciate the emotional vulnerability displayed in venting
Experiment 4 was designed to address potential confounds in the earlier experiments. The researchers wanted to ensure that the findings from the venting and derogation conditions weren’t due to superficial differences in how the vignettes were written, such as the use of insults or specific phrases.
In the fourth experiment, the content of the vignettes was carefully controlled. The derogation vignette no longer included harsh language like insults, and both the venting and derogation conditions involved the speaker expressing frustration about the same issue in nearly identical wording. The key difference was that in the venting condition, the speaker expressed their feelings in a more emotionally vulnerable way, while the derogation condition involved the speaker communicating with a more overtly negative tone.
As in the earlier experiments, participants were asked to rate their feelings of closeness and liking toward both the speaker and the target after reading the vignettes. In this experiment, the researchers also included questions to explore whether the participants viewed the speaker as a victim, to assess whether venting’s effectiveness might be driven by perceptions of victimhood. These victimhood questions served as potential covariates to determine whether venting’s social effects were influenced by the listener viewing the venter as more of a victim than the derogator.
Even with this more controlled setup, the findings were consistent with the earlier experiments. Listeners still reported liking and feeling closer to the speaker in the venting condition compared to the derogation condition.
In addition, venters were more likely to be seen as victims of the target’s actions compared to those who derogated the target. However, even after controlling for perceptions of victimhood, venting still led to more favorable feelings toward the speaker. This suggests that while listeners might sympathize with venters, the key factor driving the positive effects of venting is not just that the speaker is seen as a victim,
In Experiment 5, the researchers introduced a new behavioral measure to test how venting affected participants’ actions, not just their feelings. After reading the vignettes, participants took part in a modified version of the Dictator Game. This is a classic economic game used to measure how people allocate resources between themselves and others. In this version, participants were told they had 10 lottery tickets, which could give the holder a chance to win a new car. Participants had to divide these tickets between the speaker and the target, meaning they had to choose how many benefits to allocate to each person.
The findings revealed that participants gave more tickets to the speaker when they vented about the target compared to when they derogated them. This suggests that venting not only increases how much listeners like the speaker but also leads to more tangible benefits, as listeners are more willing to allocate resources to a venting speaker than to a derogatory one.
In the final experiment, Experiment 6, the researchers wanted to test whether venting would still be effective if the speaker was seen as having a personal rivalry with the target. This experiment built on the previous ones by introducing a new vignette in which the speaker was implied to have a romantic interest in someone the target had recently started dating. This added a layer of implied competition between the speaker and the target, testing whether listeners would still prefer the speaker over the target when the speaker’s motivations for venting were less neutral and more self-serving.
The results showed that when rivalry was implied, the positive effects of venting disappeared. Listeners no longer preferred the speaker over the target, and venting was no more effective than derogation in influencing how much listeners liked the speaker.
This finding suggests that venting is only effective when it is perceived as a genuine expression of frustration, rather than as a manipulative or aggressive tactic. When listeners believe that the speaker is venting out of jealousy or personal rivalry, they are less likely to view the speaker favorably. This highlights the delicate balance involved in social venting: it can improve relationships when done in a way that appears sincere and non-aggressive, but it loses its effectiveness if listeners suspect ulterior motives.
“When people vent, we might say that it’s about getting frustrations off our chests — and on some level, it is,” Krems told PsyPost. “But on another level, under certain parameters, this very same behavior can cause the friends we vent to to like us better and support us more than the mutual friends we vent about.
“By showing that venting among friends can help venters capture more of their friends’ relative affections, we’ve provided perhaps the first viable alternative hypothesis from the predominant, popular, and importantly wrong Freudian account for why people vent.”
As with all research, there are limitations to consider. The experiments relied on hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture the complexity of real-world social dynamics. Participants were also drawn from an online platform, which might not represent the full range of social contexts in which venting occurs. “We lack good naturalistic data at the moment; these were tightly-controlled lab experiments,” Krems noted.
An area for future research could involve examining how people choose what to vent about and to whom. The current study suggests that venting is effective because it avoids being seen as aggressive, but it remains unclear whether people are consciously strategic about this. Do they intentionally avoid harsher criticism to maintain their likability, or is this behavior more automatic? Exploring the motivations behind venting could offer a deeper understanding of its role in social competition.
“People vent about all sorts of topics to a range of people; questions remain about the efficacy of venting across different audiences, about different topics, and so on,” Krems said.
Despite the limitations, the research challenges the traditional view that venting is simply a way to relieve frustration. Instead, it suggests that venting plays a strategic role in social dynamics.
“This adds to work on how people try to make better friendships,” Krems explained. “We have friends who are closer and less close. How do we get closer to our friends? Well, one reason that we might not like to talk about a lot is by competing with our friends’ other friends for affection, time spent together, and so on. (We so readily acknowledge this when it comes to attracting and getting closer to romantic partners, but we seem to eschew the idea when it comes to attracting and getting closer to friends.)”
The study, “(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000849) Venting makes people prefer—and preferentially support—us over those we vent about,” was authored by Jaimie Arona Krems, Laureon A. Merrie, Nina N. Rodriguez, and Keelah E.G. Williams.

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/20241022/d7b6fee3/attachment.htm>