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/higher-body-mass-index-is-associated-with-smaller-brain-volume-study-finds/) Higher body mass index is associated with smaller brain volume, study finds
Oct 31st 2024, 10:00

A recent neuroimaging study conducted in China suggests that a higher body mass index is associated with reduced brain volume and increased damage to white matter. Published in (https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/hds.0087) Health Data Science, the study found that individuals younger than 45 with a high body mass index had brain volumes resembling those of people 12 years older, highlighting the potential impact of obesity on brain health.
Obesity is defined by excessive body fat accumulation, which raises the risk of numerous health issues, including heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. It has become a widespread public health concern, with the World Health Organization reporting that over one billion people worldwide are classified as obese. Obesity’s prevalence continues to climb in both developed and developing nations, driven by factors like higher consumption of energy-dense foods and increasingly sedentary lifestyles.
Body mass index, a commonly used measure, helps define obesity by dividing a person’s weight in kilograms by their height squared (kg/m²). A body mass index of 30 or higher indicates obesity, while 25 to 29.9 is classified as overweight. Given the growing rates of obesity, researchers, including study lead author Han Lv, sought to investigate its potential long-term effects on brain health.
Study author Han Lv and his colleagues hypothesized that high body mass index (i.e., obesity) might have adverse effects on brain health in the long run. They conducted a neuroimaging study to observe the associations between structural and functional characteristics of the brain and body mass index.
To test this idea, they conducted a neuroimaging study as part of the Kailuan Study, a long-term cohort study of adults in Kailuan, Hebei Province, China. Begun in 2006, this research tracks a wide range of health markers over time, including body mass index and neuroimaging data, providing a rich basis for exploring potential body mass index effects on the brain.
The researchers focused on data from 1,074 participants who had completed at least one magnetic resonance imaging scan since 2020. These participants, ranging in age from 25 to 83, had body mass index data gathered across a 16-year period, allowing researchers to examine cumulative body mass index exposure. On average, each participant had five clinical assessments during the study period, which included measurements of body mass index and brain imaging. The average participant age was 55, and 44% of the sample were women.
The study analyzed participants’ brain structures in relation to their cumulative body mass index. Researchers divided participants into three groups based on body mass index: high, medium, and low. They found that participants in the high body mass index group tended to have smaller brain volumes and reduced cerebrospinal fluid volume, with differences in brain volume averaging around 8-9 milliliters when compared to those with lower body mass index values.
In younger adults, the brain volume differences were even more pronounced. Among participants under 45, those with high body mass index had brain volumes around 14-18 milliliters smaller than those with low body mass index values. The volume of cerebrospinal fluid in high body mass index participants was also reduced by about 18 milliliters. The observed changes roughly correspond to an estimated 12 years of accelerated brain aging among the high body mass index group compared to the low body mass index group.
Additionally, the researchers performed a genetic analysis called Mendelian randomization, which helps establish causal relationships by using genetic data as a basis for examining long-term body mass index’s effects on brain structure.
The Mendelian randomization analysis supported a genetic causal relationship between high body mass index and reduced gray matter volume. The genetic analysis linked high body mass index to specific brain changes, suggesting that body mass index can directly influence brain structure, not just through lifestyle factors but also through inherent biological links. Notably, high body mass index was associated with increased density in the brain’s projection fibers, which are involved in long-distance communication within the brain and control motor and sensory functions.
“High BMI is associated with a smaller brain volume, larger volume of WM lesions (damage to white matter of the brain), and abnormal microstructural integrity in projection fibers [disruptions or alterations in the structural quality of long-range nerve fibers that connect different regions of the brain]. For adults younger than 45 years, BMI should be maintained below 26.2 kg/m2 for better brain health,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the link between body mass index and structural characteristics of the brain. However, the neuroimaging data were taken only once, leaving room for further research to assess long-term changes over multiple time points.
Additionally, the study relied on body mass index as an indicator of body fat, though body mass index alone may not always reflect body composition accurately. Finally, since the genetic analysis was conducted on participants of European ancestry, the results might not fully generalize to the entire population in the study. Future studies should consider longitudinal imaging and body composition measures to address these limitations.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.34133/hds.0087) Association between Body Mass Index and Brain Health in Adults: A 16-Year Population-Based Cohort and Mendelian Randomization Study,” was authored by Han  Lv, Na  Zeng, Mengyi  Li, Jing  Sun, Ning  Wu, Mingze  Xu, Qian  Chen, Xinyu  Zhao, Shuohua  Chen, Wenjuan  Liu, Xiaoshuai  Li, Pengfei  Zhao, Max  Wintermark, Ying  Hui, Jing  Li, Shouling  Wu, and Zhenchang  Wang.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-discover-a-curious-effect-of-stress-on-mens-sperm/) Scientists discover a curious effect of stress on men’s sperm
Oct 31st 2024, 08:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52319-0) Nature Communications suggests that stress may boost sperm respiration (energy production) and motility (movement) in both mice and men, with effects emerging several months after a stressful event. This finding points to a possible link between environmental stress and male reproductive health.
The study was driven by concerns over global declines in fertility and semen quality seen in recent decades. Researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus aimed to explore how stress impacts sperm function at a cellular level, focusing on processes related to energy production and motility that are critical to sperm performance.
In particular, the team wanted to see if stress could cause long-term changes in sperm that persist well after the stressful period has ended. By uncovering these mechanisms, they hope to gain new insights into how male reproductive cells adapt to environmental challenges, potentially shedding light on stress’s broader implications for fertility and reproductive success.
“As a neuroscientist, understanding the impact that the preconception environment has on post-conception embryo and brain development is critical to identifying points of intervention, prevention, and causal mechanisms important for neurodevelopmental disorders,” said (https://www.balethompsonltp.org/bale/research) Tracy Bale, the lead author and the Anschutz Foundation Endowed Chair in Women’s Integrated Mental and Physical Health Research at the Ludeman Center at CU Anschutz.
The study consisted of two primary sections: testing the impact of stress on human sperm and investigating stress effects in mice to examine biological mechanisms more closely.
In the human section, 34 healthy men from the Denver area participated in a study with multiple visits over several months, providing semen samples and reporting their perceived stress levels. Using advanced sperm analysis software, the researchers measured sperm motility at each visit, analyzing how factors such as average velocity, linear velocity, and progressive motility varied in relation to stress reported three months prior.
The researchers observed that stress experienced two to three months before sperm collection was associated with higher sperm motility in healthy male participants. The improvements in motility included increased curvilinear (circular) and straight-line velocities, as well as overall progressive motility, which is known to play a key role in successful fertilization.
To understand the mechanisms behind this unexpected boost in sperm function, the researchers turned to a controlled laboratory setting with mice. By simulating stress conditions, they observed how stress hormones affected epididymal epithelial cells, which are essential for sperm maturation and motility.
When exposed to stress hormones, these cells exhibited significant shifts in mitochondrial energy dynamics, an essential part of cellular respiration. In response to stress, the cells released extracellular vesicles carrying stress-related molecules that influenced nearby sperm cells. When these vesicles interacted with sperm, they increased sperm respiration and energy output, ultimately improving motility. This insight provided a possible biological explanation for the increased motility observed in human sperm following stress.
Further analysis of the stressed cells revealed that stress led to molecular changes in the cell’s chromatin—the structure housing genetic material—specifically affecting a modification associated with gene repression. These changes in gene expression influenced pathways responsible for energy metabolism and mitochondrial organization, altering the cells’ baseline energy requirements even after the stress ended.
The researchers found that these stress-induced changes in energy and mitochondrial processes were long-lasting, suggesting that cells might recalibrate their basic energy settings to adapt to new conditions. The extracellular vesicles released by these reprogrammed cells serve as a form of cellular communication, transferring stress-related energy adjustments to the sperm. This pathway, where stress experience in one cell type leads to altered function in another cell, points to a sophisticated signaling system that can have ripple effects on reproductive functions.
“Imagine you have a car that’s struggling to get up a steep hill. When the engine is stressed, the car becomes less efficient. However, with a little more gas, you can boost the overall performance for a smoother drive. Just as your car becomes more efficient under stress, with the right adjustments, cells improve their energy production and movement when stress-induced factors are present,” said Nickole Moon, the paper’s first author and student at CU Anschutz who is on the research team.
These findings illustrate how stress can influence male reproductive health through complex molecular and cellular pathways, improving specific sperm traits and suggesting a previously unknown adaptive mechanism. By mapping this connection, the study offers insights that could eventually be applied to fertility treatments or improve understanding of environmental factors impacting reproductive health.
“Chronic stress experience can have a significant impact on reproduction and offspring development,” Bale told PsyPost. “Being aware of ways to mitigate stress and the timing of its effects are important if considering pregnancy.”
But as with all research, there are some limitations. For example, they could not evaluate whether improved motility translates directly into increased fertility in humans, nor could they confirm if these changes affect long-term reproductive outcomes. Additionally, the study focused on sperm motility and mitochondrial function but did not assess if these changes impact embryo or fetal development. Future studies will likely explore how these effects might vary among individuals and determine whether similar outcomes apply to different types of stress or other mammalian models.
“We have not examined the changes in human sperm fertility outcomes, or offspring development (only in mice),” Bale said.
The researchers plan to examine the roles of various signaling molecules and proteins within the extracellular vesicles, which carry important information between cells and might hold the key to unlocking more details about stress’s effects on reproductive health.
“We have hypothesized that the stress effect on sperm results in a change in the rate of embryo development, resulting in consequences to the brain and increasing risk for neurodevelopmental disorders,” Bale explained. “Our long-term goals are to conduct embryo studies in mice to confirm the specific molecules involved and the timing. We need to understand how the rate of brain development matters for how the brain functions after birth, and where we can improve outcomes for improving risk.”
“The impact of stress on germ cells, fertility, and the mechanisms underlying the transmission of parental stress experiences across generations are not well understood,” added Neill Epperson, a professor and chair of the CU Department of Psychiatry and Bale’s partner on the studies. “By continuing to recruit participants for these trials and conducting thorough stress evaluations along with the work taking place in the lab, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of how past stressors may affect future offspring.”
The study, “(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52319-0) Stress increases sperm respiration and motility in mice and men,” was authored by Nickole Moon, Christopher P. Morgan, Ruth Marx-Rattner, Alyssa Jeng, Rachel L. Johnson, Ijeoma Chikezie, Carmen Mannella, Mary D. Sammel, C. Neill Epperson, and Tracy L. Bale.

(https://www.psypost.org/artificial-intelligence-reveals-trumps-language-as-both-uniquely-simplistic-and-divisive-among-u-s-presidents/) Artificial intelligence reveals Trump’s language as both uniquely simplistic and divisive among U.S. presidents
Oct 31st 2024, 06:00

Does Donald Trump speak differently from other modern U.S. presidents? A new study in (https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae431) PNAS Nexus suggests he does. By applying machine learning to a vast array of speeches—from debates to campaign rallies and State of the Union addresses—the team found that Trump’s rhetoric is distinguished by short, direct sentences and a notably antagonistic tone, especially toward opponents. The study’s AI-driven analysis highlights Trump’s unique style, setting him apart from other presidents, both Republican and Democratic.
The study was inspired by questions around whether presidents speak in ways that can be noticeably unique and how those differences might reveal themselves across various speaking contexts. Presidential speech is one of the most direct ways a leader connects with the public and influences perceptions of policies and opponents. The researchers wanted to see if modern presidents’ language could be quantitatively analyzed to reveal distinct styles, and whether those styles could indicate varying levels of unity or division in their messaging.
“We have been interested in how large language models can help us understand and quantify presidential discourse. One of the salient phenomena is the uniqueness of Trump’s speeches, and this work allows us to answer this question quantitatively,” explained study author (https://chenhaot.com/) Chenhao Tan, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago and director of the (https://chicagohai.github.io/) Chicago Human+AI lab.
To study this, the researchers analyzed a range of texts, including 35 presidential debate transcripts, 67 State of the Union addresses, and 187 campaign speeches from presidents since 1960. By examining these various types of speeches, they ensured that each president’s style was assessed both in structured, formal contexts and in more flexible, high-stakes debate settings.
A central aspect of the study was the creation of a new “uniqueness” metric, developed using a machine learning approach called large language modeling, which identifies patterns in language usage. For this metric, the researchers trained language models on specific datasets for each type of speech—debates, State of the Union addresses, and campaign events—enabling the model to detect how likely it was for a given phrase to be unique to one president compared to others.
Essentially, this metric captured the predictability of certain words and phrases based on the speaker. The greater the variation from typical word patterns, the higher a speaker’s uniqueness score. For instance, if President Trump used language structures or phrases that other presidents were unlikely to use, his score for uniqueness would be higher, as was often the case in the findings.
The researchers also introduced a divisiveness lexicon, a list of 178 words identified as commonly used to insult, discredit, or delegitimize opponents. This list was developed through an initial selection of divisive words, which were then reviewed by multiple researchers to confirm their relevance to political speech. Words like “corrupt,” “stupid,” and “disgrace” were included in this lexicon, which was then applied to each presidential dataset to measure the frequency of divisive language.
The researchers found that Trump’s language was both highly unique and divisive, setting him apart from other modern presidents in significant ways. Trump’s use of short, direct sentences was consistent across all categories of speech examined—debates, campaign speeches, and State of the Union addresses. Unlike the more complex or measured phrasing typical of many other presidents, Trump exhibited more simplistic and repetitive language.
One striking observation was that Trump’s speech patterns were not only distinct compared to Democratic presidents but also showed significant divergence from his fellow Republicans. This finding was unexpected; traditionally, presidential speech within a party shows relatively minor stylistic differences compared to cross-party language.
However, the analysis found that Trump’s language style was a larger outlier within his own party than the differences typically observed between Republicans and Democrats overall. This suggests that Trump’s rhetorical approach represents a unique brand of discourse, diverging from standard Republican or Democratic norms alike.
“We were expecting Trump to not stand out in State of the Union speeches, since these speeches are more standard,” Tan told PsyPost. “However, he is still very different in these speeches. I was also surprised by how different Trump is from other Republicans.”
Trump also mentioned his adversaries more often than his predecessors. But it wasn’t only the quantity of these references that stood out; Trump’s language also contained unique descriptors when he talked about opponents. This uniqueness was demonstrated through a lower degree of overlap between the adjectives Trump used and those typically used by other presidents to describe their rivals.
For instance, while other presidents might have relied on more neutral or policy-focused terms, Trump frequently employed emotionally charged descriptors that cast his opponents in a particularly negative light. This approach made his language about opponents distinctly personal and combative, emphasizing a style that separated him from both Republican and Democratic predecessors.
“Donald Trump’s political rhetoric is unique among modern presidents and is defined, in part, by his use of antagonistic language, particularly when directed at political opponents,” Tan said.
Although the findings offer insights into Trump’s rhetorical style, the researchers acknowledged some limitations in their approach. The campaign speech data, for example, only cover presidents from recent election cycles, making comparisons with earlier presidents limited. Moreover, the study focused solely on public speeches, excluding social media posts, which play a major role in modern political communication.
“We were not able to get a lot of high-quality data for campaign speeches, especially for early presidents,” Tan noted. “I think that our divisiveness lexicon, while novel, may require more iterations to ensure that it captures the divisiveness of a speech accurately. The nice thing is that these approaches based on counting words are interpretable.”
Despite these limitations, the study offers a comprehensive look at the unique nature of Trump’s speech and how it differs from other presidents, underscoring a shift toward a more confrontational style in presidential discourse.
“We hope to help the public make informed decisions in democratic processes,” Tan said. “In fact, we just built a website to show some example summaries about political platforms: (https://chicagohai.github.io/election-nlp/) https://chicagohai.github.io/election-nlp/.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae431) Quantifying the uniqueness and divisiveness of presidential discourse,” was authored by Karen Zhou, Alexander A Meitus, Milo Chase, Grace Wang, Anne Mykland, William Howell, and Chenhao Tan.

(https://www.psypost.org/why-do-people-enjoy-horror-movies-new-study-sheds-light/) Why do people enjoy horror movies? New study sheds light
Oct 30th 2024, 18:00

For many, horror movies are more than just scary—they’re an exciting escape that combines fear and thrill. But what drives people to watch films filled with fright? A recent study found that a person’s enjoyment of horror is linked to their curiosity about dark topics, the realism of the scenes, and the intensity of fear they feel. The findings were published in the journal (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-53533-y) Scientific Reports.
Horror movies, along with other fear-related activities like haunted houses and thrill rides, have become increasingly popular. Although fear typically triggers unpleasant reactions, many horror fans describe experiencing a blend of excitement and enjoyment from these movies. Previous research suggests that excitement can come from the arousal fear causes, and if this arousal is seen as something desirable, it can transform into enjoyment. However, the precise factors that allow some people to view fear and excitement as enjoyable experiences remain unclear.
“Our research group is mostly interested in how we perceive threatening or disgusting content,” said study author Botond Kiss, a PhD student and assistant research fellow at the Institute of Psychology at the University of Pécs and member of the (https://btk.pte.hu/en/vicelab) Visual Cognition and Emotion Lab. “Our main focus is on specific phobias, where threatening or disgusting content triggers anxiety and avoidance. In the case of horror films, such content is also seen, and some people seek it out for this very reason. This gives us a slightly different perspective on the evaluation of such content.”
To conduct the study, the researchers recruited 558 participants who were asked to fill out online questionnaires. These surveys gathered information about participants’ movie-watching habits, general emotional regulation, curiosity about morbid topics, belief in the supernatural, sensitivity to disgust, and personality traits related to sensation-seeking.
After completing the surveys, participants watched ten short scenes from different horror movie subgenres, like supernatural, psychological, and monster films. Following each scene, they rated their experiences on how exciting, enjoyable, fearful, disgusting, and realistic they found it.
The researchers found that feelings of fear, a sense of reality in the scenes, and curiosity about morbid topics were all strong predictors of both excitement and enjoyment. This suggests that individuals who are highly curious about disturbing topics or who can easily see horror scenes as real may find horror movies more thrilling and entertaining. Fear was particularly associated with both excitement and enjoyment, suggesting that the thrill of fear itself is a powerful factor in the appeal of horror.
On the other hand, scenes that evoked high levels of disgust tended to lower enjoyment, even though they did not diminish the level of excitement. It appears that disgust, rather than adding to the thrill, introduces an aversive element that lessens enjoyment for some viewers.
“Previous approaches did not distinguish between enjoyment and excitement,” Kiss told PsyPost. “In contrast, our current research suggests that, although they are quite similar constructs, they are influenced by different factors. The former is more influenced by perceived disgust, while the latter is more influenced by perceived fear.”
Several traits that researchers initially thought might impact enjoyment and excitement turned out to have little to no effect. For instance, a person’s tendency for sensation-seeking—a trait linked to seeking out new, intense experiences—was not directly associated with either enjoyment or excitement in this study.
Similarly, personal beliefs in the supernatural, general sensitivity to disgust, and specific ways people regulate their emotions didn’t seem to influence their reactions to horror scenes. This was unexpected because these factors are often thought to shape how people respond to fear-related stimuli.
Kiss was surprised by “the fact that sensory experience seeking had no direct impact on either enjoyment or excitement. As some horror consumers can be described as thrill-seekers, they experience the fear-induced adrenaline as rewarding. This seems to have an indirect effect through other factors.”
The study had a few limitations worth noting. First, most participants were horror movie fans, so the sample may not fully represent how a broader population might respond to horror content. Another limitation was the lack of mediation analysis, which could have provided deeper insight into how certain traits indirectly affect enjoyment and excitement.
“In this research, we looked at direct effects. So, if one factor had an effect through another factor, we could not detect it. This would require more complex analyses,” Kiss explained. “Moreover, the content of the different genres of horror films is quite different. Just think about how different the content of a psychological horror movie and a zombie horror movie is. So, in the future, it might be worth taking this into account.”
By examining the roles of fear, realism, and morbid curiosity, this study offers a deeper understanding of how horror films uniquely blend negative emotions like fear and disgust with excitement and enjoyment, providing a controlled environment to navigate intense feelings.
“Our direct long-term plan is to identify certain motivations for why people consume such content,” Kiss said. “Indirectly, we have the opportunity to identify the factors that influence the perception of disgust and fear. This could be important in understanding specific phobias where both fear and disgust are of particular importance (e.g. animal phobias or blood-injury-injection phobia).”
The researchers are conducting another research project related to horror movies. You can participate here: (https://korkibtk.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cFGZjKLSw1xtbhA) https://korkibtk.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cFGZjKLSw1xtbhA
The study, “(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-53533-y) The role of excitement and enjoyment through subjective evaluation of horror film scenes,” was authored by Botond László Kiss, Anita Deak, Martina Dominika Veszprémi, Albert Blénessy, and Andras Norbert Zsido.

(https://www.psypost.org/belief-in-a-just-world-reduces-conspiracy-theory-endorsement-when-ambiguity-tolerance-is-low/) Belief in a just world reduces conspiracy theory endorsement when ambiguity tolerance is low
Oct 30th 2024, 16:00

According to a study published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112885) Personality & Individual Differences, belief in a just world is negatively associated with conspiracy theory endorsement, but only among individuals with low ambiguity tolerance.
There is long-standing interest in how people make sense of an ambiguous world. The belief in a just world (BJW), which posits that people generally get what they deserve, provides a sense of order and control in the face of life’s uncertainties. Clare O’Brien and colleagues examined the extent to which endorsing BJW might reduce the likelihood of engaging in conspiracy theories, which are often less adaptive mechanisms for making sense of the world.
Conspiracy theories are attractive because they offer an explanation for ambiguous or distressing events by attributing them to secret, powerful actors. However, these theories can promote negative outcomes, including social alienation and harmful health behaviors. Prior research has shown a negative correlation between BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement, but the current study expanded on these findings by examining whether ambiguity tolerance or scientific reasoning skills moderate this relationship.
The study involved 163 participants from a mix of personal and professional networks, university courses, and the online platform Prolific, predominantly Australian and between ages 17-85. Participants were required to respond to several scales that measured their BJW, propensity to endorse conspiracy theories, tolerance for ambiguity, and scientific reasoning skills, with political orientation considered as a control variable to account for potential biases.
The Just World Scale, which consists of 11 items on a six-point scale, was used to assess participants’ belief in a fair world where people get what they deserve. The study employed the 15-item Generalised Conspiracy Beliefs Scale, which captures a range of conspiratorial beliefs on a five-point scale. Ambiguity tolerance was measured using the 12-item Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale-II, assessing participants’ comfort with complex or uncertain situations. Scientific reasoning was evaluated through an 11-item scale that asked participants to assess the validity of statements related to scientific scenarios.
O’Brien and colleagues found a significant relationship between BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement, which was influenced by levels of ambiguity tolerance but not by scientific reasoning. Specifically, individuals with a strong BJW were generally less likely to endorse conspiracy theories, but this association held only for those with low ambiguity tolerance.
In other words, when participants were uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, a belief in a just world served as a protective factor against endorsing conspiratorial thinking. Conversely, participants with high ambiguity tolerance displayed no significant association between BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement, suggesting that those more comfortable with uncertainty might not need a strict worldview like BJW to navigate ambiguous situations.
While scientific reasoning skills were not a moderating factor, they independently showed a negative association with both BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement. This implies that individuals with strong scientific reasoning are generally less inclined to adhere to either worldview-driven or conspiratorial beliefs, possibly because their reasoning skills allow them to critically evaluate and reject simplistic or overly generalized explanations.
There was no significant association between one’s political views and their likelihood of endorsing conspiracy theories. This suggests that the effects of BJW and ambiguity tolerance transcend typical political divides.
This study’s sample had relatively low overall conspiracy theory endorsement. The authors suggest that BJW may lose its protective effect in populations where conspiracy theories are more extreme or central to one’s identity, such as in more radicalized groups.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112885) The association between belief in a just world and endorsing conspiracy theories is moderated by ambiguity tolerance, but not scientific reasoning”, was authored by Clare O’Brien, Neophytos Georgiou, and Jonathan Bartholomaeus.

(https://www.psypost.org/omega-3-intake-linked-to-better-cognitive-health-in-older-adults-study-finds/) Omega-3 intake linked to better cognitive health in older adults, study finds
Oct 30th 2024, 14:00

New research published in (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00912174241284925) The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine has found a link between higher omega-3 fatty acid intake and improved cognitive abilities in older adults. Analyzing data from a nationally representative health survey, researchers discovered that participants who consumed more omega-3 fats scored higher on cognitive tests. The findings suggest that incorporating omega-3-rich foods like fish and certain plant oils into the diet could support cognitive health as people age.
The global rise in the number of older adults has brought cognitive decline into the spotlight, as it affects memory, learning, and the ability to carry out daily tasks. Researchers have long been interested in dietary factors that might influence cognitive health. Omega-3 fatty acids, found in fatty fish, flaxseeds, and walnuts, are known to benefit cardiovascular and brain health, and some studies have suggested a protective role against dementia.
However, solid evidence of the effects of omega-3 on cognitive function in older adults has been limited. The current study aimed to fill this gap by examining the relationship between omega-3 intake and cognitive performance in a large sample of older adults, paving the way for dietary recommendations that may protect against cognitive decline.
The study used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a comprehensive survey conducted annually to assess the health and nutritional status of people in the United States. The researchers analyzed data from 2,430 individuals aged 60 and older who participated between 2011 and 2014.
To gather information on participants’ diets, trained professionals conducted two structured interviews with each participant, focusing on their food intake over the previous 24 hours. The first interview was conducted face-to-face, and a follow-up was done by phone a few days later. These interviews provided detailed dietary data, from which the researchers calculated each person’s daily omega-3 intake by assessing the combined intake of specific omega-3 fatty acids.
Cognitive function was assessed through three tests:

CERAD Word List Test: A word recall test measuring memory retention.
Animal Fluency Test: A test where participants named as many animals as they could within a minute, assessing executive function and mental flexibility.
Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST): A test that evaluates processing speed and working memory by having participants match symbols to numbers under time constraints.

In addition to analyzing dietary and cognitive data, researchers considered factors like age, gender, education, body mass index, and lifestyle habits (such as smoking and alcohol use), as well as medical histories of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke, which could influence cognitive function. They then used a statistical model to analyze the relationships between omega-3 intake and scores on each of the cognitive tests.
Key Findings of the Study
The study found a positive relationship between omega-3 intake and cognitive performance. Higher omega-3 consumption was associated with better scores on all three cognitive tests, even after accounting for various demographic and lifestyle factors. Specifically:

Each unit increase in omega-3 intake was linked to a 0.53-point improvement in the CERAD Word List Test, a 0.29-point improvement in the Animal Fluency Test, and a 0.61-point improvement in the DSST.
Participants with the highest omega-3 intake consistently scored better across all cognitive tests than those with the lowest intake, underscoring a pattern that omega-3 may support cognitive health in aging.

Interestingly, the analysis also suggested that this relationship was nonlinear. For example, cognitive scores improved most rapidly with omega-3 intake levels up to a certain point, beyond which the improvement leveled off. This pattern suggests that while moderate omega-3 consumption is beneficial, consuming very high amounts may not lead to further cognitive gains.
The researchers conducted additional subgroup analyses to assess if these findings varied across different groups. They found that individuals with a higher level of education and those who had a history of stroke appeared to benefit most from increased omega-3 intake. These insights highlight the potential for omega-3 to serve as a particularly useful dietary factor for those at higher risk of cognitive decline.
Despite its promising results, the study has limitations to note. For one, the study relied on self-reported dietary information, which can be prone to inaccuracy. Since it was a cross-sectional study, which examines data at one point in time, it cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between omega-3 intake and cognitive function. This means that while a link was found, it remains unclear whether omega-3 intake directly improves cognitive abilities or if healthier individuals are simply more likely to consume omega-3-rich diets.
Further research is needed to explore the direct impact of omega-3 on cognitive health. Prospective studies, which follow participants over time, could better establish causation and provide insight into how long-term omega-3 consumption affects cognitive decline. Additionally, investigating whether omega-3 supplementation, as opposed to dietary intake alone, offers cognitive benefits could help develop targeted nutritional guidelines for older adults.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/00912174241284925) Dietary omega-3 intake and cognitive function in older adults,” was authored by Bingdian Wang, Deqin Li, Cuicui Peng, Jingfang Hong, and Yonggui Wu.

(https://www.psypost.org/a-rare-event-in-alabama-suggests-trumps-maga-movement-can-overpower-incumbency-effects/) A rare event in Alabama suggests Trump’s MAGA movement can overpower incumbency effects
Oct 30th 2024, 12:00

In a recent study published in (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X241295660) American Politics Research, political scientists examined a unique 2024 primary election race in Alabama’s First Congressional District, where two sitting members of Congress from the Republican party, Jerry Carl and Barry Moore, faced each other due to redistricting. The researchers wanted to understand the factors that influenced voters’ choices in this head-to-head race between two incumbents. Their findings suggest that alignment with the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) faction of the Republican party was more influential than traditional incumbency advantages, with the MAGA-aligned candidate, Barry Moore, narrowly defeating Carl in a tightly contested race.
The motivation behind the study stemmed from the rare nature of elections where two incumbents compete against each other, a situation usually triggered by redistricting. Such matchups, called “dueling incumbent primaries,” create unique conditions for voters, who must decide between two current officeholders from the same party.
In this instance, redistricting following the 2020 census and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Allen v. Milligan, which required Alabama to create a new minority-majority district, reshaped district boundaries. This change displaced Moore from his previous district, compelling him to run in Carl’s district. The researchers wanted to analyze the voting preferences and factors that influenced the outcome, particularly since both incumbents held similar political positions but had differing levels of alignment with the MAGA faction.
“I have been doing quite a bit of work lately on dueling incumbent election contests and the Alabama Congressional District 1 2024 GOP primary was the latest to materialize,” said study author (https://scmckee.com/) Seth C. McKee, a professor at Oklahoma State University and co-author of the book (https://amzn.to/4htkWeT) Rural Republican Realignment in the Modern South: The Untold Story. “Incumbent duels only arise because of redistricting, and it is very interesting to see which incumbent wins and why, since both incumbents run in a district that typically contains a nontrivial share of their voters prior to redistricting.”
To understand voters’ choices in this election, the researchers conducted a large-scale survey among likely Republican primary voters in Alabama’s newly configured First Congressional District. This survey was conducted shortly before the election on Super Tuesday and targeted registered Republicans who had voted in previous primaries. The survey, conducted online and by text, included 2,389 responses, capturing views on candidate recognition, campaign engagement, and policy preferences on key issues.
“This study was the first to use a large-N survey to probe voter preferences in a dueling incumbent U.S. House primary,” McKee noted. “There will hopefully be more work using similar survey data in future dueling incumbent contests.”
The survey results showed that while Carl retained more constituents from his previous district, Moore ultimately gained more support because of his strong association with the MAGA wing of the party. This suggests that a shared history with voters, while beneficial, may not always outweigh ideological alignment in a nationalized political climate.
Moore’s strong anti-spending stance and isolationist views on issues like aid to Ukraine resonated with voters who identified with Trump’s policies. Even though both Carl and Moore shared similar positions on many conservative issues, Moore was more closely associated with the “America First” approach central to Trump’s platform. Survey respondents who favored these policies and had high favorability toward Trump were much more likely to support Moore.
“The average person should see that the so-called advantage of being an incumbent was not necessarily the deciding factor for who won the specific contest we examined,” McKee told PsyPost. “In fact, the incumbent who retained substantially more constituents in the redrawn district where this incumbent duel took place, actually lost.”
“In contrast, the winner appeared to prevail because this incumbent was better aligned with the ascendant MAGA wing of the Republican Party. Hence, more voters broke toward the incumbent retaining fewer district constituents because he was able to nationalize the campaign as the more MAGA/Trump aligned candidate.”
The researchers also identified that voters’ familiarity with candidates influenced their decisions. Respondents who only recognized Carl overwhelmingly supported him, whereas those who only recognized Moore leaned toward him. However, among those who recognized both candidates, support was relatively balanced. Personal contact from the candidates’ campaigns also played a role, with contact from either campaign increasing the likelihood of support for that candidate.
“We were surprised to see how engaged these primary voters were in terms of knowing who these candidates were and yet so many were undecided with about a week to go before the primary date,” McKee said.
The study has certain limitations. For one, Alabama’s policy of requiring in-person voting on Election Day may have contributed to a high percentage of undecided voters in the survey, which was conducted about a week before the election. Additionally, the timing of the survey meant it may not have fully captured the last-minute shifts in voter preferences that often occur in primary races.
“With it being opened as a text-to-web survey one week before the election, the vast majority of respondents take the survey within a 24–48-hour window and thus we captured a very large chunk of voters who were undecided,” McKee explained. “In hindsight, we would have been better off gauging voter preferences by opening the survey just a day or two prior to the election. The high share of undecided voters is in part due to the fact that Alabama does not have no-excuse absentee voting prior to election day (meaning almost all voters cast a ballot on Election Day).”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X241295660) MAGA Trumps the Incumbency Advantage in a Dueling Incumbent Primary,” was authored by M. V. Hood III, David Hughes, and Seth C. McKee.

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/20241031/cb08b8d9/attachment.htm>