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/can-magic-mushrooms-mend-the-mind-researchers-map-psilocybins-mysterious-brain-effects-but-key-questions-remain/) Can magic mushrooms mend the mind? Researchers map psilocybin’s mysterious brain effects — but key questions remain
Sep 23rd 2024, 10:00

Many studies have suggested that psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, might be useful in treating a (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6007659/) variety of mental health conditions. But we don’t really know what’s going on at the level of “functional brain networks” – the communication pathways that connect different regions of the brain.
To get a better understanding of this, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis scanned seven healthy participants’ brains multiple times, before, during and after ingesting psilocybin. They recently published their findings in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07624-5) Nature.
Each participant in the study had their brain scanned an average of 18 times. The scans (using fMRI, which measures blood flow changes in the brain) revealed that the connections within established brain networks were disrupted, while the communication between networks was increased. In other words, the unpredictability of the ordinary information processing in the brain increases under psilocybin. The psychedelic brain becomes disordered.
There is much to like about this new study. What makes it particularly novel is the rigour and high quality with which the research was conducted. Anyone who has ever conducted an fMRI study knows how time-intensive and expensive they are to run – add to that the complexity of dealing with participants who are tripping. The study should also be commended for its use of an “active control” (a stimulant drug).
The researchers found that in the days and weeks after the psychedelic experience, enduring brain changes were observed in connections between the hippocampus (a part of the brain associated with short-term memory) and the default mode network (a network of brain regions that is active when a person is at rest and not focused on the external environment). These short-term changes could underlie the neuroplastic (the brain’s malleability) and therapeutic effects of psilocybin. As such, this study fits well with the renewed interest in psychedelic-assisted therapy for treating anxiety, depression and addiction.
However, because the study only included healthy volunteers, it is unclear if the findings apply to patients – those who might benefit from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
Also, most of the findings were based on repeated observations of just six participants (as one participant dropped out of the study). As no information is provided about the prior experiences of these participants with psychedelics, there is a risk of “selection bias”, thereby further limiting our ability to generalise these findings to a broader population.
A couple of other problems pose further constraints on the inferences that can be drawn. Although the study used an active placebo – not just an inert sugar pill – they did not provide any information about whether the participants and the researchers might have been able to tell if psilocybin or a placebo was administered once the experiment started.
This is very likely to happen and a common problem in psychedelic studies: due to the psychoactive effects of psilocybin, the double-blind procedure (where neither researchers nor participants know who is on the real drug and who is on the placebo) simply (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512433.2021.1933434?casa_token=3XcqL1taxD8AAAAA:3FWpLk7cggG1Gj5pHaj8ebkahI9Pxnw4E_grCnes8yCPfMPHv6ZaMq5f9urJr45X4YDLVM25kdus) does not work. This causes a problem because we know, based on (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810018305257) earlier research, that mystical-type experiences can also be induced through placebo effects.
As such, it is unclear to what extent the observed differences in brain activity are due solely to the drug or also related to participants’ beliefs and expectations about the effects of psilocybin.
Many of the authors report conflicts of interest. This is not a red flag per se, but some of the conflicts of interest are directly related to the commercialisation of the neurotechnologies (such as the use of precision fMRI for therapeutic purposes) used in their study. And from the paper, it isn’t clear how a risk of potential bias has been mitigated.
There also appear to be deviations from the study protocol, that is, its methods, primary aims and what is reported in the paper. For instance, a secondary objective of the study was to measure long-lasting changes in the participants’ wellbeing – measured using the (https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihlstrom/ConsciousnessWeb/Psychedelics/Persisting_Effects_Questionnaire.pdf) persisting effects questionnaire. These findings, had they been reported, might have told us something about the clinical relevance of being dosed with psilocybin. Unfortunately, though, no data on this questionnaire can be found in the paper.
Questions remain
At first sight, the changes in brain patterns seem impressive, but it is not immediately clear what these fancy brain images exactly entail. What is missing from the picture is subjective self-reported data. Only such data can help us clarify what the changes in neural connectivity reflect.
Important questions that remain are: what does it mean for a person to have a brain that becomes more disordered? And what is the relationship between the changes observed in brain activity and how people feel and (https://dictionary.apa.org/flourishing) flourish in their lives?
To answer these questions, we need to open the black box of neuroscience, for instance, by incorporating new methods that allow us to bridge the gap between “objective” brain data and “subjective” human experience.
Only when the weirdness of the subjective psychedelic experience is put back in the brain picture, we will be able to tell if it was indeed worth it to scan the hell out of all those participants. Until then, we should be cautious not to raise high hopes for desperate patients, based on the compelling nature of colourful pictures.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/we-now-know-what-a-brain-looks-like-on-psilocybin-but-what-does-that-tell-us-235149) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-research-identifies-a-hormonal-imbalance-linked-to-ptsd/) New research identifies a hormonal imbalance linked to PTSD
Sep 23rd 2024, 08:00

A recent study published in (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666497624000122) Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology provides insight into the biological mechanisms that may underlie post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Researchers found that individuals diagnosed with PTSD showed reduced levels of the hormone oxytocin and elevated levels of vasopressin, a hormone involved in stress response. These findings suggest that an imbalance between these two hormones, particularly the ratio of vasopressin to oxytocin, could be a strong indicator of PTSD.
PTSD is a condition that can develop after someone experiences a traumatic event. It is well-known that traumatic experiences can have long-lasting effects on mental and physical health. While many studies have explored the psychological aspects of PTSD, researchers are still trying to fully understand the biological processes that contribute to the disorder. By identifying these processes, it may be possible to develop better diagnostic tools and treatments for people affected by PTSD.
In this study, the researchers focused on two key hormones, oxytocin and vasopressin, because both are involved in regulating stress and social behaviors. Previous studies have provided inconsistent findings regarding these hormones in people with PTSD, leading the researchers to conduct a more focused investigation. By comparing individuals with PTSD to two non-traumatized groups, they aimed to clarify the relationship between these hormones and the disorder.
“Trauma is, of course, one of the major problems in modern society,” said study co-author (https://kinseyinstitute.org/about/profiles/cscarter.php) C. Sue Carter, a Distinguished University Scientist and Rudy Professor Emerita of Biology at Indiana University. “This study was a collaboration with a military officer, Major Alex Horn, who was completing a PhD in Biology. Dr. Horn’s study is unique in allowing comparisons with other types of stress, such as those experienced during an ultramarathon or SWAT team training. This work points us toward a different perspective on stress and could suggest novel approaches to managing and preventing PTSD.”
The study was carried out with a specific group of military veterans who had been diagnosed with PTSD, as well as two non-traumatized comparison groups: Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) trainees and endurance athletes.
The PTSD group consisted of 29 veterans, while the comparison groups included 11 SWAT trainees and 21 runners. All participants provided blood samples that were used to measure levels of oxytocin, vasopressin, and cortisol (another stress-related hormone) under resting conditions. Additionally, participants completed self-report questionnaires to assess their trauma exposure and PTSD symptoms.
For the PTSD group, hormone levels were measured multiple times during a two-week cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program. This allowed researchers to observe any changes in hormone levels in response to treatment.
The key finding of the study was that participants with PTSD had significantly lower levels of oxytocin and significantly higher levels of vasopressin compared to both the SWAT trainees and the endurance athletes. These differences were substantial—over twice the levels for each hormone. While cortisol levels did not significantly differ between groups, the ratio of vasopressin to oxytocin was particularly effective at distinguishing PTSD patients from the non-traumatized individuals.
“The differences in levels of oxytocin and vasopressin in PTSD were essentially categorical, and not seen in people exposed to other kinds of intense stress, but who did not experience the symptoms of PTSD,” Carter told PsyPost.
Additionally, as the PTSD patients went through their two-week CBT program, their oxytocin levels increased, and their vasopressin-to-oxytocin ratio decreased. However, the researchers did not find a strong correlation between these hormonal changes and the improvement in PTSD symptoms during the treatment period. This suggests that while the hormonal changes may be related to PTSD, they do not necessarily reflect the immediate effects of therapy.
“This study provides evidence that the oxytocin and vasopressin system should be a target for new therapeutic interventions for trauma victims and for prevention measures for anyone identified as having a high risk for stress-induced illness of any kind,” Horn said. “These hormonal systems, specifically the vasopressin system, have been overlooked by researchers and clinicians alike for decades. Our hope is that this study will increase awareness of the relevance of these peptides with regards to stress, trauma, and related disorders such as PTSD.”
But as with all research, there are some limitations. One limitation is that the study was conducted with relatively small sample sizes, particularly in the non-traumatized groups. Additionally, the participants in all groups were predominantly male, which limits the generalizability of the findings to women and other populations. Future research should include more diverse groups, both in terms of gender and trauma history, to see if these hormonal patterns hold true across different demographics.
Another limitation is that the study was observational, meaning that it cannot determine whether the changes in oxytocin and vasopressin levels caused PTSD or were a consequence of the disorder. Longitudinal studies that track individuals before and after trauma exposure could help clarify this relationship.
Moving forward, researchers will need to expand on this work by studying a wider range of populations and considering additional factors that could influence oxytocin and vasopressin levels. A better understanding of how these hormones interact with other systems in the body, such as the immune and nervous systems, could help clarify their role in PTSD. Additionally, researchers could explore whether treatments that specifically target oxytocin or vasopressin can help alleviate PTSD symptoms.
“This research supports the general hypothesis that oxytocin and vasopressin work as a system, capable of managing stress responses, as well as emotional and physical health,” Carter said. “We hope that this study will stimulate more research on this topic.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpnec.2024.100236) Severe PTSD is marked by reduced oxytocin and elevated vasopressin,” was authored by Alexander J. Horn, Steve Cole, Hans P. Nazarloo, Parmida Nazarloo, John M. Davis, David Carrier, Craig Bryan, and C. Sue Carter.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-reveal-serotonins-role-in-reward-anticipation-and-value-encoding/) Scientists reveal serotonin’s role in reward anticipation and value encoding
Sep 23rd 2024, 06:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0602-24.2024) The Journal of Neuroscience sheds new light on how serotonin, a neurotransmitter often linked to mood regulation, influences reward anticipation and value encoding in the brain. Researchers found that serotonin is released not only when rewards are consumed but also in response to cues that predict rewards. This release is finely tuned to the subjective value of the reward, showing a higher response to more desirable rewards. These findings help clarify the role of serotonin in reward-related brain processes, a subject previously dominated by research on dopamine.
For years, most research on the brain’s reward system has focused on dopamine, a neurotransmitter strongly associated with pleasure, motivation, and goal-directed behavior. While dopamine is known to play a crucial role in how we experience rewards, researchers have increasingly turned their attention to serotonin, which is also involved in various behaviors related to reward. However, the specific role of serotonin in the brain’s reward circuits has remained unclear. Studies on serotonin have produced conflicting results, with some showing that its depletion reduces reward-related responses while others indicate that increasing serotonin does not enhance reward enjoyment.
Given these inconsistent findings, the researchers wanted to explore how serotonin functions within the striatum, a brain region heavily involved in decision-making and reward. By using a newly developed serotonin biosensor, they sought to better understand the timing and components of serotonin release in response to different reward conditions.
“While serotonin is known to have an important role in many different behaviors, its role in reward is still very unclear,” said study author (https://www.nautiyal-lab.com/) Katherine M. Nautiyal, an assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth College. “Based on the tools that were previously available, we weren’t able to understand how serotonin encodes reward, which scientists have been studying for decades for dopamine. Characterizing both the timing and circumstances of serotonin release in the brain is a step towards better understanding serotonin’s role in modulating reward-related behaviors.”
To investigate how serotonin is involved in reward processing, the research team conducted their study on mice. They used a biosensor called GRAB-5-HT, a tool that allows for real-time measurement of serotonin levels in specific regions of the brain. The focus was on the dorsomedial striatum, a part of the brain that plays a key role in action selection and learning about the consequences of actions.
The study involved a series of experiments designed to observe how serotonin levels changed during different reward-related behaviors. First, the mice were trained to consume different concentrations of evaporated milk, with their licking behavior and serotonin levels monitored during these sessions. The researchers also used a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm, where a sound would signal the delivery of a reward, to examine how serotonin responded to predictive cues.
The mice were housed in controlled environments and underwent surgery to implant optic fibers for serotonin measurement. After the mice recovered from surgery, they were placed in test chambers where they could access various concentrations of milk or water. The researchers recorded the serotonin levels during these reward trials, paying particular attention to how the neurotransmitter was released during different phases, such as when the reward was anticipated, cued, or consumed.
The researchers observed that serotonin levels in the striatum increased before the consumption of a reward, suggesting that serotonin plays a key role in reward anticipation. About two seconds before the mice began licking the reward spout, serotonin levels started to rise. This pattern was consistent whether the reward was a high-value option, like rich evaporated milk, or a lower-value option, like water.
Interestingly, serotonin release was also triggered by cues that predicted the reward. When the mice heard a sound that signaled a reward would soon be delivered, their serotonin levels increased in anticipation of the reward, showing that serotonin helps the brain encode not just the actual receipt of a reward but the expectation of it. The magnitude of serotonin release was higher when the expected reward was of greater value. For example, richer concentrations of milk triggered stronger serotonin responses than water.
“Serotonin has many different functions throughout the brain and the field is still working to define those functions,” Nautiyal told PsyPost. “We focused on one brain area that is centrally involved in reward processing and decision making, the dorsal striatum, during simple reward-related behaviors. We found that serotonin levels track the value of rewards. Specifically, our results show that serotonin is released in anticipation of a reward and also to a cue that predicts a reward, and that it is graded by extrinsic and subjective value.”
The study also showed that internal states, such as hunger or thirst, influenced serotonin levels. When the mice were water-deprived, increasing their thirst, the serotonin release in response to water consumption was slightly higher, suggesting that serotonin tracks subjective changes in the value of a reward.
“We did not expect serotonin release to be as faithfully representative of reward value,” Nautiyal said. “We had anticipated serotonin to function in a more binary fashion, acting as a general signal of a positive outcome—for example, increasing when an animal consumed a reward, regardless of the reward’s identity, or being modulated only if the animal was specifically primed to want or not want the reward.”
While this study provides important insights into serotonin’s role in reward anticipation and value encoding, it also has limitations. For one, the research focused on only one brain region—the dorsomedial striatum—and during relatively simple reward tasks. The researchers acknowledge that serotonin’s role in more complex, goal-directed behaviors or in other brain areas might be different.
Additionally, while the findings indicate that serotonin is involved in encoding both reward anticipation and value, the precise mechanisms behind these effects remain unclear. For example, it is still uncertain how serotonin interacts with dopamine, which is also involved in reward prediction and consumption, or how serotonin might influence learning about rewards over time.
The researchers are currently expanding their work to explore serotonin’s function in other brain regions and during more complicated behaviors. Future studies may look at how serotonin influences aversive events (such as when a reward is expected but not delivered) or compare serotonin’s role across different brain areas involved in motivation and reward.
“We are hoping to understand serotonin’s broader function in brain-wide reward processing and behavioral control,” Nautiyal said. “We’d like to understand if this serotonin release is important for learning about a reward or motivation towards a reward. We’d also like to characterize serotonin release during aversive, rather than rewarding, events and perform a comparative analysis of serotonin release across brain regions during reward and motivated behavior.”
The study, “(https://www.jneurosci.org/content/early/2024/08/06/JNEUROSCI.0602-24.2024) Striatal serotonin release signals reward value,” was authored by Mitchell G. Spring and Katherine M. Nautiyal.

(https://www.psypost.org/disputed-tags-on-election-misinformation-can-backfire-among-trump-supporters/) Disputed tags on election misinformation can backfire among Trump supporters
Sep 22nd 2024, 14:00

A recent study published in the (https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/trump-twitter-and-truth-judgments-the-effects-of-disputed-tags-and-political-knowledge-on-the-judged-truthfulness-of-election-misinformation/) Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review explored the effectiveness of Twitter’s “disputed” tags in combating misinformation about election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The researchers found that these tags, which were designed to flag false information, had little impact on changing people’s beliefs about the truthfulness of Donald Trump’s false claims regarding election fraud. In fact, some Trump supporters were more likely to believe misinformation when it included these disputed tags.
The researchers conducted this study in response to the growing concern about how misinformation on social media can influence public opinion, especially during elections. The 2020 U.S. election saw widespread claims of election fraud, mainly fueled by then-president Donald Trump. Social media platforms like Twitter attempted to counter these false claims by attaching warning tags to posts that made such allegations.
However, little was known about whether these tags were effective in reducing belief in misinformation, particularly among those who already supported Trump or had existing doubts about the election’s legitimacy. The study aimed to understand whether these disputed tags could alter perceptions of election fraud and to what extent political knowledge influenced these perceptions.
The study involved a sample of 1,078 U.S. adults who were recruited through CloudResearch, a participant-sourcing platform. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants were shown four tweets from Donald Trump, each falsely claiming election fraud. These tweets had disputed tags that indicated the claims were unverified. In the second condition (the control group), participants saw the same tweets without any warning tags.
Participants were then asked to rate how truthful they believed each tweet was on a seven-point scale ranging from “extremely false” to “extremely true.” In addition to these truthfulness ratings, participants were asked about their views on election fraud and the fairness of the 2020 election.
To understand the role of political knowledge, the researchers also assessed each participant’s knowledge of basic facts about American politics using a set of 10 factual questions. They additionally measured participants’ verbal ability with a vocabulary test to control for general cognitive ability. The researchers wanted to see if people with higher political knowledge would be more resistant to false information or, paradoxically, more likely to believe it when it aligned with their political beliefs.
The results showed that the disputed tags did not significantly reduce the belief in election fraud among Trump supporters. In fact, Trump voters with higher political knowledge were more likely to perceive the misinformation as truthful when the disputed tags were present compared to when they were absent. This finding suggests that for some individuals, especially those with strong political identities, the disputed tags might have backfired. Rather than reducing belief in misinformation, the tags may have triggered a sense of defensiveness or skepticism, leading these individuals to double down on their pre-existing beliefs.
Interestingly, Trump voters who were initially skeptical about election fraud also showed an increase in their belief in misinformation when the disputed tags were present, suggesting that the tags might have inadvertently reinforced doubts rather than dispelled them.
The study also found that Biden voters and non-voters were largely unaffected by the disputed tags. Biden supporters, in particular, showed consistently low levels of belief in Trump’s false claims, regardless of whether the tweets had warning tags or not. Third-party voters and non-voters showed a slight decrease in belief in misinformation when exposed to the disputed tags, but this effect was marginal and not as pronounced as the findings for Trump voters.
One of the major limitations of the study was its reliance on a specific sample of participants recruited through an online platform, which may not fully represent the broader U.S. population. Additionally, the context of the 2020 election, with its unique political climate and widespread claims of fraud, may have influenced the results. It’s unclear whether the findings would apply to other situations where misinformation is less politically charged or less pervasive.
Another limitation was the study’s inability to pinpoint the exact mechanism behind why the disputed tags seemed to backfire for some Trump voters. The researchers speculated that psychological factors like cognitive dissonance—where people experience discomfort when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs—could explain the results.
Alternatively, the disputed tags might have triggered reactance, a psychological response where people resist being told what to think, leading them to strengthen their original beliefs instead of questioning them. However, the study did not directly test these mechanisms, leaving room for further investigation.
The researchers suggested several directions for future research. One possibility is to explore whether more direct or detailed corrections—such as tagging misinformation as outright “false” rather than simply “disputed”—would be more effective in reducing belief in misinformation. They also recommended testing these interventions in different contexts to see if the findings hold true outside the highly polarized environment of the 2020 U.S. election.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-157) Trump, Twitter, and truth judgments: The effects of ‘disputed’ tags and political knowledge on the judged truthfulness of election misinformation,” was authored by John C. Blanchar and Catherine J. Norris.

(https://www.psypost.org/oxytocin-sensitivity-influences-womens-responses-to-infant-cuteness/) Oxytocin sensitivity influences women’s responses to infant cuteness
Sep 22nd 2024, 12:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2024.105595) Hormones and Behavior has shed light on how women respond to baby faces. The research suggests that infants with more pronounced “baby schema” features—such as chubby cheeks—are perceived as cuter and tend to elicit stronger caretaking instincts. However, the researchers found that the way women react to these features depends on individual differences in both their nurturing tendencies and the way their genes regulate the body’s oxytocin system.
Baby schema refers to a specific set of physical features that human infants typically display, such as a large forehead, small chin, and wide eyes. These features are believed to have evolved to trigger affectionate and protective responses in adults, ensuring that infants receive the care they need to survive and thrive.
Prior studies have shown that people tend to find baby schema features appealing, and that these features can increase motivation to care for an infant. However, scientists are still trying to understand the precise factors that influence this sensitivity to baby schema. Some people seem to be more responsive than others, and the researchers of this study wanted to know whether this variation could be explained by two factors: nurturance motivation (a person’s inherent drive to care for others) and the functioning of the oxytocin system, which plays a key role in social bonding and caregiving.
“This research project is part of a broader effort to understand variations in caregiving behavior and the factors that influence them. Specifically, we are interested in what makes people more or less caring. For this project, we examined both child-related factors and personal characteristics to examine what makes people more or less sensitive to baby schema features,” said study author Hannah Spencer, a PhD student at the Institute of Education and Child Studies at Leiden University.
“We hope to understand if and how sensitivity to infant signals may change as people become parents, in both mothers and fathers. Furthermore, we hope to understand how this sensitivity may predict caregiving behavior.”
The study involved 81 women between the ages of 22 and 24, all of whom had never given birth. This sample was chosen because the research was part of a broader project aimed at understanding caregiving behaviors in women who had not yet experienced motherhood. The participants underwent a series of tests in a lab setting that measured their reactions to baby faces with varying levels of baby schema features.
The baby faces used in the study were digitally altered to enhance or reduce baby schema features. Participants were shown these faces one at a time and were asked to rate the cuteness of each face on a scale from one to nine. They were also asked how motivated they felt to care for the infants in the photos. In addition to these self-reported measures, the researchers used two advanced techniques to capture participants’ automatic, unconscious responses to the baby faces.
First, they measured participants’ facial expressions using a technique called electromyography (EMG). Electrodes placed on the face recorded subtle muscle movements associated with smiling and frowning. Second, the researchers used electroencephalography (EEG) to track brain activity. This method allowed them to record the participants’ neural responses to the baby faces, focusing on specific brainwaves that are known to be associated with attention and emotional processing.
To explore the role of oxytocin, the researchers analyzed saliva samples from the participants to measure the methylation levels of genes related to the oxytocin system. Methylation is a chemical process that can alter gene activity without changing the underlying genetic code. Higher methylation of these genes typically reduces oxytocin sensitivity, while lower methylation can enhance it. By comparing these genetic markers to participants’ reactions to baby schema, the researchers could examine how individual differences in oxytocin sensitivity affected caregiving responses.
The results of the study confirmed that baby schema features do indeed influence how women respond to baby faces. Infants with more pronounced baby schema features were rated as cuter and more likely to inspire a desire to care for them. Participants also smiled more and displayed stronger neural responses when viewing these “cuter” babies.
However, the study found that not all women responded to baby schema in the same way. Women who scored higher on measures of nurturance motivation—their general tendency to provide care—showed greater neural activity in response to baby faces with pronounced features. Specifically, they exhibited higher amplitudes in the P2 and late positive potential (LPP) brainwave components, both of which are associated with attention to emotionally significant stimuli. These women also rated all infants as cuter, regardless of their level of baby schema.
In contrast, participants who had low levels of methylation in the oxytocin receptor gene (meaning they were more sensitive to oxytocin) showed stronger smiling responses to infants with pronounced baby schema features. Interestingly, these women did not differ in how they rated the cuteness of the babies or their motivation to care for them, but their facial muscles reacted more automatically to the presence of baby schema features.
“It was interesting that individual factors did not predict differences in how people rated the cuteness of infants varying in baby schema features or their motivation to care for them,” Spencer told PsyPost. “However, there were differences in the neurophysiological processing of these subtle signals. This suggests that individual factors might specifically affect the automatic processing of these signals.”
These findings suggest that sensitivity to baby schema operates at both a conscious and unconscious level. While women with high nurturance motivation may consciously find babies cuter and feel more motivated to care for them, those with higher oxytocin sensitivity seem to process these cues automatically through subtle facial expressions like smiling.
“Our study found that people who tend to be more nurturing and those with certain genetic markers related to oxytocin sensitivity are more sensitive to subtle differences in baby schema features,” Spencer said. “This indicates that both a person’s tendency to nurture and their sensitivity to oxytocin may make them more attuned to the subtle signals of infants.”
As with any research, this study had limitations that should be addressed in future work. One key limitation is that the study focused solely on women who had not yet experienced motherhood. As a result, it is unclear whether these findings would apply to parents, or how caregiving experiences, such as pregnancy and raising a child, might alter sensitivity to baby schema features.
Another limitation is that the study was conducted in a lab setting, which may not fully capture the complexity of caregiving behaviors in the real world. While the researchers measured automatic facial expressions and neural activity, it is difficult to say how these responses would translate to actual caregiving behavior outside the lab.
“We need to be cautious when linking sensitivity to baby schema features with actual caregiving behaviors, as there’s still very limited evidence to support this connection,” Spencer noted. “More research is needed to establish a clear link between automatic processing of infant features and real-world caregiving responses. Additionally, our study cannot determine possible gender differences in sensitivity to baby schema features. Also, research indicates that pregnancy and parenting may impact sensitivity to infant cues, and therefore it is unclear if our results may be similar in parents.”
“It’s important to note that we used specific genetic markers to measure oxytocin sensitivity, focusing on average methylation patterns of oxytocin system genes. This area of research is still developing. Our findings align with previous studies showing that the oxytocin system plays a role in sensitivity to social signals, but more research is needed.”
The study, “(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X2400120X) Facing infant cuteness: How nurturing care motivation and oxytocin system gene methylation are associated with responses to baby schema features,” was authored by Hannah Spencer, Franca H. Parianen Lesemann, Renate S.M. Buisman, Eline J. Kraaijenvanger, Susan Branje, Marco P.M. Boks, and Peter A. Bos.

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/20240923/ae92202b/attachment.htm>