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/parent-phone-use-linked-to-family-time-disruptions-and-increased-stress/) Parent phone use linked to family time disruptions and increased stress
Sep 30th 2024, 08:00

Parents’ mobile phone use for social media and gaming can disrupt family time, with mothers more likely to use social media and perceive it as interfering with family time, while fathers report higher levels of mobile gaming. This research was published in (https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000539) Psychology of Popular Media.
Mobile phone use has become a constant presence in family life. Parents frequently use their smartphones for various activities, including social media and mobile gaming, often while interacting with their children. Past research has shown that this “technoference” can disrupt parent-child interactions and affect children’s behavior and development. For instance, parents distracted by mobile devices may be less responsive to their children’s needs, leading to poorer-quality interactions.
Research on how different types of phone use affect family time is still developing, and the effects on parenting stress remain unclear. Brandon T. McDaniel and colleagues explored these dynamics further, focusing on the differences between mothers’ and fathers’ phone use.
This study involved 183 heterosexual couples with children under the age of five, for a total of 355 parents (179 mothers and 176 fathers). The average age of the parents was ~32 years, and their children were, on average, ~3 years old. Participants were primarily Caucasian, married, and had higher levels of education. Both mothers and fathers were recruited from an online database and completed a survey about their phone use, perceived impact on family time, and levels of parenting stress.
The researchers measured parents’ perceived mobile phone use for texting, calling, social media, and mobile gaming. They also asked participants how much they felt their social media and mobile gaming activities cut into family time. Parenting stress was assessed using the Parenting Stress Index–Short Form (PSI-SF), with participants responding to 27 items about their experiences, such as feeling overwhelmed by their child’s behavior.
The researchers found that mothers were more likely to use social media than fathers, with 61% of mothers using social media for more than 31 minutes per day compared to 38% of fathers. Conversely, fathers reported higher levels of mobile gaming, with 23% of fathers engaging in mobile gaming for more than 31 minutes per day compared to 16% of mothers. Mothers were also more likely to perceive their social media use as cutting into family time, while there were no significant gender differences in perceptions of MG cutting into family time.
Parenting stress was found to be associated with greater social media use and mobile gaming, as well as with higher perceptions of technoference, meaning that parents who reported higher levels of stress were also more likely to feel that their phone use interfered with family time. However, this association was stronger for mobile gaming than for social media use.
These findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing technoference should consider the type of phone activity and the parent’s gender to be more effective in mitigating its impact on family life.
One limitation is that the study relied on self-reported measures of phone use and perceived technoference, which may not accurately reflect actual phone usage or its impact on family interactions.
The research, “(https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000539) Parent social media use and gaming on mobile phones, technoference in family time, and parenting stress”, was authored by Brandon T. McDaniel, Alison K. Ventura, and Michelle Drouin.

(https://www.psypost.org/is-there-any-joy-in-being-right-about-bad-outcomes-surprising-answer-revealed-in-new-study/) Is there any joy in being right about bad outcomes? Surprising answer revealed in new study
Sep 30th 2024, 06:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001349) Emotion challenges the idea that people may find some satisfaction in having their pessimistic expectations confirmed, even if the outcome is negative. Contrary to the notion of “doomsayer’s delight,” the results indicate that people do not experience positive emotions from being right about bad things.
The concept of “doomsayer’s delight” stems from the idea that people might take some emotional comfort or validation when their gloomy predictions come true, even if the outcome is negative. This notion suggests that the emotional satisfaction of being right might, in some cases, outweigh the negative impact of the outcome itself. For example, a person who constantly predicts disaster might feel a sense of superiority or validation when their warnings are confirmed, even if they are now facing an unpleasant situation.
The idea behind the research is grounded in a theoretical framework known as Predictive Processing, which proposes that the brain constantly tries to forecast future events based on past experiences. According to this framework, when the brain’s predictions are confirmed, it may trigger a reward response, even in situations where the prediction involves negative outcomes. The researchers sought to test this idea by examining how people react emotionally to expected versus unexpected negative and positive events.
“I became interested in this topic for several reasons. First, this study was part of a larger research project aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of emotional experiences,” said study author Inon Raz, a postdoctoral researcher in Michael Gilead’s lab at Tel Aviv University.
“We sought to explore the underlying mechanisms that shape emotional responses, a crucial component in a broader investigation that includes brain functional imaging studies and longitudinal analyses of emotional shifts over time. By integrating insights from neuroscience, psychology, and life event analysis, we aimed to form a more comprehensive view of the processes that govern emotional reactions.”
“Additionally, the study holds theoretical significance in relation to emerging cognitive frameworks like Predictive Processing theories,” Raz explained. “These theories suggest that at the core of human cognition is the fundamental drive to predict future outcomes in our environment. This concept offers a fresh perspective on cognitive processes, yet it is challenging to operationalize in a straightforward experimental setting.”
“Our attraction to this theoretical approach led us to design a study that, in essence, plays with the idea of whether emotional experiences might reflect the predictions these frameworks propose. In doing so, we aimed to uncover whether emotions align with the brain’s drive for cognitive consistency or whether pragmatic concerns override this need in emotionally charged moments.”
The researchers conducted two experiments using a total of 500 participants. The experiments were set up to assess how people react emotionally when their expectations—whether optimistic or pessimistic—are either confirmed or contradicted by reality.
In both experiments, participants were shown a series of images with either positive or negative emotional content. Before each image appeared, participants were given symbols that suggested whether the upcoming image would be positive or negative. The symbols were accurate in 77% of the cases, meaning the participants’ expectations were confirmed in the majority of trials. However, in 23% of the trials, the symbols were misleading, creating a scenario in which participants’ expectations were violated.
For example, participants might be led to expect a positive image, only to be shown a negative one, or vice versa. This setup allowed the researchers to compare how participants felt when their expectations were confirmed versus when they were surprised.
To measure participants’ emotional reactions, the researchers used a technique known as the affect misattribution procedure. After each image, participants were shown a neutral Chinese character for a very short time and were asked to rate how pleasant or unpleasant they found the character.
The idea behind this method is that people’s feelings about the preceding image would unconsciously influence their judgment of the neutral character. By analyzing these ratings, the researchers could infer participants’ emotional states without directly asking them how they felt, which helped to capture their immediate, gut-level reactions to the images.
When participants’ pessimistic expectations were confirmed—that is, when they anticipated something negative and then experienced a negative outcome—they reported feeling significantly worse than when they were surprised by an unexpected negative outcome. This result suggests that people do not experience any emotional benefit from having their negative predictions validated, even though their expectations were technically correct.
In fact, the emotional toll of having negative expectations confirmed appeared to be greater than the discomfort caused by being unexpectedly confronted with something negative.
“What was somewhat surprising—and certainly counterintuitive—was the complete absence of any indication that a negative stimulus, when aligned with expectations, would be experienced as somewhat positive or at least less negative,” Raz told PsyPost. “While this isn’t a shock, it does challenge the intuitive notion that predicting a negative outcome might soften its emotional impact, which was an idea rooted in classical consistency theories.”
On the other hand, the results showed that people felt better when their optimistic expectations were confirmed—that is, when they anticipated a positive outcome and received it—compared to when they were surprised by a negative outcome. The confirmation of positive expectations led to more pleasant feelings than the violation of positive expectations. This reinforces the idea that people generally experience better emotions when things go as they hope, and the emotional boost from confirming positive beliefs is stronger than any relief from confirming negative ones.
“Unlike many other research efforts, the significance of our findings lies less in their direct relevance to the average person and more in their theoretical implications,” Raz said. “The reopening of consistency theories, which suggest that people strive for alignment between their predictions and reality, is indeed new. However, we are not the first to reexamine these ideas—Kruglanski and his colleagues (2018) were a key inspiration for our work, as they reconsidered cognitive consistency in social psychology.”
“In our study, we take this a step further by examining whether, and in which situations, we can observe expressions that may relate to the basic need to predict reality—a central theme in Predictive Processing theories—within the human emotional experience. While our research does not claim definitive answers, it challenges existing thought and opens new questions about how these cognitive processes might influence emotional responses.”
The researchers also examined how individual characteristics, such as a need for certainty or higher levels of anxiety, might influence emotional responses to expectation confirmation. However, they found no evidence that these traits made any difference in how participants felt when their predictions were confirmed or violated. This suggests that the emotional impact of having negative expectations validated is a general phenomenon, not significantly influenced by individual differences in personality or psychological traits.
“We were surprised by the lack of individual differences in Need For Closure‏ and other relevant psychological dimensions in how people evaluated prior information or responded to the confirmation of expectations in our paradigm, which suggests that these processes may be more universal than we initially thought,” Raz said.
One limitation is that the researchers focused on very short time frames to capture participants’ raw emotional responses, but it is possible that over longer periods, people might reflect on their predictions differently. “Our study primarily focused on initial, momentary emotional reactions and did not fully explore the role of arousal or long-term emotional processes,” Raz noted. “Additionally, our findings rely on a single experimental paradigm, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Future studies using multiple paradigms and examining both emotional and semantic dimensions would provide a more comprehensive understanding.”
The study raises interesting questions about how emotional experiences are shaped by both expectations and outcomes. The researchers suggest that future studies should explore the balance between people’s desire for cognitive consistency—wanting their predictions to be correct—and their desire for positive outcomes.
“Our long-term goal is to create experimental conditions in the laboratory that allow us to disentangle the influence of knowledge from pragmatic concerns,” Raz told PsyPost. “We aim to develop a stable framework that can manipulate the relative importance of knowledge in specific situations, particularly in relation to rewards. While there are already paradigms demonstrating similar dynamics, these have not yet been fully explored in human studies, and this line of research will require extensive work across many experiments.”
The study, “(https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-69069-001.html) Is It Better to Be Happy or Right? Examining the Relative Role of the Pragmatic and Epistemic Imperatives in Momentary Affective Evaluations,” was authored by Inon Raz, Niv Reggev, and Michael Gilead.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-research-provides-insight-into-how-exercise-strengthens-brain-connections/) New research provides insight into how exercise strengthens brain connections
Sep 29th 2024, 14:00

A new study sheds light on how exercise boosts brain function by exploring the role of nerves in muscle-brain communication. The study, published in the (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313590121) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals that muscles release molecules that support brain cell communication and development, and this release is driven in part by signals from the nerves that tell muscles to move. These findings help clarify the complex relationship between exercise, muscle function, and brain health.
Previous research has established that when muscles are engaged during physical activity, they release molecules that travel through the bloodstream and positively affect brain cells. These molecules, such as hormones and small vesicles containing RNA, help brain cells form stronger connections and communicate more efficiently.
However, the role of the nerves that trigger muscle movement in this process was not well understood. With age, or due to injury and disease, people tend to lose nerve connections to their muscles. This decline in nerve supply can lead to muscle breakdown and contribute to broader organ dysfunction, including in the brain.
The researchers aimed to investigate how nerve signals to muscles influence the release of molecules that support brain function. They hoped to better understand the mechanisms of this muscle-brain communication and identify ways to preserve or enhance this connection, particularly for older adults or those with neuromuscular diseases. If successful, their findings could provide a foundation for developing treatments that target muscle-brain interactions, potentially helping people maintain cognitive function even as they lose muscle mass and nerve connections.
To explore the role of nerve signals in muscle-brain communication, the researchers created two different models of muscle tissue: one that included nerve cells, and one that did not. This allowed them to compare the two and determine how the presence of nerves affected the muscle’s ability to release brain-enhancing molecules.
The muscles were placed in a laboratory dish, where one group of tissues received nerve cells, allowing the muscle and nerve cells to form connections similar to what happens in the body. These nerve-muscle connections are known as neuromuscular junctions. The second group of muscle tissues was left without any nerve cells. After establishing these two groups, the researchers stimulated the nerve-connected muscles using glutamate, a neurotransmitter that carries signals in the brain and nervous system, to mimic the kind of stimulation muscles would receive during exercise.
The researchers then measured the amount and types of molecules released by the muscles into the surrounding fluid. They specifically looked at two types of molecules: hormones, like irisin, which are known to have beneficial effects on the brain, and extracellular vesicles, tiny particles that carry RNA and other molecular cargo between cells.
In addition to measuring the overall quantity of molecules, the team also examined the specific types of RNA found within the vesicles, as these RNA fragments can influence brain cell development and communication.
The study revealed several key findings. First, the muscle tissues connected to nerves released significantly more brain-beneficial molecules compared to muscles without nerves. Specifically, the nerve-connected muscles produced higher levels of the hormone irisin, which has been linked to the positive effects of exercise on brain health. Irisin has been shown to support brain function by crossing the blood-brain barrier and promoting neurogenesis, the process by which new brain cells are formed.
Furthermore, the nerve-connected muscles also released a greater variety of extracellular vesicles, which carried RNA fragments associated with brain development and neuron communication. These vesicles are particularly important because they can transport molecular signals that help brain cells form stronger connections and communicate more effectively.
When the researchers stimulated the nerve-connected muscles with glutamate, they saw an even larger increase in the release of irisin and extracellular vesicles. The RNA fragments found in the vesicles were more diverse in this stimulated group, suggesting that the nerve signals to muscles not only increase the quantity of molecules released but also enhance the complexity of the molecular cargo, making it more beneficial for brain function.
These findings highlight the crucial role that nerve signals play in promoting muscle-brain communication. As muscles lose their nerve connections with age or due to injury, their ability to release these brain-supporting molecules diminishes, potentially contributing to cognitive decline and other brain-related issues.
Although this study provided new insights into the role of nerves in muscle-brain communication, it had some limitations. First, the experiments were conducted using lab-grown muscle tissues, which, while helpful for isolating certain factors, do not fully replicate the complex environment of a living organism. Future studies will need to test whether these findings hold true in living animals and eventually in humans.
Moving forward, the researchers plan to investigate the precise mechanisms at the junction between nerves and muscle cells. They hope to determine whether nerve impulses directly affect the production of brain-boosting factors or primarily regulate their release. This knowledge could help inform the development of targeted therapies for people with neuromuscular diseases or age-related muscle loss.
The team also aims to use their laboratory muscle models as platforms for efficiently producing brain-beneficial molecules. By simulating exercise in a lab setting, they hope to better understand how to enhance the release of these molecules, potentially paving the way for new treatments that mimic the benefits of exercise for people who are unable to engage in physical activity due to injury or disease.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2313590121) Neuronal innervation regulates the secretion of neurotrophic myokines and exosomes from skeletal muscle,” was authored by Kai-Yu Huang, Gaurav Upadhyay, Yujin Ahn, Masayoshoi Sakakura, Gelson J. Pagan-Diaz, Younghak Cho, Amanda C. Weiss, Chen Huang, Jennifer W. Mitchell, Jiahui Li, Yanqi Tan, Yu-Heng Deng, Austin Ellis-Mohr, Zhi Dou, Xiaotain Zhang, Sehong Kang, Qian Chen, Jonathan V. Sweedler, Sung Gap Im, Rashid Bashir, Hee Jung Chung, Gabriel Popescu, Martha U. Gillette, Mattia Gazzola, and Hyunjoon Kong.

(https://www.psypost.org/democrats-and-republicans-may-agree-more-on-hate-speech-than-you-think/) Democrats and Republicans may agree more on hate speech than you think
Sep 29th 2024, 12:00

A recent study has uncovered a surprising level of agreement between political parties on the issue of hate speech censorship, despite widespread assumptions of partisan division. The research, published in the (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2402428121) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that while Democrats generally support more censorship than Republicans, both groups tend to agree on which types of hate speech should be restricted.
Hate speech has become a prominent issue in modern society, particularly in the digital age where social media platforms can amplify harmful content. Historically, debates about what constitutes hate speech and whether it should be censored have been fraught with political disagreements. With ongoing cultural debates about free speech, cancel culture, and political correctness, understanding how partisanship influences views on censorship has significant implications for public discourse and policy.
The researchers wanted to investigate whether political divisions are rooted in genuine disagreements about which speech should be censored or whether these divisions stem from broader ideological differences on free speech versus censorship. Additionally, they sought to understand if partisans correctly perceive each other’s views on censorship or if they hold exaggerated assumptions about the other side’s stance.
“There has been a lot of media coverage about partisan disagreements regarding censorship, especially with regard to hate speech. Sometimes these disagreements are framed in terms of racial divisions. So we wanted to know if disagreements about free speech were masking attitudes toward race,” said study author (https://sites.google.com/site/matthewhallphd/) Matthew E. K. Hall, the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies at the University of Notre Dame, director of the Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy, and author of (https://amzn.to/4docvyc) What Justices Want.
The study employed an online survey experiment with a sample of 3,357 participants, carefully matched to reflect the demographic makeup of the United States in terms of age, sex, education, race, ethnicity, region, and political affiliation. Participants were quota-matched to reflect the general population’s demographics, including Republicans, Democrats, and a smaller group of Independents for exploratory purposes.
The survey was designed to present participants with a series of hypothetical social media posts, each containing potentially objectionable content. These posts varied in terms of the group targeted (e.g., Blacks, Jews, Palestinians, or Whites), the person posting (a private citizen, an elected official, or a college professor), the post’s severity (ranging from mere criticism to dehumanizing language or incitement to violence), and the poster’s political affiliation.
Participants were asked two key questions for each scenario: Would they remove the post, and would they deactivate the user’s account if they were in charge of a social media platform? Additionally, they were asked to predict how a typical Republican or Democrat would respond to the same scenarios. This allowed the researchers to compare actual censorship preferences with perceived partisan preferences.
Despite the perception that Democrats and Republicans are deeply divided on the issue of hate speech, the study found considerable cross-party consensus on which types of hate speech should be removed from social media platforms. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that hate speech targeting Blacks and Jews should be censored more frequently than hate speech targeting Whites or Palestinians (though Democrats tended to support more censorship overall).
Specifically, 60.4% of participants supported removing posts targeting Blacks, while 58.6% supported removing posts targeting Jews. In contrast, 54.8% favored removing posts targeting Palestinians, and 54.6% supported removing posts targeting Whites.
When it came to deactivating accounts that shared hate speech, support was generally lower than for simply removing posts. Although fewer participants supported full account deactivation, similar trends emerged: participants were more likely to favor deactivating accounts that posted hate speech against Blacks and Jews compared to those targeting Palestinians or Whites.
“We found that disagreements about hate speech are not driven by racial attitudes,” Hall told PsyPost. “Republicans are generally less supportive of censoring hate speech than Democrats are. But Republicans and Democrats generally agree that hate speech targeting Blacks and Jews should be censored more than hate speech targeting Whites.”
The severity of the language used in hate speech was another key factor influencing censorship decisions. Participants were more likely to support both removing posts and deactivating accounts when the language was more extreme or violent. For example, posts explicitly calling for violence—such as “should all be rounded up and shot in the head”—were far more likely to be censored than posts containing less harmful insults, like calling a group “stupid.”
Both Republicans and Democrats showed sensitivity to the severity of the language, with support for censorship increasing as the speech became more harmful. While Democrats were more likely than Republicans to support censoring dehumanizing language, the difference between the two parties was not as large as anticipated. Both groups agreed that the more harmful the language, the more deserving it was of censorship.
The researchers found that the source of the hate speech—whether it came from a private citizen, an elected official, or a college professor—had little impact on people’s willingness to censor the speech. Both Republicans and Democrats largely appeared to agree that the identity or societal role of the person making the post did not significantly alter their decisions about removing the content or deactivating the account.
The one notable exception to this was that Democrats were more likely to support censoring posts made by elected officials. This may reflect concerns about the higher level of responsibility that public figures are seen to have when making statements, especially when those statements involve hate speech.
Although Democrats and Republicans broadly agreed on which types of hate speech should be censored, the study revealed a significant divide in how much censorship each group supported. Democrats consistently showed stronger support for both removing posts and deactivating accounts compared to Republicans, regardless of the group being targeted by the hate speech or the severity of the language used.
For instance, while both Democrats and Republicans agreed that posts targeting marginalized groups like Blacks and Jews were more deserving of censorship, Democrats were more likely to support not only removing the offensive posts but also deactivating the accounts that shared them. This pattern held true even when less severe forms of hate speech, such as derogatory remarks without calls for violence, were involved.
One of the most striking findings of the study was the disconnect between how partisans perceived the other side’s views on censorship and the reality. Both Democrats and Republicans misjudged the other party’s positions on hate speech censorship, contributing to ongoing political polarization around the issue.
Democrats tended to overestimate how much Republicans would favor censoring hate speech targeting Whites and underestimated Republican support for censoring hate speech against marginalized groups like Blacks and Jews. On the other hand, Republicans underestimated how much Democrats supported censoring hate speech targeting Whites and Jews.
This misunderstanding highlights a significant gap in how partisans perceive each other’s attitudes toward hate speech, fueling political division despite substantial agreement on which speech should be censored.
But the study, like all research, has some limitations. The study focused on a limited set of hate speech targets and did not explore hate speech directed at other groups, such as women, Asian Americans, Latino/Latina Americans, or the LGBTQ community. Future research should examine how censorship preferences might vary when other social groups are targeted and whether certain marginalized groups hold different views on censorship.
Another potential avenue for future research is to investigate how misperceptions of out-party censorship preferences arise and whether correcting these misperceptions could help reduce political polarization. The study highlights how exaggerated beliefs about the other side’s stance on censorship can contribute to misunderstandings and distrust, even when there is a surprising degree of underlying agreement. Understanding the psychological and media-driven mechanisms behind these misperceptions could help bridge the partisan divide and foster more constructive dialogue on hate speech moderation.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2402428121) Illusory interparty disagreement: Partisans agree on what hate speech to censor but do not know it,” was authored by Brittany C. Solomon, Matthew E. K. Hall, Abigail Hemmen, and James N. Druckman.

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/20240930/3e3bcff7/attachment.htm>