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/neuroscience-study-reveals-how-breathing-shapes-brain-activity-during-anxiety/) Neuroscience study reveals how breathing shapes brain activity during anxiety
Apr 8th 2025, 10:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1191-24.2024) The Journal of Neuroscience has found evidence for a link between breathing patterns and brain activity during anxious states. Researchers found that rats experiencing anxiety-like behavior in a common behavioral test breathed more rapidly and that this change in breathing influenced brain rhythms in a key frontal brain area. The study highlights how shifts in respiration actively shape how the brain functions during emotional experiences.
Scientists have long known that feelings of anxiety can trigger physical changes in the body, including alterations in breathing. Previous research has shown that breathing influences brain activity, particularly in areas involved in processing smells and in the front part of the brain. This connection between breathing and brain function has been especially well-documented in relation to fear, where slow, steady breathing is often linked to freezing behavior in rodents. However, it remained unclear whether breathing plays a similar role in other negative emotional states like anxiety, which tends to involve faster breathing.
To investigate this, researchers set out to understand how breathing affects brain activity in situations that evoke anxiety. They used a widely accepted method for studying anxiety in rodents called the elevated plus maze. This maze is shaped like a plus sign and has two arms that are enclosed and two that are open and exposed. Because rats naturally prefer the safety of enclosed spaces, spending time in the open arms is considered an indication of anxiety-like behavior.
During the experiment, the scientists placed rats in the elevated plus maze and allowed them to explore freely for ten minutes. At the same time, they recorded two key types of data: the rats’ breathing patterns and the electrical activity in two brain regions—the olfactory bulb, which is involved in smell and also transmits breathing-related signals, and the medial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain involved in regulating emotions and decision-making. 
To measure breathing, the researchers inserted a small, curved tube into the nasal cavity, which was connected to a pressure sensor that could detect airflow with each breath. For brain activity, they surgically implanted tiny electrodes in the olfactory bulb and prefrontal cortex to measure electrical signals generated by neurons. The rats were also filmed from above to track their movements and determine whether they were in the open arms, closed arms, or central area of the maze.
The researchers then analyzed the data and uncovered several striking patterns. First, they found that the rats’ breathing rate varied depending on where they were in the maze. When the animals were in the closed arms—the safer, enclosed sections—their breathing was relatively slow, typically in the range of 0.5 to 4 breaths per second (hertz). In contrast, when they explored the open arms or the central platform, their breathing sped up to between 5 and 10 hertz. 
While faster breathing can be associated with increased movement, the team showed that even when the rats moved at similar speeds, they still breathed more rapidly in the open areas. This indicates that the breathing changes were related to emotional state rather than physical activity alone.
Next, the team examined the electrical signals recorded from the brain. They found that both the olfactory bulb and the prefrontal cortex showed brain waves that were tightly synchronized with the animals’ breathing rhythm. These patterns, known as respiration-coupled oscillations, occurred at the same frequency as the rats’ breathing and changed depending on whether the rats were breathing slowly or quickly. This revealed that the brain was not only tracking the act of breathing, but actually reflecting its timing in ongoing electrical activity.
Most notably, these breathing-related brain waves were stronger when the rats were in the open arms and experiencing anxiety-like behavior. The synchronization between breathing and brain activity became more prominent during fast breathing states, suggesting that the influence of respiration on the brain intensifies during anxiety. 
To confirm that nasal airflow was driving these brain rhythms, and not the other way around, the researchers used a statistical method called Granger causality. Their analysis showed that the timing of nasal breathing predicted the timing of brain activity, indicating that sensory input from the airflow itself was shaping neural activity in both the olfactory bulb and prefrontal cortex.
The study also explored how breathing affects a particular type of fast brain wave known as gamma oscillations, which are associated with attention, working memory, and sensory processing. The researchers found that the phase of each breath cycle modulated the strength of gamma activity in the prefrontal cortex. 
Importantly, this effect changed depending on the rats’ emotional state. When the rats were in the closed arms and breathing more slowly, gamma activity around 85 hertz was influenced by the slower breathing rhythm. But during anxious periods in the open arms, the faster breathing rhythm modulated a slightly faster gamma frequency, around 100 hertz. This suggests that not only does breathing shape the timing of brain activity, it can also shift the type of gamma waves present in emotionally relevant brain regions, potentially influencing how information is processed under stress.
The researchers note several limitations of their work. Since the study was conducted in rats, it remains to be seen whether the same patterns apply to the human brain. The recordings were limited to the olfactory bulb and prefrontal cortex, so future studies could explore whether other brain regions involved in emotion, such as the amygdala or hippocampus, show similar respiration-linked activity. 
Additionally, while the study demonstrates a strong relationship between breathing and brain rhythms during anxiety, it does not fully explain how breathing shapes the activity of individual brain cells. Further research is needed to uncover the exact pathways through which breathing influences emotional behavior.
Nevertheless, the findings add to a growing body of research showing that breathing rhythms are tightly connected to brain function, particularly in areas involved in emotion and decision-making. They also underscore the importance of nasal airflow itself in this process, as the brain appears to respond to the physical sensation of breathing in through the nose. While these experiments were conducted in rats, they have important implications for understanding anxiety in humans. 
Breathing-based therapies, such as slow breathing exercises or mindfulness practices, are already known to reduce anxiety in people. This study provides a biological explanation for why these techniques might work: altering breathing patterns could directly influence the neural circuits involved in emotional processing.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1191-24.2024) Breathing Modulates Network Activity in Frontal Brain Regions during Anxiety,” was authored by Ana L. A. Dias, Davi Drieskens, Joseph A. Belo, Elis H. Duarte, Diego A. Laplagne, and Adriano B. L. Tort.

(https://www.psypost.org/the-psychology-of-randomness-why-our-brains-struggle-with-fallacies/) The psychology of randomness: Why our brains struggle with fallacies
Apr 8th 2025, 08:00

We are surrounded by random events every day. Will the stock market rise or fall tomorrow? Will the next penalty kick in a soccer match go left or right? Will your lottery ticket finally win?
Often, we experience these events not as isolated occurrences but as part of a sequence. In these sequences, our brains (https://journals.healio.com/doi/abs/10.3928/00485713-20090421-02) crave certainty and patterns.
Sometimes there really is something meaningful behind the patterns we observe. But often, we’re simply reading into randomness.
How can we tell the difference? One thing to keep in mind is the idea of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)) independent events. In probability, this means the outcome of one event doesn’t influence the outcome of another.
The failure to understand independence lies at the heart of two famous phenomena: (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/gamblers-fallacy-hot-hand-belief-and-the-time-of-patterns/6B4BAD8539F294210EF85B6F576BE2FA) the gambler’s fallacy and the “hot hand” in sports.
When we do understand independence, we can make better decisions in a world full of uncertainty.
The gambler’s fallacy
On August 18 1913, (https://gizmodo.com/the-night-the-gamblers-fallacy-lost-people-millions-1496890660) at the Monte Carlo Casino, gamblers witnessed one of the most extraordinary roulette streaks in history. The ball landed on black once, twice, five times, ten times — and it kept going.
Imagine you’re there, watching as black comes up 15 times in a row. What would you do? Would you bet on black, thinking the streak will continue? Or would you bet on red, convinced it’s “due” to appear?
That night, most gamblers chose red. By the 20th spin, the table was packed with players staking everything on red, certain the streak of black couldn’t last forever.
But the ball continued to defy them, landing on black again and again. (https://youtube.com/shorts/vbix26y3CaA?si=Maaz4owyp2F4LYvi) It wasn’t until the 27th spin that red finally appeared — by which point, many gamblers had lost a fortune.
While the exact amount lost by gamblers during the 1913 Monte Carlo roulette event isn’t documented, it’s reported they collectively lost millions of francs.
This historic night is now a textbook example of the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy) gambler’s fallacy: the mistaken belief that past events influence the likelihood of future outcomes in a sequence of independent trials.
In reality, the roulette wheel is fair, meaning each spin is random and independent of the last. The probabilities of landing on red, black or green remain the same every time, no matter what happened before.
Lotteries, kids and kicks
Such randomness traps don’t just catch us at the roulette wheel. We fall for them in other situations, too.
Lottery players often assume a number is “due” after not appearing for weeks. This often leads to debates about (https://www.lotterypost.com/thread/227113) when to change picks based on patterns observed in recent draws.
Parents who have had several children of the same sex may (mistakenly) believe they are (https://www.quora.com/If-a-couple-already-has-two-sons-is-there-a-higher-chance-that-they-will-have-a-daughter-for-the-third-child) more likely to have a child of the opposite sex next.
Soccer goalkeepers too fall victim to the gambler’s fallacy. A (https://www.science.org/content/article/gamblers-fallacy-trips-goalies) study analysing 37 penalty shootouts in World Cup and European Cup matches found goalkeepers were 70% more likely to dive in the opposite direction after three consecutive kicks had gone to the same side, believing the streak must “balance out”. Interestingly, strikers didn’t exploit this predictable behaviour, as their kick directions remained random.
The ‘hot hand’ phenomenon
Not all sequences of random events are independent. Sometimes, events in a sequence can influence one another, creating patterns that are real rather than imagined.
This brings us to the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand) “hot hand” phenomenon. This is the widespread belief that players performing well — (https://www.tiktok.com/@spotupthree/video/7316703916513709344?q=hot%20hand%20basketball&t=1735374855641) such as scoring consecutive basketball shots — are more likely to continue performing well.
But does the hot hand really exist, or is it just another example of our tendency to impose patterns on random events? The short answer: (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022249615000814?casa_token=2b0iy0XGXVAAAAAA:GAG_FkcQLGqd1ZS0F44hjkm9hJz3_xWUhPMuHjIOr-kUBchA2yP3OeDNpYAb7PulCf4eaHzL) it’s complicated.
Unlike the gambler’s fallacy, which can be ruled out by clear statistical principles, the hot hand phenomenon (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292121001240?casa_token=v7n8gyLRtz0AAAAA:fZgYCXzqNZrGh42zBvcZ24r5RUouypKqaKwRCn59gGQoR3nEFTBTxZqQR57mrVjJuQCMoxWH) resists definitive dismissal.
There’s no way to prove that consecutive basketball shots are entirely independent. Skill, confidence or (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1750984X.2020.1830426?casa_token=9F4mpdW4UmIAAAAA%3AhFoHlZgT8kdT_GksUtBn6JxK0DoF-bwH1zfv8eC7mKQGvticmkcmN2MrFSf1NwqM4USR5bSWflxu) momentum could play a role in creating real streaks.
Empirical evidence, however, remains (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029212000921?casa_token=9C7thGQTcWIAAAAA:gK3WRqxvfE5Tza125r-oY8aNhy14w7GFLmDEowPra2dTGItRcRBcYb38Km6iHgaDFmD20llh#tbl2) mixed and (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029206000240?casa_token=kHruqUVq-XYAAAAA:Gw4sy9GufsiHuNKrY_GMhlNw_mHPsfDCra1RxwPPmbHRnSo_i7sZIRo7WqBWZpyWpE9hB4n0) context-dependent. Some studies have observed mild effects in certain sports, but others have ruled out the effect.
While the question (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028585900106) originated in basketball, later research has extended to other sports, including (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pchj.39?casa_token=fVFYcejsetkAAAAA%3Abe8nuN0tsLNXe7UhFCATVER2VwgBk9lZlB4gWd3L9PQiXXIXkiMcZZVFllOluQGiMv1CWWGvJwICa9E) baseball, (https://academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/183/2/565/7056303?login=false) darts, (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/016214501753168217?casa_token=mtw42qcOFLIAAAAA:ICMpxca49fc83pnlyeRUGETnL2u__9mjux8CrDGyQI8w5G7FYy4OEUrGEcGFyYoSlSP3_wUPOQ9q) tennis and (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/0003130042809) bowling. Most studies suggest that the effect, if it exists, is far weaker than many players, coaches and fans believe.
What does this all mean?
As humans, we’re wired to seek patterns and trends to make sense of the world and navigate decisions. But often, we only have access to small batches of information, which can lead us astray when interpreting randomness.
One common mistake is assuming that streaks or clusters of similar outcomes indicate something unusual or rigged. In reality, these clusters are normal features of randomness.
Fairness or balance only emerges over a very large number of events, not in small samples. Independent events such as coin flips have no memory. Each outcome stands alone, unaffected by what came before.
This tendency to see patterns where none exist, also known as the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion) clustering illusion, can often fuel superstitions such as “(https://folklorethursday.com/folklife/bad-luck-comes-threes/#:~:text=While%20it's%20been%20difficult%20to,of%20bad%20luck%20or%20deaths.) bad luck comes in threes”. It’s the same bias that leads us to expect a losing streak at the casino to end soon, or to believe a series of unrelated misfortunes in life means we’re “due” for some good luck.
However, events aren’t always independent. Sometimes, a cluster of good outcomes — such as a series of career successes — may genuinely reflect skill, momentum, or changing circumstances, and could signal future opportunities.
So next time you encounter a streak of events – good or bad — pause and reflect. If there’s no reason to believe the events are connected, resist the urge to overinterpret. Understanding randomness can free us from unnecessary worry or false hope, allowing us to focus on decisions grounded in reality.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/the-hot-hand-and-the-gamblers-fallacy-why-our-brains-struggle-to-believe-in-randomness-246244) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/veteran-lawmakers-are-more-effective-and-bipartisan-study-finds/) Veteran lawmakers are more effective and bipartisan, study finds
Apr 8th 2025, 06:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241298960) Political Research Quarterly suggests that members of the United States House of Representatives with military experience are more effective at passing legislation and more likely to work with colleagues across party lines. These differences are especially pronounced among veterans who served on active duty. As Congress faces ongoing dysfunction and deepening polarization, these findings lend support to the growing argument that electing more veterans could help improve legislative performance and cooperation.
The study was motivated by a noticeable trend in American politics. Over the past several decades, the number of military veterans serving in Congress has sharply declined, falling from over 70 percent in 1971 to just 17 percent in recent years. During that same period, Congress has become more polarized and less productive, while public trust in the institution has eroded. Veteran candidates and their supporters often link these trends, arguing that military service fosters values—such as duty, teamwork, and selfless service—that could help restore function and civility in Washington.
To test these claims, researcher Joseph Amoroso analyzed data from the House of Representatives spanning the 104th to the 116th Congresses, covering the years 1995 to 2021. The study focused on two main questions: Are veterans more effective at advancing legislation? And are they more willing to work with members of the opposing party?
To measure effectiveness, Amoroso used Legislative Effectiveness Scores, which track how far lawmakers’ bills progress through the legislative process—from introduction to committee consideration, House passage, and eventual enactment into law. These scores also account for the substance of each bill, giving more weight to meaningful policy efforts. For bipartisanship, the study examined cosponsorship patterns—how often members support bills introduced by lawmakers from the other party—as well as data from the Lugar Center’s Bipartisan Index, which combines measures of offering and receiving cross-party support.
Across all 13 Congresses studied, lawmakers with military backgrounds were consistently more effective at advancing significant legislation. On average, veterans scored higher on legislative effectiveness, and those who served on active duty stood out the most. Even after accounting for other factors that influence effectiveness—such as seniority, committee positions, and party leadership—veteran status remained a positive predictor of legislative success. In statistical terms, active-duty veterans were about 20 percent more effective than their nonveteran peers, a difference roughly half the size of the advantage gained by being in the majority party.
The data also showed that veterans played a key role in moving high-impact legislation forward. Although they made up only about a quarter of lawmakers in the dataset, veterans were responsible for nearly half of all substantive and significant bills introduced between 1995 and 2021. About a third of these efforts came from active-duty veterans, highlighting their outsized influence. In terms of outcomes, veterans were more likely to see their bills progress at each stage of the legislative process. For instance, about 25 percent of veterans had at least one major bill become law, compared to just 12 percent of nonveterans.
On the question of bipartisanship, the results were more nuanced. Veterans did show a greater tendency to cosponsor bills introduced by members of the opposite party. While the difference was modest, it was statistically significant and held up even after accounting for factors like party affiliation, ideology, and electoral competitiveness. Interestingly, this effect was more strongly associated with veterans who had non-active-duty experience, such as service in the National Guard or Reserves. In contrast, active-duty service did not have a significant impact on bipartisan cosponsorship in the broader dataset.
However, when focusing on more recent sessions of Congress—specifically from 2013 to 2020—the data painted a slightly different picture. During this highly polarized period, veterans scored significantly higher than nonveterans on the Lugar Center’s Bipartisan Index, which offers a more comprehensive measure of cross-party cooperation. Here, active-duty veterans were particularly prominent, outperforming both nonveterans and non-active-duty veterans in bipartisan activity. The study suggests that during times of heightened partisanship, the team-oriented values instilled through active military service may play a stronger role in shaping lawmakers’ behavior.
As with any study, the findings come with some limitations. The study cannot fully separate whether the observed differences are due to self-selection—people who are naturally inclined to work hard and collaborate may be more likely to join the military—or whether military service itself changes people’s behavior. The distinction between self-selection and socialization is difficult to parse, though the stronger results among active-duty veterans suggest that more intense military experiences may have a greater impact.
Additionally, while the analysis shows meaningful differences between veterans and nonveterans, the effects are not large enough to suggest that military experience alone can fix Congress. Polarization and gridlock are driven by a complex mix of institutional, political, and cultural factors. However, the findings do indicate that veterans bring a distinctive approach to lawmaking that can help counter some of these forces.
The study, “(https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10659129241298960) Deployed to the Hill: Military Experience and Legislative Behavior in Congress,” was published November 15, 2024.

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/20250408/40dc8244/attachment.htm>