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/fluoride-exposure-may-impact-childrens-cognitive-development-study-finds/) Fluoride exposure may impact children’s cognitive development, study finds
Apr 14th 2025, 10:00

Fluoride occurs naturally in drinking water, especially well water, but the concentrations are generally low in public water supplies. In some countries, such as the US, Canada, UK, Australia and Ireland, fluoride is (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/water-fluoridation-by-country) commonly added to the public water supply at around 0.7mg per litre to prevent tooth decay. The World Health Organization guideline for fluoride in drinking water is (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241548151) 1.5mg per litre.
Given the concern that fluoride in drinking water might affect children’s intelligence, the addition of this mineral to drinking water has become controversial. Consensus among researchers about the precise nature of the link between fluoridation and intelligence is lacking and the existing evidence is (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/) widely debated.
The US National Toxicology Program’s, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/monographs/mgraph08) most recent evaluation states with moderate confidence that higher fluoride exposure (above the World Health Organization guideline) is consistently associated with decreased child intelligence, while they conclude that more research is needed to understand the effects at lower fluoride exposure levels.
A (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP14534) new study my colleagues and I conducted found that relatively low exposure to fluoride during the foetal stage (as a result of the mother’s exposure to fluoride) or in the child’s early years may affect their intelligence.
For the study, which was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, we followed 500 mothers and their children in rural Bangladesh, where fluoride occurs naturally in the drinking water, to investigate the link between early life exposure to fluoride and children’s intelligence.
Psychologists evaluated the children’s cognitive abilities at five and ten years of age, using standard IQ tests. The exposure to fluoride in the mothers during pregnancy and children at five and ten years of age was determined by measuring the concentrations in urine samples. Urine samples reflect the continuing exposure from all sources, such as drinking water, food and dental products (such as toothpaste and mouthwash). Urine samples are the most accurate way of determining fluoride exposure in people.
Increasing urinary concentrations of fluoride in pregnant women were linked to decreasing intelligence in their children at five and ten. Even the lowest fluoride concentrations were associated with decreases in the children’s cognition. The average maternal urinary fluoride concentration was 0.63mg per litre, with the vast majority of concentrations falling between 0.26 and 1.4mg per litre.
The children’s average urinary fluoride concentrations at five and ten years of age (0.62 and 0.66mg per litre, respectively) were similar to those of their mothers during pregnancy.
Among children who had more than 0.72mg per litre of fluoride in their urine by age ten, increasing urinary fluoride concentrations were associated with lower intelligence. In children with less fluoride in their urine, there were no consistent associations with their intelligence. So childhood exposure seemed to be less detrimental than the exposure during early foetal development.
Out of the cognitive abilities measured, associations of both maternal and child urinary fluoride concentrations were most pronounced with nonverbal reasoning and verbal abilities. There were no consistent differences between boys and girls.
We didn’t find a link between fluoride concentrations in the urine of the five-year-olds and their intelligence. This could be due to the shorter exposure time or that urinary fluoride concentrations aren’t as reliable in younger children owing to greater variations in how much fluoride is taken up and stored in the body, particularly in the bones.
As well as the children’s urinary fluoride concentration, the fluoride concentrations in drinking water were measured at the age of ten for a random subset of the studied children. The average was 0.20mg per litre, which is well below the WHO guideline value for fluoride in drinking water.
The concentrations in drinking water tracked with the concentrations in urine, confirming that water is a main source of exposure. Still, we couldn’t exclude the possibility that there were contributions from other sources. Fluoride in toothpaste is important for preventing tooth decay, but it’s important to encourage small children not to swallow the toothpaste during brushing.
Limitations
A limitation of our study is that we measured fluoride only in one urine sample at each time point. As a large fraction of the absorbed fluoride is excreted in some hours, one measurement may give uncertain levels for the individual. However, as the exposure largely comes from water it can be assumed that the intake is rather constant over time.
Another limitation is that the intelligence tests that were used have not been standardised for the Bangladeshi population. As a result, we did not convert the results to IQ scores (with an average of 100) that can be compared across populations.
Our findings support previous well-designed studies from (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31424532/) Canada and (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28937959/) Mexico, where exposure levels obtained below the existing WHO guideline for fluoride in drinking water were associated with impaired cognitive development.
Similar findings were recently provided when combining multiple studies from (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39761023/) several countries. It was noted that at low exposure levels, findings with cognitive development were more conclusive among studies estimating fluoride exposure via urine than among studies that relied on concentrations in drinking water only. This highlights that imprecise estimation of the exposure can lead to difficulties in assessing the true impact on cognitive development.
Taken together, the concern about the effect of fluoride on children’s intelligence at low exposure levels is further strengthened by our study. In particular exposure during foetal development, but also prolonged childhood exposure seems to be of concern.
Still, as this is an observational study, no firm conclusions can be drawn about causalities. There is still a need for more well-designed research studies on low-level fluoride exposure and cognitive development, in combination with experimental studies to determine the possible molecular mechanisms driving it. Collectively, this will create a robust basis for reviewing fluoride health risks and thresholds for drinking water, foods, and dental care products, especially for children.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/our-new-study-indicates-maternal-exposure-to-relatively-low-fluoride-levels-may-affect-intelligence-in-children-251193) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/childhood-maltreatment-linked-to-higher-risk-of-rheumatoid-arthritis-and-psoriasis-study-finds/) Childhood maltreatment linked to higher risk of rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, study finds
Apr 14th 2025, 08:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40493) Heliyon has found that people who experienced abuse, neglect, or domestic abuse during childhood have a significantly higher risk of developing certain chronic immune disorders later in life—specifically, rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. The association was particularly strong among women, raising questions about how early life adversity may shape lifelong health outcomes.
The researchers aimed to investigate how early exposure to abuse might relate to the development of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, a group of chronic illnesses that includes rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel diseases.
While previous studies have hinted at a connection between early trauma and immune disorders, most of the research has relied on self-reported surveys or hospital records, often with small sample sizes. The current study sought to overcome these limitations by analyzing data from a large, representative sample using electronic health records from primary care practices in the United Kingdom.
“As a public health researcher and clinician, I’ve long been interested in how early life adversity shapes long-term health outcomes,” said study author (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/applied-health/chandan-joht) Joht Singh Chandan, a clinical professor of public health at the University of Birmingham. “Childhood maltreatment is a widespread yet under-acknowledged public health issue. We know it’s linked to mental health and cardiovascular outcomes, but its relationship with chronic immune diseases has been less explored, particularly in the UK context. This study aimed to fill that gap using robust, large-scale primary care data.”
The researchers used the IQVIA Medical Research Database, which includes de-identified electronic health records from general practices across the United Kingdom. These records contain clinical notes, diagnoses, and other medical data, including childhood maltreatment codes recorded by general practitioners. The study period covered over two decades, from January 1995 to January 2021.
The researchers identified 256,130 individuals with a documented history of childhood maltreatment before age 18 and matched them with 712,478 unexposed individuals based on age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, and medical practice. Maltreatment was identified using a broad set of clinical codes, capturing both confirmed instances and concerns about potential abuse or neglect. Participants were followed over time to see whether they developed one of six chronic immune disorders: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, coeliac disease, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or inflammatory bowel disease.
The analysis revealed that people exposed to childhood maltreatment had a 39% higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis and a 16% higher risk of developing psoriasis compared to those without such exposure. These associations held even after adjusting for factors such as age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Notably, the increased risk was more pronounced in women. For example, women who had experienced childhood maltreatment were 54% more likely to be diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, while the increase in risk for men was not statistically significant.
“Experiences of childhood maltreatment can have enduring effects on physical health, not just mental wellbeing,” Chandan told PsyPost. “Our findings suggest that individuals exposed to maltreatment are at increased risk of developing conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. This reinforces the need for early prevention and support, and highlights the long arm of early trauma on the immune system.”
By contrast, the study did not find statistically significant differences in the risk of developing multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or inflammatory bowel disease. Interestingly, those exposed to childhood maltreatment were found to be at a lower risk of developing celiac disease. The reasons for this unexpected result are unclear, but researchers speculated that differences in healthcare access, disease detection, or dietary factors may play a role.
“We were surprised to find a lower risk of celiac disease among those exposed to childhood maltreatment,” Chandan said. “While we don’t believe maltreatment is protective, this may reflect underdiagnosis or health inequalities, where symptoms are overlooked or access to care is limited. It highlights the complex intersection of trauma, healthcare access, and disease presentation.”
The authors also conducted several sensitivity analyses to strengthen their findings. When restricting the analysis to patients whose medical records contained direct evidence of maltreatment—as opposed to indirect concerns—the associations with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis were even stronger.
There are several possible explanations for the link between childhood maltreatment and these diseases. One is that early life stress may interfere with the development of the body’s stress regulation and immune systems, leading to chronic inflammation. Studies have shown that people exposed to maltreatment often have elevated levels of inflammatory markers such as interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein, which are also found in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. Other behavioral factors, such as higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, and obesity among those with a history of maltreatment, may also contribute to an elevated risk.
Despite its strengths, the study has important limitations. The analysis relied on medical records, which may underreport or misclassify cases of childhood maltreatment. The coding system used had high specificity but relatively low sensitivity, meaning that many cases likely went undetected. Additionally, information on potentially important confounding factors such as alcohol use, ethnicity, education, and family history was often missing or inconsistently recorded. The researchers also noted that follow-up time was shorter in the exposed group, which could affect estimates of long-term disease risk.
Another limitation concerns the outcomes themselves. Although rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis are well captured in general practice records, the recording of other immune disorders like lupus and multiple sclerosis may be less consistent, and the shorter follow-up period may not have been long enough to detect these conditions, which often develop later in life.
“Our study relies on clinical records, so it’s limited by how often and accurately GPs record maltreatment and IMID diagnoses,” Chandan noted. “There’s also the possibility of underreporting in both exposure and outcomes. Additionally, while we adjusted for some confounders like deprivation, there may be unmeasured factors—like family history or environmental exposures—that influence risk.”
Nevertheless, the study’s findings suggest that childhood maltreatment may play a more significant role in the development of certain immune-mediated conditions than previously understood. Because both childhood adversity and immune disorders are common in the population, even a modest increase in risk translates into a meaningful public health concern. The authors emphasize that early intervention and prevention efforts should not only focus on psychological outcomes but also consider the long-term physical health consequences of early life trauma.
Future research will be needed to explore how different types and severities of maltreatment affect disease risk, whether there is a dose-response relationship, and which biological pathways are involved. Researchers are particularly interested in whether chronic stress-induced inflammation could be a key mechanism. Expanding these investigations to other countries and healthcare systems will also help determine how generalizable the findings are.
“We hope to explore how different types, severities, and timings of childhood maltreatment influence physical health outcomes, including whether there’s a dose-response relationship,” Chandan explained. “We’re also keen to understand the biological mechanisms — particularly the role of chronic inflammation — and to inform policy around early intervention and trauma-informed care.”
“While this study adds to the evidence that childhood adversity has lasting health impacts, it’s also a call to action. Preventing maltreatment and supporting survivors isn’t just a moral or legal obligation — it’s a public health priority. Integrating this knowledge into routine clinical care could help mitigate long-term harm.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40493) The risk of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases following exposure to childhood maltreatment: A retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data,” was authored by Liam Snook, Sonica Minhas, Vrinda Nadda, Ben Hammond, Krishna M. Gokhale, Julie Taylor, Caroline Bradbury-Jones, Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, Nicola J. Adderley, and Joht Singh Chandan.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-link-antidepressants-to-long-lasting-genital-numbness-in-young-people/) Scientists link antidepressants to long-lasting genital numbness in young people
Apr 14th 2025, 06:00

A new study has found that some young people report a persistent loss of genital sensitivity after stopping antidepressants. This symptom—often described as numbness—was significantly more common in people who had taken antidepressants compared to those who used other psychiatric medications. The study, published in (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-024-02769-0) Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, suggests that a notable portion of young antidepressant users may experience enduring sexual side effects, particularly among sexual and gender minority groups.
The researchers were motivated by growing concern around a condition known as post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, in which sexual side effects, including reduced genital sensitivity, continue even after discontinuing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and similar antidepressants. While these side effects are recognized during treatment, there is less awareness about their potential persistence. Many patients may not feel comfortable discussing sexual difficulties with their doctors, and some clinicians may attribute the symptoms to underlying psychological issues rather than possible effects of the medication. This has made it difficult to estimate how common persistent sexual side effects really are, particularly in non-clinical populations.
To address this knowledge gap, the research team analyzed data from a large, anonymous online survey called UnACoRN (Understanding Affirming Communities, Relationships, and Networks), conducted in 2022. The survey gathered responses from 9,679 young people aged 15 to 29 across the United States and Canada, with more than 95% identifying as sexual or gender minorities. Of these, 2,179 participants had used psychiatric medication in the past and had been sexually active—criteria that allowed for assessment of genital sensitivity during and after treatment.
Participants were asked if they had ever experienced “less feeling in your genitals when having sex,” and whether this symptom continued after they stopped taking their medication. The researchers focused on those who reported past use of antidepressants, sedatives, or antipsychotics, while excluding anyone who had undergone genital surgery or who had not been sexually active.
The analysis revealed a striking difference between medication groups. Among participants who had taken antidepressants, 30.8% reported genital numbness during treatment, and 13.2% said the symptom continued after they stopped the medication. In contrast, only 8.2% of those who took sedatives or antipsychotics (but not antidepressants) reported genital numbness, and just 1.0% said the symptom persisted. No persistent symptoms were reported among those who had only taken antipsychotics and had stopped treatment.
To better understand these results, the researchers used statistical models that accounted for several factors, including age, sex assigned at birth, use of gender-affirming hormones, and depression severity. Even after adjusting for these variables, past use of antidepressants was strongly associated with reports of persistent genital numbness. The odds were more than 14 times higher for those who had taken antidepressants compared to those who had not. Sedative use and severe depression were also linked to increased reports of persistent genital numbness, though to a lesser extent.
These findings point to reduced genital sensitivity as a potential marker of long-term antidepressant effects. The symptom, often referred to in medical literature as genital hypoesthesia, is considered a defining feature of post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. Unlike more general sexual difficulties, which can be associated with depression itself, genital numbness is less commonly linked to psychological causes and may be more directly related to the pharmacological effects of certain drugs.
Importantly, the study found these symptoms in a young, sexually diverse population that is often underrepresented in clinical research. Sexual and gender minority youth are more likely to be prescribed antidepressants due to higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. This makes it especially important to understand the full range of potential side effects they might face when undergoing treatment.
While the study offers new insight into a relatively understudied phenomenon, it also has several limitations. The survey did not distinguish between specific types of antidepressants, such as SSRIs versus other drug classes, although most antidepressant prescriptions for youth are SSRIs or SNRIs. The data were also based on self-reports, which introduces the possibility of recall bias. Additionally, the researchers could not determine how long symptoms persisted after treatment or whether they were limited to reduced genital sensitivity or included other sexual side effects. The survey did not include baseline measures of sexual functioning before participants began taking medication, so it’s not possible to confirm whether the antidepressants caused the symptoms or simply coincided with them.
The researchers emphasize the need for future studies to follow people over time and assess sexual symptoms before, during, and after treatment. Such longitudinal research would help determine whether reduced genital sensitivity is truly a lasting effect of antidepressant use, how long it tends to persist, and whether any treatments can help reverse it. More clinical research is also needed to better understand the biological mechanisms involved and whether certain people are more vulnerable than others.
“Many people benefit from SSRI/SNRI medications; however, they may cause persistent symptoms of sexual dysfunction,” the researchers concluded. “Transparency about the risks and meaningful informed consent are central to ethical prescribing. Additionally, patients should be made aware of alternative treatments, particularly those at an early stage of sexualdevelopment. Increased surveillance and industry regulation are paramount to avoid further iatrogenic outcomes.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-024-02769-0) Frequency of self-reported persistent post-treatment genital hypoesthesia among past antidepressant users: a cross-sectional survey of sexual and gender minority youth in Canada and the US,” was authored by Yassie Pirani, J. Andrés Delgado-Ron, Pedro Marinho, Amit Gupta, Emily Grey, Sarah Watt, Kinnon R. MacKinnon, and Travis Salway.

(https://www.psypost.org/study-challenges-assumptions-about-authoritarianism-and-punitiveness-in-criminal-sentencing/) Study challenges assumptions about authoritarianism and punitiveness in criminal sentencing
Apr 13th 2025, 18:00

A new study published in (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.70023) Political Psychology questions a long-standing belief in political psychology: that people with authoritarian tendencies are more likely to support harsh punishments for criminal offenders. Drawing on data from six European countries, researchers found that right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation—two traits commonly used to explain punitive attitudes—did not predict sentencing preferences in the way previous studies have suggested. Instead, punishment preferences were more diverse and complex, with patterns that contradict the dominant theories in the field.
For decades, researchers have explored why some people are more punitive than others. A popular explanation stems from political psychology and centers on two personality traits: right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.
Right-wing authoritarianism describes a personality profile defined by a strong preference for obedience to authority, adherence to traditional social norms, and a willingness to aggress against those who challenge them. It is typically measured using items related to submission, conventionalism, and aggression. People high in this trait are thought to value social cohesion and fear disruption to the social order.
Social dominance orientation, by contrast, reflects a preference for group-based hierarchies and inequality between social groups. People high in this trait tend to favor policies that maintain the dominance of their in-group over others and are often less concerned about fairness or the well-being of those considered “lower” in the social hierarchy.
Previous studies have found that both traits are associated with more punitive attitudes. People high in right-wing authoritarianism, in particular, have been found to support longer sentences, harsher penalties, and policies like the death penalty. These findings have supported theories suggesting that punitive attitudes are driven by either a desire for social order (in the case of authoritarianism) or a desire for group dominance (in the case of social dominance orientation).
However, many of these studies used general survey questions to measure punitiveness, such as whether “offenders should be punished more severely.” These kinds of questions may be too vague and too similar in wording to the items used to measure authoritarianism, making it hard to tell whether researchers are measuring two different traits or the same one twice. The current study sought to address these problems by using more concrete, specific measures of punitiveness.
To examine how people actually prefer to punish offenders, the researchers used data from the 2022 Central European Social Survey. Over 11,000 participants from Austria, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia completed a questionnaire that included sentencing vignettes—short crime scenarios for which they chose appropriate penalties.
The vignettes described five offenses: assaulting a stranger, beating a romantic partner, rape of a stranger, rape of a partner, and evading child support. For each scenario, participants selected from a range of punishments, from no penalty to long prison terms. Unlike the abstract, single-item questions used in earlier research, these vignettes provided specific contexts and allowed for more nuanced responses.
The researchers used a statistical method called latent class analysis to group participants based on their sentencing choices. They found that people tended to fall into three broad categories: low, medium, and high punitiveness. However, this pattern did not support the idea that there is a single underlying punitiveness trait. Instead, different crimes produced different patterns of responses, and no single factor could explain all the variation in sentencing preferences.
The researchers then explored how right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were related to these sentencing patterns. When they examined right-wing authoritarianism on its own, they found that it was sometimes associated with more severe sentencing, but not consistently. In fact, people with high authoritarianism scores were more likely to fall into either the low or high punishment groups, but not the middle group. This U-shaped relationship challenged the assumption that authoritarianism is always linked to harsher punishment.
When the researchers included social dominance orientation in their models, an even more surprising pattern emerged. Social dominance orientation was associated with lower levels of punitiveness. People high in this trait were more likely to recommend lenient punishments, especially for rape cases. This contradicts earlier research and theoretical models, which suggest that people high in social dominance orientation should support harsh penalties to maintain group hierarchies.
The researchers also broke down the authoritarianism scale into its three subcomponents: aggression, submission, and conventionalism. These subscales told very different stories. The aggression subscale, which includes support for punishing norm violators, was associated with greater punitiveness. Submission, however, was linked to more lenient sentencing. Conventionalism showed only weak and inconsistent associations. This finding casts doubt on the common practice of using the full authoritarianism scale as a single measure, since its subcomponents appear to influence punishment attitudes in opposite directions.
This study challenges the idea that punitive attitudes can be explained by a single personality profile. It also casts doubt on the usefulness of global survey questions for measuring punitiveness. People do not seem to have a fixed attitude toward punishment; rather, their responses vary depending on the crime and the context. Importantly, traits like authoritarianism and social dominance may interact in ways that obscure their individual effects. In fact, the study found that social dominance orientation suppressed the apparent influence of authoritarianism in some cases.
There are limitations to this work. The sentencing vignettes, while more concrete than global questions, still lacked detail that might have influenced responses, such as the age or background of the offender. The survey also included only five crimes, which may not capture the full range of situations in which people form punitive judgments. Cultural differences between the countries surveyed may also have affected how participants understood the questions or interpreted the scenarios.
Future research could improve on these methods by including a wider range of offenses, providing more detailed case descriptions, and examining how different kinds of information influence sentencing decisions. It would also be helpful to explore how people’s beliefs about the justice system, or their emotional responses to crimes, shape their punishment preferences.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70023) The authoritarian personality model of punitiveness is inconsistent in predicting punishment preferences: A sentencing vignette study in a representative sample from six countries,” was authored by Andrzej Uhl, Malia M. Marks, and Paweł Ostaszewski.

(https://www.psypost.org/humans-are-wired-to-quickly-spot-subtle-differences-in-strength-and-beauty-new-study-suggests/) Humans are wired to quickly spot subtle differences in strength and beauty, new study suggests
Apr 13th 2025, 16:00

A new study published in (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824001107) Evolution and Human Behavior has found that people are surprisingly sensitive to small differences in how attractive or physically formidable others appear. Participants were quicker and more likely to choose the person rated as more attractive or strong when the difference between two individuals was more pronounced—but even slight differences influenced their choices and reaction times. These findings suggest that our minds are finely tuned to pick up on traits that may have influenced social and reproductive outcomes throughout human history.
Researchers at Charles University conducted the study to better understand how people judge physical characteristics that matter in social interactions, such as attractiveness and strength. While past studies have shown that people can identify traits like dominance or beauty from facial features alone, most of that research presented images one at a time or compared extremely different images—such as digitally altered faces made to look more masculine or feminine. The problem is that real-life social decisions rarely involve such dramatic contrasts. In everyday life, people usually compare individuals who fall along a continuum of similarity.
The study aimed to test whether people are equally good at detecting smaller, more natural differences between individuals. The researchers wanted to find out whether participants’ ability to make judgments improved in a gradual, step-by-step way as differences between people increased—or whether there was a threshold below which people could no longer reliably tell who was more attractive or formidable. If such a threshold existed, it would suggest that when two people look very similar, observers might have to guess. If, on the other hand, judgments improved steadily with increasing difference, this would indicate that human perception is finely attuned to even subtle variations.
To investigate this, the researchers conducted two related studies. One was an online experiment with 446 participants, and the other was a controlled, in-person study with 56 participants. All participants were between 18 and 40 years old and were recruited via social media.
Participants were shown 30 pairs of male faces and 30 pairs of male bodies. These images were photographs of real individuals—mixed martial arts fighters—who varied naturally in appearance. None of the images were digitally altered, and facial and body photographs were presented separately. Participants were randomly assigned to evaluate either attractiveness or formidability, and they were asked to choose the more attractive or formidable person in each pair. The images were presented side by side, and participants were encouraged to respond quickly and go with their gut.
In the online version, people used their own devices to complete the survey, while the in-person version took place in a lab with standardized lighting and equipment. In both studies, the researchers measured which image was selected and how long it took participants to make a decision.
The researchers then compared the participants’ choices to previously collected ratings of each image’s attractiveness and formidability. This allowed them to quantify the difference between each pair of images and examine how that difference affected participants’ decisions.
The researchers found that participants were more likely to choose the person with the higher attractiveness or formidability rating, and they did so faster when the difference between the two individuals was larger. There was no evidence of a threshold where people began guessing randomly.
Even when the differences were small, people were still more likely to choose the image rated slightly higher. For example, a one-point difference on a seven-point scale led to a strong increase in the probability of choosing the higher-rated image—above 80 percent in many cases. A two-point difference pushed that likelihood close to 100 percent.
These effects were observed for both facial and body images. However, participants’ choices were slightly more predictable when they judged body images, especially for formidability. The same patterns held in the smaller in-person study, suggesting the results were reliable across different settings.
In addition to rating differences, the researchers also explored whether other characteristics—like the age, height, and weight of the individuals in the images—played a role in selection. While these features did influence decisions to some extent, especially in judgments of formidability, their effects were much weaker than the main rating differences. For example, heavier and taller individuals were more likely to be judged as more formidable when shown in body images. Younger individuals tended to be judged as more attractive, but these effects were inconsistent and often disappeared when the researchers accounted for the attractiveness ratings.
The speed of participants’ decisions also followed a predictable pattern. When the difference between the two images was greater, people made their choices faster. On average, participants took between two and six seconds to make a decision. Judging body images tended to take slightly longer than judging faces. This might reflect the complexity or novelty of evaluating full-body appearance compared to facial features, which humans may process more automatically.
Interestingly, the researchers found individual differences in how people made their choices. Some participants relied more on height when judging formidability, while others gave more weight to body size. However, participants tended to be consistent in their own preferences across different comparisons.
There were no strong differences between men and women in the likelihood of selecting more attractive or formidable individuals. However, some sex differences did emerge in decision speed. In the in-person study, women tended to make decisions more quickly than men, while in the online study, women took slightly longer. The researchers suggest this could be due to differences in how the tasks were performed—such as pressing a spacebar in the lab versus clicking on a screen at home—rather than underlying differences in perceptual ability.
While the results provide strong evidence that people can discriminate even subtle differences in attractiveness and strength, the study does have some limitations. One is that all the images used were of men. This means the findings may reflect processes related to intrasexual competition among men and mate selection by women, but they don’t necessarily reveal how people evaluate female faces or bodies. Future research could explore whether similar patterns hold for female targets or for same-sex judgments among women.
Another limitation is the artificial nature of the forced-choice design. In real life, people are not always required to make a choice between two options. They might consider additional factors, take more time, or decide that neither option stands out. Adding a “no difference” option in future studies could help capture more realistic decision-making processes.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2024.106634) Even small differences in attractiveness and formidability affect the probability and speed of selection: An online study and an offline replication,” was authored by Vít Třebický, Petr Tureček, Jitka Třebická Fialová, Žaneta Pátková, Dominika Grygarová, and Jan Havlíček.

(https://www.psypost.org/most-political-content-on-smartphones-appears-in-brief-fleeting-bursts/) Most political content on smartphones appears in brief, fleeting bursts
Apr 13th 2025, 14:00

A new study analyzing nearly five million smartphone screenshots over a two-week period found that most political content people encounter on their devices appears in short bursts lasting only a few seconds. Moreover, the majority of this content came from sources other than traditional news media. The findings were published in the (https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2024.015) Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media.
The way people consume news has undergone dramatic changes over the past century. Less than a hundred years ago, newspapers and magazines were the primary sources of information. In the latter half of the 20th century, television became a dominant medium, with scheduled broadcasts becoming a daily ritual in many households. But the rise of the internet has since disrupted this model, replacing rigid scheduling with constant, on-demand access to news.
The internet allows people to access information instantly, at any time. This shift has led to real-time news consumption, facilitated by websites, apps, and especially social media platforms. Social media has revolutionized news delivery by enabling users to receive personalized content and rapidly share information. Meanwhile, the proliferation of smartphones has made it possible to access news from virtually anywhere, further reinforcing the internet’s role as the primary medium for news. These developments have sped up the pace of news consumption and emphasized personalization and immediacy.
In this study, lead author Daniel Muise and his colleagues set out to examine how people are exposed to political content via their smartphones. They wanted to understand how often political content appears on users’ screens, how this exposure varies across individuals and over time, and how long these encounters last.
The researchers recruited 115 participants through Qualtrics, ensuring diversity in gender, age, and geographic region within the United States. Participants, who ranged in age from 21 to 68, were compensated $30 for installing an application that took screenshots of their smartphone activity multiple times per day over a two-week period.
In total, the app captured just under 5 million screenshots across all participants. Given the scale of the data, the researchers manually classified a small subset of screenshots and used those to train an automated system to classify the remainder.
The results showed that participants’ smartphone screens were active for an average of 4.6 hours per day, though this varied widely—from less than 10 minutes to nearly 18 hours per day. Political content was relatively rare, appearing in only about 93,000 screenshots, or slightly under 2% of the total.
There was substantial variation in individual exposure. While many participants spent just a few seconds per day viewing political content, one participant averaged over an hour daily. Likewise, while political content accounted for virtually none of the screen time for most users, a few individuals devoted 10–12% of their smartphone use to it.
Importantly, political content typically appeared in short bursts. The distribution of viewing durations followed a power-law curve: the vast majority of content was extremely brief, and longer exposures were increasingly rare. This pattern held true across different apps and users, reinforcing the conclusion that political content on smartphones tends to be fleeting.
Surprisingly, the researchers found that most political content did not come from traditional news sources or even social media. Instead, it appeared in a range of other formats—suggesting that political exposure through smartphones may be far more fragmented and incidental than previously assumed.
“Political content exposure is best measured in seconds, meaning that audiences’ habits for understanding the political world is butting up against the lower temporal bound of genuine cognitive engagement, and straddling faster types of processing with timescales all their own. An encounter with political content can still lead to a thirty-minute viewing session on television, or an hour-long radio program, but to move forward in the field, we must incorporate the flash of a meme, or a comment scrolled-by in a feed. Each of these instances means that media effects are likely determined as much or more by temporal scale of message exposures as by message content,” study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the access to political contents via smartphones. However, it should be noted that the data collection method did not allow study authors to determine how much attention participants were paying to the contents or whether they sought the political contents they viewed or just ran into them unintentionally (e.g. while watching reels or just scrolling through social media).
The paper, (https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2024.015) “(Mis)measurement of Political Content Exposure within the Smartphone Ecosystem: Investigating Common Assumptions,” was authored by Daniel Muise, David M. Markowitz,Byron Reeves, and Nilam Ram.

(https://www.psypost.org/obsession-with-money-linked-to-poorer-communication-and-lower-marital-satisfaction/) Obsession with money linked to poorer communication and lower marital satisfaction
Apr 13th 2025, 12:00

A new study published in the (https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251327316) Journal of Social and Personal Relationships has found that couples who are overly focused on money tend to communicate less effectively about finances and are less satisfied in their marriages. However, couples who share similar money-related beliefs—known as “money scripts”—tend to have better financial communication, which may benefit their relationship overall. The findings suggest that aligning financial attitudes and keeping money in perspective may help couples maintain a healthier and happier marriage.
While previous studies have linked money scripts to individual financial outcomes, little was known about how these beliefs affect romantic relationships. Because money is often a source of conflict in marriage and closely tied to personal values, the researchers aimed to understand whether certain money scripts—and the extent to which couples agree on them—relate to marital satisfaction. They were also interested in whether financial communication played a role in explaining these associations.
The study builds on the Couples and Finances Theory, which suggests that individuals bring financial attitudes into their relationships, and these attitudes influence both financial behavior and relationship quality. The researchers wanted to see whether money scripts—beliefs often developed in childhood—could explain differences in how couples talk about money and how satisfied they are in their relationships. They also aimed to test whether the level of similarity between spouses’ money scripts made a difference.
“We know from previous research that money scripts are associated with financial wellbeing. Many clinicians like financial therapists and financial planners incorporate money scripts into their practice, helping individuals and couples be aware of and sometimes change their money scripts in order to improve financial wellbeing, mental health, and marital wellbeing,” said study author (https://lebaron-black.byu.edu/) Ashley LeBaron-Black, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University and author of (https://amzn.to/42FEtmK) Flourishing and Floundering Financially in Emerging Adulthood: A Handbook.
“However, despite many clinicians using money scripts with couples to increase marital wellbeing, no study had actually tested whether money scripts are associated with marital outcomes. My co-authors and I were excited to conduct the first study on the relational outcomes of money scripts, and the first to collect dyadic data (from both spouses) of money scripts.”
The researchers analyzed data from 1,153 mixed-gender couples who had been married for about eight years. The participants were part of a larger project called the CREATE study, which tracks the experiences of married couples in the United States over time. Both partners in each couple completed a detailed survey that assessed their beliefs about money, how they communicated with each other about finances, and how satisfied they were in their relationship.
Participants were asked to rate their agreement with statements that reflected four different money scripts: money avoidance (seeing money as negative or morally suspect), money focus (believing money brings happiness and wanting more of it), money status (linking money to self-worth and social standing), and money privacy (believing finances should be kept secret or private). The researchers then calculated three indicators for each couple: their average level on each script, how similar the two partners were in their overall pattern of money beliefs, and how far apart they were on each specific script.
In addition to assessing money beliefs, the study measured financial communication with two questions: how often couples argued about money and how well they felt they communicated about it. Relationship satisfaction was measured using a widely accepted questionnaire that asked participants how content they were with their marriage overall.
The results showed that when both spouses strongly endorsed money focus beliefs—such as never feeling satisfied with what they have and believing money is the key to happiness—they tended to report poorer communication about finances. In turn, this lower quality of financial communication was linked to lower marital satisfaction for both husbands and wives. These findings suggest that obsessing over money can make it harder for couples to talk constructively about financial matters, which may negatively affect how happy they feel in their marriage.
“We found that couples who averaged high on the money focus script tended to have worse financial communication and therefore also lower marital satisfaction,” LeBaron-Black told PsyPost. “The money focus script is sometimes called ‘money worship,’ and it measures how much people believe that money buys happiness. People high on money focus tend to never be satisfied with what they have and always want more and more money. In other words, they are highly materialistic.”
“Other research I’ve conducted has found that people who are highly materialistic tend to have less satisfying marriages, so this finding about the money focus script made sense. The takeaway here is that focusing too much on money (especially to the point of obsession or never being satisfied) can negatively impact your relationships. Money focus can make it harder to have high-quality communication about money with your spouse and makes it more likely that you will be unhappy in your marriage. Couples should put money in its proper place and prioritize relationships–what actually matters in life–above money and possessions.”
The researchers also found that when couples had similar overall patterns of money beliefs—what the study calls “profile-based similarity”—they reported better communication about finances. However, similarity on specific money scripts, such as money status or money privacy, did not appear to make a difference. This suggests that being aligned in one’s general approach to money may support more productive financial conversations, even if couples don’t agree on every individual belief.
Another important finding was that financial communication was strongly related to relationship satisfaction for both husbands and wives. When spouses reported that they could talk about money openly and effectively, they were also more likely to feel satisfied in their relationship. This held true even when controlling for factors such as income, education, number of children, and working hours. These results highlight the importance of financial conversations in shaping how couples feel about each other.
“We found that profile-based similarity of money scripts between spouses was associated with better financial communication,” LeBaron-Black explained. “In other words, the more similar partners are in their deep-seated financial beliefs, orientations, and values, the better they tend to talk about money together. Unmarried people can include compatibility of money scripts as one important factor to consider in choosing a partner.”
“Married couples who struggle with financial communication and/or experience high conflict around money can consider whether different money scripts, possibly inherited from childhood experiences within families of origin, might be the root of their conflict. Many disagreements or frustrations with each other about money may not be about the actual dollars and cents or surface-level considerations but rather may be about a discrepancy in those deep-seated financial beliefs, orientations, and values.”
“Awareness of their own and their partner’s money scripts may help married people create better understanding, cooperation, compromise, and common ground around finances — or at least better understand what they’re actually fighting about,” LeBaron-Black said.
The study did not find significant gender differences in how money scripts were related to communication or satisfaction. Both men and women appeared to be similarly affected by their own and their partner’s financial beliefs and communication patterns.
The researchers noted some caveats. Because the data were collected at a single point in time, it is not possible to determine whether money beliefs cause poor communication and dissatisfaction, or whether unhappy couples become more focused on money. Longitudinal research would be needed to track how these patterns evolve over time. Also, the study focused only on mixed-gender, married couples who had been together for about eight years.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251327316) Happily ever affluence: Dyadic analysis of money scripts, financial communication, and relationship satisfaction,” was authored by Ashley B. LeBaron-Black, Xiaomin Li, Melissa J. Wilmarth, Sofia C. Suxo-Sanchez, Kristy L. Archuleta, Jeremy B. Yorgason, and Dexia Kong.

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/20250414/b62cb892/attachment.htm>