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/one-time-testosterone-dose-and-stress-leave-lasting-hormonal-marks-in-your-hair/) One-time testosterone dose and stress leave lasting hormonal marks in your hair
Apr 17th 2025, 10:00

A study of healthy adult men found that elevated testosterone levels were detectable in hair seven weeks after the transdermal administration of a single dose of testosterone. Similarly, elevated cortisol levels—a hormone associated with stress—were observed in hair samples seven weeks after participants underwent an acute laboratory stressor. The study was published in (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2024.107252) Psychoneuroendocrinology.
Steroid hormones are a class of hormones derived from cholesterol that play essential roles in regulating metabolism, immune function, and sexual and reproductive development. Examples include estrogen and progesterone, primarily in females; testosterone, primarily in males; and cortisol and aldosterone, which are involved in stress responses and blood pressure regulation, respectively.
These hormones are primarily produced by the adrenal glands and gonads (ovaries in females and testes in males). They exert their effects by entering cells and binding to specific receptors in the cell nucleus, where they influence gene expression and cell activity. Because of their broad physiological influence, imbalances in steroid hormone levels can lead to a range of health issues, including metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease, and reproductive dysfunction.
Steroid hormones can accumulate in hair, which has led to the growing use of hair analysis in research as a way to assess long-term hormonal exposure. Hormone concentrations in hair can reflect ongoing biological conditions, including chronic stress, the use of hormonal contraceptives, and even the consumption of illicit substances.
Study lead author Hana H. Kutlikova and her colleagues set out to determine whether a one-time testosterone dose could be detected in hair weeks later and whether an acute laboratory-induced stressor would elevate hair cortisol levels. Cortisol is a hormone released by the adrenal glands in response to stress.
The study included 88 healthy adult men between the ages of 18 and 40, with an average age of 24. About 47% of the participants had straight hair and 52% had wavy hair.
At their initial laboratory visit, participants provided cheek cell samples for genetic testing and a hair sample approximately 2–3 mm in circumference taken from the upper back of the scalp (the posterior vertex). Hormone levels in hair were later analyzed using a method called liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Saliva samples were also collected.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 150 mg of testosterone or a placebo in the form of a topical cream. Neither the participants nor the experimenters knew which cream was administered. Participants applied the cream to their upper arms and shoulders under supervision and then waited for two hours while completing personality questionnaires and engaging in leisure activities.
Following this, participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions:

Cold-pressor test (somatic stressor): Participants immersed their hand and wrist into ice-cold water and were asked to keep it there as long as possible (up to five minutes).
Socially evaluated cold-pressor test (social-somatic stressor): The same procedure was used, but participants were also told they would be video recorded for facial expression analysis. A female experimenter sat facing them and maintained constant eye contact, instructing them to look into the camera throughout.
Control condition: Participants immersed their hand in lukewarm water and could withdraw it at any time.

Seven weeks after the initial visit, participants returned to the lab and provided another hair sample from a location adjacent to the original site.
The results showed that participants who underwent the cold-pressor test had significantly elevated cortisol levels in their hair seven weeks later. Similarly, those who received testosterone cream had elevated hair testosterone levels compared to those who received the placebo.
“Our study provides new insights into the sensitivity of hair analysis for detecting hormonal changes following single-dose hormone administration and experimentally induced short-term stress events. The exploratory findings emphasize the importance of individual contextual factors in influencing hair hormone concentrations and lay the groundwork for further investigation into the dynamics of cumulative hair hormone measurements,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the accumulation of hormones in hair. However, it should be noted that the study was conducted exclusively on men. Results on women might not be identical. Additionally, the researchers did not control for certain contextual variables that could influence hormone concentrations in hair, such as physical activity, environmental exposures, or hair treatment practices.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2024.107252) The effects of single testosterone administration and stress induction on steroid hormone levels in hair,” was authored by Hana H. Kutlikova, Christoph Eisenegger, Aniko Krumbholz, Igor Rieˇcanský, Claus Lamm, and Boris B. Quednow.

(https://www.psypost.org/anxiety-linked-to-reduced-insight-into-bodily-sensations-especially-in-women/) Anxiety linked to reduced insight into bodily sensations—especially in women
Apr 17th 2025, 08:00

A new study published in the (https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16672) European Journal of Neuroscience has found that moment-to-moment feelings of anxiety are related to reduced insight toward breathing-related bodily sensations, and that this link appears to be specific to women. The researchers found that while men and women had similar abilities to detect subtle changes in their breathing, greater anxiety was associated with lower confidence and reduced insight into performance accuracy—but only in women.
The study was motivated by growing evidence that anxiety is connected to interoception—the awareness of internal bodily states such as breathing, heartbeat, or hunger. Interoception is thought to play a central role in how the brain monitors and regulates physical and emotional states. Previous studies have suggested that people with anxiety may struggle with interoceptive awareness, particularly when it comes to how well they can evaluate or trust their perceptions of bodily signals. However, much of the earlier research was based on small samples, and few studies examined whether these relationships differ between men and women.
“Women have a much higher prevalence of anxiety than men, and the symptom presentation is often quite different,” said study author (https://sites.google.com/view/imageotago/members) Olivia Harrison, a Rutherford Discovery Research Fellow and senior lecturer at University of Otago. “We are interested in how signals from within the body (interoception) are altered with anxiety differentially between men and women. We are also interested in whether this may be due to differences in early perceptual processing of these signals, or whether gender differences may only become apparent during metacognition – awareness and insight into one’s interoceptive processing.”
The researchers combined data from four study sites across Europe, bringing together a total of 175 participants, about half of whom were women. All participants were healthy adults and completed a battery of psychological questionnaires, including the Spielberger State–Trait Anxiety Inventory, which measures both current feelings of anxiety (state anxiety) and a person’s general tendency to experience anxiety over time (trait anxiety). Participants also completed a task designed to measure breathing-related interoception.
In the interoception task, participants breathed through a device that occasionally introduced a subtle resistance to inhaling, created by inserting filters into the breathing apparatus. These resistances were designed to be barely noticeable. After each trial, participants were asked to decide whether they thought a resistance had been added and rate how confident they were in that decision. The task was tailored to each person so that the difficulty remained consistent across participants.
Harrison and her colleagues analyzed several aspects of performance: sensitivity (how accurately someone could detect the resistance), decision bias (whether someone was more likely to say “yes” or “no”), metacognitive bias (how confident someone generally felt in their decisions), and metacognitive insight (how well someone’s confidence matched their actual accuracy).
Across all participants, higher levels of state anxiety were associated with lower metacognitive bias—meaning that anxious individuals tended to feel less confident in their judgments, even if their accuracy was unchanged. State anxiety was also linked to reduced metacognitive insight, or a weaker match between confidence and actual performance.
However, when the researchers examined this relationship by gender, they found something striking: the association between anxiety and reduced metacognitive insight was only present in women. For men, there was no significant link between how anxious they felt and how well their confidence reflected their performance. This gender-specific effect was statistically significant and appeared only for state anxiety, not for trait anxiety or depression.
Importantly, the average interoceptive abilities—such as sensitivity to breathing resistance and overall confidence—did not differ between men and women. This means the observed differences were not due to one gender being better or worse at the task, but rather how anxiety influenced their evaluation of their own performance. The researchers suggest that this might help explain inconsistent findings in previous studies, especially those with more female participants.
Harrison and her colleagues also found that trait anxiety and depression were linked to lower metacognitive insight in the group as a whole. However, unlike state anxiety, these relationships did not show a meaningful difference between men and women. This suggests that state anxiety, which reflects how a person feels in the moment, may have a more direct and gender-specific connection to interoceptive awareness than long-term anxiety tendencies or depressive symptoms.
“One of the main take-home messages of the study is that on average, men and women have the same levels of interoception and related insight towards breathing perceptions,” Harrison told PsyPost. “However, the relationship between state anxiety (i.e. in-the-moment anxiety) and interoceptive insight is different between men and women – lower anxiety is related to improved insight while greater anxiety is related to worsened insight only in women, while this relationship did not exist for men. Interestingly, this gender difference was not apparent for either trait (i.e. longer-term) anxiety nor depression.”
Despite the relatively large sample size for this kind of research, the authors acknowledge some limitations. Since the data came from four different sites with slightly different procedures, subtle inconsistencies could have influenced the results. To ensure the findings were not driven by differences across study locations or methods, the researchers conducted sensitivity analyses, which largely confirmed the main results.
The cross-sectional design also limits any conclusions about cause and effect. For example, it remains unclear whether anxiety disrupts metacognitive insight, or whether impaired interoceptive awareness contributes to feeling more anxious. The study also focused only on breathing-related interoception, and it’s not yet known whether similar patterns would be found for awareness of other bodily signals, such as heartbeats or stomach sensations.
The researchers hope their work will contribute to more personalized approaches to mental health. “We are aiming to both better understand anxiety behaviors as well as better target their treatment,” Harrison said. “In particular, we are interested in tailoring treatment options to each individual, to maximize the chances of success.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16672) Gender Differences in the Association Between Anxiety and Interoceptive Insight,” was authored by Olivia K. Harrison, Laura Köchli, Stephanie Marino, Lucy Marlow, Sarah L. Finnegan, Ben Ainsworth, Benjamin J. Talks, Bruce R. Russell, Samuel J. Harrison, Kyle T. S. Pattinson, Stephen M. Fleming, and Klaas E. Stephan.

(https://www.psypost.org/heavy-cannabis-use-linked-to-reduced-brain-activity-during-memory-tasks-study-finds/) Heavy cannabis use linked to reduced brain activity during memory tasks, study finds
Apr 17th 2025, 06:00

A new study published in (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829657) JAMA Network Open has found that individuals with a history of heavy cannabis use showed lower brain activation during a working memory task. This association held even after excluding participants who had recently used cannabis. The results suggest that frequent cannabis use may have lasting associations with how the brain supports memory-related processes, even in the absence of recent consumption.
As the legal landscape surrounding cannabis continues to shift, both in the United States and internationally, its use has become more widespread—and with it, concerns about its effects on the brain. The increasing accessibility of cannabis has been accompanied by rising rates of cannabis use disorder, higher product potency, and a growing public perception that the drug poses little harm. In response to these trends, researchers are working to clarify whether and how cannabis use might affect brain function over time, especially in young adults whose brains are still developing.
Previous studies have shown that cannabis can impair cognitive performance in the short term, particularly in areas like memory and attention. However, it is less clear whether these effects persist after someone stops using the drug. Brain regions rich in cannabinoid receptors—such as the prefrontal cortex—appear to be especially sensitive to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. Some evidence has shown structural differences in the brains of frequent cannabis users, but large-scale, well-controlled studies linking these changes to actual brain function have been limited.
“I had been talking with my colleague about the effects of cannabis on mental processing and what we know and what we don’t know,” explained lead author Joshua L. Gowin, an assistant professor of radiology at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. “We realized that although neuropsychological effects had been clearly established, such as verbal learning and memory, no similarly clear effects had been established for brain function. We wanted to see if we could establish a similar breakdown of which aspects of brain function might be most associated with cannabis use.”
For their study, the researchers used data from the Human Connectome Project, a large study that included brain scans and behavioral data from over 1,000 adults between the ages of 22 and 37. The sample included people with varying histories of cannabis use, ranging from nonusers to those who had used the drug more than 1,000 times in their lifetime. Participants underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while completing seven different tasks designed to activate brain areas responsible for memory, reasoning, emotion, motor skills, language, reward processing, and social understanding.
To distinguish between short-term and long-term effects, the researchers took two key measures. First, they assessed recent use using a urine screen that detects cannabis metabolites typically present for up to 10 days after use. Second, they categorized lifetime use using structured interviews. Participants were grouped as nonusers (10 or fewer lifetime uses), moderate users (11 to 999 uses), or heavy users (1,000 or more uses). The researchers also considered a range of other factors that could influence brain activity, such as age, sex, income, education, alcohol and nicotine use, and family background.
The main finding was that individuals with a history of heavy cannabis use showed lower brain activation during a task involving working memory, which requires people to hold and manipulate information over short periods. This association remained even after controlling for whether participants had used cannabis recently. The reduction in brain activity was most pronounced in brain regions involved in executive control, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, and anterior insula—all of which are known to contain high levels of cannabinoid receptors.
“We think there is some suggestion that cannabis use is associated with changes in brain function, and that might be important information for someone to consider if they are a regular cannabis user or are considering using it,” Gowin told PsyPost.
Interestingly, the researchers found no strong link between cannabis dependence diagnosis and brain activity. This suggests that formal diagnoses may not fully capture the extent of cannabis-related brain function changes. Rather, it was the frequency of use over a lifetime that appeared most relevant. The researchers also found that individuals who had recently used cannabis showed decreased brain activity during working memory and social cognition tasks, but these results did not remain statistically significant after adjusting for other factors such as race and education.
In addition to measuring brain activation, the researchers looked at how participants performed on several tasks. Recent cannabis users performed worse on working memory and verbal memory tasks, even when they were not intoxicated at the time of testing. However, lifetime heavy use was not clearly linked to performance deficits, which suggests that the brain activation differences might not always translate to observable behavior—or that effects may be subtle or emerge under specific conditions.
The working memory findings were especially notable because of their link to cognitive abilities that are important in daily life, such as decision-making, focus, and learning. Brain activation in the relevant areas also correlated with participants’ scores on intelligence tests and verbal memory tasks. This suggests that changes in brain activation are not random but may reflect real differences in how efficiently the brain is operating during mental tasks.
The study also explored social cognition, often referred to as “theory of mind”—the ability to infer what others are thinking or feeling. Recent cannabis use was linked to lower performance on these tasks, although the association with brain activity was weaker and did not hold up to more rigorous analysis. The authors note that reduced social cognitive processing has been linked to mental health conditions like schizophrenia, and that this line of research may warrant further exploration.
“I was expecting to see more differences in language processing, but we didn’t find anything there,” Gowin said. “There was some indication that social processing might be associated with cannabis use, and that intrigued us and we hope to learn more about that in the future.”
Another unexpected finding was a sex difference in the motor task: men who had recently used cannabis showed reduced brain activity, while women did not. Although this result was limited to one task, it raises the possibility that cannabis may affect the brain differently in men and women, something that previous studies have suggested but not conclusively demonstrated.
Despite its strengths, the study has some limitations. “The most important caveat is that this is a cross-sectional study, so we can’t conclusively say that cannabis caused the changes in brain function,” Gowin noted. “We also didn’t examine ADHD, and numerous people have suggested that ADHD could be an important confound.”
Still, the findings contribute to a growing body of evidence that cannabis use is associated with changes in how the brain responds during cognitive tasks, especially those involving memory. The researchers emphasize the need for more long-term studies to determine whether these changes are reversible, how long they last, and whether they have meaningful effects on behavior, mental health, or life outcomes.
“My goal for this is to try to better understand how substance use affects the brain, and to provide truthful messaging about the relationship and the brain to the public, neither overplaying or underplaying potential effects, but simply knowing the truth,” Gowin said.
The study, “(https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829657) Brain Function Outcomes of Recent and Lifetime Cannabis Use,” was authored by Joshua L. Gowin, Jarrod M. Ellingson, Hollis C. Karoly, Peter Manza, J. Megan Ross, Matthew E. Sloan, Jody L. Tanabe, and Nora D. Volkow.

(https://www.psypost.org/caffeinated-coffee-boosts-strength-and-sprint-performance-in-trained-men-regardless-of-chronotype/) Caffeinated coffee boosts strength and sprint performance in trained men, regardless of chronotype
Apr 16th 2025, 16:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2025.2460654) Chronobiology International has found that caffeinated coffee improves physical performance in trained male athletes, regardless of whether they are morning or evening types. The research showed that caffeine enhanced grip strength, back strength, and sprint performance at both morning and evening testing times. However, caffeine had no significant effect on cognitive performance or perceived exertion.
The study was conducted by a team of researchers in Türkiye to explore how caffeine affects physical and mental performance in athletes who differ in their natural circadian rhythms, or chronotypes. Chronotype refers to whether someone performs better in the morning or evening, and it is thought to be shaped by internal biological clocks that influence sleep, alertness, and energy levels.
Athletic performance is known to vary throughout the day due to factors such as body temperature, hormone levels, and sleep patterns. Some research suggests that evening types perform better in physical tests later in the day, while morning types may excel earlier. However, findings in this area have been inconsistent. Moreover, while caffeine is widely used by athletes to enhance performance, less is known about how it interacts with chronotype or time of day. The researchers aimed to address these gaps by evaluating how moderate doses of caffeine in coffee form affect trained individuals with distinct chronotypes when tested in both the morning and evening.
The study included 17 trained male athletes between the ages of 18 and 25 who regularly engaged in strength training. Eight participants were identified as morning types and nine as evening types using the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire. Participants reported moderate daily caffeine consumption and were screened to ensure they had no sensitivity to caffeine or underlying medical conditions that might interfere with the study.
The research design was double-blind, randomized, and crossover. Each participant completed four test sessions in total: caffeinated coffee in the morning, caffeinated coffee in the evening, decaffeinated coffee in the morning, and decaffeinated coffee in the evening. The caffeine dose was standardized to 3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, delivered through Nescafé Gold, and consumed 60 minutes before testing. Physical and cognitive tests were conducted between 8:00 and 10:00 in the morning and between 16:00 and 18:00 in the evening, with a 48-hour washout period between sessions.
The testing battery included handgrip and back strength tests, a lower-body Wingate sprint test measuring both peak and average power, a cognitive flanker task to assess reaction time, and the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion scale to gauge how hard the participants felt they were working.
The researchers found that caffeinated coffee significantly improved handgrip strength, back strength, and performance in the Wingate sprint test. These improvements were evident regardless of chronotype or time of day, although some nuanced differences emerged. For example, morning types performed significantly better after consuming caffeinated coffee in the morning compared to the evening. Similarly, evening types showed better grip strength in the evening following caffeine intake than they did in the morning.
In terms of peak power output on the sprint test, both chronotype groups experienced marked improvements with caffeine. Morning types in particular showed strong gains whether tested in the morning or evening. For average power output, morning types again showed enhanced performance with caffeine, with the greatest improvements occurring during evening testing.
Interestingly, caffeine did not significantly affect cognitive performance. Participants’ reaction times in the flanker task did not differ between caffeinated and decaffeinated conditions. The researchers suggested that the relatively low caffeine dose, individual differences in caffeine metabolism, and the limited scope of the cognitive task may have contributed to this outcome. They also found no statistically meaningful differences in perceived exertion between caffeine and placebo sessions, even though physical performance improved.
The researchers acknowledged several limitations. While the study controlled for many variables, including sleep and caffeine abstinence before tests, some measures relied on self-report, which may introduce bias. The study also focused only on men, limiting its generalizability. In addition, the relatively small sample size may have made it difficult to detect more subtle effects, especially for cognitive outcomes. Another limitation is that only one type of cognitive test was used, which may not capture the full range of possible effects on mental performance.
Despite these limitations, the study offers new insights into how caffeine interacts with time of day and chronotype to influence athletic performance. It suggests that caffeine can be a useful supplement for enhancing strength and sprint performance across the day, even for athletes with different circadian preferences. However, it may not enhance short-term cognitive tasks like reaction time in this context.
The researchers suggest that future studies could investigate how genetic differences in caffeine metabolism influence performance, and whether similar results are found in female athletes. More detailed cognitive assessments could help determine whether caffeine affects other aspects of mental functioning during physical exertion. They also recommend exploring how other forms of caffeine delivery—such as capsules, energy drinks, or chewing gum—might produce different effects, given differences in absorption rates.
The findings could have practical applications for athletes, coaches, and sports nutritionists. Tailoring caffeine intake to an athlete’s chronotype and training schedule could potentially maximize performance while minimizing side effects. For instance, morning types may benefit more from caffeine during early workouts, while evening types might see greater returns during later sessions. This personalized approach could be especially useful for optimizing training and competition strategies in sports where strength and power output are critical.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2025.2460654) Effects of caffeinated coffee on physical and cognitive performance: Chronotype and time of day study,” was authored by Yakup Köse, Raci Karayigit, and Muhammed Uygar Sertkaya.

(https://www.psypost.org/immune-system-may-shape-adhd-risk-new-genetic-study-suggests/) Immune system may shape ADHD risk, new genetic study suggests
Apr 16th 2025, 16:00

A new study published in the (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032724017117) Journal of Affective Disorders has identified a two-way relationship between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the immune system. Using a genetic method known as Mendelian randomization, researchers found that ADHD is linked to increased levels of several immune cell traits. At the same time, they identified specific immune traits that appear to raise or reduce the likelihood of developing ADHD. The findings shed light on the biological complexity of ADHD and point to the immune system as a potential contributor to the disorder’s development.
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition marked by patterns of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. It often emerges in childhood and can persist into adulthood, affecting school performance, relationships, and occupational outcomes. Although it is widely recognized that brain differences play a role in ADHD, increasing evidence suggests that immune system activity may also be involved.
Previous studies have reported that people with ADHD tend to have higher levels of inflammation-related molecules in the blood, such as interleukin-6 and interferon-gamma, and lower levels of protective factors like interleukin-10. However, these observations do not clarify whether immune changes cause ADHD, result from it, or are related to other variables. The researchers behind the new study wanted to clarify the direction and strength of these relationships.
To explore whether ADHD and immune traits influence each other, researchers from the Affiliated Mental Health Center of Jiangnan University used a technique called bidirectional Mendelian randomization. This method relies on large genetic datasets and is often used to infer causal links between biological traits. The team used genome-wide association study data from two sources: immune cell trait data from 3,757 individuals in a Sardinian population, and ADHD data from a meta-analysis that included over 225,000 individuals across several cohorts.
The researchers examined 731 immune cell traits, ranging from absolute counts and proportions to markers of immune cell activation, across panels including B cells, monocytes, dendritic cells, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Using statistical models that help minimize bias and confounding, they assessed whether genetic markers associated with ADHD were also linked to changes in immune cell traits, and vice versa.
They found that ADHD was associated with increases in three immune cell traits. These included forward scatter measurements—a marker of cell size or complexity—on myeloid dendritic cells, monocytes, and granulocytes. These types of immune cells play a role in the body’s inflammatory response and can help regulate communication between the immune system and the brain. Previous studies have shown that children with neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and Tourette syndrome, often have higher levels of these cell types.
The study also found that six immune traits appeared to influence the likelihood of developing ADHD. One immune trait, a B cell marker involving a surface protein called IgD, was associated with a slightly higher risk of ADHD. B cells are white blood cells that are central to the body’s adaptive immune response. They produce antibodies, release inflammatory signals, and interact with other immune cells. Some researchers believe that an overactive B cell response may contribute to psychiatric conditions through chronic low-level inflammation. The authors suggest that this heightened immune activity could also be relevant to ADHD.
In contrast, five other immune traits were associated with a lower likelihood of developing ADHD. These included features of CD14+ monocytes, basophils, and subsets of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. These cells are often involved in dampening immune responses or helping to maintain immune balance. For instance, myeloid-derived suppressor cells are known to regulate inflammation and have been found in greater numbers in people with mood disorders. Their suppressive effects may help prevent excessive immune activity that could otherwise interfere with brain function.
The researchers note that the immune system could interact with the brain in multiple ways. Under certain conditions, such as stress or illness, the protective barrier between the bloodstream and the brain can become more permeable. This allows immune cells and inflammatory molecules to enter brain tissue, where they may influence neural development or activity. During early life, when the brain is still forming, such immune activity could potentially disrupt circuits involved in attention, impulse control, or emotional regulation—key functions affected in ADHD.
These findings align with other evidence showing that immune changes, especially inflammation, may influence brain structure and function. For example, inflammation can interfere with the production of neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin, which are known to play a role in ADHD. It can also affect glial cells in the brain, which help regulate neural signaling and respond to injury.
While the study offers new insights into the biology of ADHD, the researchers caution that it has limitations. Because the genetic data came primarily from individuals of European ancestry, the findings may not apply to people from other backgrounds. The study also could not account for potential differences by sex or age, since those details were not available in the dataset. In addition, the threshold used for identifying some associations was relatively lenient, which could increase the chance of false positives.
Still, the use of Mendelian randomization helps strengthen confidence in the findings, since this method reduces the influence of environmental confounders and reverse causation. The results suggest that immune system activity is not just a side effect of ADHD, but may play an active role in shaping the disorder—or be shaped by it in turn.
Looking ahead, the researchers suggest that immune system markers could serve as early indicators of ADHD risk or guide the development of new treatments. Anti-inflammatory strategies or drugs that adjust immune cell activity could be explored as potential therapies. More work is needed to identify which patients might benefit most from such approaches and to understand how immune profiles relate to different types or severities of ADHD.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.10.050) Exploring the complex relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the immune system: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis,” was authored by Jianbin Du, Lin Fang, Kunlun Dong, and Zhenhe Zhou.

(https://www.psypost.org/russian-propaganda-campaign-used-ai-to-scale-output-without-sacrificing-credibility-study-finds/) Russian propaganda campaign used AI to scale output without sacrificing credibility, study finds
Apr 16th 2025, 14:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf083) PNAS Nexus shows that generative artificial intelligence has already been adopted in real-world disinformation campaigns. By analyzing a Russian-backed propaganda site, researchers found that AI tools significantly increased content production without diminishing the perceived credibility or persuasiveness of the messaging.
The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence has sparked growing concern among experts, policymakers, and the public. One of the biggest worries is that these tools will make it easier for malicious actors to produce disinformation at scale. While earlier research has demonstrated the persuasive potential of AI-generated text in controlled experiments, real-world evidence has been scarce—until now.
Generative AI refers to algorithms capable of producing human-like text, images, or other forms of media. Tools like large language models can write news articles, summarize documents, and even mimic particular styles or ideological tones. While these tools have many legitimate applications, their potential misuse in propaganda campaigns has sparked serious debate. The authors of the study set out to determine whether these concerns are reflected in real-world behavior by examining the practices of state-backed media manipulation efforts.
“My work primarily focuses on the use (and abuse) of digital technologies by motivated actors. While large language models (LLMs) are only the newest tool which has been repurposed to promote state interests, it is not the first and it will not be the last,” said study author (http://www.morganwack.com) Morgan Wack, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Zurich’s Department of Communication and Media Research.
“Each novel technology presents distinct challenges that need to be comprehensively identified before effective interventions can be designed to mitigate their impacts. In the case of LLMs, the potential threat has not gone unnoticed, with several researchers and policymakers having sounded the alarm regarding their potential for abuse.”
“However, the covert nature of propaganda campaigns poses challenges for researchers interested in determining how concerned the public should be at any given moment. Drawing on work from colleagues at the Media Forensics Hub, our team wanted to conduct a study which would conclusively show that LLMs do not just have the potential to alter digital propaganda campaigns, but to show that this these changes are already taking place.”
The research centered on DC Weekly, a website exposed in a BBC report as part of a coordinated Russian operation. Although the site appeared to cater to an American audience, it was fabricated using fictional bylines and professional publishing templates. Much of its early content was directly lifted from other far-right or state-run media outlets, often with minimal editing. But beginning in September 2023, the content began to change. Articles started to feature unique phrasing, and some even included prompt remnants from OpenAI’s GPT-3 model, indicating that AI had been integrated into the site’s editorial process.
To study this transition, the researchers scraped the entire archive of DC Weekly articles posted between April and November 2023, totaling nearly 23,000 stories. They pinpointed September 20, 2023, as the likely start of AI use, based on the appearance of leaked language model prompts embedded in articles. From this point onward, the site no longer simply copied articles. Instead, it rewrote them in original language, while maintaining the same underlying facts and media. The researchers were able to trace many of these AI-generated articles back to source content from outlets like Fox News or Russian state media.
After adopting AI tools, the outlet more than doubled its daily article production. Statistical models confirmed that this increase was unlikely to be a coincidence. The researchers also found evidence that AI was used not just for writing, but also for selecting and framing content. Some prompt leaks showed the AI being asked to rewrite articles with specific ideological slants, such as criticizing U.S. support for Ukraine or favoring Republican political figures.
But volume was only part of the story. The researchers also looked at how AI adoption affected the diversity of content topics. Before using AI, DC Weekly focused on a narrow range of hyperpartisan sources. Afterward, it began drawing from a wider array of outlets, covering more varied topics such as crime, international affairs, and gun violence. Using machine learning models, the team quantified this change and found that topic diversity nearly doubled in the post-AI period. This suggests that AI tools helped the propagandists make the site appear more like a legitimate news outlet, with a broader editorial scope.
Another important question was whether this shift in production strategy came at the cost of persuasiveness or credibility. To find out, the researchers conducted a survey experiment with 880 American adults. Participants were randomly assigned to read articles either from before or after the site began using AI. All of the articles focused on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ensuring that topic changes would not skew results.
After reading, participants rated both how much they agreed with the article’s thesis and how credible they found the website. The results showed no significant differences between the AI-generated and human-curated content. Articles from both periods were persuasive, and readers found the website equally credible regardless of whether the content had been produced using AI.
“One surprise was that despite the huge increase in quantity, AI allowed this operation to produce more articles on more topics, the persuasiveness and perceived credibility of those articles did not experience a drop-off,” Wack told PsyPost. “We might have expected more “sloppy” content given increases in volume, but readers actually found the AI-enabled articles just as plausible and credible. This finding illustrates how generative tools have already begun to flood information channels while still appearing authentic.”
This finding adds to earlier experimental research suggesting that generative AI can create content that seems believable and convincing. In the context of a real-world disinformation campaign, these capabilities may offer propagandists a powerful way to expand their operations without sacrificing impact.
“The main takeaway we hope readers get from our study is that generative AI can already be used by propagandists to produce large amounts of misleading or manipulative content efficiently,” Wack explained. “We found that AI-augmented articles were just as persuasive and credible in the eyes of readers as those produced by more traditional methods, and that switching to AI allowed the group in question to dramatically expand both its production rate and the range of topics it covered.”
“What this means is that your readers and the general public need to be more vigilant than ever. Especially when encountering partisan content, whether it be on social media or a seemingly ‘local’ news website, viewers should be aware that the authors on the other end may not be people presenting genuine opinions. In fact, they may not be people at all.”
The authors acknowledged some limitations. Since the analysis focused on a single campaign, it’s unclear whether the findings generalize to other influence operations.
“These results come from the examination of a specific campaign,” Wack noted. “While, as noted in the article, we suspect the specific focus of this campaign likely makes our outcomes an understatement of the impact of the use of AI in the development and dissemination of disinformation, our results are contingent and do not apply to alternative campaigns run in other contexts.”
The researchers also noted that while many signs point to AI being responsible for the increase in content production and diversity, other behind-the-scenes changes could have occurred around the same time. Without direct access to the operators behind the campaign, it’s difficult to fully disentangle the effects.
Even so, the study offers compelling evidence that generative AI is already being used to bolster disinformation campaigns. It shows that AI can make propaganda more scalable, efficient, and sophisticated, without compromising its ability to sway public opinion. These findings have major implications for how societies think about AI governance, information security, and media literacy.
“As these technologies continue to improve, both identification and mitigation of their use for the development of disinformation are going to become increasingly difficult,” Wack told PsyPost. “In order to keep the public informed of the use of AI and LLMs to manipulate the public we aim to continue to conduct research which helps to inform the public as well as the development of data-informed policies which proactively take these evolving challenges into consideration.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf083) Generative propaganda: Evidence of AI’s impact from a state-backed disinformation campaign,” was authored by Morgan Wack, Carl Ehrett, Darren Linvill, and Patrick Warren.

(https://www.psypost.org/people-with-intellectual-humility-tend-to-handle-relationship-conflicts-better-new-study-finds/) People with intellectual humility tend to handle relationship conflicts better, new study finds
Apr 16th 2025, 12:00

A new study published in the (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656625000303) Journal of Research in Personality suggests that intellectual humility—recognizing the possibility that one’s beliefs might be wrong—is linked to more constructive conflict behavior and greater relationship satisfaction in romantic couples. In particular, men who scored higher in intellectual humility tended to report stronger bonds with their partners and were also rated more favorably by those partners across several aspects of relationship quality.
Intellectual humility refers to the tendency to recognize that one’s own views could be flawed. The researchers behind the study were interested in how this mindset influences romantic relationships, especially during conflict. Disagreements are common in long-term partnerships, and how couples handle these disagreements can have a lasting impact on relationship satisfaction. While past research has highlighted the importance of communication skills and empathy, intellectual humility had not been closely examined as a factor in how couples navigate conflict.
“We were inspired to learn more about the many ways that intellectual humility manifests – from large-scale global affairs to everyday interpersonal interactions. The way that people navigate disagreements in close relationships is important to relationship quality and satisfaction and we were interested in the role that intellectual humility plays in such conflicts in romantic relationships,” explained study author (https://katrinajongmansereno.weebly.com/) Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno, an assistant professor of psychology at Elon University.
The research team recruited 74 heterosexual couples from the southeastern United States, including married, cohabiting, engaged, and dating individuals. The participants ranged in age from 21 to 61, with an average age of about 32. Most had been together for several years, and the majority had at least a college education.
Each participant completed a battery of surveys separately from their partner. These included a validated scale measuring intellectual humility with items like “I accept that my beliefs and attitudes might be wrong.” They also rated their satisfaction with the relationship, how much they liked and loved their partner, how often they argued, and how well they got along. 
Additionally, they reported on their own and their partner’s behavior during disagreements—such as raising their voice, admitting fault, or trying to understand the other’s position—and rated what they believed their partner’s goals were during those conflicts, such as wanting to win the argument or find a solution.
The researchers analyzed the data using a method that allowed them to assess how each partner’s level of intellectual humility related to both their own and their partner’s responses. They found that higher levels of intellectual humility in men were associated with higher relationship satisfaction—not only for the men themselves but also for their partners. Men who scored higher in humility also reported a stronger emotional bond with their partners and were seen by their partners as easier to get along with and less likely to engage in frequent arguments.
Interestingly, women’s intellectual humility was not significantly related to their partner’s relationship satisfaction or conflict experiences. It was, however, linked to their own perceptions. Women who were more intellectually humble saw themselves as behaving more constructively during disagreements and were more likely to believe that their partner had positive motives in conflicts, such as trying to understand them or find common ground.
One of the study’s more nuanced findings was that intellectual humility influenced not just how people acted, but how they perceived and responded to their partner’s actions. For instance, men who had female partners with higher humility were more likely to report that they themselves behaved better during arguments. This suggests that a partner’s humility may encourage more respectful and less reactive behavior, particularly among men who are otherwise average or lower in humility themselves.
Despite these associations, the study did not find strong evidence for a synergistic effect when both partners were high in intellectual humility. In other words, having two humble partners did not necessarily amplify relationship benefits beyond what was observed when one partner was humble. Most effects appeared to be additive, meaning that the presence of humility in at least one partner helped—but didn’t multiply—positive outcomes.
“In general, the more people are willing to recognize that their viewpoint may be wrong, the more satisfaction, liking, and love is reported in their romantic relationships,” Jongman-Sereno told PsyPost. “So, valuing perspectives that differ from one’s own and being willing to reconsider one’s beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence may be a key to more satisfying interpersonal relationships. We also found that men’s level of intellectual humility played a bigger role in positive relationship outcomes than women’s.”
But the researchers caution against drawing strong conclusions about causality, given the nature of the study. All data came from self-reports or partner-reports rather than objective observations. While participants’ ratings of themselves and their partners were moderately correlated—suggesting reasonable accuracy—future studies using direct observation of conflict behaviors may provide a clearer picture of how humility influences interpersonal dynamics.
Another limitation is the sample composition. All couples were heterosexual, and most participants were relatively young and well-educated. Since gender differences emerged—particularly in how men’s humility was more consistently related to both their own and their partners’ experiences—the authors suggest that future research should explore whether similar patterns hold in same-sex relationships or in more diverse samples.
The study also raises questions about how intellectual humility might be fostered and whether interventions designed to increase it could help couples experiencing frequent or intense conflict. Although most existing programs to boost intellectual humility have been developed in educational settings, the researchers suggest that relationship counseling could incorporate strategies to help partners reflect on the fallibility of their own beliefs and become more open to alternative perspectives.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104598) Intellectual humility in romantic relationships: Implications for relationship satisfaction, argument frequency, and conflict behaviors,” was authored by Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno a, Jessica C. Reich, Richard S. Pond Jr., and Mark R. Leary.

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/20250417/5763202e/attachment.htm>