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/womens-cognitive-abilities-remain-stable-across-menstrual-cycle/) Women’s cognitive abilities remain stable across menstrual cycle
Apr 18th 2025, 10:00

A new meta-analysis published in (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318576) PLOS (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318576) One finds no robust evidence that women’s cognitive abilities vary across different phases of the menstrual cycle.
Throughout history, popular narratives have often portrayed menstruation as a condition that impairs thinking and decision-making. This perception has made its way into public discourse, ranging from newspaper editorials to political commentary. Meanwhile, some brain imaging studies and reports of subjective experiences have suggested possible cognitive shifts throughout the cycle, contributing to a conflicting scientific narrative.
To address this question, Daisung Jang and colleagues conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis with the goal of resolving inconsistent findings.
The authors conducted a broad search of psychological and biomedical databases (e.g., PsycInfo, PubMed) for research on menstrual cycle effects on cognitive performance, retrieving 102 articles that met their inclusion criteria. The final meta-analysis included 3,943 participants and 730 comparisons. All included studies assessed women’s cognitive performance across at least two clearly defined phases of the menstrual cycle.
Cognitive domains evaluated included attention, creativity, executive functioning, intelligence, memory, motor function, spatial ability, and verbal ability, with tasks requiring objectively correct answers. Both speed and accuracy measures were analyzed separately where data permitted.
Menstrual cycle phases were standardized across studies using a five-phase model: menstrual, follicular, periovulatory, luteal, and premenstrual. When needed, phase definitions from original studies were reclassified to fit this model. The researchers applied Hedges’ g to estimate effect sizes and corrected for methodological inconsistencies, including test-retest reliability. Additional robustness checks were performed by focusing on studies with hormone-confirmed cycle phases and those with 80% phase definition overlap. Studies of oral contraceptive users were also analyzed separately to serve as a comparison group.
Across the entire dataset, no significant or consistent differences were found in attention, creativity, executive function, intelligence, or motor performance across the menstrual cycle. Even in domains where prior findings hinted at possible changes—such as memory, spatial ability, and verbal performance—any observed effects were small, inconsistent, and not robust to correction for multiple comparisons or to analyses restricted to high-quality studies.
For example, an initial advantage in spatial accuracy during ovulation relative to the follicular phase was found in the full sample, but this effect disappeared in hormone-confirmed studies.
Speed and accuracy, which were analyzed separately, also showed no reliable trends across cycle phases. While individual studies occasionally reported differences, these did not replicate consistently across high-quality or large-sample studies. Heterogeneity in results was often traced back to poor methodological practices, such as self-reported cycle tracking or loosely defined phase boundaries.
Publication bias was also ruled out, suggesting that the absence of findings was not due to selective reporting.
A limitation is that many studies had small sample sizes and relied on self-reported menstrual tracking rather than hormonal assays. Although robustness checks excluded these studies, the field would benefit from more large-scale, rigorously controlled research.
This meta-analysis provides evidence that women’s cognitive abilities remain stable throughout the menstrual cycle, helping to dispel long-standing myths about hormonal effects on female cognition.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318576) Menstrual cycle effects on cognitive performance: A meta-analysis,” was authored by Daisung Jang, Jack Zhang, and Hillary Anger Elfenbein.

(https://www.psypost.org/a-single-dose-of-ashwagandha-may-boost-your-brainpower-study-suggests/) A single dose of ashwagandha may boost your brainpower, study suggests
Apr 18th 2025, 08:00

A study of healthy young adults found that ashwagandha supplements improved both cognitive performance and mood. These improvements were observed one hour after taking the first dose and again after 30 days of daily supplementation. The findings were published in (https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/12/1813) Nutrients.
Ashwagandha, known scientifically as Withania somnifera, is a plant commonly used in Ayurvedic medicine, the traditional medical system of India. It is a small evergreen shrub with velvety leaves and bell-shaped flowers, producing orange-red berries that resemble small tomatoes. Often referred to as “Indian ginseng” due to its rejuvenating effects—though it is not botanically related to true ginseng—ashwagandha is classified as an adaptogen, meaning it is believed to help the body manage stress and maintain physiological balance.
Extracts made from the roots, and occasionally the leaves, of the plant are often marketed for a variety of health benefits. These include reducing stress and anxiety, improving sleep quality, boosting energy levels, and enhancing cognitive function.
Study author Megan Leonard and her colleagues set out to examine the effects of taking a daily 225 mg dose of liposomal ashwagandha for 30 days on cognitive performance, mood, and health markers in healthy young men and women. They hypothesized that the supplement would be well tolerated, improve cognitive performance, and potentially offer other benefits as well.
The study included 59 healthy participants, with an average age of 23. Of these, 27 were men. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group received a capsule containing 225 mg of liposomal ashwagandha root and leaf extract each day. The other group received a placebo capsule containing 225 mg of Gum Arabic. The capsules were identical in appearance, and the study was double-blind—neither participants nor the researchers directly interacting with them knew which supplement was being administered.
Liposomal ashwagandha refers to ashwagandha that has been encapsulated in tiny fat bubbles, or liposomes, which are thought to enhance absorption by the body. Gum Arabic, also known as acacia gum, is a natural product derived from the sap of acacia trees and is commonly used in food production and traditional medicine.
Participants completed a series of cognitive tests and mood assessments using the Computerized Mental Performance Assessment System (COMPASS, version 6.0) and the Profile of Mood States. These were administered at baseline, one hour after the first dose, and again on the 30th day—both before and after taking the final dose. Participants also provided blood samples and completed questionnaires reporting any potential side effects.
The results showed that participants who took ashwagandha performed better on four different cognitive tasks and reported improvements in mood, specifically reduced tension and fatigue. These effects were evident both after the first dose and after 30 days of consistent supplementation.
“Results support contentions that ashwagandha supplementation (225 mg) may improve some measures of memory, attention, vigilance, attention, and executive function while decreasing perceptions of tension and fatigue in younger healthy individuals,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the psychological effects of the studied ashwagandha supplement. However, it should be noted that the study was conducted on a relatively small sample of young people. Results on other demographic groups might differ.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16121813) Acute and Repeated Ashwagandha Supplementation Improves Markers of Cognitive Function and Mood,” was authored by Megan Leonard, Broderick Dickerson, Landry Estes, Drew E. Gonzalez, Victoria Jenkins, Sarah Johnson, Dante Xing, Choongsung Yoo, Joungbo Ko, Martin Purpura, Ralf Jäger, Mark Faries, Wesley Kephart, Ryan Sowinski, Christopher J. Rasmussen, and Richard B. Kreider.

(https://www.psypost.org/happy-sexless-couples-exist-but-they-are-very-rare-according-to-new-psychology-research/) Happy sexless couples exist—but they are very rare, according to new psychology research
Apr 18th 2025, 06:00

A new study published in the (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-94649-001?doi=1) Journal of Family Psychology finds that most male-female couples who are in satisfying relationships tend to engage in sexual activity close to once per week. Researchers identified four distinct patterns based on how often couples had sex and how satisfied they were with their relationships. The largest group—more than 85% of the sample—reported both high satisfaction and regular sex. Interestingly, a small number of couples were satisfied with their relationships but reported little to no sexual activity.
This research addresses a long-standing question: Is frequent sex a necessary component of a happy relationship? Public opinion often says yes, but personal testimonials—such as those shared in a recent (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/magazine/sexless-marriage.html) New York Times Magazine article, which inspired the study—highlight exceptions, with couples claiming to be content despite infrequent or no sex.
“It really got me thinking about how a couple’s sex life is tied into the relationship satisfaction,” said study author (https://apps.ualberta.ca/directory/person/matthew4) Matt Johnson, a professor of family science at the University of Alberta.
“We know, on average, couples who have sex more often tend to report being happier in their relationships (at least up to having sex weekly – more frequent sex doesn’t boost satisfaction), but certainly there must be diversity underlying that. So I assembled an outstanding group of collaborators and we decided to look at this question from a couple-centered perspective to try and detect different subgroups of couples based on how often they had sex and how satisfied they were with their relationship.”
The researchers used data from the German Family Panel, a nationally representative longitudinal study. From this dataset, they selected a sample of 2,101 mixed-sex couples, most of whom were young adults between the ages of 20 and 39. Participants had been together for nearly a decade on average, and most were either married or living together. Couples provided information on how frequently they had sex over the past three months and rated their relationship satisfaction on a scale from 0 to 10. Additional measures assessed the quality of their communication, levels of commitment, and how often they experienced conflict.
Rather than look only at overall trends, the researchers used a statistical approach called latent profile analysis to sort couples into subgroups based on patterns of sexual frequency and relationship satisfaction. This approach allowed them to identify clusters of couples who shared similar experiences, rather than averaging responses across the entire sample.
Four distinct profiles emerged. The first and by far the most common group, making up 86% of the sample, included couples who were both highly satisfied and reported having sex close to once a week. These couples also scored high on measures of commitment and emotional openness, and reported relatively few conflicts.
Johnson told PsyPost: “To me, two big takeaways are 1) regular sexual interaction is a characteristic of highly satisfying relationships for the majority of couples and 2) these highly satisfied couples reported having sex about once a week. Couples may feel pressured to have sex multiple times a week to maintain relationship satisfaction but our results suggest that wasn’t the case in our sample.”
The second group, which included just 3.6% of couples, was the mirror image of the first: both partners were dissatisfied with the relationship and reported infrequent sex, averaging less than two or three times per month. Couples in this group tended to report more conflict, lower commitment, and less willingness to share personal thoughts and feelings with their partner.
The remaining 10% of couples were split into two groups characterized by mismatched satisfaction. One group consisted of couples where the female partner was satisfied and the male partner was highly dissatisfied. The other included couples with a satisfied male partner and a dissatisfied female partner. Interestingly, both of these groups reported a moderate level of sexual activity—more than two or three times per month but less than weekly.
“The most surprising finding dealt with the discrepant satisfaction couples,” Johnson said. “We anticipated finding these profiles because sexual desire often differs between partners, but it tends to be gendered – women have lower desire than men, on average. I thought we’d find couples with discrepant satisfaction where they were having sex either more often than the woman partner wanted (high satisfaction for women, low for men) or far less often than the men wanted (high satisfaction for women, low for men).”
“Rather, we found a moderate amount of sex for these couples (2-3 times per month). The couples were still having sex on a regular basis. It is likely that factors outside a couple’s sex life could be driving the disparities in satisfaction for those couples – an interesting topic for future research.”
When the researchers examined factors associated with each profile, they found that demographic characteristics like age, relationship length, and having young children had little predictive power. However, relationship dynamics appeared to play a much stronger role. High levels of commitment, frequent self-disclosure, and low conflict were strongly associated with membership in the highly satisfied and sexually active group. In contrast, couples with more frequent conflict and lower emotional openness were more likely to be in the less satisfied or mismatched groups.
Although the researchers expected to find a distinct group of “happy sexless couples,” no such profile emerged from the initial analysis. However, a closer look at the data revealed that they did exist—just in very small numbers. About 2.3% of couples reported no sex in the past three months but rated their relationship satisfaction as high. While this shows that it’s possible to have a satisfying relationship without regular sex, it appears to be uncommon, at least among young male-female couples.
“Happy sexless couples were not evident in our analysis, although we were able to manually scour the data and find some couples who fit that bill,” Johnson explained. “It seems as though happy sexless relationships do exist, of course, but they are very rare.”
The researchers urge caution in applying these findings universally. The sample consisted only of male-female couples, mostly in early adulthood and living in Germany. Relationship norms and expectations can vary by culture, age, and sexual orientation. For example, other studies have shown that sexual frequency tends to decline with age, and that sexless but satisfying relationships may be more common in older adults or in countries with different social norms around sexuality.
“These were all mixed-sex male-female couples, so things might look different among same-sex couples,” Johnson noted. “And the data were gathered from German couples. It’s possible results may differ among those in North America or from other regions of the world. In particular, sexlessness has been reported to be quite common in some Asian countries. Could happy sexless couples be more common in Asia?”
Despite these limitations, the study offers new insight into how relationship satisfaction and sexual activity tend to co-occur across different kinds of couples. It supports earlier findings that, on average, frequent sex is linked with greater relationship satisfaction, but adds depth by showing how these patterns play out in subgroups. Most importantly, it highlights that while happy sexless couples do exist, they are rare, and the most common pattern among satisfied couples is sex about once per week.
Future research could explore how these patterns shift over the life course or across different cultural contexts. Studies involving same-sex couples, older adults, or people with varying sexual orientations and gender identities could also offer a more complete understanding of how intimacy and satisfaction are connected in diverse relationships.
“I do think further research with older samples would also be important,” Johnson said. “Perhaps older adult couples might report high satisfaction while not having regular sexual encounters.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001331) How Are Sexual Frequency and Relationship Satisfaction Intertwined? A Latent Profile Analysis of Male–Female Couples,” was authored by Matthew D. Johnson, Wenran Li, Emily A. Impett, Justin A. Lavner, Franz J. Neyer, and Amy Muise.

(https://www.psypost.org/melatonin-trial-in-older-adults-with-cognitive-impairment-shows-strong-feasibility-but-no-clear-effects-yet/) Melatonin trial in older adults with cognitive impairment shows strong feasibility, but no clear effects yet
Apr 17th 2025, 20:00

A new clinical trial published in the (https://doi.org/10.1111/jpi.70019) Journal of Pineal Research found that a high nightly dose of melatonin was safe and well-tolerated in older adults with mild cognitive impairment, but did not produce significant improvements in brain function, mood, or sleep over a 12-week period. The findings suggest that future studies should use larger samples and longer durations to determine whether melatonin might help prevent dementia-related decline.
Melatonin is a hormone that regulates sleep and is also known for its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Some researchers believe it might offer protective benefits for the aging brain by reducing oxidative stress, which is a build-up of damaging molecules that has been linked to the early stages of dementia. This study aimed to evaluate whether taking 25 milligrams of melatonin each night is a practical and acceptable intervention for people with mild cognitive impairment—a condition that often precedes dementia.
The trial was conducted in Sydney, Australia by a team from the University of Sydney, the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, and other affiliated institutions. The researchers recruited 40 adults aged 60 to 80 years who met the clinical definition for mild cognitive impairment. These individuals had subjective memory concerns but were still functioning in daily life. They were randomly assigned to receive either melatonin or a placebo for 12 weeks. The study was conducted during periods of pandemic-related restrictions, with most assessments carried out remotely through video calls and online platforms.
The main purpose of the study was not to test whether melatonin works, but to see whether running this kind of trial is practical. The researchers evaluated three things: feasibility (how many people qualified for the study), acceptability (how many were willing to participate), and tolerability (whether participants could stick to the treatment and complete the required assessments).
Out of nearly 400 people screened, only about 11 percent met the study’s inclusion criteria . Still, of those who qualified, over 90 percent agreed to participate, and nearly all completed the trial as intended. Participants adhered well to the daily melatonin or placebo capsules, and most were able to complete complex assessments such as sleep tracking, cognitive testing, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy brain scans.
Although the study wasn’t designed to measure treatment effects, the researchers did collect data on brain chemistry, sleep patterns, mood, and cognitive performance. One of their key measures was the concentration of glutathione, a powerful antioxidant found in the brain. Lower levels of glutathione have been linked to neurodegeneration, and melatonin has been proposed as a way to boost these levels.
There was a small, statistically non-significant increase in glutathione in one brain region among participants taking melatonin, but the effect appeared to be due to differences between the groups at the start of the study rather than a result of the treatment. The same was true for other measures, including sleep quality and depressive symptoms—there were some changes, but none were large or consistent enough to draw conclusions.
The researchers reported no major safety issues. Adverse events occurred at similar rates in both the melatonin and placebo groups, and no serious problems were clearly linked to the study medication. In fact, all participants met the threshold for medication adherence, and most reported that participating in the trial, even remotely, was manageable.
The trial’s success in implementing a remote-friendly protocol is an important outcome in itself. Despite common concerns about older adults’ ability to use technology, most participants were able to complete assessments online, including neuropsychological testing and sleep tracking. This suggests that future clinical trials in similar populations may be able to rely more on remote methods, which could reduce costs and increase access.
Still, there were limitations. Because of the small sample size and relatively short duration, the study was not powered to detect subtle effects of melatonin on cognition or brain health. The sample was also not very diverse, with most participants having relatively high education levels, which may limit how broadly the findings can be applied. The COVID-19 pandemic also interrupted recruitment and may have influenced participant experiences during the trial.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a strong foundation for future research. The protocol was feasible, the treatment was well-tolerated, and the participants were able to complete a wide range of assessments even under challenging circumstances. The authors suggest that larger and longer-term trials are needed—ideally with around 200 participants per group and follow-up periods of at least six months to a year. These future studies could also target subgroups of people with both cognitive impairment and sleep disturbances, who may benefit the most from melatonin’s sleep-promoting effects.
In the meantime, while melatonin continues to be widely used for sleep, this study adds to a growing body of research aimed at understanding whether it could also play a role in protecting the aging brain. The current findings suggest that it’s safe to use in higher doses over the short term, but more data is needed to determine whether it can meaningfully slow the progression of cognitive decline.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/jpi.70019) 3‐Month Melatonin Supplementation to Reduce Brain Oxidative Stress and Improve Sleep in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial,” was authored by Zoe Menczel Schrire, Craig L. Phillips, Shantel L. Duffy, Nathaniel S. Marshall, Loren Mowszowski, Haley M. La Monica, Lachlan Stranks, Christopher J. Gordon, Julia L. Chapman, Bandana Saini, Sharon L. Naismith, Ronald R. Grunstein, and Camilla M. Hoyos.

(https://www.psypost.org/changing-implicit-stereotypes-helps-men-see-themselves-as-more-caring/) Changing implicit stereotypes helps men see themselves as more caring
Apr 17th 2025, 18:00

Men who were trained to associate communal traits with their own gender subsequently identified more with these traits themselves, according to new research published in (https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2025.2477003) Self & Identity.
Caring, empathy, and social connection—collectively referred to as “communion”—are values that enhance well-being and support healthy societies. However, research shows that men consistently identify less with these communal traits than women do, a gender gap that persists despite growing societal emphasis on equality. This pattern raises concerns not only for men’s personal fulfillment but also for broader goals like shared caregiving and gender-balanced workplaces.
Katharina Block and Toni Schmader explored whether implicit gender stereotypes—that is, automatic associations linking women with communal values and men with agentic traits like independence—help explain why men tend to distance themselves from communal traits. Building on balanced identity theory, the authors sought to determine not only whether such stereotypes correlate with men’s self-concept but whether altering them could causally influence how men see themselves.
In Study 1, 188 university students (92 men, 96 women) were recruited from a large North American university and completed a series of Implicit Association Tests (IATs). These IATs measured three things: implicit gender identity (e.g., “me” = “male”), implicit gender stereotypes (e.g., “female” = “communal”), and participants’ implicit communal self-concept (e.g., “me” = “communal”). Stimuli for communal and agentic traits were selected and refined through prior participant ratings. Exploratory explicit measures of career and family preferences were also included.
In Study 2, 129 male undergraduates were randomly assigned to either a stereotypical or counter-stereotypical training condition. Using a retraining version of the IAT, some participants repeatedly saw communal traits paired with “men,” while others saw traditional pairings (communal = women). After the training and a filler task, all participants completed a brief IAT (bIAT) measuring their implicit self-concept, alongside explicit measures of values and gender stereotypes.
In Study 1, both men and women held implicit stereotypes linking communal traits with women, but only men showed a significantly lower implicit identification with communal values. Importantly, the gender difference in communal self-concept was significantly larger among participants who held stronger communal = female stereotypes. The study also confirmed balanced identity theory’s prediction: self-concept, group identity, and stereotypes formed a statistically coherent triad, supporting the idea that these implicit beliefs are mutually reinforcing.
Study 2 demonstrated that retraining implicit stereotypes can causally shape men’s self-concept. Men who completed the counter-stereotypical training (associating men with communal traits) subsequently showed significantly stronger implicit identification with communal values than those who received traditional training. The effect was moderate-to-large in size (d = 0.61). However, these changes in implicit associations did not translate into changes in explicit self-reports or gender stereotypes.
The authors note that the observed changes in implicit self-concept may be temporary, as the long-term durability of implicit retraining effects remains uncertain.
This research provides evidence that men’s implicit self-concept can be shaped by modifying gender stereotypes, with important implications for interventions aimed at promoting gender equity and broader identification with communal values.
The research, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2025.2477003) Me, myself, and my stereotypes: does retraining gender stereotypes change men’s self-concept?”, was authored by Katharina Block and Toni Schmader.

(https://www.psypost.org/sleep-deprived-minds-are-more-likely-to-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/) Sleep-deprived minds are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories
Apr 17th 2025, 14:00

Conspiracy theories captivate the imagination. They offer simple explanations for complex events, often involving secret plots by powerful groups. From the belief that the (https://theconversation.com/how-moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-began-and-why-they-persist-today-118643) moon landing was faked to claims of (https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917721061) election fraud, conspiracy theories shape (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101363) public opinion and influence behaviour.
(https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12568) Research has explored cognitive biases, social influences and personality traits to understand why people believe in conspiracy theories. However, such research overlooks subtle day-to-day influences on conspiratorial thinking, like stress or sleep.
Our (https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053251320598) new research shows that poor sleep quality plays a key role in conspiracy beliefs.
Belief in conspiracy theories is influenced by (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031329) psychological and social factors. Cognitive biases, like (https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2331) seeing patterns in random information, make people more prone to conspiratorial thinking.
Social influences, including (https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430221993907) social norms, also play a significant role. Personality traits such as (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101386) narcissism and a preference for (https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3885) intuitive thinking are linked to greater conspiracy beliefs.
While these factors are well documented, our research adds another key factor: sleep quality. Poor sleep may increase (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2012.658439) cognitive biases and emotional distress, making people more likely to accept conspiratorial explanations.
The sleep factor
Sleep is (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101556) crucial for mental health, emotion regulation and cognitive functioning. Poor sleep has been linked to increased (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2016.07.019) anxiety, (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101556) depression and (https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000453) paranoia – all of which are also associated with (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.870128) conspiracy belief.
However, sleep is rarely discussed in explanations for conspiratorial thinking.
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116384) One study found that insomnia, a clinical disorder, affects conspiracy beliefs. Building on this work, our research, published in the (https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053251320598) Journal of Health Psychology, examined how poor sleep quality, a nonclinical condition, influences conspiracy beliefs.
In the first of our studies, 540 participants completed a standard sleep quality assessment before reading about the (https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/notre-dame-fire-69515) 2019 Notre Dame cathedral fire. Half saw a conspiratorial version suggesting a cover-up, while the other half read a factual account citing an accident. The results showed that participants with poorer sleep were significantly more likely to believe the conspiracy narrative.
The second study, with 575 participants, explored psychological factors such as depression, paranoia and anger to understand how poor sleep contributes to conspiracy beliefs.
The findings confirmed that poor sleep quality was linked to conspiracy belief, with depression being the strongest link between the two. In other words, increased depression helped explain why poor sleep quality is associated with conspiratorial thinking.
Causation or correlation?
While our study links poor sleep and conspiracy belief, this doesn’t prove cause and effect. Another factor may underlie both.
For example, chronic stress or anxiety could contribute to both poor sleep and a heightened susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking. Improving mental health may be as important as better sleep.
At the same time, research on sleep deprivation shows that lack of sleep can increase (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101556) anger, (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101556) depression and (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2006.08.007) paranoia. This could make people more vulnerable to misinformation, as seen in our research.
Future studies could use controlled experiments to examine how poor sleep contributes to conspiracy beliefs. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.02.008) Research shows that acute sleep deprivation increases anxiety and depression compared to normal sleep. A similar study could test whether severe sleep loss also heightens conspiracy beliefs.
Conspiracy beliefs are not just harmless curiosities; they can have (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101363) serious real-world consequences.
They have been linked to (https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9060593) vaccine hesitancy, (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101390) climate change denial and (https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241247985) violent extremism. Understanding the factors that contribute to their spread is essential for addressing misinformation and promoting informed decision-making.
Our findings suggest that improving sleep quality may reduce conspiracy beliefs. Sleep-focused interventions, such as insomnia therapy or public health initiatives, could help counter conspiratorial thinking.
Most research on conspiracy theories focuses on (https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000392) thinking styles and social influences. (https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053251320598) Our study highlights sleep as a key factor, suggesting poor sleep may not only impact health and wellbeing, but also shape our worldview.
At the same time, sleep is only one piece of the puzzle.
Conspiracy beliefs likely arise from a combination of cognitive biases, social influences, emotional states and personal worldviews. Plenty of people who sleep badly would not be seduced by conspiracy theories. Future research should explore how poor sleep interacts with these other known predictors of conspiracy beliefs.
By prioritising good sleep, we can improve both our mental and physical health, while strengthening our ability to think critically and resist misinformation in an increasingly complex world.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/how-poor-sleep-could-fuel-belief-in-conspiracy-theories-251669) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-study-links-destiny-beliefs-to-post-breakup-contact-and-tracking/) New study links “destiny beliefs” to post-breakup contact and tracking
Apr 17th 2025, 12:00

A recent study published in the journal (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pere.12591?af=R) Personal Relationships found that people who believe in soulmates are more likely to engage in post-breakup contact and tracking behaviors—such as calling, messaging, or monitoring an ex online—especially when they see the former partner as an ideal match. In contrast, those who believe relationships succeed through effort and growth showed less inclination toward these behaviors. The research, which combined results from four studies, suggests that beliefs about romantic destiny may shape how people cope with heartbreak, and that targeting these beliefs could help reduce distress after a breakup.
Romantic breakups are often described as one of the most emotionally painful events a person can go through. Many people turn to strategies that aim to maintain a connection to their ex-partner, whether through social media, messages, or physical proximity. These actions, known as post-relationship contact and tracking (PRCT), are common. While some are relatively harmless, others can border on invasive or even escalate into stalking. The goal of the current research was to understand what psychological factors predict these behaviors, with a focus on people’s underlying beliefs about how relationships work.
“In the last few years, I’ve been fascinated by how people make sense of romantic relationships and how their beliefs about relationships impact functioning and dissolution,” said study author (https://drashleythompson.com/) Ashley E. Thompson, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota Duluth. “Breakups are such a common experience, yet people respond to them in very different ways. Exploring how our beliefs relate to behaviors like ‘stalking an ex” provides a window into how we can support emotional recovery and decision-making post-relationship dissolution.”
The researchers examined a framework known as implicit theories of relationships, which include two types of beliefs. Destiny beliefs reflect the idea that romantic connections are either meant to be or not—soulmate-style thinking. In contrast, growth beliefs emphasize that successful relationships are built through shared effort, communication, and the ability to overcome obstacles. The researchers hypothesized that people who hold stronger destiny beliefs would be more likely to engage in PRCT after a breakup, especially if they believed their ex was the right match.
To investigated this, the researchers conducted four separate studies using different samples and methods. The first two studies involved adults recruited online who had recently gone through a breakup. In the first study, 142 participants completed surveys measuring their relationship beliefs and how often they had engaged in a list of 22 post-breakup behaviors, including messaging their ex, trying to see them in person, or checking their social media. The results showed that those who scored higher on destiny beliefs reported more frequent PRCT behaviors. Growth beliefs, in contrast, were not significantly related to these behaviors.
The second study, with 198 participants, replicated these findings and added an important factor: perceived partner fit. Participants were asked whether they believed their ex was their “soulmate.” The researchers found that destiny beliefs predicted more frequent PRCT behaviors, but only among those who had seen their ex-partner as an ideal match. In other words, people who both believed in romantic destiny and felt they had lost “the one” were most likely to seek continued contact. This pattern was not found among those with strong growth beliefs.
To examine whether relationship beliefs could be altered—and whether this might change PRCT tendencies—the third and fourth studies used experimental methods. In Study 3, 138 adults were randomly assigned to read a fictional article that either promoted destiny beliefs, promoted growth beliefs, or served as a neutral control. Participants then imagined breaking up with their current partner and rated how likely they would be to engage in each of the 22 PRCT behaviors.
Interestingly, even though the articles did not significantly shift participants’ self-reported beliefs about relationships, the messages did affect their behavioral intentions. Those who read the article promoting destiny beliefs reported a stronger likelihood of engaging in PRCT, compared to those who read the growth-focused article.
Study 4 built on this by adding a pre-post design, in which participants completed measures of their relationship beliefs before and after reading one of the fictional articles. This allowed the researchers to directly measure belief changes. Destiny beliefs decreased after reading the growth-oriented article, and those in the growth condition again reported lower intentions to engage in PRCT. Partner fit, which was measured using a more detailed scale in these studies, did not significantly moderate the results in the final study, perhaps due to the hypothetical nature of the scenarios.
“Although the impact of partner fit on the relationship between destiny beliefs and PRCT participation was not always replicated, our study did provide some evidence that people with strong destiny beliefs, who believed that their ex-partner was their ‘soulmate,’ were the most likely to engage in PRCT,” Thompson told PsyPost. “In other words, what we found to be important was not necessarily whether someone believed in the concept of “soulmates” but whether they thought they had found theirs.”
Across all four studies, one consistent pattern did emerge: people who believe that relationships are predestined and that some partners are simply “meant to be” are more likely to struggle with letting go. They may be more prone to seek contact, track their ex’s behavior, or try to revive the connection—even when the relationship is over. On the other hand, people who believe that relationships grow through shared effort may be better able to accept a breakup and move on, recognizing that a failed relationship does not necessarily mean personal failure or lost fate.
“In a nutshell, individuals with strong destiny beliefs (who believe in a perfect fit and that relationships are either meant to be or not) were more likely to seek post-relationship contact with the ex, hoping to somehow rekindle the relationship or find a way to make it work,” Thompson explained. “With these results in mind, it is important to understand that breakups are never easy. However, to support those with strong destiny beliefs when attempting to move past a breakup, we need to encourage a growth-based approach that emphasizes the development of romantic chemistry.”
Importantly, the research also hints at the possibility that these beliefs are not entirely fixed. In the final study, exposure to growth-oriented messages helped reduce destiny beliefs and lowered participants’ willingness to engage in PRCT behaviors, at least in imagined scenarios.
But the study, like all research, has limitations. Many of the studies relied on self-report data, which may be influenced by memory bias or social desirability. The experimental articles, though based on real media formats, did not always shift relationship beliefs as intended, suggesting that more robust interventions may be needed to meaningfully alter long-held views. The measures used to assess partner fit also varied between studies, which could have influenced the consistency of moderation findings.
“I am currently extending this work by investigating the extent to which growth/destiny beliefs predict relationship burnout (defined as emotional, physical, and cognitive exhaustion experienced by romantic partners trying to attain unrealistic expectations within a relationship),” Thompson said. “Although I have been able to determine that growth and destiny beliefs affect behavior after relationship dissolution (via the current study), little is known about how these beliefs impact behavior that may lead to dissolution.”
“In particular, I am looking to explore whether those high in growth beliefs are more “burnt out,” due to the amount of work they are willing to put into their relationships as compared to those low in growth beliefs. Additionally, I am interested in determining whether people high in destiny beliefs are more likely to terminate a relationship when experiencing high levels of burnout as compared to those low in destiny beliefs.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12591) We Were Meant to be: Do Implicit Theories of Relationships and Perceived Partner Fit Help Explain Post-Relationship Contact and Tracking Behaviors Following a Breakup?,” was authored by Ashley E. Thompson, Katie Gooch, Rachel M. Willhite, and Lucia F. O’Sullivan.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-should-repeat-more-studies-but-not-those-looking-for-a-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/) Scientists should repeat more studies, but not those looking for a link between vaccines and autism
Apr 17th 2025, 11:00

Scientists, professors, engineers, teachers and doctors are (https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-veracity-index-2024) routinely ranked among the most trustworthy people in society. This is because these professions rely heavily on research, and good research is viewed as the most reliable source of knowledge.
But how trustworthy is research? (https://www.axios.com/2025/03/24/medical-studies-rfk-nih-replication) Recent news from the US suggests that the Trump administration wants to fund more (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547546/) “reproducibility studies”.
These are studies that check to see if previous results can be repeated and are reliable. The administration’s focus seems to be specifically on studies that revisit the debunked claim of a link between (https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r642) vaccines and autism.
This is a worrying waste of effort, given the (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25349/) extensive evidence showing that there is no link between vaccines and autism, and the (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg2xyyj9w5o) harm that suggesting this link can cause. However, the broader idea of funding studies that attempt to repeat earlier research is (https://theconversation.com/the-science-reproducibility-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-74198) a good one.
Take research on Alzheimer’s disease as an example. In June 2024, Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533) retracted a highly cited paper reporting an important theory relating to the mechanism of the disease. Unfortunately, it took 18 years to spot the errors and retract the paper.
If influential studies like this were regularly repeated by others, it wouldn’t have taken so long to spot the (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07691-8) errors in the original research.
Alzheimer’s is proving a particularly tricky problem to solve despite the large amounts of money spent researching the disease. Being unable to reproduce key results (https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease) contributes to this problem because new research relies on the trustworthiness of earlier research.
More broadly, it has been known for almost ten years that 70% of researchers have (https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a) problems reproducing experiments conducted by other scientists. The problem is particularly acute in (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-022-00012-6) cancer research and (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716) psychology.
Research is difficult to get right
Research is complicated and there may be legitimate reasons research findings cannot be reproduced. Mistakes or dishonesty are not necessarily the cause.
In psychology or the social sciences, failure to reproduce results – despite using identical methods – could be due to using different populations, for instance, across different countries or cultures. In physical or medical sciences problems reproducing results could be down to using different equipment, chemicals or measurement techniques.
A lot of research may also not be reproducible simply because the researchers do not fully understand all the complexities of what they are studying. If all the relevant variables (such as genetics and environmental factors) are not understood or even identified, it is unsurprising that very similar experiments can yield different results.
In these cases, sometimes as much can be (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2018.10.004) learned from a negative result as from a positive one, as this helps inform the design of future work.
Here, it is helpful to distinguish between reproducing another researcher’s exact results and being given enough information by the original researchers to replicate their experiments.
Science advances by comparing notes and discussing differences, so researchers must always give enough information in their reports to allow someone else to repeat (replicate) the experiment. This ensures the results can be trusted even if they may not be reproduced exactly.
Transparency is therefore central to (https://ukrio.org/research-integrity/what-is-research-integrity/) research integrity, both in terms of trusting the research and trusting the people doing the research.
Unfortunately, the (https://ukrio.org/news/publication-of-research-integrity-a-landscape-study/) incentive structure within research doesn’t always encourage such transparency. The “publish or perish” culture and aggressive practices by journals often lead to excessive competition rather than collaboration and (https://theconversation.com/show-your-working-how-the-open-science-movement-tackles-scientific-misconduct-249020) open research practices.
One solution, as new priorities from the US have (https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-launches-initiative-double-check-biomedical-studies) suggested, is to directly fund researchers to replicate each other’s studies.
This is a promising development because most other funding, alongside opportunities to publish in the top journals, is instead linked to novelty. Unfortunately, this encourages researchers to act quickly to produce something unique rather than take their time to conduct (https://theconversation.com/reliable-science-takes-time-but-the-current-system-rewards-speed-249497) thorough and transparent experiments.
We need to move to a system that rewards reliable research rather than just novel research. And part of this comes through rewarding people who focus on replication studies.
Industry also plays a part. Companies conducting research and development can sometimes be guilty of throwing a lot of money at a project and then pulling the plug quickly if a product (such as a new medicine) seems not to work. The reason for such failures is often unclear, but the reliability of earlier research is a (https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI177383) contributing factor.
To avoid this problem, companies should be encouraged to replicate some of the original findings (perhaps significant experiments conducted by academics) before proceeding with development. In the long run, this strategy may turn out to be quicker and more efficient than the rapid chopping and changing that occurs now.
The scale of the reproducibility, or replicability, problem in research comes as a surprise to the public who have been told to (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/24/trust-the-science-is-the-mantra-of-the-covid-crisis-but-what-about-human-fallibility) “trust the science”. But over recent years there has been increasing recognition that the (https://wonkhe.com/blogs/its-time-to-talk-about-research-culture-and-the-ref/) culture of research is as important as the experiments themselves.
If we want to be able to “trust the science”, science must be transparent and robustly conducted.
This is exactly what has happened with research looking at the link between vaccines and autism. The topic was so important that in this case the replication studies (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673699001609/fulltext) were done and found that there is, in fact, no link between vaccines and autism.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/scientists-should-try-to-repeat-more-studies-but-not-those-looking-for-a-link-between-vaccines-and-autism-253696) original article.

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/20250418/d4718603/attachment.htm>