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/study-americans-vastly-underestimate-public-support-for-diversity-and-inclusion/) Study: Americans vastly underestimate public support for diversity and inclusion
Feb 16th 2025, 08:00

A new study published in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76761-8) Scientific Reports reveals a significant and widespread misunderstanding among Americans regarding their fellow citizens’ views on diversity and inclusion. Researchers discovered that people consistently underestimate the extent of support for diversity in the United States. This misperception, according to the study, can negatively impact inclusive behaviors, but can be corrected by simply informing people about the actual level of public support for diversity.
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison became interested in this topic because they wanted to understand a puzzling contradiction. On one hand, many people express support for diversity and inclusion. On the other hand, discrimination and exclusion remain persistent problems in society. The researchers wondered if part of the problem might stem from inaccurate perceptions of what others believe.
Specifically, they investigated the idea of “pluralistic ignorance,” which is when people incorrectly assume that their own beliefs are not widely shared, even when they actually are. In the context of diversity, this could mean that people who support diversity might mistakenly believe that most others do not share those views. The researchers hypothesized that this misperception could discourage individuals from speaking out in favor of diversity or acting inclusively, as they might assume they are in the minority. They also wanted to explore if correcting this misperception could encourage more positive attitudes and behaviors related to diversity.
To answer these questions, the research team conducted a series of large-scale studies that together involved more than 5,400 participants in their first five survey studies and an additional 724 participants in two experiments.
The first study involved 1,001 adults recruited online through a platform called Prolific, with the goal of having a sample that roughly matched the U.S. population in terms of age, race, and gender. Participants were presented with fifteen statements expressing positive views about diversity and inclusion. For each statement, they were asked to do two things: indicate whether they personally agreed or disagreed, and estimate what percentage of all U.S. adults would agree. The sequence of these two tasks and the order of the statements were randomized across participants to minimize order effects.
Study 2 was a replication of the first study, using a similar sample size of 997 participants recruited through Prolific with the same demographic quotas. In addition to the measures from Study 1, this study also asked participants about how often they talked about diversity issues, the political leaning of their close friends, how much they thought media influenced others compared to themselves, and how they felt minority groups were portrayed in the media.
Study 3 aimed for a more representative sample of the U.S. population by recruiting 2,010 participants through a different platform called Qualtrics. This time, in addition to quotas for age, race, and gender, they also included quotas to ensure a balanced representation of political affiliations, ranging from strongly Republican to strongly Democrat. This study used a shorter set of six diversity statements from the previous studies. Instead of simple agree/disagree responses, participants indicated their level of agreement on a five-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Similarly, when estimating others’ opinions, they estimated the percentage of Americans who would choose each of these five response options. Beyond the core measures, Study 3 included questionnaires assessing the use of conservative and liberal media, exposure to diversity-related media, perceptions of how seriously discrimination is portrayed in the media, trust in media, and biases in media against diversity initiatives and liberal viewpoints. It also measured participants’ likelihood to confront discrimination and engage in inclusive behaviors, as well as their levels of racism and sexism.
Study 4 modified the approach slightly and involved 497 participants from Prolific. This study used ten new diversity-related statements, half of which were supportive of diversity and inclusion, and half of which were critical or not supportive of diversity and inclusion. Participants again rated their own agreement on a five-point scale and estimated the percentage of Americans who would agree with each statement (specifically, those who would “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree”). This allowed researchers to see if the misperception effect was present for both pro-diversity and anti-diversity statements.
Study 5 focused specifically on political groups. It recruited 943 participants from Prolific who had voted for either Donald Trump or Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Using the same ten statements from Study 4 (five pro-diversity, five anti-diversity), participants were randomly assigned to estimate the opinions of either Trump voters or Biden voters. All participants also indicated their own agreement with the statements. This design allowed the researchers to compare how accurately Trump voters and Biden voters perceived the diversity views within their own group and the opposing group.
Across the first five studies, a clear and consistent pattern emerged: Americans tend to significantly underestimate how much their fellow citizens support diversity and inclusion. Studies 1 and 2 revealed a substantial gap of about 27 percentage points between the actual level of agreement with pro-diversity statements in their samples and what participants estimated that level to be in the broader U.S. population.
In other words, while about 82% of participants in these studies agreed with statements like “Racial diversity benefits the country,” participants believed only around 55% of Americans would agree. This notable underestimation suggested a widespread misperception.
Participants not only underestimated agreement with pro-diversity statements but also overestimated agreement with anti-diversity statements. This suggests a skewed perception where individuals believe pro-diversity views are less common and anti-diversity views are more common than they actually are.
Demographic factors like age, gender, race, and region had little impact on the degree of underestimation. “Pluralistic ignorance related to diversity and inclusion is a general phenomenon that cuts across demographic categories,” the researchers wrote. However, individuals who identified as Democrats or as members of marginalized racial or ethnic groups tended to underestimate support slightly less than others.
Furthermore, a stronger tendency to underestimate support was associated with more conservative political views, lower consumption of media focused on diversity and inclusion, less trust in media generally, and higher scores on measures of racism and sexism. The researchers also found that this misperception had consequences: those who underestimated support for diversity were less likely to discuss diversity-related topics, less inclined to behave inclusively, and less willing to confront discrimination when they witnessed it.
In Studies 6 and 7, the focus shifted from measuring existing perceptions to experimentally assessing whether exposure to accurate information could alter them. Study 6 recruited 367 white adults from Prolific who lived in states that voted for Biden in 2020. Study 7 recruited 356 white adults from Prolific who lived in states that voted for Trump in 2020.
Participants in both studies were told they were taking part in two separate studies. The first was presented as a task to assess their ability to identify trends in public opinion. Participants played a “Two Truths and One Lie” game. They were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a “descriptive condition,” a “dynamic condition,” or a “control condition.” In the descriptive condition, participants were repeatedly shown statistics from real opinion polls indicating that a majority of Americans support diversity and inclusion. In the dynamic condition, they saw statistics suggesting that support for diversity was increasing over time. In the control condition, they saw statistics about unrelated topics like changes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In each round of the game, participants had to identify which of three statements was false. After each choice, they were shown the correct answers, reinforcing the intended message about public opinion. After this game, participants moved on to what they believed was a separate study, where they were asked to complete questionnaires measuring their pro-diversity attitudes, intentions to behave inclusively, and willingness to confront discrimination. This allowed the researchers to see if exposure to information about widespread diversity support could influence people’s own attitudes and behaviors related to diversity.
The researchers found that participants in the descriptive norm condition, and to a lesser extent those in the dynamic norm condition, showed improvements across several measures related to diversity and inclusion after playing the game. Specifically, they expressed stronger values for diversity in the workplace, reported increased intentions to confront discrimination, and scored higher on an overall measure of inclusiveness.
This positive effect of social norms messaging was observed in both Study 6, which focused on participants from Democratic-leaning states, and Study 7, which focused on participants from Republican-leaning states, suggesting that this type of intervention can be effective across different political contexts.
“When people learn about the widespread support for diversity and inclusion, they change their own attitudes about these issues,” the researchers explained. “After being exposed to actual survey data from national opinion polls, our participants scored higher on a variety of indicators related to diversity and inclusion. In other words, correcting people’s pluralistic ignorance has important beneficial effects.”
But the researchers pointed out some limitations of their work. They acknowledged that people who participate in online studies may not perfectly represent all Americans. Also, they noted that people might sometimes say they support diversity more than they truly do, which could slightly inflate the reported levels of support. However, they also argued that the consistent underestimation of support across different groups and types of diversity statements suggests that the core finding of pluralistic ignorance is robust. Future research, they suggested, could investigate why this misperception is so common.
“It seems that those with favorable attitudes toward diversity have not succeeded in communicating to the wider public their commitment to inclusion and their support for pro-diversity initiatives,” the researchers concluded. “The individuals with less favorable attitudes—a numerical minority—not only are the most pluralistically ignorant, but they also seem to be more vocal and thus have a disproportionate influence on Americans’ perceptions of their fellow citizens’ attitudes.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76761-8) Diversity and inclusion have greater support than most Americans think,” was authored by Naomi Isenberg and Markus Brauer.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-investigating-human-sperm-competition-stumble-upon-an-intriguing-paradox/) Scientists investigating human sperm competition stumble upon an intriguing paradox
Feb 16th 2025, 06:00

A new study published in the (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03030-0) Archives of Sexual Behavior provides evidence that men’s sperm quality is influenced by how many potential sexual rivals they believe their partner has. Men who thought their partner was more likely to spend time with other men produced ejaculates with higher sperm concentration during intercourse. This suggests that men’s bodies could be biologically (but unconsciously) tuned to respond to perceived competition in ways that enhance their chances of fathering children.
But the scientists behind the study also uncovered a paradoxical twist: men who believed their partners were more faithful actually produced ejaculates with a higher concentration of rapidly moving sperm.
Sperm competition is observed in many animal species. It occurs when sperm from multiple males are present in a female’s reproductive system at the same time, vying to fertilize her egg. In species where females might mate with more than one male, males have evolved various strategies to increase their reproductive success in this competitive environment. Some of these strategies involve producing larger quantities of sperm or sperm of superior quality.
Previous research in humans, notably (https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1006/anbe.1993.1271) a study conducted in the early 1990s, proposed that men might also exhibit this kind of biological adaptation. That earlier study suggested that men produce ejaculates with more sperm when they have spent less time with their partner since their last sexual encounter. The reasoning was that time apart could signal a higher risk of sperm competition, as it presents opportunities for a partner to potentially engage with other men. However, this initial research relied on just one measure of sperm competition risk – time spent apart – and used older methods for analyzing semen.
Recognizing the limitations of past work, a team of researchers aimed to revisit and expand upon these findings using more comprehensive measures of sperm competition risk and advanced semen analysis technology. They wanted to investigate whether factors beyond just time apart, such as a man’s perception of his partner’s potential infidelity or the presence of other men who could be seen as rivals, might also influence ejaculate quality. Furthermore, they sought to employ modern laser-optic technology to gain a more precise understanding of semen characteristics.
“I had always been interested in human mating behavior from an evolutionary perspective, but my interest in human sperm competition started back in 2007 when I first heard about Baker and Bellis’ research on the subject that they conducted back in 1993,” said study author (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tara-Delecce) Tara DeLecce, a postdoctoral researcher and special lecturer at Oakland University and co-editor of (https://amzn.to/3ED8NFj) The Oxford Handbook of Infidelity.
“The idea that sperm from multiple males compete in the female reproductive tract to fertilize ova, and that competition could occur on such a microscopic level and be affected by sociosexual factors (time spent apart, rival males) was such a novel and unusual concept to me. Once I became aware of it, I just wanted to learn more, and I couldn’t really get my mind off of human sperm competition since then. My dream has been to replicate this study by Baker and Bellis and I was grateful for the opportunity to join and assist in a lab that was already in the process of replicating this study with improved methodologies.”
To conduct their investigation, the researchers recruited 34 heterosexual couples from a university community. The participants were between 18 and 32 years old. All couples were in committed, sexually active relationships lasting at least three months. The researchers ensured that the male participants had not had a vasectomy or undergone fertility treatment, and that the female participants were not using hormonal birth control. This careful selection helped to control for factors that could independently affect fertility.
Over a 45-day period, each couple participated in seven sessions with the researchers. In the initial session, the partners were separated and asked to complete questionnaires about their relationship and perceptions of sperm competition risk. These questionnaires assessed several factors. One was the amount of time the couple had spent together since their last sexual encounter.
Another set of questions gauged the men’s perceptions of their partner’s potential infidelity, asking about the likelihood of past and future unfaithfulness. Finally, the men were asked to estimate the number of male friends and male coworkers their partners had, as well as how much time their partners spent with these men. Researchers also took some basic body measurements from each participant, such as height, weight, and waist circumference.
Following the first session, the couples were given materials and instructions for collecting six semen samples at home over the next 45 days. Three of these samples were to be collected after sexual intercourse with their partner using a special non-latex condom provided by the researchers. The other three samples were to be collected through masturbation. To ensure consistency, the men were asked to abstain from ejaculation for at least 48 hours, but no more than seven days, before each sample collection. For masturbation samples, they were instructed to refrain from using pornography or lubricants not provided by the study.
To maintain the quality of the semen samples, participants were given specific guidelines. After ejaculation, they were instructed to seal the condom or specimen container, wrap it in aluminum foil to keep it warm, and transport it to the lab within one hour, keeping it close to their body for warmth during transport. Upon arrival at the lab, researchers used a sophisticated machine called a Semen Quality Analyzer to assess various aspects of the semen. This machine uses laser technology to provide a detailed analysis of semen characteristics, including sperm concentration, the percentage of sperm that are moving effectively, and the total number of sperm.
DeLecce and her colleagues focused on these specific measures because they are commonly used in human sperm competition research and were also used in the earlier study they were replicating. They also considered other factors that are known to affect semen quality, such as the man’s age, body mass index, how long they had abstained from ejaculation, relationship length, and lifestyle habits known to potentially harm sperm, such as using heated car seats or laptops on laps.
Contrary to the findings of the earlier study, the researchers found that the amount of time a couple spent apart since their last sexual encounter was not related to any measure of semen quality. However, they did find that men produced semen with a significantly higher concentration of sperm when they perceived their partners as having a greater number of potential sexual rivals, specifically male friends and coworkers. This finding was specific to copulatory ejaculates; masturbatory ejaculates did not show the same pattern.
“Unlike Baker and Bellis’ original 1993 study, we did not find a relationship between time that couples spend apart from one another and number of sperm ejaculated at the couple’s next copulation,” DeLecce told PsyPost. “However, we did uncover another interesting finding related to sperm competition. Specifically, we found that men produce higher overall sperm concentration when they perceive that their regular partner has more male friends and coworkers, which could be considered potential rivals and thus a cue of higher sperm competition risk with appropriate ejaculate quality adjustment in response to this higher risk.”
Interestingly, while the concentration of sperm was higher in copulatory samples overall compared to masturbatory samples, the proportion of rapidly moving sperm was actually higher in masturbatory samples. They also found that men who reported fewer lifestyle habits known to be detrimental to sperm had a higher concentration of rapidly moving sperm. Older men and men who had abstained from ejaculation for a longer period produced semen with a greater total number of motile sperm. Unexpectedly, men who perceived their partners as more faithful actually had a higher concentration of rapidly moving sperm.
“There was a finding that went in the opposite direction of what would be predicted in terms of sperm competition,” DeLecce explained. “Men in the sample produced higher concentrations of rapid progressive motile sperm when they self-reported that they perceived their partner to be highly sexually faithful. To give more detail, rapid progressive motile sperm refers to sperm that swim faster relative to others and in a straight line as would be optimal to fertilize ova. Comparatively, slow progressive and nonprogressive motile sperm swim much slower and often do not swim straight (e. g. swim in circles), which would not allow them to effectively travel to the reproductive tract to reach the egg.”
“The principles of sperm competition would predict that perceptions of lower faithfulness or suspicions of infidelity would result in more rapid progressive motile sperm to adjust for heightened sperm competition risk. This might suggest that ejaculate adjustment in humans may be more complex than in other primate species, and additional research is warranted.”
The study, like all research, includes some caveats to consider.
“A notable limitation is that we did not directly ask the female members of the couples to self-report what activities they did engage in when they were apart from their male partner,” DeLecce noted. “>From the male perspective, simply time away should be sufficient to serve as a cue to sperm competition risk; however, this could be further nuanced based on what the females report doing during this time away.”
“For instance, if there is an established work and/or social routine, this may not be considered much of a cue to possible infidelity compared to unexpectedly going out for drinks with a new group of mixed sex friends. Additionally, in the 1990s, there wasn’t the ability to text and be in constant contact, so perhaps time away would be considered a more significant cue of sperm competition relative to modern times in which frequent remote communication occurs and thus may mitigate possible concerns over infidelity. Lastly, we had a small sample of 34 couples, so the extent to which these findings generalize more widely is not known.”
Looking ahead, the researchers are continuing to investigate human sperm competition. They are interested in exploring whether exposure to visual or other sensory cues, such as images that suggest the presence of multiple rivals, might affect sperm quality in similar ways.
“Our lab’s goal is to get a better understanding of the extent to which sperm competition affects human mating dynamics, and how that relates to sperm competition in other species, which is more well-documented,” DeLecce explained. “To that end, our lab continues to research human sperm competition using various methodologies and hopefully using larger sample sizes. For instance, we are currently comparing masturbatory ejaculate quality in response to erotica featuring high sperm competition risk (multiple males and one female) compared to that featuring no sperm competition risk (all females).”
“I just want to make it clear that ejaculate adjustment as described in this paper in response to sperm competition risk is not something that happens at the conscious level,” she added. “In other words, men aren’t actively thinking to themselves, ‘My partner is behaving in a way that makes me suspicious of infidelity and therefore I’m going to increase my ejaculate quality at our next sexual encounter.'”
“Instead, this is thought to be an unconscious, evolved response to cues to infidelity to avoid cuckoldry, which refers to a man’s regular partner producing offspring with another man without his knowledge and then investing in such offspring as his own. In terms of evolution, this is a threat to male reproductive success, especially if the male being cuckolded produces no offspring that are genetically related to him with his regular partner; therefore, his genes would not survive into subsequent generations and there would likely be selection pressures in place to avoid this possibility.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03030-0) Ejaculate Adjustment in Response to Sperm Competition Risk in Humans,” was authored by Tara DeLecce, Gavin S. Vance, Virgil Zeigler‑Hill, Lisa L. M. Welling, and Todd K. Shackelford.

(https://www.psypost.org/a-key-psychological-factor-helps-explain-how-planetarium-films-boost-interest-in-science/) A key psychological factor helps explain how planetarium films boost interest in science
Feb 15th 2025, 14:00

Getting people excited about science can be a challenge, but a recent study offers a promising approach. Researchers discovered that inducing awe, specifically through immersive planetarium films, is highly effective at sparking and growing people’s interest in scientific subjects. This suggests awe could be key to making science more engaging for everyone. The work has been published in the journal (https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2428787) Cognition and Emotion.
Scientists have long recognized that emotions play a significant role in how we learn and remember things. Emotions related to knowledge and understanding, termed epistemic emotions, are particularly relevant in learning environments. For example, feeling curious can lead to deeper engagement with new material, while boredom can hinder learning. Awe is one such emotion, often described as the feeling we get when we encounter something vast and beyond our current understanding, prompting us to adjust our perspective of the world. Though awe is thought to be a driving force behind science learning, exactly how it affects our thinking processes during learning has remained largely unknown.
Previous research exploring awe has often taken place in controlled laboratory settings, raising questions about whether these findings truly reflect real-world experiences. To address this gap, a team of researchers decided to investigate awe in a more natural environment: a science center planetarium. They aimed to understand if the awe experienced while watching planetarium films, designed to be immersive and awe-inspiring, could enhance learning and cultivate a greater interest in science-related topics. Specifically, they wanted to examine how this situational awe impacts the ability to remember information from the films and how it influences a person’s interest in the film’s subject matter.
“I became interested in researching the various effects of awe on human cognition, behavior, and decision-making because the research literature suggested that awe is a very powerful emotion yet largely understudied,” said study author Oksana Kanerva, a lecturer at University of Helsinki who conducted the study while a senior researcher at the University of Turku.
To conduct their investigation, the researchers recruited 131 adult visitors to a science center who were planning to watch one of the planetarium’s films. Before entering the planetarium, participants answered questions about their existing knowledge of the film’s topic and their initial interest in it. They also provided some basic background information about themselves. The science center was showing three different films at the time: one about Earth’s climate system, one about the Northern Lights, and one about stars and planets in the distant universe. Participants watched whichever film they had chosen to see as regular science center visitors.
Immediately after watching their chosen film, participants completed a series of questionnaires. They again rated their interest in the film’s topic to see if it had changed after viewing. They also completed questionnaires designed to measure different emotions they might have experienced, including awe, surprise, curiosity, enjoyment, confusion, anxiety, and boredom. To specifically measure awe, the researchers used a questionnaire that asked participants to rate how strongly they felt various sensations during the film, such as feeling connected to everything around them, feeling a sense of physical smallness, or experiencing goosebumps. Additionally, participants completed a questionnaire assessing their general tendency to think critically.
Finally, participants completed a recognition memory task to assess their recall of the film’s content. This task presented participants with a series of statements related to the film they had just watched. Some of these statements were phrases taken directly from the film. Others were slightly altered versions of phrases from the film, containing minor factual errors. Some statements were completely nonsensical, contradicting basic scientific knowledge. Lastly, some statements were inferences – ideas that could be logically drawn from the film’s information but were not explicitly stated. For each statement, participants had to decide whether they believed it had been presented in the film. This recognition task was designed to reveal how awe might influence different types of memory processes, such as accurately remembering details versus making logical connections or falling for misleading information.
The study’s results confirmed that planetarium films do indeed evoke awe in viewers. Participants reported experiencing awe while watching the films, although the intensity of this emotion varied somewhat depending on the specific film. Interestingly, the film about the Northern Lights seemed to elicit a stronger sense of awe compared to the film about stars. The researchers noted that the Northern Lights film had longer sentences and perhaps presented more complex information, which might have contributed to the stronger awe response. They also found that individuals who had a greater inclination towards critical thinking reported feeling more connected to their surroundings during the awe experience.
In terms of emotions accompanying awe, the study revealed that awe was strongly associated with surprise. While awe was also linked to other emotions like curiosity and enjoyment, surprise was the most significant emotion that consistently coincided with feelings of awe. This suggests that the unexpected or surprising nature of the planetarium film content may be a key ingredient in triggering awe.
When examining the recognition memory task, the researchers found that experiencing higher levels of awe was linked to decreased accuracy in identifying errors, nonsense statements, and inferences. In other words, people who felt more awe were more likely to mistakenly say that these incorrect or inferred statements had actually been presented in the film. This suggests that awe, in this context, did not enhance memory accuracy. Interestingly, prior knowledge of the film’s topic played a role in memory performance. People with more prior knowledge were better at spotting errors and nonsense statements but were more prone to falsely recognize inference statements as being from the film.
“Based on the recognition memory task results, visitors experiencing higher awe tended to give more affirmative answers to questions where ‘no’ was the correct response, compared to those who experienced less awe,” Kanerva told PsyPost. “This suggests that awe may promote confirmation bias. More research on the possible connection between awe and confirmation bias is needed.”
But perhaps the most important finding was the impact of awe on interest. The study clearly demonstrated that experiencing awe while watching the planetarium films significantly increased participants’ interest in the topics covered in the films. This boost in interest was particularly noticeable for those who reported feeling higher levels of awe. This finding supports the idea that awe can serve as a catalyst, sparking curiosity and driving individuals to become more interested in science-related subjects.
“This is one of the first studies to document an increase in topic-specific interest in a science museum exhibition, specifically in the topic of planetarium films,” Kanerva said. “The key takeaway is that awe has the potential to make people more interested in science-related topics.”
The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their study. Because the study observed people in a real-world setting, it could only show associations, not definitively prove that awe directly causes increased interest or altered memory. Future research could build upon these findings by refining the memory tasks to be more challenging, perhaps by testing memory after a longer delay. Experimentally manipulating awe, for instance by comparing awe-inducing films to more neutral ones, could help to establish a clearer causal link between awe and science interest.
“The long-term goals are to investigate the effects of awe on human behavior and decision-making in natural settings, extending beyond science museums,” Kanerva said.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2428787) Impact of awe on topic interest and recognition memory for information in planetarium films,” was authored by Oksana Kanerva, Tuomo Häikiö, Helmi Päällysaho, and Johanna K. Kaakinen.

(https://www.psypost.org/could-this-inert-gas-be-the-key-to-treating-alzheimers-disease/) Could this inert gas be the key to treating Alzheimer’s disease?
Feb 15th 2025, 12:00

An inert and unreactive gas may not seem like an obvious candidate for treating Alzheimer’s disease, yet a (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.adk3690) new study in mice suggests that xenon might just be the breakthrough we need.
Xenon is one of the six noble gases. Its name derives from the Greek word for “strange”. In medicine, it has been used as an anaesthetic since the early (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014107680009301005) 1950s and, more recently, to treat (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.STR.0000198867.31134.ac?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed) brain injuries. It is also being tested in (https://theconversation.com/experimental-alzheimers-drug-shows-promise-but-there-are-many-hurdles-still-to-overcome-195383) clinical trials for several conditions including depression and panic disorder.
The new study from Washington University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (the teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School) in the US, has investigated the potential of xenon to treat the brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s.
These changes, which can be found in all brains of people with dementia, include clumps of the proteins amyloid and tau. The connections between neurons, called synapses, are also lost in Alzheimer’s disease and it is these connections between neurons that allow us to think, feel, move and remember.
A final common feature found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s is inflammation. This is the body’s response to injury or disease and triggers the immune response to heal the damaged tissue.
Usually, inflammation disappears once the tissue is healed. In Alzheimer’s, the inflammation does not go away and the immune responses triggered can then damage healthy brain cells.
All of the above changes give rise to the symptoms of Alzheimer’s, such as memory loss, confusion and mood swings.
We don’t know what causes Alzheimer’s disease, but a leading theory suggests that a build up of amyloid triggers the process that then gives rise to the subsequent changes. So targeting amyloid seems like an obvious approach to treating the disease.
Just over two years ago, we learned of the (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2212948) success of one of these treatments called lecanemab in slowing the rate of decline.
The increase in clumps of proteins and the loss of synapses occur over decades, and it remains to be seen if directly targeting a single protein (either amyloid or tau) would be able to halt disease progression or have a measurable effect on all the characteristic harms.
The brain has several types of cell that work together to support brain function. Neurons are the cells responsible for everything – walking, talking, thinking and breathing. Astrocytes provide energy to the neurons as well as structural support and protective functions.
Other important cells found in the brain are microglia. They are immune cells that help remove pathogens and dead cells, among other activities. However, if they are overactive, they can cause chronic inflammation in the brain.
Microglia have different states depending on the environment they find themselves in, from an inactive state through to an active state. The difference in these states can be determined both by their appearance and importantly by the functions they perform. For example, active microglia can help clear the accumulated debris, such as unwanted proteins, cells and infections.
The scientists in this latest study used mice that have the same brain changes seen in Alzheimer’s to investigate the role of microglia. A specific active state of microglia that was associated with inflammation was identified. The scientists gave the mice xenon gas to inhale, which changed the state of their microglia.
This altered state allowed the microglia to surround, engulf and destroy amyloid deposits. It also changed the function of these microglia so that they didn’t drive further inflammation.
The researchers also found a reduction in the number and size of amyloid deposits found. All these changes were associated with the altered microglial state.
But what of the other changes seen in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s? The study also suggested xenon inhalation could (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.adk3690) reduce brain shrinkage (a common feature of Alzheimer’s disease) and lead to an increase in support of the connections between neurons. And in all the mice studied, markers of the excessive inflammatory response were reduced.
So, overall, the research suggests that inhaling xenon triggers the active microglia to change from an Alzheimer’s disease-type active state to a pre-Alzheimer’s state. This pre-Alzheimer’s disease state promotes the clearance of amyloid deposits and reduces the cell messengers that cause excessive inflammation.
New hope
There are no drugs that target microglia in Alzheimer’s and inroads have been made in addressing amyloid accumulation. Current drugs aimed at reducing amyloid in the brain offer a (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2212948) modest reduction in amyloid deposits and rate of decline.
Amyloid treatment will improve over time, but what of the other changes that occur in the brain, such as the deposits of tau, brain shrinkage and loss of synapses?
The new research opens up the possibility of targeting a cell type that has the innate potential to affect all of these characteristic harms.
Clinical trials in healthy volunteers are expected to begin this year. If these findings hold up, xenon could offer a completely new approach to this mind-robbing disease. It would be a treatment that doesn’t directly target amyloid, but rather aims to reset the brain’s immune response to counteract all of the disease’s destructive changes. Stranger things have happened.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/might-xenon-gas-be-useful-for-treating-alzheimers-as-a-new-study-suggests-247615) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/the-surprising-relationship-between-vaccinations-and-alzheimers-disease/) The surprising relationship between vaccinations and Alzheimer’s disease
Feb 15th 2025, 11:00

Receiving routine vaccinations against common infections like tetanus, shingles, and pneumonia may offer an unexpected benefit: a reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease later in life. A study published in the (https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad221231) Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease in 2023 found that older adults who received these vaccines were less likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease compared to their unvaccinated peers over an eight-year period. This research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that vaccinations could play a role in protecting against this devastating brain disease.
Alzheimer’s disease is a devastating brain disorder that gradually destroys memory and thinking skills. It is the most common cause of dementia, a general term for a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life. In Alzheimer’s disease, brain cells are damaged and eventually die, leading to a progressive and irreversible loss of cognitive function. While the exact causes of Alzheimer’s are not fully understood, it is known that the disease involves complex changes in the brain that disrupt normal brain processes.
There is a growing theory that infections might play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s. The idea is that infections can cause inflammation in the brain, and this inflammation could contribute to the brain cell damage seen in Alzheimer’s. Vaccines are designed to prevent infections. Therefore, the researchers wanted to investigate whether receiving routine vaccines against infections like tetanus, diphtheria, shingles, and pneumonia might reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
They reasoned that if vaccines can prevent or lessen the severity of infections, they might also reduce the associated brain inflammation and, consequently, lower the chances of developing Alzheimer’s. They also considered that vaccines could have other effects on the immune system that might be beneficial in protecting against Alzheimer’s, independent of preventing specific infections.
To conduct this study, the research team used a large database of health insurance records from a company called Optum. This database contains anonymized information on medical treatments, prescriptions, and hospital visits for millions of people across the United States who have health insurance through their employer or Medicare Advantage.
The researchers looked at data from 2009 to 2019. They first identified a group of people aged 65 and older at the start of the study period. To ensure they were studying the development of new cases of Alzheimer’s, they excluded anyone who had already been diagnosed with dementia, mild memory problems, or any condition affecting the brain, or who were already taking medications for Alzheimer’s disease, before the study officially began. This left them with a large group of individuals to follow over time.
The study then examined who among these individuals received vaccinations for tetanus and diphtheria (with or without pertussis), shingles, or pneumonia during the follow-up period, which lasted from 2011 to 2019. The researchers used specific codes in the insurance records to identify when a person received each type of vaccine. For the tetanus and diphtheria vaccine, they included both the combined vaccine that also protects against pertussis, and the version without pertussis. For shingles, they looked at both types of shingles vaccines available in the United States: an older, less potent vaccine called Zostavax, and a newer, more effective vaccine called Shingrix. For pneumonia, they examined two types of pneumococcal vaccines: PCV13 and PPSV23.
Next, the researchers needed to determine who in their study group developed Alzheimer’s disease during the follow-up period. They used a combination of diagnosis codes for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, as well as records of prescriptions for medications commonly used to treat Alzheimer’s, such as donepezil and memantine. To increase the accuracy of identifying true Alzheimer’s cases, they required individuals to have at least two Alzheimer’s diagnoses, or one diagnosis plus a prescription, or at least two prescriptions within a 12-month period. This approach helped to minimize the chance of mistakenly identifying someone as having Alzheimer’s based on a single error in their medical records.
To make sure they were comparing similar groups of people, the researchers used a statistical technique called propensity score matching. This method helps to balance out differences between people who get vaccinated and those who do not. For example, people who choose to get vaccinated might be generally healthier or more proactive about their health than those who do not. To address this, the researchers considered a wide range of factors that could influence both vaccination status and Alzheimer’s risk.
These factors included age, sex, race, geographic region, number of healthcare visits, and presence of various pre-existing health conditions like asthma, heart problems, diabetes, and depression. They also accounted for use of certain medications and whether individuals had received other routine vaccinations, like the flu vaccine. By statistically matching vaccinated individuals with unvaccinated individuals who had similar characteristics across these factors, the researchers aimed to isolate the specific effect of vaccination on Alzheimer’s risk, rather than just reflecting other health or lifestyle differences.
After carefully analyzing the data, the researchers found that vaccination against tetanus and diphtheria was associated with a 30% lower risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Similarly, receiving a shingles vaccine was linked to a 25% reduction in Alzheimer’s risk, and pneumococcal vaccination was associated with a 27% lower risk. These findings were statistically significant, meaning they were unlikely to be due to chance.
The researchers also conducted further analyses to see if different types of shingles and pneumococcal vaccines had varying effects. They found that both types of shingles vaccines, Zostavax and Shingrix, were associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s, but the newer Shingrix vaccine showed a much stronger protective effect. For pneumococcal vaccines, both PCV13 and PPSV23 were linked to similar reductions in Alzheimer’s risk.
To further ensure their results were not simply due to healthier individuals being more likely to get vaccinated, the researchers performed a sensitivity analysis. They repeated their main analyses focusing only on people who were consistently taking statin medications, which is another indicator of health-conscious behavior. Even within this group of individuals who were likely already health-conscious, the protective associations between vaccination and reduced Alzheimer’s risk remained, strengthening the confidence in the main findings.
In a seperate (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2023.2216625) article in Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics, the researchers explained there are several possible ways that vaccines might reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, and these mechanisms are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One key idea is that vaccines reduce the burden of infections. Infections, both those that directly affect the brain (like herpes zoster, which causes shingles) and those that occur elsewhere in the body, can trigger inflammation. This inflammation is thought to potentially worsen or speed up the processes that lead to Alzheimer’s. By preventing infections, vaccines could reduce this inflammatory burden and thus lower Alzheimer’s risk.
Another potential mechanism involves how vaccines might influence the immune system’s response to Alzheimer’s-related changes in the brain. Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by the buildup of abnormal proteins, like amyloid, in the brain. Vaccines might somehow enhance the immune system’s ability to clear away these harmful proteins, preventing them from accumulating and causing damage.
Alternatively, even if vaccines don’t directly reduce the amount of these proteins, they might modulate the brain’s immune response to them. In Alzheimer’s, the brain’s immune response to these abnormal proteins can sometimes be overactive and damaging, causing “collateral damage” to healthy brain tissue. Vaccines could potentially help to refine this immune response, making it more effective at clearing harmful substances while minimizing damage to healthy brain cells.
Finally, researchers are exploring the concept of “trained immunity.” Vaccines might “train” the innate immune system, which is the body’s first line of defense against pathogens, to be more generally effective and less prone to harmful inflammation as we age. This broader strengthening of the immune system could offer protection against a range of age-related diseases, including Alzheimer’s.
For the influenza vaccine specifically, there’s even a hypothesis about “cross-reactivity.” This idea suggests that there might be a similarity between some components of the flu virus and the amyloid proteins involved in Alzheimer’s. Vaccination against the flu could, in this case, trigger an immune response that also offers some protection against amyloid buildup in the brain, although this mechanism is thought to be more unique to the flu vaccine compared to the others studied.
While the study provides compelling evidence, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. The study used insurance claims data, which may not capture all instances of vaccination, particularly if someone paid for a vaccine without using their insurance. Furthermore, because this was a retrospective study, looking back at existing data, it cannot definitively prove that vaccines cause a reduction in Alzheimer’s risk. It only shows an association.
There might be other unmeasured factors that influence both vaccination and Alzheimer’s risk that the researchers were unable to account for, even with their careful statistical matching. For example, the study could not fully account for lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, or education level, which could also play a role. Additionally, the newer Shingrix vaccine has only been available for a relatively short time, so the follow-up period for studying its long-term effects on Alzheimer’s risk was limited.
Future research is needed to confirm these findings and to better understand the underlying mechanisms. Ideally, prospective studies, which follow people forward in time and track their vaccination status and development of Alzheimer’s disease, would provide even stronger evidence. Animal studies could also be helpful in exploring how vaccines might influence brain processes related to Alzheimer’s. It will also be important to investigate whether specific types of vaccines, or vaccination at certain ages, are more effective in reducing Alzheimer’s risk. Understanding why and how these vaccines might be protective could open up new avenues for Alzheimer’s prevention and treatment.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-221231) The Impact of Routine Vaccinations on Alzheimer’s Disease Risk in Persons 65 Years and Older: A Claims-Based Cohort Study using Propensity Score Matching,” was authored by Kristofera Harris, Yaobin Ling, Avram S. Bukhbinder, Luyao Chen, Kamal N. Phelps, Gabriela Cruz, Jenna Thomas, Yejin Kim, Xiaoqian Jiang, and Paul E. Schulz.

(https://www.psypost.org/ai-math-tutor-chatgpt-can-be-as-effective-as-human-help-study-suggests/) AI math tutor: ChatGPT can be as effective as human help, study suggests
Feb 15th 2025, 10:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304013) PLOS One provides evidence that artificial intelligence can be just as helpful as a human tutor when it comes to learning mathematics. Researchers discovered that students using hints generated by ChatGPT, a popular artificial intelligence chatbot, showed similar learning improvements in algebra and statistics as those receiving guidance from human-authored hints.
Educational technology is increasingly looking towards advanced artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT to enhance learning experiences. The chatbot’s ability to generate human-like text has sparked interest in its potential for tutoring and providing educational support. Many believe this technology could make personalized learning more accessible and efficient. However, there has been limited research to understand just how effective and reliable these artificial intelligence systems are in actual learning scenarios, particularly in academic subjects like mathematics.
Creating helpful learning materials for online education, such as hints and worked examples, is a time-consuming and expensive process. Traditionally, educators and subject matter experts must manually develop, refine, and check these resources. This often involves many rounds of revisions and quality control. If artificial intelligence like ChatGPT could automatically generate high-quality and effective learning support, it could dramatically reduce the effort and cost involved in developing educational tools. This could pave the way for wider access to tutoring systems and more personalized learning experiences across various subjects and educational levels.
“As a researcher in the space of AI in education, there were a lot of burning questions that the introduction of ChatGPT provoked that were not yet answered,” said study author (https://bse.berkeley.edu/zachary-pardos) Zachary A. Pardos, an associate professor at UC Berkeley School of Education.
“While OpenAI provided some report cards on performance, hallucination rates at the granularity level of granular academic subjects were not well established. The essential questions being asked were how often does this technology make mistakes in key STEM areas and can its outputs lead to learning.”
“Also shaping these questions for us was our development of an open source adaptive tutoring system ((https://www.oatutor.io/) oatutor.io) and curation of content for that system. We, a research lab, were basically a small publisher and content production was time consuming. From an efficiency and scaling perspective, the role of AI, ChatGPT in particular, to help our team produce materials more quickly without measurable decrease in quality was an important question.”
The researchers conducted an online study involving 274 participants recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk, a platform for online tasks. All participants had at least a high school degree and had a designation on the platform indicating a history of successful task completion. This ensured they possessed the basic math skills necessary to potentially benefit from the study and that they were reliable online participants.
The study used a carefully designed experiment where participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a control group with no hints, a group receiving hints created by human tutors, and a group receiving hints generated by ChatGPT. Within each of these hint conditions, participants were further randomly assigned to work on problems from one of four mathematics subjects: Elementary Algebra, Intermediate Algebra, College Algebra, or Statistics. The math problems were taken from freely available online textbooks.
The researchers used an open-source online tutoring system as the platform for the study. This system delivered math problems and, depending on the assigned condition, provided hints. For the human tutor hint condition, the system used pre-existing hints that had been developed by undergraduate students with prior math tutoring experience. These human-created hints were designed to guide students step-by-step through the problem-solving process. For the ChatGPT hint condition, the researchers generated new hints specifically for this study. They prompted ChatGPT with each math problem and used its text-based output as the hint.
Before starting the problem-solving section, all participants completed a short pre-test consisting of three questions to assess their initial knowledge of the assigned math topic. Following the pre-test, participants worked through five practice problems in their assigned subject. In the hint conditions, students could request hints while working on these problems. After the practice problems, participants took a post-test, which used the exact same questions as the pre-test, to measure any learning gains. The control group received correctness feedback during the practice problems but no additional hints. They could, however, request a “bottom-out hint” which simply gave them the answer to the problem so they could move forward. Participants in the hint conditions had access to full worked solution hints in addition to this bottom-out option. The time participants spent on the task was also recorded.
To ensure the quality of the ChatGPT-generated hints, the researchers performed quality checks. They evaluated whether the hints provided the correct answer, showed correct steps, and contained appropriate language. Initially, they found that ChatGPT-generated hints contained errors in about 32% of the problems. To reduce these errors, they used a technique called “self-consistency.” This involved asking ChatGPT to generate ten different hints for each problem and then selecting the hint that contained the most common answer among the ten responses. This method significantly reduced the error rate, particularly for algebra problems, bringing it down to near zero for algebra and to about 13% for statistics problems.
“The high hallucination rate of ChatGPT in the subject areas we tested was surprising and so too was the ability to reduce that to near 0% with a rather simple hallucination mitigation technique,” Pardos told PsyPost.
The researchers found that ChatGPT-generated hints were indeed effective in promoting learning. Participants who received ChatGPT hints showed a statistically significant improvement in their scores from the pre-test to the post-test, indicating they had learned from the hints.
Secondly, the learning gains achieved by students using ChatGPT hints were comparable to those who received human-authored hints. There was no statistically significant difference in learning improvement between these two groups. Both the ChatGPT hint group and the human tutor hint group showed significantly greater learning gains than the control group, which received no hints. Interestingly, while both hint conditions resulted in similar learning, participants in both hint conditions spent more time on the task compared to the control group. However, there was no significant difference in time spent between the ChatGPT hint group and the human tutor hint group.
“ChatGPT used for math educational content production is effective for learning and speeds up the content authoring process by 20-fold,” Pardos said.
But the researchers acknowledged some limitations to their study. One limitation was that, due to the artificial intelligence model’s limitations at the time, they could only use math problems that did not include images or figures. Future research could explore newer versions of these models that can handle visual information. Another point is that the study used Mechanical Turk workers, not students in actual classroom settings. While this allowed for faster data collection and experimentation, future studies should ideally be conducted with students in schools to confirm these findings in real educational environments.
The researchers also pointed out that they used a specific, closed-source artificial intelligence model (ChatGPT 3.5). Future research could investigate the effectiveness of more openly accessible artificial intelligence models. Finally, the study focused on a particular type of learning support – worked example hints. Future studies could explore how artificial intelligence can be used to generate other types of pedagogical strategies and more complex tutoring interactions.
In addition, it remains uncertain whether ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence models can effectively tutor academic subjects beyond mathematics. “This pedagogical approach of tutoring by showing examples of how to solve a problem, generated by AI, may not lend itself to domains that are less procedural in nature (e.g., creative writing),” Pardos noted.
Looking ahead, this study suggests that artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionize the creation of educational resources and tutoring systems. The fact that ChatGPT can generate math help that is as effective as human-created help, and do so much more quickly, opens exciting possibilities for making high-quality education more accessible and scalable.
“One-on-one human tutoring is very expensive and very effective,” Pardos said. “Incidentally, one-on-one computer tutoring is also expensive to produce. We’re interested in exploring how GenAI-assisted tutor production can change the cost structure and accessibility of tutoring and potentially increase its efficacy through greater personalization that is reasonably achievable with legacy computational approaches.”
“We’ve recently (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100284) published a study evaluating how well ChatGPT (and other models) can produce questions of appropriate difficulty, compared to textbook questions. Placing teachers in driver’s seat of GenAI is also a research thread we’re making progress on. That emerging research, accepted at Human Factors in Computing Systems conference (CHI), and other threads can be found on our website: (https://www.oatutor.io/resources#research-paper) https://www.oatutor.io/resources#research-paper.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304013) ChatGPT-generated help produces learning gains equivalent to human tutor-authored help on mathematics skills,” was authored by Zachary A. Pardos and Shreya Bhandari.

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/20250216/924787fe/attachment.htm>