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/is-america-ready-for-atheist-politicians-new-findings-reveal-the-surprising-reality/) Is America ready for atheist politicians? New findings reveal the surprising reality
Mar 14th 2025, 10:00

A new study challenges the long-held notion that American voters categorically reject candidates who identify as atheists. Across several survey experiments, the researchers found no sweeping penalty for atheist candidates once results were averaged across the full sample. Although Republicans tended to respond negatively and Democrats showed more support, those opposing and favoring attitudes often balanced one another in ways that did not doom the candidate overall. The findings have been published in the (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jssr.12940) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
People assume that voters in the United States will never vote for a candidate who openly identifies as an atheist. This belief has deep historical roots, from accusations against Thomas Jefferson at the dawn of the Republic to whispers during modern presidential campaigns. Yet the nation’s religious landscape is shifting, with fewer people belonging to organized religions and more describing themselves in secular or nonreligious terms.
“Geoff Layman and I (along with John Green) have published the book (https://amzn.to/3Ds8iO8) Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics, in which we examine both the causes and consequences of growing secularization in America,” explained David E. Campbell, the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy at the University of Notre Dame.
“In that book, we report on experiments testing Americans’ reactions to candidates of varying degrees of secularity (e.g. candidates who describe themselves as ‘not particularly religious’ vs. ‘an atheist.’ In our book, we report that there is more support for secular candidates than suggested by conventional wisdom. In this paper, we joined with our then-graduate student (now an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee) to further explore how American voters react to atheist candidates.”
The researchers conducted four separate survey experiments between 2020 and 2023. These experiments involved a total of 8,869 participants recruited through online platforms from three different survey firms: YouGov, Prolific, and Lucid Theorem. These samples were designed to be representative of the United States population in terms of key demographics like gender, age, race, and education level.
In each experiment, participants were asked to read what appeared to be a news article about a hypothetical candidate running for political office. The researchers randomly assigned participants to different versions of these news stories. In some versions, the candidate was identified as an atheist, while in others, there was no mention of the candidate’s religious beliefs.
In some variations, the candidate’s patriotism was emphasized by describing them as a decorated war veteran. The researchers varied the office the hypothetical candidate was running for in one of the studies to see if the office type affected voter preference. After reading the news story, participants were asked to rate how likely they would be to vote for the candidate on a scale from zero to 100. This setup allowed the researchers to measure how the information about the candidate’s atheism, and other factors, influenced voters’ stated likelihood of support.
The study’s findings revealed a nuanced picture of voter reactions to atheist candidates. Overall, when considering all participants together, identifying a candidate as atheist had little to no negative impact on their perceived electability in most of the experiments.
This overall finding, however, masked significant differences based on political party affiliation. The researchers discovered a clear partisan divide in reactions to atheist candidates. Democrats showed a tendency to be more supportive of a candidate described as atheist, while Republicans tended to be less supportive. This partisan split resulted in the overall effect appearing minimal when looking at the entire sample.
“Contrary to the common belief that identifying as an atheist spells political doom for a candidate, we find that the label of atheist is a political wash overall–because the negative reaction among Republicans is counterbalanced by a positive one among Democrats,” Campbell told PsyPost. “From our previous research, we had reason to believe that atheists face less stigma today than in the past, but we were nonetheless surprised that the ‘atheist penalty’ is so minimal.”
When examining reactions to different political offices, the researchers found that the type of office the candidate was seeking did not significantly change voter reactions. “Whether it is the school board, mayor, governor, senator, or president, voters respond the same way to an atheist. In other words, it is not that voters are especially concerned about an atheist governing their schools, or in the executive vs. legislative branch, or that the presidency is treated differently than other offices.”
Both partisanship and personal religiosity independently influenced voter reactions. Within both Democrats and Republicans, varying levels of personal religious commitment played a role in how they viewed an atheist candidate. Specifically, among Republicans, those with higher levels of religiosity reacted more negatively to an atheist candidate. However, even when considering religiosity, the partisan divide remained evident, suggesting that both religious beliefs and party loyalty independently shape voter attitudes.
Finally, the researchers found that framing an atheist candidate as a patriotic war hero did somewhat lessen negative reactions, particularly among highly religious Republicans. However, this patriotic framing did not entirely eliminate the negative impact of atheism for this group, and the effect was not consistently observed across all groups or when combined with partisan cues.
“Voters’ negative perception of an atheist candidate can be partially assuaged by describing him as patriotic,” Campbell said. “One reason for some Americans’ concern about atheists is a perception that they are not ‘true Americans.’ When we counter that image by describing an atheist as a military veteran, it partially–but, importantly, does not fully–temper anti-atheist sentiment.”
While these experiments suggest that atheists may have more electoral potential than once assumed, the researchers note that their work has some limitations. Survey participants were reacting to short news-style descriptions in a controlled setting. Real campaigns play out over weeks or months, involve multiple debates, and feature many sources of information.
“Our paper is based on a series of experiments, in which subjects read descriptions of candidates,” Campbell noted. “This can tell us how people respond in the moment to information about someone running for office, but it cannot fully replicate a political campaign.”
“Our hope is that our paper illuminates the political implications of the secular population, which has grown dramatically over the last 30 years. While there are few candidates who describe themselves in secular terms, and fewer still who are atheists (or at least admit to being an atheist), it is likely that we will see more such candidates in future.”
“If readers are interested in knowing more about the political characteristics of the secular population–including how secularism’s growth is largely a backlash to the Religious Right–we would encourage them to read our book (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/secular-surge/97F16AA6E64D63718D58AF327100BFE2) Secular Surge: A New Fault Line in American Politics.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12940) Will Americans Vote for an Atheist?” was authored by David E. Campbell, Geoffrey C. Layman, and Wayde Z. C. Marsh.

(https://www.psypost.org/having-an-unclear-sense-of-self-makes-people-less-selective-about-romantic-compatibility/) Having an unclear sense of self makes people less selective about romantic compatibility
Mar 14th 2025, 08:00

People with a less clear sense of self are less selective when evaluating potential romantic partners, particularly when assessing less compatible matches, according to a study published in (https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2024.2314319) Self & Identity.
Romantic relationships significantly impact personal well-being, yet many relationships fail. Compatibility—how well two people “fit” together—is key for relationship success. Research indicates that similarity in attitudes and personality increases compatibility, leading to smoother, more positive interactions.
Assessing compatibility requires individuals to have a clear understanding of their own personal attributes to effectively judge self-other “fit.” Researchers Dita Kubin and colleagues investigated whether individuals with lower self-concept clarity (SCC), a measure of how clearly and confidently people understand themselves, are less effective at using similarity information when evaluating potential romantic partners.
Previous studies have shown that people with lower SCC struggle with similarity judgments in consumer decision-making, but this study is the first to examine whether this extends to romantic partner selection.
The researchers conducted four studies to investigate this question. In total, 758 participants took part in the research, recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) or a Canadian university. All participants were required to be single, between 18 and 40 years old, and interested in dating. In each study, participants first completed a validated Self-Concept Clarity Scale, which measures how clearly and confidently they understand their own personality traits, values, and beliefs. Additionally, they completed a self-esteem scale, as self-esteem is closely related to SCC and could otherwise confound the results.
Participants were presented with a series of fictitious dating profiles. Before viewing these profiles, they rated themselves on various personality traits and attitudes. These self-ratings were then used to generate profiles that were either highly similar, moderately similar, or dissimilar to the participant.
Profiles contained a gender-neutral silhouette, generic personal details (such as initials and age range), and key traits and attitudes that were systematically varied based on similarity. Participants were led to believe that these were real profiles collected from previous research. They were asked to rate each profile based on attraction and perceived compatibility—how much they liked the person and whether they thought they would be a good match.
The first three studies followed this general methodology. Study 1 used MTurk participants and tested the general effect of SCC on partner evaluations. Study 2 replicated the design but used a university student sample, ensuring that the findings applied across different populations. Study 3 pre-registered its hypotheses based on findings from Studies 1 and 2, providing stronger evidence for the emerging pattern.
Study 4 introduced additional complexity by adding two intermediate similarity levels, expanding the similarity scale from three levels (low, moderate, and high) to five levels (low, low/moderate, moderate, moderate/high, and high). Study 4 also introduced a new measure to assess certainty in partner evaluations, allowing researchers to explore whether those lower in SCC were not just less selective but also less confident in their romantic judgments.
Across all four studies, the results consistently showed that people with lower self-concept clarity evaluated less similar potential partners more positively than those with higher SCC. This suggests that individuals with an unclear sense of self were less discriminating when evaluating potential romantic partners, particularly when the profile showed moderate or low similarity.
In contrast, individuals with higher SCC were more selective, showing a clear preference for highly similar partners and a stronger tendency to rule out less similar ones. Importantly, SCC did not seem to affect evaluations of highly similar profiles; both high- and low-SCC individuals rated these profiles positively, suggesting that most people find highly compatible matches appealing regardless of their level of self-concept clarity.
The pattern of results was replicated across different participant samples in Studies 1 and 2 and was further confirmed by the pre-registered design of Study 3. Study 4 revealed that those with lower SCC were not only more open to less similar partners but also less certain about their evaluations overall. This finding suggests that a weaker sense of self may make it harder to assess compatibility, which in turn leads to greater ambiguity in romantic decision-making.
These results suggest that having a well-defined sense of self appears to help individuals make more confident and selective choices, while those with a more confused self-concept may struggle to assess compatibility and become more open to a wider range of partners, including those who might not be ideal matches.
One limitation is the study’s reliance on artificial dating profiles, which may not fully capture the complexities of real-world romantic decision-making. As well, while the methodology mimicked online dating environments, real-life interactions involve additional factors such as physical attraction, communication style, and social context, which may influence partner selection.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2024.2314319) Ruling out potential dating partners: the role of self-concept clarity in initial romantic partner evaluations,” was authored by Dita Kubin, Jens Kreitewolf, and John E. Lydon.

(https://www.psypost.org/filtered-faces-filtered-judgments-how-beauty-filters-warp-our-perceptions-according-to-psychology/) Filtered faces, filtered judgments: How beauty filters warp our perceptions, according to psychology
Mar 14th 2025, 06:00

With millions of people using beauty filters to enhance their online images, researchers wanted to know: do these digital touch-ups change how we perceive someone’s intelligence and trustworthiness? A recent study published in (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.240882) Royal Society Open Science tested this by presenting participants with original and beautified images of the same individuals. The results showed that filtered faces were consistently rated as more attractive and were also seen as more sociable and happy. Yet, when it came to intelligence, the usual halo effect appeared to weaken for highly beautified faces, suggesting a limit to how much attractiveness can shape certain judgments.
The researchers wanted to examine whether physical attractiveness continues to carry extra weight in our judgments in an age where selfies and digitally altered images are everywhere. Previous work had established that in-person or standard photographs of people deemed attractive often led to more positive perceptions in other areas, such as competence or honesty. However, most research on this bias took place in more controlled or smaller-scale settings.
Since many people use these technologies on social media, the team was curious if a person whose photo was altered by a beauty filter might gain not only higher attractiveness ratings, but also higher ratings of other traits in a consistent way. With digital tools becoming widespread, the goal was to see how a large, diverse sample of faces and raters would respond when presented with two versions of the same person, one that was plain and one that was altered.
“My PhD thesis is centered around the intersection of cognitive biases and artificial intelligence. For over 5 decades, there have been numerous studies that have shown that ‘what is attractive, is good.’ In other words, people who are perceived as more attractive, are also perceived as more intelligent, sociable, trustworthy and many other positive traits,” said study author (https://sites.google.com/view/adi-gulati/about) Aditya Gulati, a PhD student at (https://ellisalicante.org/) ELLIS Alicante.
“However, there has been limited research about this effect in the digital world, particularly in the era of AI-powered beauty filters. Would the same person be perceived as more intelligent after applying a beauty filter? Would the effect impact men and women equally? What about young vs old people? Finding answers to these questions was the primary motivation for the study.”
The research team assembled photographs of 462 adults from two different sets of face images used in scientific research. These pictures showed a broad range of ages, genders, and ethnic backgrounds. Each original photograph was then enhanced with a popular mobile beauty filter designed to smooth the skin, reshape features such as eyes and lips, and make other modifications intended to make a face appear more attractive.
Next, the researchers recruited 2,748 adults through an online participant platform. All were English speakers, mostly from the United States and the United Kingdom, and they took part in exchange for a small payment. These participants each viewed ten images. Some saw only original images, while others saw only enhanced images, but no participant ever saw both versions of the same person. Each participant rated how they perceived the person’s attractiveness, intelligence, trustworthiness, sociability, and happiness. The researchers then compared the scores from the original versions with the scores from the beautified versions to see whether the same individual was consistently viewed in a more positive light.
Analyzing the ratings revealed that the beauty filter produced significant boosts in attractiveness across nearly all faces. “While we did expect beauty filters to increase attractiveness (otherwise they would not be called beauty filters), we were surprised by how well they worked across all ages, genders and ethnicities,” Gulati told PsyPost. “Over 96% of the images were rated as more attractive after the filter was applied and no one was rated as less attractive.”
Some individuals started off with relatively low attractiveness ratings in their original pictures; these images received especially large boosts once the filter was applied. Images that were already seen as relatively attractive sometimes did not gain as much of an increase. This shift in attractiveness ratings impacted the other traits as well, as people tended to see the same faces as more trustworthy, sociable, and happy in the enhanced versions.
The findings show that “the attractiveness halo effect exists, i.e., individuals that are perceived as more attractive are also perceived as more intelligent, trustworthy, sociable and happy,” Gulati explained. “The less attractive you are to start with, the more you could benefit from the application of the filter.”
Interestingly, intelligence showed a slight decrease in how strongly it followed attractiveness for these beautified images, meaning that once a person reached higher attractiveness levels, the link between “looks” and “brains” became a bit weaker.
“Another interesting result is what we call a saturation on the attractiveness halo effect, especially when it comes to intelligence,” Gulati explained. “This means that there is a limit on how much more intelligent you can be perceived when increasing attractiveness: moving from a 5 to a 6 in attractiveness led to a smaller increase in intelligence than going from a 2 to a 3 in attractiveness. This was not true for other traits, such as sociability, where we did not observe such a limit.”
The researchers also noticed differences involving age and gender. Younger adult faces were seen as more attractive than older adult faces both before and after the application of the beauty filter, although the filter did seem to help close some of that gap for those at midlife or beyond. Meanwhile, female faces generally received higher attractiveness ratings overall, but were at times rated lower on perceived intelligence, especially after beautification.
This suggests that for women, a stereotype about intelligence can override the usual positive effect of good looks on perceived competence. Observing the raters themselves showed that men tended to give somewhat different patterns of scores than women did, with men’s judgments shifting more in certain cases after the filter was applied. In contrast, women showed bigger shifts in sociability and happiness ratings when a face had been altered.
“Possibly the most interesting and surprising result was the impact of gender,” Gulati said. “Images of females received higher attractiveness scores than images of males – both before and after the beauty filters were applied. They also received higher trustworthiness, sociability and happiness scores which is in line with the attractiveness halo effect. They, however, received lower intelligence scores than images of males, which is surprising. This does indicate that a gender stereotype dominated over the attractiveness halo effect. Moreover, after the filters were applied, the gap in intelligence scores between males and females increased, which is concerning.”
One limitation of the study is that the participants, while numerous, were not particularly diverse, which might reduce the generalizability to other cultural settings. The researchers also did not test multiple types of beauty filters, and they did not examine whether people could tell when a face had been digitally altered. In addition, only socially desirable traits like intelligence and trustworthiness were explored, so there is more to learn about how higher attractiveness might link to negative traits such as vanity.
“The study was conducted using a popular beauty filter and the participants in the study were native English speakers from the United States and United Kingdom who were predominantly white,” Gulati noted. “However, previous research has shown that most filters work in the same way and has reported similarities in ratings across the world. Yet, it is important to note that the findings here are more representative of perceptions of people located in the Global North. Even with these limitations, our study is the largest to date on this fascinating phenomenon in human behavior.”
Future studies could look at how people update their perceptions of the same person over time if they learn the image is filtered. It would also be worthwhile to probe whether certain digital enhancements work differently across regions or subcultures, and to understand whether people’s awareness that an image is filtered changes the extent of any halo effect. Looking ahead, the researchers are particularly interested in exploring how these findings relate to artificial intelligence systems.
“Having gathered high-quality data through our study involving human participants, our current focus is on examining the impact of this effect on AI systems,” Gulati explained. “While societal biases in AI decision aids have been extensively studied, the influence of human cognitive biases remains relatively underexplored. In addition, we are analyzing images generated by text-to-image models to investigate the underlying notions of attractiveness these models encode and the extent to which they associate attractiveness with unrelated character traits.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240882) What is beautiful is still good: the attractiveness halo effect in the era of beauty filters,” was authored by Aditya Gulati, Marina Martínez-Garcia, Daniel Fernández, Miguel Angel Lozano, Bruno Lepri, and Nuria Oliver.

(https://www.psypost.org/dopamine-and-social-media-why-you-cant-stop-scrolling-according-to-neuroscience/) Dopamine and social media: Why you can’t stop scrolling, according to neuroscience
Mar 13th 2025, 18:00

That satisfying feeling after doomscrolling through endless TikTok videos or impulsively shopping online mimics the relief of scratching an itch. This is dopamine at work — a brain chemical (neurotransmitter) responsible for feelings of reward and accomplishment. Whether indulging in viral videos or engaging in new hobbies, dopamine creates a sense of achievement that keeps us coming back for more.
However, reliance on these dopamine hits can lead to lasting brain changes, particularly in teenagers and young adults. This is what my team and I at London Southbank University study. We investigated which brain regions and connections change due to increased social media engagement — or “dopa-mining”, as we call it.
Using social media lights up the same parts of your brain as other addictions, such as drugs, alcohol and gambling. (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.556060/full) Scientists have found that every time you get a notification, a “like”, or even watch a video you enjoy, your brain’s reward system (the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_accumbens) nucleus accumbens) gets activated. This is the same system that makes people feel pleasure when they win money or eat their favourite snack.
But here’s the catch: the more you use social media, the harder it can be for your brain to resist it. It’s like training your brain to crave those dopamine hits – just like an addiction.
Ever wonder why social media feels so addictive? It’s because your brain starts pruning (or trimming) neurons, a bit like cutting away extra branches on a tree, to make the “reward pathway” faster.
This sounds efficient, but it’s not great. The shorter pathway means your brain can “feel” rewards faster, but we know from research that it can also make you more impulsive and less able to stop yourself from scrolling. Over time, this pruning can shrink the size of certain brain areas, like the amygdala and nucleus accumbens, which are key for controlling emotions and making decisions.
Can social media mess with your mental health?
Have you noticed feeling more anxious or down after spending hours on Instagram or Snapchat? You’re not alone. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563222004447) Studies show that people who spend a lot of time on social media are more likely to feel stressed, anxious or even depressed. Why? Because apps such as Instagram are designed to make you seek validation from others. When you don’t get the likes or comments you’re hoping for, it can affect your self-esteem.
On the flip side, those who use social media less often report feeling more confident and less worried about what others think.
How many times have you promised yourself “just five more minutes”, while scrolling in bed, only to realise an hour has passed?
Social media is designed to keep you hooked, much like gambling or drinking. Every notification, like and comment triggers dopamine, making it harder to stop. Scientists call this (https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2012-35338-003.html) “delay discounting”, which is when you choose the immediate reward (scrolling) over something important, like studying, sleeping or even hanging out with friends in real life.
Understanding the effect of social media on the brain is just the beginning. The next step in research is to dig even deeper into how social media disrupts the brain’s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yESSv7OgCv0) “default mode network” (DMN) — a system that’s active when you’re not focused on a specific task, such as when you’re daydreaming or reflecting.
Using EEG (a method that tracks brain activity), my team and I are examining whether heavy social media use interferes with this network. Why does this matter? The DMN plays a big role in how we process our sense of self, make decisions and even regulate our (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37004381/) emotions. If it is disrupted, it could explain why some social media users struggle with attention, emotional control and maintaining healthy mental habits.
The good news is you don’t have to give up social media entirely. But being aware of how it affects your brain is the first step to taking back control.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/social-media-rewires-young-minds-heres-how-243120) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/fluctuating-activity-and-light-exposure-patterns-linked-to-depression/) Fluctuating activity and light exposure patterns linked to depression
Mar 13th 2025, 16:00

A new study published in the (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032724017658) Journal of Affective Disorders has found that disruptions in daily activity and light exposure patterns are linked to an increased risk of depression. Researchers analyzed data from over 6,800 American adults and discovered that people with unstable daily rhythms and greater fluctuations in activity and light exposure were more likely to experience depressive symptoms. On the other hand, those with more consistent daily patterns had a significantly lower risk of depression.
The study was conducted to better understand how disruptions in the body’s natural daily cycles contribute to mental health problems. Previous research has shown that people with depression often have irregular sleep-wake cycles, reduced daytime activity, and disturbances in their circadian rhythm—the internal clock that regulates sleep, alertness, and various biological processes over a 24-hour period.
However, most prior studies focused on only one aspect of these daily patterns, such as sleep duration or nighttime light exposure. The researchers wanted to explore multiple aspects of daily rhythm, including both activity levels and light exposure, to see how their stability and fluctuations relate to depression risk. Given the increasing prevalence of depression and the modern lifestyle factors that contribute to disrupted daily rhythms, they aimed to provide insights that could inform future prevention and treatment strategies.
To conduct the study, the researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey collected between 2011 and 2014. A total of 6,852 adults were included in the analysis. Participants wore a wrist-worn activity monitor for seven consecutive days, which recorded both movement and light exposure.
Using this data, researchers assessed three key aspects of daily rhythm: interdaily stability (which measures how consistent a person’s activity and light exposure patterns are from day to day), intradaily variability (which measures how fragmented and irregular these patterns are within a single day), and relative amplitude (which measures the strength of a person’s daily rhythm, comparing their most active and least active periods). Depression symptoms were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, a widely used screening tool for depressive symptoms.
The results showed strong associations between daily rhythm disruptions and depression risk. People with greater intradaily variability—meaning their activity or light exposure fluctuated unpredictably throughout the day—were significantly more likely to experience depressive symptoms. In contrast, people with higher interdaily stability and relative amplitude, meaning they had a more regular, predictable daily routine and a clear distinction between active and inactive periods, had a much lower risk of depression.
Specifically, individuals in the highest tertile of rhythm stability had a significantly reduced likelihood of depression compared to those with the most irregular rhythms. The findings were consistent for both rest-activity rhythms (daily movement patterns) and light exposure rhythms, suggesting that maintaining a stable and structured daily pattern in both domains may be important for mental health.
The study also identified differences in how these factors affected different groups of people. Younger adults were particularly sensitive to fragmented activity patterns, while men were more affected by irregular light exposure rhythms than women. Additionally, people with a lower body mass index appeared to benefit more from strong light exposure rhythms in terms of depression risk reduction. These findings suggest that the relationship between daily rhythm disruptions and depression may vary based on demographic and biological factors.
Despite its strengths, the study has some limitations. Because it was cross-sectional, it could not determine whether rhythm disruptions cause depression or whether depression leads to more irregular daily patterns. Additionally, the study relied on a seven-day monitoring period, which may not fully capture long-term patterns in an individual’s daily rhythm. The use of a self-reported depression scale also introduces the possibility of response bias.
Future research could explore these associations using longitudinal studies to track changes in daily rhythms and mental health over time. Investigating whether interventions that stabilize daily activity and light exposure can reduce depression risk would also be valuable.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.10.073) Associations between rest–activity/light-exposure rhythm characteristics and depression in United States adults: A population-based study,” was authored by Yundan Liao, Wei Zhang, Shixue Chen, Xiaoxu Wu, Keyi He, Maoyang Wang, Yuanqi Lan, and Fang Qi.

(https://www.psypost.org/individuals-with-bipolar-disorder-face-increased-cardiovascular-risk-study-finds/) Individuals with bipolar disorder face increased cardiovascular risk, study finds
Mar 13th 2025, 14:00

An analysis of the FINEXT-BD data found that individuals with bipolar disorder have a 3.1% risk of cardiovascular events, compared to a 2.2% risk in their healthy peers. They also tend to have less favorable body composition (e.g., fat body mass, waist-to-hip ratio) and lower cardiorespiratory fitness. The research was published in (https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70297) Brain and Behavior.
Bipolar disorder is a mental health condition characterized by extreme mood swings that include emotional highs (mania or hypomania) and lows (depression). During manic episodes, individuals experience heightened energy, a reduced need for sleep, impulsive behavior, and grandiose thoughts.
Hypomania is a less severe form of mania that does not cause significant impairment but still leads to noticeable changes in mood and behavior. Depressive episodes involve persistent sadness, fatigue, loss of interest in activities, and difficulty concentrating. Without proper treatment, bipolar disorder can significantly impact relationships, work, and overall quality of life.
Study author José Etxaniz-Oses and his colleagues note that analyses of mortality in individuals with bipolar disorder indicate an increased risk of death from cardiovascular diseases. They analyzed data from the FINEXT-BD study, conducted between October 2019 and June 2023 in Vitoria-Gasteiz (Basque Country, Spain).
Their aim was to compare physical and exercise capacity-related physiological parameters and biochemical markers of health status between individuals with bipolar disorder and their healthy peers. Additionally, they sought to estimate the risk of cardiovascular diseases in individuals with bipolar disorder.
The FINEXT-BD study included 65 individuals with bipolar disorder (mean age: 45 years; 37 were women) and 29 healthy participants (mean age: 43 years; 13 were women). The researchers calculated participants’ body mass index (BMI) and conducted various tests assessing physical abilities, physiological measurements, and biochemical markers.
The results showed that, on average, participants with bipolar disorder had higher body mass than healthy participants. They had higher BMI, waist and hip circumferences, and waist-to-hip ratios. They were also more likely to be obese. Additionally, the fat mass of participants with bipolar disorder tended to be higher.
Participants with bipolar disorder also had elevated levels of C-reactive protein (a biomarker of inflammation) and above-optimal levels of several other biomarkers, including glucose. Their cardiorespiratory fitness was lower than that of healthy participants.
Finally, participants with bipolar disorder had a higher estimated cardiovascular risk: 3.1% compared to 2.2% in healthy participants.
“The results of this preliminary analysis of a population with BD [bipolar disorder], presenting CVR factors [cardiovascular risk factors], spotlight the need to promote transdisciplinary healthy lifestyle programs for all people, including those mentally ill, to prevent premature death from somatic causes,” the study authors concluded.
The study highlights the links between bipolar disorder and cardiovascular risk. However, it remains unclear whether these risks are specific to bipolar disorder or associated with mental illness in general. Additionally, the study was conducted with a small group of participants, and results may vary across different populations and countries.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70297) Are Adults With Bipolar Disorder at Increased Cardiovascular Risk due to Their Physical, Biochemical, and Physiological Profiles? The FINEXT-BD Study,” was authored by José Etxaniz-Oses, Sara Maldonado-Martín, Inaki Zorrilla, Ilargi Gorostegi-Anduaga, Maria J. Apodaca-Arrizabalaga, and Ana González-Pinto.

(https://www.psypost.org/feeling-objectified-by-partner-linked-to-fewer-orgasms-and-more-emotional-labor-for-women/) Feeling objectified by partner linked to fewer orgasms and more emotional labor for women
Mar 13th 2025, 12:00

Women in heterosexual relationships often experience lower orgasm rates and a greater burden of sexual emotional labor compared to men. A new study published in the (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02654075241304802) Journal of Social and Personal Relationships suggests that women’s perception of being objectified by their male partner plays a key role in these disparities.
The study was motivated by the well-documented phenomenon of the “orgasm gap,” which refers to the fact that men orgasm more frequently than women during heterosexual encounters. Biological explanations for this gap have been challenged, with researchers increasingly focusing on social and cultural factors.
Objectification theory provides one potential explanation, suggesting that women are often treated as objects valued for their appearance and sexual utility rather than as full individuals. This treatment can lead women to self-objectify, meaning they adopt an external perspective on their own bodies, monitoring how they appear to others rather than focusing on their own physical sensations.
Previous research has linked self-objectification to sexual dysfunction, but the new study aimed to examine whether objectification within a romantic relationship—both as perceived by women and self-reported by men—contributes to the orgasm gap and women’s engagement in sexual emotional labor.
“Women are often viewed as objects for others’ pleasure, particularly by men, and this idea is recognized in social psychology (such as in objectification theory),” said study authors Katie Read and Verena Klein, a PhD student and an associate professor at the University of Southampton, respectively.
“Women also face challenges when it comes to enjoying sex, such as having lower rates of orgasm and a higher burden of performing sexual emotional labor. This emotional labor might include pretending to have an orgasm, showing desire for their partner even when women don’t feel it, or enduring discomfort or pain. Because of these issues, we wanted to explore whether the way men treat women as objects affects the sexual pleasure women experience in romantic relationships.”
To investigate this, the researchers collected data from 160 heterosexual couples in long-term relationships, with an average relationship length of nearly 14 years. Participants were recruited through an online platform and completed surveys independently. Women answered questions about their self-objectification, their perception of how much their partner objectified them, their orgasm frequency, and their engagement in sexual emotional labor. Men reported on their own tendency to objectify their partner. The researchers analyzed how these different forms of objectification related to women’s sexual outcomes.
The findings revealed that women who reported higher levels of self-objectification were more likely to engage in sexual emotional labor, such as faking orgasms, performing desire for their partner, and tolerating discomfort during sex.
However, self-objectification was not significantly linked to women’s orgasm frequency. Instead, the strongest predictor of lower orgasm rates was women’s perception that their partner objectified them. Women who felt more objectified by their partner reported experiencing orgasms less frequently and engaging in more sexual emotional labor. Interestingly, men’s self-reported objectification of their partner was not associated with these outcomes. This suggests that what matters most is not how much men think they objectify their partners, but how much women feel objectified.
“A woman’s perception of her male partner’s tendency to objectify her really matters,” the researchers told PsyPost. “One of our findings was that women’s perceptions of partner-objectification are of greater importance for their sexually pleasurable experiences than men’s self-reported partner-objectification. This means that in relationships regardless of how much a man objectifies his partner or thinks he does, it is the woman’s perception of his objectifying behaviour that affects her sexually pleasurable experiences. If we want to look to enhance women’s sexually pleasurable experiences, we must consider what male partners can do (or not do) to support this.”
One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that men may not be fully aware of their own objectifying behaviors, or they may underreport them. Alternatively, women’s perception of being objectified may be influenced by broader societal messages and past experiences, rather than solely by their partner’s behavior. The study’s authors note that men have been found to underestimate gendered inequalities in other areas, such as the extent of the orgasm gap and women’s experiences of sexism. In contrast, women may be more attuned to subtle cues of objectification and may even overestimate their partner’s objectifying tendencies as a protective strategy.
“Men’s self-reported partner-objectification was positively linked to women’s perceptions, but the correlation was weak,” Read and Klein explained. “Some women felt highly objectified while their partners reported little, and vice versa, while others were more in sync. This discrepancy made us question why couples perceived the same behavior so differently”.
The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their study. The participants were mostly white, heterosexual, and identified with the gender they were assigned at birth, which limits how broadly the findings can be applied to other groups. Future research could include more diverse samples to understand if these patterns hold true for women of different ethnicities, sexual orientations, and gender identities. Additionally, the study relied on questionnaires, which capture self-reported experiences and perceptions. Future studies could use different methods to further explore these dynamics.
“Although our findings suggest that women’s meta-perceptions are of greater importance for their sexually pleasurable experiences than men’s self-reports, we cannot make any causal inferences due to the study design,” the researchers noted. “Our research focused exclusively on heterosexual couples, as objectification theory is rooted in a heteronormative framework. Because of this, we cannot assume that our findings apply to queer relationships, highlighting the need for further research in more diverse relationships.”
Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into the role of objectification in heterosexual relationships and its consequences for women’s sexual health. The findings highlight the importance of addressing perceptions of objectification in relationships and suggest that interventions aimed at improving women’s sexual well-being should consider the interpersonal dynamics within couples.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241304802) The dual lens of objectification: Perceived objectification, male partners’ reported objectification, and women’s detrimental sexual outcomes,” was authored by Katie Read, Dilan Kılıç, Rotem Kahalon, and Verena Klein

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/20250314/b1fbf76d/attachment.htm>