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/sleep-problems-act-as-a-mediator-between-chronic-disease-and-depression/) Sleep problems act as a mediator between chronic disease and depression
Mar 19th 2025, 10:00

New research has revealed that individuals who have suffered a stroke, as well as those with heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension, have increased odds of developing depression. Additionally, individuals with sleep problems also face a higher likelihood of experiencing depression. The paper was published in the (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1522536) Frontiers in Psychology.
Depression is a mental health disorder characterized by persistent sadness, loss of interest in activities, and emotional or physical fatigue. It affects mood, cognition, and daily functioning, leading to difficulties in work, relationships, and self-care. Symptoms can include changes in appetite, sleep disturbances, feelings of worthlessness, and difficulty concentrating.
The causes of depression are not fully understood, but numerous factors that increase its likelihood have been identified. These include genetic predisposition, neurochemical imbalances, stressful life events, and underlying medical conditions. If left untreated, depression can significantly reduce quality of life and increase the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Treatment options include therapy (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy), medications (such as antidepressants), lifestyle changes, and support networks. However, current treatments are not highly effective, with at least 30% of cases that receive high-quality treatment failing to achieve remission of symptoms.
Study author Ming Tan and her colleagues note that chronic diseases and sleep problems play a significant role in depression. They hypothesized that sleep problems may mediate the link between chronic diseases and depression—meaning that chronic diseases could lead to sleep disturbances, which in turn may increase susceptibility to depression.
To investigate this possibility, the researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), collected between 2005 and 2018. NHANES is a large-scale study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) every two years. It employs a complex sampling procedure to ensure the sample is representative of the overall population of the United States.
The analysis included data from 10,710 adult participants, with an average age of 46 years. Among them, 3% had depression, 32% had hypertension, 10% had diabetes, 9% had heart disease, 3% had experienced a stroke, and 8% reported trouble sleeping.
The researchers used data on depression symptoms (measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9), medical history, and sleep duration. They also accounted for participants’ gender, age, body mass index, race, income status, smoking status, drinking status, education level, and marital status.
The results showed that participants who had experienced a stroke had 71% higher odds of suffering from depression compared to those who had not. Similarly, individuals with heart disease had 42% higher odds of depression, while those with hypertension had 25% higher odds compared to individuals without these conditions. Additionally, individuals with sleep problems had twice the odds of suffering from depression. In contrast, longer sleep duration was associated with lower odds of depression.
The researchers tested a statistical model to examine whether sleep problems mediate the relationship between chronic diseases and depression. The results supported the possibility of such mediation.
“Chronic diseases and sleep problems may increase the likelihood of depression among U.S. adults, with sleep serving as a mediator between chronic diseases and depression,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the links between chronic diseases, sleep problems, and depression. However, it is important to note that the study’s design does not allow for causal inferences to be drawn from the results.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1522536) Sleep as a mediator between chronic diseases and depression: a NHANES study (2005–2018),” was authored by Ming Tan, Haihong Zhao, Ruya Nie, Pingping Deng, and Cuixiao Wang.

(https://www.psypost.org/psychedelics-use-is-linked-to-lower-odds-of-frequent-bad-headaches/) Psychedelics use is linked to lower odds of frequent bad headaches
Mar 19th 2025, 08:00

New research published in the (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02698811251324372) Journal of Psychopharmacology suggests that people who have used classic psychedelics such as LSD or psilocybin at some point in their lives may be less likely to experience frequent bad headaches. Analyzing data from a large British cohort, researchers found that lifetime psychedelic use was associated with a 25% reduction in the odds of reporting frequent headaches. These findings contribute to growing interest in the potential of psychedelics as a treatment for headache disorders, such as migraines and cluster headaches, which can be debilitating and difficult to manage with current medications.
Migraine and cluster headaches are two types of severe headache disorders that can significantly impact quality of life. Migraines affect about 15% of the population and are characterized by throbbing pain, nausea, and sensitivity to light and sound. Cluster headaches are rarer but even more intense, often described as some of the worst pain a person can experience. Both conditions are typically treated with medications, but many patients struggle to find effective relief, and available treatments can have significant side effects.
The idea that psychedelics could help treat headache disorders is not new. Reports from the 1960s suggested that substances like LSD and psilocybin might have beneficial effects for headache sufferers. More recently, controlled clinical trials have provided further evidence that these compounds could reduce headache frequency and intensity. Psychedelics primarily work by interacting with serotonin receptors in the brain, which are also targeted by many conventional headache medications. This similarity has led researchers to explore whether psychedelics might offer a novel approach to managing these conditions.
“People with cluster headache and migraine often have an important impact on their quality of life due to the severe pain they are suffering during headache attacks and also because the treatments we have for cluster headache sometimes lack in efficiency or can not be used because of secondary effects,” explained study author Caroline Ran, a research specialist at the Centre for Cluster Headache at Karolinska Institutet.
“For example, Triptans, the first lie of treatment typically does not work for 1/4th of the patients. Because of this there is a need to develop new treatments for primary headache, and as people with headache (most typically cluster headache) sometimes report that they have self medicated with psychedelic substances with great success, we beleive that these compounds needs to be investigated more closely.”
For their new study, the researchers analyzed data from the National Child Development Study, a long-term British cohort study that has followed individuals born in 1958. The dataset included information on 11,251 participants who answered questions about their health and substance use in adulthood.
Participants were asked whether they often experienced bad headaches, with responses categorized as “yes” or “no.” They were also asked whether they had ever used classic psychedelics, specifically LSD or magic mushrooms. Those who reported using either substance at any point in their lives were classified as having a history of psychedelic use.
The researchers then performed statistical analyses to determine whether there was a relationship between lifetime psychedelic use and the likelihood of experiencing frequent bad headaches. The analysis accounted for several other factors that could influence headache risk, including sex, marital status, financial situation, body weight, physical activity, smoking, alcohol use, and use of other drugs such as cannabis and ketamine.
The results showed that people who had used psychedelics at some point in their lives were significantly less likely to report frequent bad headaches. Specifically, lifetime psychedelic use was associated with a 25% lower likelihood of having frequent headaches, even after adjusting for other factors.
Interestingly, when researchers analyzed the data separately for men and women, they found that the association was stronger in women. Women who had used psychedelics had a 30% lower chance of reporting frequent bad headaches, while the effect in men was not statistically significant. This sex difference could be due to various factors, including differences in headache prevalence (women are more likely to suffer from migraines) and differences in overall drug use patterns.
“There was a substantial difference between sexes, with a stronger effect in females which I was surprised by,” Ran told PsyPost. “Perhaps the difference is due to overall higher drug use in males, which constitutes a major confounding factor. We know that females are overall more severely affected by headache, and the results may also reflect underlying biological mechanisms.”
Further analyses showed that the effect was consistent for both recent and past psychedelic users, suggesting that the potential benefits might last long after the drug has been taken. However, the study could not determine whether psychedelics directly reduce headaches or whether people with frequent headaches are simply less likely to use psychedelics.
“We saw a lower proportion of headache in study participants who use psychedelic drugs in this analysis,” Ran explained. “Because of the nature of the data, we have studied we can not make any assumptions of cause and directionality of the effect. Which means that our study does not give any clear indications of whether these substances can be used as a treatment for headache.”
“However, the study adds to the body of evidence of a positive effect of psychedelic substances on headache, which warrant for future randomized controlled trials on these substances. Future studies will tell if psychedelic drugs can be used in headache treatment or not.”
This study aligns with (https://www.psypost.org/psychedelic-compound-reduces-cluster-headache-frequency-by-50-in-new-study/) previous research suggesting that psychedelics might help prevent or reduce headaches. Several small clinical trials have found that psilocybin and LSD derivatives can reduce the frequency and intensity of migraines and cluster headaches. For example, (https://www.psypost.org/a-single-dose-of-psilocybin-has-a-lasting-therapeutic-effect-on-migraine-headache-according-to-a-new-placebo-controlled-study/) one study found that a single dose of psilocybin significantly reduced migraine symptoms for two weeks, while another reported that (https://www.psypost.org/scientists-are-finally-taking-a-serious-look-at-psilocybin-for-the-treatment-of-cluster-headaches/) multiple doses of psilocybin decreased cluster headache frequency over a three-month period.
In addition to clinical trials, anecdotal reports from patients have long suggested that psychedelics may help alleviate headache disorders. Some people with cluster headaches, in particular, have claimed that taking small doses of psilocybin or LSD can end headache cycles or extend remission periods. While these reports have not been rigorously tested in large clinical trials, they provide further support for the idea that psychedelics might influence headache-related brain mechanisms.
One possible explanation for these effects is that psychedelics act on serotonin receptors in a way that helps regulate pain pathways in the brain. Some researchers have also suggested that psychedelics may have anti-inflammatory effects, which could be relevant for headaches, or that they influence hormone release, such as melatonin, which is known to play a role in migraine and cluster headaches.
But despite its large sample size, the new study has some limitations. The data on headaches were self-reported, meaning that participants’ responses may not perfectly reflect clinical headache diagnoses. The study also could not distinguish between different types of headaches, such as migraines and tension headaches, which might have different relationships with psychedelic use.
“The data analyzed is from a cohort study collected for other purpose than this specific study, therefore the study participants who were included in the headache group have not been diagnosed by a physician, which is always a drawback in scientific analysis,” Ran noted. “We may have included individuals in our analysis that have so called secondary headache which is caused by another underlying medical condition.”
Future studies should aim to explore the biological mechanisms underlying these potential benefits. Researchers could also investigate whether specific dosing regimens of psychedelics might be effective for preventing headaches and whether non-hallucinogenic derivatives of these drugs could provide similar benefits without the psychedelic effects.
“It’s important to remember that these substances are illegal (in most countries) and that the use of psychedelic drugs can cause severe undesirable effects that may be harmful to the user,” Ran added. “Although we are investigating them for medical purpose, we do not recommend people with headache to use them, and we are currently far from integrating them in clinical practice. Also, drugs used in clinical trials are produced in controlled settings, while street drugs may contain harmful contaminants.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251324372) Lifetime classic psychedelic use and headaches: A cross-sectional study,” was authored by Zusanna Bjurenfalk, Alva Cosmo, Otto Simonsson, and Caroline Ran.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-research-reveals-staggering-gender-gap-in-chatgpt-adoption/) New research reveals “staggering” gender gap in ChatGPT adoption
Mar 19th 2025, 06:00

A new study published in the (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414972121) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that the adoption of ChatGPT in the workplace has been widespread but uneven. Younger, less experienced, and higher-earning workers are more likely to use the tool, while lower-income workers and women have adopted it at significantly lower rates. Even among workers in the same occupation handling similar job tasks, men are much more likely to use ChatGPT than women. The findings highlight how barriers to adoption may be reinforcing existing inequalities in the labor market.
ChatGPT is one of the most widely used generative artificial intelligence tools, capable of producing human-like text in response to user prompts. Since its launch, it has been integrated into various workplaces to assist with tasks such as writing, coding, and research. Given its potential to transform how work is performed, researchers were interested in understanding who is using ChatGPT, how they expect it to impact their jobs, and what factors influence adoption.
While generative AI has the potential to help workers by automating repetitive tasks and increasing efficiency, some studies suggest it could benefit less experienced workers the most by leveling skill gaps. However, adoption patterns are not always uniform across different demographics. By examining how workers across various occupations use ChatGPT, the researchers aimed to uncover whether certain groups were being left behind in the adoption process.
“I’m a labor economist studying how technological change affects employment and wages. ChatGPT marks the rise of generative AI, and we wanted to measure which workers have adopted this frontier tool to better understand its potential impact on the labor market,” explained (https://www.andershumlum.com/) Anders Humlum, an assistant professor of economics and Fujimori/Mou Faculty Scholar at the University of Chicago.
To investigate ChatGPT’s adoption in the workforce, the researchers collaborated with Statistics Denmark to survey 18,000 workers from 11 occupations between November 2023 and January 2024. The survey targeted jobs that experts considered highly exposed to ChatGPT, meaning that the tool could significantly reduce the time required to complete key job tasks. These occupations included marketing professionals, financial advisors, software developers, journalists, and legal professionals.
Survey responses were linked to national labor market records, which provided detailed information about each worker’s earnings, education, work history, and demographic background. The researchers analyzed which workers were using ChatGPT, their expectations about how it would impact their work, and the barriers preventing some employees from adopting the tool.
Humlum and his colleagues found that ChatGPT has been widely adopted in exposed occupations, with 41% of workers using it for job-related tasks. However, adoption rates varied significantly by profession. Marketing professionals and journalists—who often engage in writing-intensive tasks—were the most likely to use ChatGPT, with 65% reporting that they had used the tool. By contrast, financial advisors, whose work involves handling sensitive information, had the lowest adoption rate at just 12%.
When examining demographic differences, the researchers discovered a gender gap. Women were 16 percentage points less likely than men to use ChatGPT, even when comparing workers in the same occupation with similar job responsibilities. This gender disparity persisted across all measured indicators of adoption, suggesting that women face additional barriers to using the technology.
“The staggering gender gap in the adoption of ChatGPT — even among workers in the same occupations handling similar job tasks — was a big surprise for us,” Humlum told PsyPost.
Age and experience also played a role in adoption. Younger and less experienced workers were more likely to use ChatGPT, with each additional year of age associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of using the tool.
Interestingly, despite having less tenure in their fields, workers who used ChatGPT tended to earn slightly more before the tool became available. This suggests that higher-achieving individuals within their professional peer groups were more likely to experiment with and adopt the technology.
“Our key finding is that substantial inequalities have emerged in the adoption of ChatGPT,” Humlum said. “Younger, higher-earning men are significantly more likely to use these tools compared to other workers within the same occupation.”
Workers in occupations exposed to ChatGPT saw significant productivity potential in the tool, estimating that it could cut working times in about a third of their job tasks. However, employees with greater expertise in their fields tended to report smaller productivity gains, indicating that ChatGPT is more beneficial for those who have less specialized knowledge.
Despite recognizing the tool’s efficiency, many workers were hesitant to change how they allocated their time. About 40% of respondents stated that even if ChatGPT saved them time on certain tasks, they would not increase the amount of work they did in those areas.
One of the study’s most surprising findings was that workers’ expectations about time savings did not strongly predict whether they actually used ChatGPT. For example, among those who believed the tool could cut task completion time in half, only 23% planned to use it in the next two weeks.
Instead, adoption was often hindered by structural barriers, such as employer restrictions on AI use or the perceived need for training. When researchers randomly informed workers about ChatGPT’s time-saving potential, it did not significantly change their likelihood of using the tool, reinforcing the idea that external factors are limiting adoption.
The survey focused on Danish workers, so the findings may not fully reflect adoption patterns in other countries. Additionally, while the study identifies trends in adoption, it does not explore whether ChatGPT use leads to measurable improvements in job performance or career outcomes.
“The patterns we document reflect short-run effects, capturing the unequal adoption of ChatGPT in its first year,” Humlum noted. “These inequalities could narrow or widen over time as more workers adopt the tools and firms begin reorganizing workflows around this new technology.
Future research could investigate whether early adopters gain long-term advantages in earnings or promotions and whether targeted training programs can help bridge existing gaps in adoption. “Our long-term goal is to understand how generative AI is reshaping labor markets,” Humlum said.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414972121) The unequal adoption of ChatGPT exacerbates existing inequalities among workers,” was authored by Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard.

(https://www.psypost.org/cannabis-intoxication-alters-metabolism-but-frequent-users-show-fewer-effects/) Cannabis intoxication alters metabolism, but frequent users show fewer effects
Mar 18th 2025, 20:00

A new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-025-02082-7) Neuropsychopharmacology has found that cannabis intoxication leads to distinct metabolic changes in the blood, and these changes differ between occasional and chronic users. Researchers identified 14 metabolites that could distinguish between these two groups even when they were not intoxicated. They also discovered that cannabis affected attention and subjective intoxication differently in each group, with occasional users experiencing greater cognitive impairment. These findings suggest that metabolic markers could help differentiate cannabis use from cannabis-induced impairment, a distinction that current drug tests fail to make.
Cannabis is one of the most widely used psychoactive substances in the world, with millions of people consuming it for recreational or medical purposes. One of the primary concerns about cannabis use is its potential to impair cognitive functions such as attention and reaction time, which are important for activities like driving. However, not everyone experiences the same degree of impairment. Occasional users tend to be more affected by cannabis than chronic users, who often develop tolerance.
The legal system relies on drug tests that detect cannabis in bodily fluids such as blood or saliva, but these tests only indicate past use—they do not measure whether someone is currently impaired. This is a major issue in legal cases, such as those involving driving under the influence. Researchers wanted to see if measuring metabolic changes in the blood could provide a better way to assess whether someone is impaired by cannabis rather than just confirming they have used it.
To investigate this, researchers recruited 35 healthy cannabis users, who were divided into two groups based on their use patterns. The 18 occasional users consumed cannabis up to three times per week, while the 17 chronic users consumed it at least four times per week. Participants took part in a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment where they inhaled vaporized cannabis containing THC (the primary psychoactive compound in cannabis) on one test day and a placebo on another test day. The amount of THC was carefully controlled to ensure consistency.
Blood samples were collected before and at multiple time points (10, 30, 50, and 70 minutes) after cannabis or placebo use. Researchers analyzed these samples to identify metabolic changes. Participants also completed an attention task and rated how intoxicated they felt at different time points.
The study revealed key differences in the metabolic profiles of chronic and occasional cannabis users. Even before consuming cannabis, the two groups had distinct metabolomic fingerprints. Chronic users had lower levels of certain metabolites related to endocannabinoid and amino acid metabolism, including 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) and tyrosine. These changes could be linked to long-term neuroadaptations in response to frequent cannabis use.
After cannabis consumption, occasional users showed significant increases in organic acids and ketone bodies such as β-hydroxybutyrate, which are involved in energy metabolism. These metabolic changes were linked to increased attention lapses and feelings of intoxication. In contrast, chronic users showed only minor metabolic shifts, primarily involving amino acids such as leucine, isoleucine, and tyrosine. This suggests that frequent cannabis use alters the body’s metabolic response to THC, potentially explaining why chronic users experience fewer cognitive impairments.
Researchers also found that certain metabolites, particularly lipids such as hexosylceramides, were associated with the degree of cognitive impairment and subjective intoxication in occasional users. Elevated levels of these compounds correlated with worse attention performance and higher ratings of being high. In contrast, chronic users exhibited fewer metabolic changes linked to cognitive impairment, reinforcing the idea that their bodies have adapted to frequent cannabis use.
While this study provides strong evidence that metabolic markers can distinguish between cannabis use and cannabis-induced impairment, it is not yet ready for practical application. The study involved a relatively small sample size, and more research is needed to confirm these findings in larger and more diverse populations. Additionally, researchers need to determine whether these metabolic changes are unique to cannabis intoxication or if they also occur with other substances.
Future studies could explore whether a single blood sample taken at the time of testing—without a prior baseline measurement—can still reliably indicate impairment. Researchers may also investigate whether a continuous measure of cannabis use, rather than a simple division into occasional and chronic users, provides a more precise understanding of how metabolic responses vary.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-025-02082-7) Metabolomic profiling of cannabis use and cannabis intoxication in humans,” was authored by Francisco Madrid-Gambin, Noemí Haro, Natasha L. Mason, Pablo Mallaroni, Eef L. Theunissen, Stefan W. Toennes, Oscar J. Pozo, and Johannes G. Ramaekers.

(https://www.psypost.org/why-do-voters-support-candidates-who-undermine-democracy-a-new-study-offers-answers/) Why do voters support candidates who undermine democracy? A new study offers answers
Mar 18th 2025, 18:00

A new study published in the (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/demand-side-of-democratic-backsliding-how-divergent-understandings-of-democracy-shape-political-choice/3DEB0DC344DF35BF4334366F07411116) British Journal of Political Science sheds light on why voters in democratic countries sometimes support political candidates who undermine democratic norms. The research found that people hold diverse views on what democracy means. These differences shape how they evaluate political candidates and whether they recognize or excuse violations of democratic standards. This variation, the study suggests, can make democratic systems more vulnerable, as some voters are willing to overlook attacks on minority rights and restrictions on executive power.
“A considerable variety in democratic views leads part of the electorate to overlook violations of democratic norms such as minority rights protection or restraints on executive power,” said (https://keough.nd.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/marc-jacob/) Marc Jacob, an assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at Notre Dame’s (http://keough.nd.edu/) Keough School of Global Affairs. “These varied attitudes represent an important vulnerability for the democratic system as they can enable authoritarian political candidates to access and retain power.”
In many democratic countries, political leaders have gained and maintained power while eroding democratic institutions. Unlike overt takeovers through military coups, these processes involve a gradual weakening of checks and balances, restrictions on media, and the marginalization of political opposition. Researchers have long questioned why voters allow this to happen, despite expressing broad support for democracy.
Previous studies have pointed to political polarization as a key factor. Some voters, driven by party loyalty, are more forgiving when candidates from their preferred party violate democratic norms. However, research on this topic has produced mixed results, and some scholars argue that focusing only on partisan bias does not fully explain voter behavior in these situations.
The new study explored an alternative explanation: that people have different interpretations of democracy itself. Instead of assuming that all voters share the same commitment to democratic principles, the researchers examined whether people’s own definitions of democracy influenced their willingness to hold candidates accountable for democratic violations.
The researchers focused on Poland, a country that has experienced democratic backsliding in recent years. Since 2015, Poland has seen growing government control over the judiciary and public media, raising concerns about the state of its democracy. However, elections have remained competitive, making Poland an ideal setting to study voter behavior in response to democratic transgressions.
To test their ideas, the researchers conducted a large-scale experiment with nearly 2,000 Polish citizens. Participants were presented with profiles of hypothetical political candidates and asked to choose between them in simulated elections. The candidates’ positions varied in several ways, including their stances on judicial independence and media freedom. Some candidates expressed strong support for democratic norms, while others endorsed positions that aligned with a more authoritarian or majoritarian approach.
In addition to studying voter preferences, the researchers measured participants’ personal views on democracy. They asked respondents to rate how important different democratic principles were to them, including the separation of powers, protection of minority rights, and government accountability. Based on their responses, participants were categorized into three groups:

Liberal democrats, who strongly supported checks on executive power and civil liberties.
Majoritarians, who believed that decisions backed by the majority were inherently democratic, even if they restricted rights or weakened independent institutions.
Authoritarian democrats, who prioritized social order and strong leadership over individual freedoms and pluralism.

By combining the results of the voting experiment with the respondents’ democratic beliefs, the researchers assessed whether voters’ views of democracy influenced their choices.
The study found that voters’ understandings of democracy played a significant role in how they evaluated candidates. Those who strongly identified with a liberal democratic perspective were much more likely to reject candidates who undermined democratic norms. In contrast, majoritarian and authoritarian-minded voters were less concerned with violations of democratic principles and did not strongly punish candidates who threatened judicial independence or media freedom.
“Where liberal democratic commitment is weak or unevenly distributed across the electorate, voters cannot reliably act as safeguards against democratic backsliding,” Jacob said.
Interestingly, the study did not find strong evidence that majoritarian and authoritarian voters actively preferred candidates who undermined democracy. Instead, these voters appeared to place less importance on democratic values when making their choices, making them more tolerant of candidates who weakened democratic institutions.
The study also examined how partisanship interacted with democratic beliefs. While party loyalty influenced voter decisions, it was not the only factor. Even within the same political party, individuals with stronger liberal democratic commitments were more likely to reject candidates who violated democratic norms. This suggests that partisan dynamics alone cannot fully explain why some voters overlook democratic backsliding.
The study was conducted in Poland, which has a unique political landscape. While the findings likely apply to other democracies experiencing similar challenges, future research should examine whether the same patterns hold in different political systems. Countries with weaker democratic traditions or different party structures may show different results.
Additionally, the study measured attitudes at a single point in time. Future research could explore how voters’ understandings of democracy evolve and whether political leaders influence these beliefs over time. Longitudinal studies could provide insight into whether shifts in democratic attitudes contribute to long-term changes in voter behavior.
The findings highlight a potential vulnerability in democratic systems: when citizens hold different views on what democracy means, some may fail to recognize or respond to its gradual erosion. This suggests that efforts to strengthen democracy should not only focus on protecting institutions but also on fostering a shared commitment to liberal democratic principles among citizens.
“Democracy education often features big, abstract ideas, but it’s just as important to show people how civil liberties, power-sharing and the rule of law directly benefit them — and to remind them that their votes play a crucial role in keeping those values alive,” Jacob said.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123424000711) The Demand Side of Democratic Backsliding: How Divergent Understandings of Democracy Shape Political Choice,” was authored by Natasha Wunsch, Marc S. Jacob, and Laurenz Derksen.

(https://www.psypost.org/the-science-of-perception-box-neuroscientists-explore-limits-of-human-perception-in-hit-podcast/) The Science of Perception Box: Neuroscientists explore limits of human perception in hit podcast
Mar 18th 2025, 16:25

Earlier this year, Unlikely Collaborators, in partnership with Pod People, launched (https://www.unlikelycollaborators.com/watch-series/the-science-of-perception-box) Science of Perception Box, a podcast that has quickly captured the attention of listeners eager to unravel the mysteries of human perception. Hosted by renowned neuroscientists Dr. Heather Berlin and Dr. Christof Koch, the show explores how our minds construct reality—and how we can push beyond those mental constraints to unlock deeper awareness and understanding.
Within its first week, Science of Perception Box soared to #1 in Science on Apple Podcasts (United States), secured a spot at #33 across all podcasts, and ranked #13 in Science on Spotify. Amazon Music also recognized its impact, featuring the podcast in its Science collection. This remarkable debut underscores a growing public appetite for discussions at the intersection of neuroscience, psychology, and human experience.
At the heart of Science of Perception Box is the Perception Box, a transformative concept developed by Elizabeth R. Koch, founder of Tiny Blue Dot and Unlikely Collaborators. The Perception Box serves as a powerful metaphor for the invisible mental framework that shapes how we interpret reality—formed by our beliefs, biases, and neurological wiring. These unseen barriers define our experiences and limit our ability to engage with perspectives beyond our own.
Dr. Koch and Dr. Berlin use the Perception Box as a lens to dissect how everything from love and mindfulness to psychedelics and personal identity influences our perception of the world. The podcast encourages listeners to question their ingrained assumptions, expand their awareness, and engage with life in a more open and connected way.
PsyPost recently interviewed Koch about the inspiration behind the podcast and the transformative ideas it explores.
PsyPost: What inspired you to create the Science of Perception Box podcast?
Elizabeth R. Koch: I’ve always been fascinated by how two people can look at the same situation and see completely different things. How is that even possible? The answer is that we don’t see the world as it is; we see it through the filter of our own beliefs, experiences, and conditioning. There’s a million scientific explanations for this, but I call it Perception Box – meaning the invisible mental framework that shapes how we interpret everything around us. And most of us don’t even realize it’s there!
I wanted this abstract notion to be as accessible as possible, and to me, podcasts are the most engaging and personal platform out there. They bring emotions into the space so listeners can sense the unsaid, feel the unseen. And unlike reading a book or an article, podcasts allow for nuance— experts offering different perspectives on the same material in live conversation; hosts batting about surprising analogies on-the-fly; guests sharing practical tools to help listeners recognize the workings of their own Perception Box.
At the end of the day, the Science of Perception Box podcast isn’t just about learning—it’s about experiencing a shift in perspective in real time.
 
How did the idea for using the “Perception Box” as a metaphor for our inner narratives come about?  
Oh god, how much time do you have?  I feel like I’ve been fascinated by how people see the world for as long as I can remember. Even as a kid, I was both curious and unsettled by the fact that two humans could go through the exact same experience but walk away with completely different interpretations. It just didn’t make sense to me. And as I got older, I started to realize this wasn’t just some quirky thing about human perception. It was everywhere. It shaped relationships, caused misunderstandings, upended families, landed people in jail —everything. And it wasn’t just something happening out there—it was happening inside of me as well.
At some point, I started noticing how much my own thoughts and assumptions about myself were shaping my reality. Some part of me knew I was making myself miserable, but I didn’t know how to stop. The stories I told myself – about how I was coming off to people, what I had to prove, what I had to do in order to feel okay inside – felt so real. I kept trying to outrun these stories through achievements, overworking, changing jobs, new relationships, extreme exercise, creative success, numbing out in a myriad of ways – thinking maybe I would find something, or someone, to finally quiet the noise. But no matter what I did, self-doubt and anxiety followed me.
Then, in my 20s, a friend suggested a Vipassana meditation retreat. I’d never meditated for more than 5 minutes in my life, and this was nine days of total silence. It felt ridiculous to even consider taking that much time for myself, but at that point, I was willing to try anything. And what I saw on that retreat changed everything.
For the first time, I became aware of how automatic my thoughts were. How repetitive, how distorted. My mind was constantly jumping to worst-case scenarios, assuming people were judging me, catastrophizing everything, imagining problems that weren’t even real – just a nonstop loop of negative stories and feelings of panic. And because emotions make stories feel objectively true, I believed every single one of them.
That was a huge wake-up call. Soon after the retreat I dove into Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and explored a dozen other modalities, piecing together tools from far-flung places, trying to find the best path to reach the stories buried deep in the unconscious mind and reframe them with love and compassion. When I started sharing what I was discovering with friends, they would say, “Wait, I do that too! What tool did you use?”
That led to impromptu workshops, which grew into longer experiences. But something was still missing. I needed a way to make this concept of how we project unconscious beliefs onto the present moment feel more tangible and accessible. Something people could see and feel. Since I think in visuals, I started describing it as a box.
The more I worked with this box image, the more the concept clicked. When we’re stuck in limiting thinking, the walls close in – they’re contracted. Everything feels small, fixed, inescapable. But when we start questioning those thoughts, letting in other perspectives, the walls expand. More space. More possibilities. More ease.
So that’s how the Perception Box idea came about. It’s not about changing who we are; it’s about seeing that we were never as stuck as we thought.
 
Could you explain the concept of the “Perception Box” and how it serves as a framework for exploring our biases, beliefs, and brain chemistry?
Absolutely. Perception Box isn’t just a metaphor. It’s a research-backed framework for understanding how our brains interpret the physical sensations in our bodies to shape our reality. Your Perception Box includes everything—genes, cultural background, every lesson you ever learned, traumas and the meaning you made out of them, your physiology, countless other unconscious influences —all these things filter the way you see and interpret the world.
Neuroscience tells us that our brains aren’t passively receiving reality; they’re constructing it. As neuroscientist Dr. Anil Seth says, they’re prediction machines, constantly filling in gaps based on past experiences. But it’s not just our thoughts. Our bodies are a huge part of this process. Before our mind has registered what’s happening, our nervous system has already reacted. The body sends signals—tightness in the chest, a gut feeling, a rush of adrenaline—that the brain interprets through the lens of our past. That’s why two people can experience the same moment but walk away with totally different interpretations. One person might feel safe, while another feels deeply threatened, all because of what happened in the past.
And this is where triggers come in. When we get triggered, it’s not just an emotional response, it’s a full-body experience. Something in the present moment is hitting an old wound, and before we even realize it, we’re reacting as if we’re back in that past moment. The walls of our Perception Box contract, and suddenly we’re completely convinced that our reaction is reality. But here’s the thing: our triggers aren’t telling us what’s true, they’re telling us what’s unresolved. They’re telling us a story we made up a long time ago, when we were too young to understand the behavior of the generally well-meaning adults around us, who were running their own limiting Perception Box stories.
And here’s the thing: You can’t actually break out of your Perception Box. That’s not how it works. We need this filter to make sense of the world. The great news is this box isn’t rigid. While we have no control over what happens, we do have agency over how we respond to what happens, ie, over how we respond to triggers. We can choose to believe the stories in our mind – generally stories that blame other people for how we feel inside – or we can hold those stories loosely and investigate them, seeing how “true” they actually are. We can trace the associated feeling in our bodies to other times we felt the same way, all the way back to the first time we can remember, and act as our own compassionate godparent, addressing the belief from the ground up.
That’s what the Science of Perception Box podcast explores: the neuroscience behind why we react the way we react, and the tools available to help us move into a more compassionate, creative, expansive way of operating.
The show has enjoyed immediate success across platforms. What do you think resonates most with your audience about the intersection of neuroscience and everyday life?
I think people are craving this kind of conversation, one that’s rooted in science but also practical for them personally. In the podcast we move beyond conceptual understanding and explore moments of personal impact – interpersonal conflicts, barriers to self-understanding, the causes of dissatisfaction – and offer exercises to address these issues.
Plus, the guest lineup has been incredible. We’ve had experts like Michael Pollan on how psychedelics shift perception; Dr. Daphna Oyserman on how cultural identity shapes the way we see the world; Dr. Helen Fisher on the brain chemistry of love and human connection; and Dr. Lila Davachi on how memory and time perception influence our reality. Each guest offers real world examples, which makes the research they describe both engaging and actionable. Whether it’s Judson Brewer’s mindfulness techniques for breaking anxious thought loops, Helen Fisher’s insights on love and attachment, or Dacher Keltner’s research on how awe expands our sense of possibility,  and Dr. Boris Heifets on the neuroscience of psychedelics and their potential to rewire the brain.  These conversations don’t just explain how the brain works—they show you how to make friends with neurology and live with more awareness, joy, and human connection.
But honestly, a huge part of the magic is the co-hosts. Dr. Heather Berlin and Dr. Christof Koch are brilliant. One is more hard-nosed and incisive, the other more playful – when the two meet it’s pure delight. Add in the expert guests, and you’ve got something truly special, something for everyone.
How do you envision the Perception Box framework influencing not just scientific discourse but also everyday self-awareness and decision-making?
Once you understand the mechanism of Perception Box – how its walls expand or contract depending on the stories we tell – light bulbs go off. People who previously felt helpless and alone suddenly gain a sense of agency. Courage. Hope. Awareness alone can be a total game-changer.
Speaking of hope, mine is that the Perception Box framework, shared through the podcast, our Unlikely Collaborators activities, and eventually my book—will help individuals, in moments of external or internal conflict, pause and self-reflect: Why did that comment trigger me? Why do I assume my perspective is the only right one? Imagine if more people started questioning their assumptions instead of doubling down on them. If leaders approached problems with curiosity rather than certainty. This new way of operating would catch fire and eventually, entire communities would be transformed.
I truly believe that only when individuals address their personal, internal conflicts will external conflicts have any hope of being resolved – and that very much includes the political warfare and power struggles that created our current institutional nightmares. The more we recognize and expand our Perception Box, the more we can break free from limiting narratives on a global scale. And that’s when real change happens.
That’s why I am so committed to this work. Because expanding our Perception Box isn’t a self-help exercise; it’s a pathway to a more connected, more compassionate, more collaborative world.

(https://www.psypost.org/friendship-satisfaction-is-key-to-happiness-among-single-emerging-adults/) Friendship satisfaction is key to happiness among single emerging adults
Mar 18th 2025, 16:00

For young adults who are single, friendships may be the most significant factor in determining happiness, according to a new study published in (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310196) PLOS One.
Emerging adulthood (ages 18–24) is a transitional period marked by significant social, academic, and career changes. Despite being a large and growing demographic, single individuals in this age group have been understudied in happiness research, which has traditionally focused on those in committed romantic relationships.
However, with nearly 41% of U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 29 identifying as single, researchers are now exploring the factors that contribute to the happiness of single individuals on their own terms, rather than in comparison to those in relationships.
Led by Lisa C. Walsh from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the research team analyzed survey data from 1,073 single adults aged 18 to 24 and examined five key factors that influence happiness: friendship satisfaction, family satisfaction, self-esteem, neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative emotions), and extraversion (the tendency to be outgoing and social).
The researchers used latent profile analysis (LPA), a statistical technique that identifies hidden subgroups within a population, to categorize participants into five distinct profiles based on their overall well-being.
The study identified the following five groups:

Very Happy (11%) – These individuals had very high friendship and family satisfaction, strong self-esteem, high extraversion, and very low neuroticism.
Somewhat Happy (27%) – This group also had very high friendship satisfaction and high family satisfaction, self-esteem, and extraversion but slightly higher neuroticism.
Average Happiness (38%) – These individuals had average family satisfaction, self-esteem, and extraversion with somewhat low friendship satisfaction and low neuroticism.
Unhappy (15%) – This group had very low family satisfaction, very low self-esteem, low extraversion, and very high neuroticism. However, their friendships were relatively stable.
Very Unhappy (9%) – These individuals had the lowest friendship and family satisfaction, the lowest self-esteem, and the lowest extraversion. They also had high neuroticism, making them the least happy overall.

One of the most important findings was that friendship satisfaction was the strongest predictor of happiness among single emerging adults. While family support played a role, friendships had a greater impact on life satisfaction.
Another key finding was the importance of having a best friend. Those without a best friend were significantly more likely to fall into the unhappiest group. This suggests that the quality of friendships—rather than just having a large social circle—is essential for emotional well-being.
Interestingly, women were more likely than men to fall into the less happy profiles.
“There are a few noteworthy aspects of our findings,” Walsh and colleagues concluded. “First, 37.9% of single emerging adults were relatively happy, while 23.7% were unhappy. This result challenges the misguided stereotype that singles are usually miserable. Second, singles with disadvantages in one area could compensate with advantages in others to achieve happiness.”
For example, while high neuroticism was generally associated with lower happiness, those with strong friendships could counterbalance this effect.
While the study provides valuable insights, it has some limitations. Because it was cross-sectional (i.e., data was collected at a single point in time), it cannot establish causation. This means it is unclear whether strong friendships cause happiness, or if happier people simply attract more friends.
The study, “(https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310196) Heterogeneity in Happiness: A Latent Profile Analysis of Single Emerging Adults,” was authored by Lisa C. Walsh, Calen Horton, Reed Kaufman, Anthony Rodriguez, and Victor A. Kaufman.

(https://www.psypost.org/digital-afterlife-will-your-ai-self-outlive-you-and-what-does-that-mean/) Digital afterlife: Will your AI self outlive you—and what does that mean?
Mar 18th 2025, 14:00

Imagine attending a funeral where the person who has died speaks directly to you, answering your questions and sharing memories. This happened at the (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62552696) funeral of Marina Smith, a Holocaust educator who died in 2022.
Thanks to an AI technology company called (https://storyfile.com) StoryFile, Smith seemed to interact naturally with her family and friends.
The system used prerecorded answers combined with artificial intelligence to create a realistic, interactive experience. This wasn’t just a video; it was something closer to a real conversation, giving people a new way to feel connected to a loved one after they’re gone.
Virtual life after death
Technology has already begun to change how people think about life after death. Several technology companies are helping people manage their digital lives after they’re gone. For example, (https://support.apple.com/en-us/102631) Apple, (https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3036546?hl=en) Google and (https://about.fb.com/news/2019/04/updates-to-memorialization/) Meta offer tools to allow someone you trust to access your online accounts when you die.
Microsoft has patented a system that can take someone’s digital data – such as texts, emails and social media posts – and (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/04/chat-bots-reincarnation-dead/) use it to create a chatbot. This chatbot can respond in ways that sound like the original person.
In South Korea, a group of media companies took this idea even further. A documentary called “(https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2020/04/688_287372.html) Meeting You” showed a mother reunited with her daughter through virtual reality. Using advanced digital imaging and voice technology, the mother was able to see and talk to her dead daughter as if she were really there.
These examples may seem like science fiction, but they’re real tools available today. As AI continues to improve, the possibility of creating digital versions of people after they die feels closer than ever.
Who owns your digital afterlife?
While the idea of a digital afterlife is fascinating, it raises some big questions. For example, who owns your online accounts after you die?
This issue is already being discussed in courts and by governments around the world. In the United States, nearly all states have passed laws allowing people to (https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?communitykey=f7237fc4-74c2-4728-81c6-b39a91ecdf22) include digital accounts in their wills.
In Germany, courts ruled that Facebook had to give a deceased person’s family access to their account, saying that digital accounts (https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2018-09-07/germany-federal-court-of-justice-rules-digital-social-media-accounts-inheritable/#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Court%20of%20Justice%20stated%20that%20the%20user%20agreement,account%20and%20its%20digital%20content.) should be treated as inheritable property, like a bank account or house.
But there are still plenty of challenges. For example, what if a digital clone of you says or does something online that you would never have said or done in real life? Who is responsible for what your AI version does?
When a (https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04204-w) deepfake of actor Bruce Willis appeared in an ad without his permission, it sparked a debate about how people’s digital likenesses can be controlled, or even exploited, for profit.
Cost is another issue. While some basic tools for managing digital accounts after death are free, more advanced services can be expensive. For example, creating an AI version of yourself might cost thousands of dollars, meaning that only wealthy people could afford to “live on” digitally. This cost barrier raises important questions about whether digital immortality could create new forms of inequality.
Grieving in a digital world
Losing someone is often painful, and in today’s world, many people turn to social media to feel connected to those they’ve lost. Research shows that a significant proportion of people maintain their social media connections (https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719842540) with deceased loved ones.
But this new way of grieving comes with challenges. Unlike physical memories such as photos or keepsakes that fade over time, digital memories remain fresh and easily accessible. They can even appear unexpectedly in your social media feeds, bringing back emotions when you least expect them.
Some psychologists worry that staying connected to someone’s digital presence could make it (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42286-7_28) harder for people to move on. This is especially true as AI technology becomes more advanced. Imagine being able to chat with a digital version of a loved one that feels almost real. While this might seem comforting, it could make it even harder for someone to accept their loss and let go.
Cultural and religious views on digital afterlife
Different cultures and religions have their own unique perspectives on digital immortality. For example:

The Vatican, the center of the Catholic Church, has said that digital legacies (https://www.usccb.org/news/2024/vatican-calls-proactive-defense-human-dignity-digital-realm) should always respect human dignity.
In Islamic traditions, scholars are discussing how digital remains (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101085) fit into religious laws.
In Japan, some Buddhist temples are offering (https://www.forbes.com/sites/adelsteinjake/2019/03/18/rising-to-heaven-japans-high-rise-high-tech-solution-to-a-shortage-of-cemetery-spaces/) digital graveyards where families can preserve and interact with digital traces of their loved ones.

These examples show how technology is being shaped by different beliefs about life, death and remembrance. They also highlight the challenges of blending new innovations with long-standing cultural and religious traditions.
Planning your digital legacy
When you think about the future, you probably imagine what you want to achieve in life, not what will happen to your online accounts when you’re gone. But experts say it’s important to plan for your digital assets: everything from social media profiles and email accounts to digital photos, online bank accounts and even cryptocurrencies.
Adding digital assets to your (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.04.008) will can help you decide how your accounts should be managed after you’re gone. You might want to leave instructions about who can access your accounts, what should be deleted and whether you’d like to create a digital version of yourself.
You can even decide if your digital self should “die” after a certain amount of time. These are questions that more and more people will need to think about in the future.
Here are steps you can take to control your digital afterlife:

Decide on a digital legacy. Reflect on whether creating a digital self aligns with (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13173-021-00121-x) your personal, cultural or spiritual beliefs. Discuss your preferences with loved ones.
Inventory and plan for digital assets. Make a list of all digital accounts, content and tools representing your digital self. Decide how these (https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962231157005) should be managed, preserved or deleted.
Choose a digital executor. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcarlson/2024/06/19/smart-phones-email-other-digital-assets-and-your-estate-plan/) Appoint a trustworthy, tech-savvy person to oversee your digital assets and carry out your wishes. Clearly communicate your intentions with them.
Ensure that your will covers your digital identity and assets. Specify how they should be handled, including storage, usage and ethical considerations. Include legal and financial aspects in your plan.
Prepare for ethical and emotional impacts. Consider how your digital legacy might affect loved ones. Plan to avoid misuse, ensure funding for long-term needs, and align your decisions with your values.

Digital pyramids
Thousands of years ago, the Egyptian pharaohs had pyramids built to preserve their legacy. Today, our “digital pyramids” are much more advanced and broadly available. They don’t just preserve memories; they can continue to influence the world, long after we’re gone.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/logging-off-life-but-living-on-how-ai-is-redefining-death-memory-and-immortality-246306) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-prosocial-behavior-predicts-shifts-in-political-views/) Study finds prosocial behavior predicts shifts in political views
Mar 18th 2025, 12:00

A recent study published in (https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241306869) Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that people’s tendency to act in cooperative and generous ways may influence their political views in the long run. Researchers found that individuals who exhibited greater prosocial behavior in economic decision-making tasks were more likely to develop political attitudes favoring social equality and income redistribution over time. However, the reverse was not true—political views did not appear to shape later prosocial tendencies.
Political attitudes often seem deeply ingrained, shaped by upbringing, social context, and media exposure. However, growing research suggests that these beliefs might also be connected to more fundamental psychological traits. Some scholars have argued that political ideology is partly rooted in dispositional factors such as sensitivity to threats, need for certainty, or preferences for social hierarchy.
One aspect of personality that has received less attention in political psychology is prosociality—the tendency to act in ways that benefit others, even at a personal cost. Prior research has linked prosociality to political beliefs in cross-sectional studies, meaning researchers have observed correlations between these traits at a single point in time. However, it has remained unclear whether prosociality causes people to adopt certain political views or whether political views shape prosocial behavior.
To explore this question, the researchers used a longitudinal approach, tracking participants over time to determine whether prosocial behavior predicted changes in political attitudes or vice versa.
“People differ widely in their political beliefs, but the reasons for this variation are not well understood,” said study author Scott Claessens, a research associate at the University of Kent, who conducted the study while a research fellow at the University of Auckland.
“In our study, we explored the link between people’s political beliefs and their prosocial preferences: the extent to which people are willing to benefit others at a cost to themselves. Prior research has already shown that left-wing people are more prosocial, but it is not clear whether this is just a statistical association or whether prosocial preferences play a causal role in the expression of political beliefs.”
The study was based on data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, a large ongoing survey. A total of 631 participants, aged between 24 and 71, completed two waves of data collection, spaced 18 months apart.
To measure political views, participants completed surveys assessing their stance on income redistribution, their level of Social Dominance Orientation (which reflects support for hierarchical social structures), and their support for New Zealand’s center-right National Party.
Prosocial behavior was measured using a series of economic games. These games involved real financial stakes and were designed to assess how willing participants were to share resources, cooperate with others, and act in ways that benefit the collective good. The games included:

The Dictator Game, in which one participant decides how much of a given sum to share with another person.
The Trust Game, where participants can transfer money to another player, with the understanding that the amount will be multiplied before the recipient decides how much to return.
The Public Goods Game, where participants choose how much of their money to contribute to a communal fund that benefits the whole group.

These games provided an objective measure of each person’s overall prosocial orientation, known as the “prosocial phenotype.” By examining how prosocial behavior and political views changed over time, the researchers were able to determine whether one influenced the other.
The study revealed a one-way relationship: prosocial tendencies predicted political beliefs, but political beliefs did not predict prosocial tendencies. Specifically, people who displayed more prosocial behavior in the first wave of data collection were more likely to shift toward lower Social Dominance Orientation 18 months later. They also tended to show greater support for income redistribution over time. However, the reverse was not true—having certain political views at the start of the study did not predict changes in prosocial behavior later on.
Interestingly, prosocial behavior did not consistently predict changes in all political beliefs. There was no strong evidence that it influenced participants’ views on income attribution (beliefs about whether wealth is earned through hard work or external factors) or their support for the conservative National Party. This suggests that prosocial tendencies may shape attitudes toward economic equality but are less relevant to broader party preferences or beliefs about personal responsibility.
“Our longitudinal study suggests that prosocial preferences may have a causal influence on certain political beliefs,” Claessens told PsyPost. “Over an eighteen month period, we found that changes in people’s prosocial preferences preceded changes in people’s political views on hierarchy and redistribution. People who became more prosocial over the course of the study were subsequently less likely to support hierarchical social arrangements and were more likely to support income redistribution.”
Additionally, the link between prosocial behavior and later political views was more pronounced for men and for people of European descent. This pattern may be due to differences in baseline levels of Social Dominance Orientation or differences in how much room people’s political views had to shift over time.
While the study provides evidence that prosocial behavior can shape certain political beliefs, it is not without limitations. Because the study only included two waves of data, it could not fully account for the long-term stability of these traits. Future research incorporating additional time points could provide a more detailed picture of how these relationships develop over years or even decades.
“This study was conducted in New Zealand, so it remains to be seen whether these findings will replicate in other countries,” Claessens noted. “The statistical effects were also relatively small, suggesting that prosocial preferences may only play a modest causal role in the expression of political beliefs compared to other factors like religion, upbringing, and political polarization.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241306869) Prosocial Phenotype Predicts Political Views on Hierarchy and Redistribution 18 Months Later,” was authored by Scott Claessens, Chris G. Sibley, Ananish Chaudhuri, and Quentin D. Atkinson.

(https://www.psypost.org/poor-sleep-in-teens-linked-to-anxiety-and-depression-negative-thinking-may-be-the-key-factor/) Poor sleep in teens linked to anxiety and depression—negative thinking may be the key factor
Mar 18th 2025, 10:00

Teens who sleep poorly may be at risk for anxiety and depression—repetitive negative thinking may explain why. This research was published in (https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026241230458) Clinical Psychological Science.
Sleep problems are common in teenagers, but their implications extend beyond mere fatigue. While research has established links between (https://www.psypost.org/night-owls-are-at-increased-risk-for-psychiatric-disorders-compared-to-early-birds/) poor sleep and mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and eating disorders, the underlying mechanisms are unclear.
Cele Richardson and colleagues investigated whether repetitive negative thinking (RNT)—persistent, uncontrollable worry and rumination—might explain this connection. They hypothesized that poor sleep triggers RNT, which then exacerbates mental health symptoms.
The researchers followed 528 adolescents from the Risks to Adolescent Wellbeing Project in Sydney, Australia for 5 years. Participants, initially aged 10-12, were assessed annually until they reached 16-18 years old. Recruitment spanned schools, after-school programs, sports clubs, medical centers, and community groups.
Each year, participants completed online surveys measuring: 1) sleep patterns, including chronotype (morning/evening preference), hours of sleep on school nights, and frequency of daytime sleepiness; 2) repetitive negative thinking, distinguished between general RNT (throughout the day) and presleep RNT (before bedtime); and 3) mental health symptoms, covering generalized anxiety, social anxiety, depression, and eating disorders using validated psychological scales.
The results revealed that poor sleep contributed to increased symptoms of anxiety, depression, and eating disorders in adolescents, with RNT serving as the critical mediating factor. Sleep problems predicted increases in both general and presleep RNT. This increased negative thinking pattern subsequently led to worsened mental health symptoms, and the effects persisted throughout the five-year study period.
Notably, while sleep disturbances predicted later mental health symptoms, the reverse relationship was not as consistently observed. This suggests that sleep problems may function as an early risk factor for social-emotional disorders rather than merely resulting from them.
Presleep RNT—worrying specifically before falling asleep—emerged as particularly significant in explaining the link between poor sleep and subsequent mental health issues. Adolescents with high levels of presleep RNT showed increased vulnerability to developing anxiety and depression.
The research relied on self-reported data, which may be less precise than objective sleep measurements like actigraphy (wearable devices that track sleep patterns). Additionally, the study assessed symptoms rather than clinical diagnoses of mental health disorders.
These findings highlight the potential value of addressing both sleep problems and repetitive negative thinking in adolescents as a preventative approach to mental health concerns.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026241230458) Repetitive Negative Thinking Mediates the Relationship Between Sleep Disturbance and Symptoms of Generalized Anxiety, Social Anxiety, Depression, and Eating Disorders in Adolescence: Findings From a 5-Year Longitudinal Study,” was authored by Cele Richardson, Natasha R. Magson, Ella Oar, Jasmine Fardouly, Carly Johnco, Justin Freeman, and Ron M. Rapee.

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/20250319/b56483e4/attachment.htm>