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/limbal-rings-make-men-appear-healthier-but-not-more-attractive-study-finds/) Limbal rings make men appear healthier but not more attractive, study finds
Mar 26th 2025, 10:00

A new study published in (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-024-00413-3) Evolutionary Psychological Science has found that limbal rings — the dark circles that surround the colored part of the eye — make men’s faces appear healthier to women, but not necessarily more attractive. The research, which used carefully controlled facial images, helps clarify why past studies have reported mixed results about the role limbal rings play in physical attraction.
The study was designed to address a puzzle in previous findings. While some studies have suggested that limbal rings boost a man’s attractiveness, others have shown no such effect. One possibility is that differences in the attractiveness of the faces used in those studies may have obscured the influence of limbal rings. The research team wanted to find out whether limbal rings make a bigger difference when the face is already attractive, or if their influence is consistent regardless of how good-looking the person is overall.
“Many areas of psychology are interested in how people perceive other people, and our first perceptions of each other are formed when immediately seeing each other,” said study author (https://mattchoward.com/) Matthew C. Howard, an associate professor and interim chair for the Department of Marketing, Supply Chain Management, and Analytics at The University of South Alabama.
“Our minds subconsciously target specific cues whenever we meet people to form initial assessments, and people dedicate a significant amount of attention to eyes when meeting others. Understanding perceptions of eyes, specially, can produce significant knowledge as to how and why people form broader perceptions and opinions about people, causing this area of research to be particularly important.”
To explore this, Howard and his co-author, (https://spherelabar.weebly.com/) Mitch Brown, created a set of facial images using photos from a standardized image library called the Chicago Face Database. They selected 20 male faces—10 rated as highly attractive and 10 rated as unattractive—based on previous evaluations. Using image editing software, they modified each face to create two versions: one with clearly visible limbal rings and one without. This gave them a total of 40 facial images, systematically varying both attractiveness and limbal ring presence.
“This area of research is fun,” Howard remarked. “To conduct this study, we photoshopped photographs to determine whether altering the eyes systematically changed perceptions of the people in those photographs. So, this study integrated both science and art to test psychological theory.”
The study involved 149 women between the ages of 18 and 30 who identified as sexually attracted to men and identified as White. All participants viewed the 40 facial images, presented in random order, and rated each face on two scales: how healthy the person appeared, and how attractive they found the person. Each face was evaluated independently on both qualities.
When the researchers analyzed the results, they found clear evidence that people perceived more attractive faces as both healthier and more attractive than less attractive ones. This was expected. But when it came to limbal rings, the results were more specific. Faces with limbal rings were rated as slightly healthier than those without, regardless of whether the faces were attractive or not. However, limbal rings did not have any noticeable effect on how attractive the faces were judged to be.
“The effects for basic attractiveness did not replicate from previous stimulus sets,” Brown, an instructor of psychological science at the University of Arkansas, told PsyPost. “That is, perceivers did not evaluate faces with limbal rings as more attractive than those without.”
This finding suggests that limbal rings do carry a signal about health, which people seem to pick up on—even without being consciously aware of it. But the rings themselves don’t appear to boost overall attractiveness, at least not in the absence of other factors.
The researchers also tested whether the effects of limbal rings were stronger when the face was already attractive. Some evolutionary theories suggest that physical traits linked to health—like limbal rings—should matter more in short-term mating situations, where people tend to focus more on physical appearance. Because attractive faces are more likely to be associated with short-term romantic interest, the researchers predicted that limbal rings might have a stronger effect on those faces.
But the results didn’t support this idea. Limbal rings increased perceived health, but this effect was steady across both attractive and unattractive faces. There was no sign that attractiveness changed how much people paid attention to limbal rings.
“While considering different types of stimuli than those previously used in limbal rings studies, we find continued evidence for a perceived advantage in faces with limbal rings in appearing healthier,” Brown explained. “This effect was one again for male targets and female perceivers. Importantly, we find evidence that this effect is independent of attractiveness in faces. On a theoretical level, readers should know that limbal rings can reliably influence perceptions of health.”
As with all research, there are some limitations. One is that the faces all came from a specific image database, which may not reflect the full range of real-world appearances. Also, the study focused on a single demographic group: White women rating White men. It remains to be seen whether these findings hold up with different age groups, racial backgrounds, or sexual orientations.
Another issue is that the effect of limbal rings may depend on more than just facial attractiveness. Other features—like eye size, scleral brightness (the whiteness of the eye), or emotional expression—could interact with limbal rings to influence perceptions. These weren’t tested in the current study, but they represent important areas for future research.
The researchers also note that previous studies used different techniques to add limbal rings to images, which may have affected how natural the rings looked. For example, some earlier work used a more gradual shading approach, while this study used a crisp, dark line. It’s possible that differences in how the limbal rings are presented could affect how people respond to them. Future work could compare these methods directly.
“This is a story of stimulus sets and the various limitations that emerge from each one,” Brown said. “The original stimulus sets showed effects for limbal rings were rated as more attractive (Brown & Sacco, 2018; Peshek et al., 2011), which could have been amplified by the faces being relatively more attractive overall. Conversely, the faces in the current study (i.e., from the Chicago Faces Database; Ma et al., 2015) did not have the same level of attractiveness, with several faces being rated as middlingly attractive at best. It could be possible that the signal value of limbal rings as attractive is apparent but the range of attractiveness in stimuli could limit much of future research.”
Finally, while the study didn’t find that limbal rings increased attractiveness, it doesn’t mean they never do. Past research has shown that people become more sensitive to health cues when they are primed to think about short-term mating, such as imagining a casual sexual encounter. This study didn’t include such a prime. It’s possible that limbal rings might boost attractiveness when people are already in a mindset that values short-term mating. The researchers suggest that more immersive experimental setups—such as videos or vivid scenarios—may be needed to activate this effect.
In short, this study supports the idea that limbal rings signal health, but casts doubt on the idea that they always make faces more attractive. The health effect seems to be consistent, but the attractiveness effect may be more sensitive to context. The work adds clarity to a growing body of research on the subtle visual cues people use when making quick social judgments—especially in the context of romantic or sexual attraction.
There’s still much to learn about how people process eye features when sizing up potential mates or forming impressions. Eyes are among the most attention-grabbing parts of the face, and features like limbal rings may influence our social perceptions in ways we’re not fully aware of.
“There is so much still yet to be discovered about which aspects of the eyes influence interpersonal perceptions and why,” Howard said. “Making these discoveries can help understand why we naturally (dis)like certain people, why we (dis)trust certain people, and why we are (un)attracted to certain people. In other words, it has significant implications for all types of social interactions.”
“With perceivers reliably using limbal rings as part of their heuristics in mating decisions, it would be important to consider whether limbal rings reflect a kernel of truth in their heuristics,” Brown added. “We are interested in understanding the actual health of people with varying visibility of limbal rings with special consideration for chronic health. In a sense, are limbal rings a visual telomere? This could lead us to address the reproductive and sexual success of people as a function of their limbal ring visibility in addition to their preferred sexual strategies based on self-perceptions of their ability to navigate short-term mating markets.”
The study, “(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-024-00413-3) Investigating Potential Interactive Effects Between Limbal Rings and Facial Attractiveness,” was published on October 24, 2024.

(https://www.psypost.org/most-people-dislike-being-gossiped-about-except-narcissistic-men-who-welcome-even-negative-gossip/) Most people dislike being gossiped about—except narcissistic men, who welcome even negative gossip
Mar 26th 2025, 08:00

In a surprising twist to conventional wisdom, new research published in (https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2025.2467737) Self & Identity finds that while most people dislike being gossiped about, certain individuals—particularly men and those with narcissistic traits—actually welcome becoming the subject of others’ conversations, even when the gossip is negative.
Gossip has traditionally carried negative connotations, yet research increasingly shows it serves important social functions, such as enforcing group norms and building community bonds.
While previous studies have primarily focused on those who spread gossip, researchers Andrew H. Hales and colleagues took a different approach by examining how people feel about being on the receiving end of others’ talk.
The researchers explored an interesting question: Could being gossiped about—even negatively—signal social relevance that some people might prefer over being ignored entirely?
The team conducted five studies combining nationally representative samples with college student participants. The studies presented participants with hypothetical scenarios where they were either the subject of positive gossip, negative gossip, ambiguous gossip (where the nature was unclear), or not mentioned at all. Participants indicated their preferences on a scale ranging from strong opposition to strong preference for being discussed versus ignored.
The first three studies established general patterns in attitudes toward gossip while identifying differences based on demographics and personality traits. Study 1 used a nationally representative online sample with participants randomly assigned to one of the four gossip conditions. Study 2 expanded this with a within-subjects design where participants rated all four scenarios, enabling direct comparison of responses. Study 3 shifted the context from purely social to workplace settings to test whether professional environments altered preferences.
Studies 4 and 5 examined whether people accurately perceive others’ openness to gossip, with participants estimating how much others would want to be discussed. Study 5 additionally incorporated an experimental manipulation where participants experienced either social inclusion or exclusion in an online ball-tossing game before completing the gossip scenarios, testing whether momentary ostracism would increase willingness to be talked about.
The results consistently showed most people preferred not to be gossiped about, especially negatively. However, significant variations emerged across all five studies. The research found that 64% of participants preferred positive gossip to not being mentioned at all. Surprisingly, 36% would rather be left out of conversations entirely, even when the gossip was positive. A notable 15% reported preferring negative gossip over being ignored completely.
Individual characteristics strongly influenced these preferences. Men consistently showed more openness to being gossiped about than women, particularly when the gossip was ambiguous or negative. Younger participants embraced positive gossip more readily than older individuals. People with narcissistic traits reported significantly higher preference for being discussed, even negatively. Those experiencing chronic social exclusion showed greater willingness to be gossiped about generally, though they paradoxically desired positive gossip less.
Studies 4 and 5 revealed that participants tended to overestimate others’ desire for positive gossip while accurately gauging aversion to negative gossip. The experimental component in Study 5 yielded an interesting finding: temporary feelings of exclusion did not immediately increase openness to gossip, suggesting that chronic rather than short-term social exclusion plays a more significant role in shaping attitudes toward being the subject of others’ conversations.
The researchers acknowledge that using hypothetical scenarios rather than real-world instances of gossip presents a limitation.
Overall, this study challenges our assumptions about gossip’s universal undesirability. While most people prefer privacy, certain individuals—particularly men, younger adults, and those with narcissistic tendencies—appear to view gossip as validation of their social significance, regardless of whether the talk is positive or negative.
The research, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2025.2467737) Openness to Being Gossiped About: Understanding Gossip from the Target’s Perspective,” by Andrew H. Hales, Meltem Yucel, and Selma C. Rudert.

(https://www.psypost.org/timing-of-coffee-consumption-may-affect-longevity-researchers-say/) Timing of coffee consumption may affect longevity, researchers say
Mar 26th 2025, 06:00

A new study published in the (https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae871) European Heart Journal has found that people who drink coffee primarily in the morning may have a lower risk of death—especially from heart disease—compared to those who drink coffee throughout the day or not at all. The findings suggest that not just how much coffee you drink, but when you drink it, could influence long-term health outcomes.
While previous studies have shown that moderate coffee consumption is generally linked to health benefits, including lower risks of cardiovascular disease and death, results have been mixed—particularly for people who drink large amounts of coffee. Scientists suspected that differences in drinking habits, such as the time of day people consume coffee, might explain some of the inconsistencies in earlier findings.
“Coffee drinking may affect circadian rhythm related behaviors such as sleeping and hormones such as melatonin and cortisol, which are relevant to health. Therefore, the time of coffee drinking may impact health,” Lu Qi, interim chair of the Department of Epidemiology at Tulane University and sn HCA Regents Distinguished Chair and Professor.
To investigate this idea, the researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a large, ongoing study of health and diet in the United States. They examined data from over 40,000 adults collected between 1999 and 2018. Participants were asked to recall everything they ate and drank over a 24-hour period, including what time they consumed coffee. The researchers then used a statistical method called cluster analysis to identify common patterns in coffee drinking habits. Two clear groups emerged: those who primarily drank coffee in the morning (between 4 a.m. and noon) and those who spread their coffee consumption throughout the day. A third group included people who didn’t drink coffee at all.
To confirm these patterns, the team analyzed data from two additional studies that tracked dietary habits in over 1,400 health professionals, using more detailed food records collected over seven days. These external studies showed similar trends in coffee drinking times, helping to strengthen the reliability of the results.
After sorting participants into the different coffee-drinking patterns, the researchers tracked health outcomes over nearly a decade. During this time, more than 4,200 participants died. Of those deaths, about 1,270 were from cardiovascular disease, and about 930 were from cancer. The researchers examined whether different coffee drinking patterns were linked to different risks of death, taking into account other factors that might influence health, such as age, race, smoking status, diet quality, physical activity, sleep habits, and total coffee intake.
They found that people who drank coffee mainly in the morning had a significantly lower risk of death from any cause compared to those who didn’t drink coffee at all. Specifically, morning coffee drinkers were 16 percent less likely to die during the study period. The reduction in risk was even greater for deaths related to heart disease: morning coffee drinkers were 31 percent less likely to die from cardiovascular causes than non-coffee drinkers. In contrast, people who drank coffee throughout the day did not have a statistically significant reduction in risk compared to non-coffee drinkers.
Importantly, the study also found that the benefits of drinking more coffee were limited to the morning coffee drinkers. Among those who drank most of their coffee in the morning, higher amounts of coffee were linked to progressively lower risks of death. But for people who drank coffee throughout the day, the amount of coffee they consumed had no clear relationship with risk. This suggests that drinking more coffee isn’t necessarily helpful unless it’s consumed earlier in the day.
These patterns remained even after the researchers accounted for other possible influences, such as short sleep, trouble sleeping, or the consumption of tea and caffeinated soda. The consistency of the findings across different levels of coffee intake and across various groups of people—by age, income, and health status—further supports the link between coffee timing and health.
The findings suggest that “drinking coffee in the morning may benefit health more than drinking in afternoon and evening/night,” Qi told PsyPost.
While the exact reasons for these findings aren’t fully understood, the researchers offered some possible explanations. One involves the body’s natural sleep-wake cycle, known as the circadian rhythm. Drinking coffee in the afternoon or evening may interfere with this rhythm by reducing melatonin production, a hormone that helps regulate sleep and nighttime bodily functions. Disrupted circadian rhythms have been associated with higher blood pressure, inflammation, and increased risk of heart disease.
Another possible explanation has to do with inflammation. Coffee contains compounds that may reduce inflammation in the body, and some inflammatory markers naturally peak in the morning. Consuming coffee during this time might have a stronger impact on lowering inflammation than drinking it later in the day.
Despite the strengths of the study, the researchers acknowledged several limitations. The study was observational, which means it cannot prove cause and effect—only associations. Coffee intake and timing were self-reported, which may introduce errors or inaccuracies in the data. It’s also possible that people who drink coffee only in the morning may differ from all-day drinkers in other ways, such as having healthier routines or sleep habits that weren’t fully captured in the analysis.
“The study is observational in nature, and could not inform causality,” Qi noted.
Even with these limitations, the study opens a new line of inquiry into how the timing of food and beverage consumption could influence long-term health. Future research may explore how coffee timing interacts with shift work, genetic differences in caffeine metabolism, or other lifestyle factors. For now, the findings suggest that enjoying your coffee in the morning—not just how much you drink—could be an important part of a healthier routine.
Looking forward, Qi hopes to “test the causal effects of coffee drinking time on human health in clinical trials.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae871) Coffee drinking timing and mortality in US adults,” was authored by Xuan Wang, Hao Ma, Qi Sun, Jun Li, Yoriko Heianza, Rob M Van Dam, Frank B Hu, Eric Rimm, JoAnn E Manson, and Lu Qi.

(https://www.psypost.org/dark-traits-and-depression-study-finds-psychopathy-and-machiavellianism-linked-to-more-depressive-symptoms/) Dark traits and depression: Study finds psychopathy and Machiavellianism linked to more depressive symptoms
Mar 25th 2025, 16:00

People with certain dark personality traits may be more likely to experience symptoms of depression, according to a new study published in the (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656624001016) Journal of Research in Personality. After reviewing data from more than 15,000 participants across 31 studies, researchers found that both psychopathy and Machiavellianism were consistently linked to higher levels of depressive symptoms. Narcissism, however, showed no consistent relationship with depression. The study highlights the need for mental health professionals to consider these darker traits when assessing and treating depression.
The Dark Triad refers to a group of three personality traits—psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism—that share common features like emotional detachment, self-interest, and a willingness to manipulate others. These traits exist on a spectrum in the general population, not just among those diagnosed with personality disorders. 
Previous research on personality and depression has focused mainly on the Five Factor Model, which includes traits like neuroticism and conscientiousness. But some psychologists argue that this model doesn’t fully account for personality traits tied to manipulation, impulsivity, or emotional coldness. That gap has prompted growing interest in the darker side of personality and how it may relate to mental health problems, especially depression.
To better understand how the Dark Triad traits might relate to depression, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis—a type of study that combines data from many separate studies to find overall patterns. This method allows scientists to get a clearer picture of whether an effect holds up across different samples, settings, and measurement tools. 
The researchers searched six major databases for studies published in English before June 2024. They included only peer-reviewed studies that reported correlations between the Dark Triad traits and depressive symptoms. After screening more than 5,000 studies, the researchers narrowed their focus to 31 eligible studies with a combined total of 15,567 participants. These studies spanned several regions, including Europe, North America, and Asia.
The researchers looked at how each of the three Dark Triad traits was measured and how depressive symptoms were assessed. For example, psychopathy was commonly measured using the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, while Machiavellianism was often assessed with the Mach-IV scale. Depression was usually measured using standard tools like the Beck Depression Inventory or the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Most studies reported their findings using correlation coefficients, which indicate the strength and direction of a relationship between two variables.
Across all studies, psychopathy and Machiavellianism were both linked to higher levels of depressive symptoms. The correlation for psychopathy was moderately strong, suggesting that people who are impulsive, emotionally detached, and prone to antisocial behavior may also be more vulnerable to feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and other depressive symptoms. A similar pattern was found for Machiavellianism, a trait marked by cynicism, manipulation, and distrust of others. Individuals scoring higher in Machiavellianism were also more likely to report experiencing depressive symptoms.
Interestingly, narcissism did not show a significant overall relationship with depression. But the picture became more complex when the researchers looked at how narcissism was measured. Some tools, such as the Short Dark Triad scale, tended to emphasize grandiose narcissism—traits like confidence, dominance, and a need for admiration. These studies showed a weak or even negative association with depression, suggesting that grandiose narcissism might protect against low mood. 
Other tools, like the Dirty Dozen scale, may capture more aspects of vulnerable narcissism, which includes insecurity, hypersensitivity to criticism, and emotional fragility. In these cases, narcissism showed a small but significant positive link to depressive symptoms. This suggests that not all forms of narcissism function the same way when it comes to emotional well-being.
The study also found that the way these traits and symptoms were measured had a significant impact on the results. For example, different depression scales varied in how strongly they captured depressive symptoms in people with high levels of psychopathy. Some tools appeared to be more sensitive to the kinds of emotional disturbances experienced by people with dark personality traits, which affected the size of the correlations observed. Similarly, the type of scale used to measure Machiavellianism influenced the strength of its link to depression. This shows that the tools researchers choose can shape the conclusions they reach.
The study does have some limitations. Most importantly, the meta-analysis relied on correlational data, which means it cannot determine whether dark personality traits cause depression, or vice versa. It’s possible that experiencing depressive symptoms over time could also influence how someone scores on these personality measures. The researchers also noted that they could not explore the separate roles of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism in depth, due to limitations in the available data. Additionally, most studies came from Europe, North America, and Asia, leaving a gap in data from other regions like Africa and Oceania.
Even with these limitations, the study adds to growing evidence that the darker sides of personality play a role in mental health. For psychologists, counselors, and other mental health professionals, this means that assessing traits like emotional coldness, manipulation, or impulsivity may be helpful when diagnosing and treating depression. 
Looking ahead, the researchers suggest that future studies should include more detailed assessments of narcissism and expand research into underrepresented regions. They also recommend using more comprehensive and nuanced measurement tools to capture the complexity of dark personality traits.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104553) Dark and Blue: A meta-analysis of the relationship between Dark Triad and depressive symptoms,” was authored by Chunwei Lyu, Danna Xu, and Guo Chen.

(https://www.psypost.org/severe-exposure-during-9-11-cleanup-linked-to-early-onset-dementia-in-responders/) Severe exposure during 9/11 cleanup linked to early-onset dementia in responders
Mar 25th 2025, 14:00

A recent study published in (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2819907) JAMA Network Open has found that individuals who responded to the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attacks and were heavily exposed to dust and debris were significantly more likely to develop dementia before the age of 65. The more intense the exposure—particularly for those working directly on the debris pile without protective equipment—the greater the risk. Responders with minimal dust exposure or those who wore personal protective gear had much lower rates of dementia.
The researchers wanted to understand whether the type and severity of exposure during the World Trade Center cleanup were linked to long-term brain health. Previous studies had identified signs of cognitive decline and brain changes in responders, including memory issues and brain shrinkage, which are often early signs of dementia. Although dementia before age 65 is rare in the general population, the team suspected that the combination of extreme environmental hazards and lack of protection may have increased the risk for this group. They also wanted to see whether wearing protective gear could reduce that risk.
“Over the past ten years, there has been increasing recognition that fine particulate matter and airborne pollutants can enter the brain,” said study author (https://publichealth.stonybrookmedicine.edu/faculty/SeanClouston) Sean Clouston, the director of Public Health Research and a professor at Stony Brook University. “At the same time, we have been finding that WTC responders are suffering from high levels of cognitive impairment that is unusual for their age and educational background. This study was the first to try to explain that difference and link it to the types of exposures that responders reported when they were on-site.”
To explore this, the researchers analyzed data from 5,010 responders who were under 60 years old at the time of their first cognitive assessment. All participants had worked or volunteered at the World Trade Center site during the response and recovery efforts between September 2001 and July 2002. They were tracked over a period of up to 8 years, starting in 2014, and underwent repeated cognitive assessments. Participants were excluded if they had previous neurological conditions, traumatic brain injuries during 9/11 work, or existing dementia at the beginning of the study.
Researchers collected detailed information about the responders’ activities at the disaster site, including where they worked, what tasks they performed, and whether they were exposed to dust, smoke, or fumes. They also recorded whether the responders used personal protective equipment such as masks or suits.
Based on this information, the research team developed a five-level scale to rate each person’s exposure severity, from low to severe. People in the lowest group either wore protective gear or reported no direct contact with dust, while those in the highest group worked in the most hazardous conditions—like digging through rubble on the debris pile—without consistent use of protective equipment.
To measure dementia, the researchers used standardized tests of memory, problem-solving, and attention. Participants had to show consistent declines across multiple assessments, along with signs of difficulty managing daily tasks, for a dementia diagnosis to be made. The diagnosis was also cross-checked to rule out other medical causes. The team adjusted their findings for other factors that could influence dementia risk, such as age, education level, cardiovascular health, smoking and drinking history, and genetic predisposition.
During the follow-up period, 228 responders developed dementia before turning 65. While the general population sees about 1 to 2 cases of early-onset dementia per 1,000 person-years, the average among these responders was about 14.5 cases. The rate varied greatly depending on exposure severity. In the lowest exposure group, only about 3 cases occurred per 1,000 person-years. But in the most severely exposed group, the rate rose to over 42 per 1,000 person-years.
Even after adjusting for age, medical history, and other factors, the link between exposure severity and dementia remained strong. Responders in the highest exposure group were nearly ten times more likely to develop dementia than those in the lowest group. The risk increased steadily across each step of the exposure scale. Importantly, wearing protective gear appeared to significantly reduce the likelihood of developing dementia, even among those who worked in hazardous conditions.
“I was somewhat surprised at how well protected some people were,” Clouston told PsyPost. “For example, we found that people who reported working in personalized protective equipment had rates of early-onset dementia that were similar to what you see in the general population.”
For the general public, these findings serve as a warning about the potential dangers of breathing in toxic dust and debris.
“Hopefully, the average person is not exposed to these types of severe and traumatic exposures,” Clouston explained. “However, one point that is important to the average person may be that some things that you do without thinking, like cleaning up debris and ash after a wildfire in your neighborhood, may be more dangerous than you think. Thankfully, this work and others suggests that wearing protective gear can have both a short-term benefit in causing less lung damage, and a long-term benefit in protecting against dementia before age 65 years.”
To confirm their results, the researchers ran additional analyses using machine learning to classify exposure risk, and the outcomes remained consistent. They also tested whether the results held up in smaller groups with genetic data, in people who had recovered from COVID-19, or when taking into account missing or incomplete data. Across all scenarios, the link between higher exposure and higher dementia risk remained.
However, the study does have limitations. The sample was drawn from a group of responders who participated in a federal health monitoring program, and nearly all were English-speaking, which may limit how broadly the results can be applied. Also, exposure levels were based on self-reports collected years after the fact, and there is currently no medical test to measure how much dust or chemicals an individual actually inhaled at the site.
“We don’t yet know exactly what the causal mechanisms are, so that means we can’t say whether it is due to a specific exposure at the WTC sites or if it’s a general exposure,” Clouston noted. “That means that we don’t know if the WTC site is dangerous because a jet burned or because there was just fine air pollution in the air in general. Future research is still needed to answer that question, but it’s important to know when trying to understand risk from future exposures.”
“We still need to better understand whether WTC exposures result in a known condition or in a new disease. We also need to better understand both the point of entry and the active agent at the exposure event.”
The study, “(https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2819907) Incidence of Dementia Before Age 65 Years Among World Trade Center Attack Responders,” was authored by Sean A. P. Clouston, Frank D. Mann, Jaymie Meliker, Pei-Fen Kuan, Roman Kotov, Lauren L. Richmond, Tesleem Babalola, Minos Kritikos, Yuan Yang, Melissa A. Carr, and Benjamin J. Luft.

(https://www.psypost.org/226769-2/) Combat trauma and ink: Study explores tattoos as psychological resources in soldiers
Mar 25th 2025, 12:00

A series of interviews with eight Israeli combat soldiers revealed that their tattoos were closely tied to military experiences and emotional distress. These tattoos often served as coping mechanisms, helping the soldiers process and make sense of their time in the military. The findings published in (https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.70018) Stress and Health.
Upon entering military service, soldiers are thrust into a world vastly different from civilian life. They become part of a large, hierarchical organization governed by strict rules and discipline. They are trained to follow orders unquestioningly—even when doing so may put their lives at risk. During combat operations, soldiers may face prolonged battles, extreme fatigue, sleep deprivation, the loss of comrades, and threats to their own survival.
For many, these experiences are overwhelming and may lead to symptoms of psychological distress, mental health disorders, and problematic behaviors. In their efforts to cope and process these experiences, some soldiers turn to tattoos. Tattoos can function as a form of self-expression, a means of asserting individuality, or a way of preserving one’s personal identity amid the regimentation of military life.
The study, conducted by Keren Cohen‐Louck and Yakov Iluz, aimed to explore how combat soldiers—those directly involved in military operations—use tattoos as a resource for coping with their experiences.
The study included eight Israeli combat soldiers who had gotten tattooed either during their military service or shortly after being discharged. These tattoos were often connected to traumatic events they had experienced, such as participation in extended combat, injuries, or the injury, death, or suicide of fellow soldiers. Two of the participants were female.
Participants ranged in age from 21 to 29. Four were single and four were married. Six participants had up to three tattoos, one had six, and one had fifteen. Most of the tattoos were related to military service. Participants were recruited through Israeli Facebook groups focused on tattoos.
They completed a demographic questionnaire, provided basic information about their military service (e.g., “Were you a combat or non-combat soldier?”, “Did you participate in combat situations during your service?”), and answered a series of questions about their tattoos.
The researchers identified two major themes from the interviews. The first was that military events and the distress soldiers endured served as the background for many of their tattoos. These tattoos acted as mementos of traumatic events they had lived through. As one participant recalled, “When I was discharged, I thought about it a lot—about my commander, about the bullets flying over my head. I see him with blood and everything.”
The second theme was that tattoos served as a resource for coping with stress. For three of the participants, getting tattooed helped reduce stress by allowing them to express and relive their emotions. Tattoos offered a sense of relief and calm. One participant explained, “Mostly, some of the tattoos help me lower my stress level and be calmer. I could actually boil with stress in certain situations, but when I think about the tattoos being a part of what I experienced, I’m calmer and less stressed by the situation.” Other participants viewed their tattoos as sources of strength and empowerment, giving positive meaning to their hardships.
“This qualitative study shows that combat soldiers use tattoos as a coping resource to enable them to adjust and cope with events they were exposed to during their combat military service. The participants’ discourse revealed two coping resources, which the soldiers utilized through tattooing: emotional‐relief and positive‐productive coping. According to the participants, it seems that both types of the coping resources are adaptive. The emotional‐relief coping resource may be effective in reducing distress and the positive‐productive coping resource may be effective in enhancing positive feelings,” the study authors concluded.
The study contributes to the growing body of research on how tattoos can serve psychological and emotional functions, particularly among combat veterans. However, the authors caution that this is a small, qualitative study involving only eight Israeli soldiers. The findings may not generalize to soldiers from other cultures or military systems.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.70018) Tattooing Among Combat Soldiers as a Coping Resource With Their Military Service Experiences,” was authored by Keren Cohen‐Louck and Yakov Iluz.

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/20250326/b9022519/attachment.htm>