Your Daily digest for PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

[Article Digests for Psychology & Social Work]

PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

 

(https://www.psypost.org/study-ritalin-improves-numeric-memory-but-not-overall-cognition-in-non-adhd-adults/) Study: Ritalin improves numeric memory but not overall cognition in non-ADHD adults
Mar 30th 2025, 10:00

A new study published in (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.70002) Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental has found that a low dose of the commonly prescribed ADHD medication methylphenidate may improve accuracy in certain memory tasks but does not enhance overall cognitive function in healthy adults.
Stimulant medications like methylphenidate (sold under brand names such as Ritalin) are widely used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The drug works by increasing levels of dopamine and noradrenaline—neurotransmitters that play key roles in focus, attention, and impulse control.
However, in recent years, many individuals without ADHD—particularly students—have begun using these medications in hopes of boosting concentration and academic performance.
The growing popularity of these so-called “smart drugs” has raised important questions about whether stimulant medications genuinely enhance cognitive abilities in healthy individuals. While earlier research has shown that such drugs may improve working memory and processing speed, much of that work has focused on higher doses or clinical populations.
The current study aimed to explore whether a lower dose (10 mg) of methylphenidate could provide cognitive benefits while minimizing potential side effects.
Led by Amie C. Hayley, researchers at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study involving 25 healthy adults (36% female, aged 21 to 45 years). Each participant received either a 10 mg dose of methylphenidate or a placebo in two separate sessions, spaced one week apart.
Participants then completed a series of cognitive tasks designed to assess reaction time, working memory, and visual attention. The study also incorporated eye-tracking technology to evaluate whether the drug affected visual scanning behavior.
The results were mixed. Participants performed better on a numeric working memory task after taking methylphenidate, making fewer errors and demonstrating improved accuracy compared to when they received the placebo.
However, the drug did not improve other aspects of cognitive performance, including reaction time, general working memory, or visual scanning efficiency.
“Consistent with prior research, we observed select, modest improvements in tasks that assess numeric working memory. Considering the absence of improvement across other cognitive domains, these findings suggest that the effects produced by low-dose methylphenidate are more dose-limited and task-specific,” Hayley and colleagues concluded.
One limitation of the study is its small sample size. With only 25 participants, it is possible that subtle cognitive effects of methylphenidate went undetected. Additionally, the sample was relatively homogeneous—most participants were young, healthy adults with a high level of education—which may have influenced their baseline performance and sensitivity to the drug.
Despite these limitations, the study contributes to a growing body of research suggesting that the cognitive benefits of stimulant medications may be overstated, particularly for individuals without ADHD.
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.70002) Acute Administration of 10 mg Methylphenidate on Cognitive Performance and Visual Scanning in Healthy Adults: Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study,” was authored by Blair Aitken, Luke A. Downey, Serah Rose, Brooke Manning, Thomas R. Arkell, Brook Shiferaw, and Amie C. Hayley.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-online-self-reports-may-not-accurately-reflect-clinical-autism-diagnoses/) New study finds online self-reports may not accurately reflect clinical autism diagnoses
Mar 30th 2025, 08:00

A new study published in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-025-00385-8) Nature Mental Health suggests that adults who report high levels of autistic traits through online surveys may not reflect the same social behaviors or clinical profiles as those who have been formally diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Although these two groups may appear similar on paper, the study found meaningful differences in their social interactions, mental health symptoms, and the way they perceive and influence others during social tasks. The findings raise questions about the widespread reliance on self-report surveys in online autism research and suggest that diagnostic evaluations by trained professionals remain essential.
The researchers, led by a team at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, were motivated by a growing trend in psychiatric research: the shift toward large-scale, web-based studies. Online platforms like Prolific allow researchers to gather data from thousands of people quickly and inexpensively. While this approach has clear advantages in terms of scale and accessibility, it often relies solely on participants’ own descriptions of their traits and mental health symptoms.
“By allowing people to participate in research remotely and anonymously, online studies ease many of the burdens associated with in-person involvement and allow researchers to recruit large samples quickly. However, as online studies become increasingly popular in psychiatric research, it is essential to evaluate their limitations,” said study authors Sarah M. Banker, who is now a postdoctoral fellow NYU Langone, and Xiaosi Gu, an associate professor and director of the Center for Computational Psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
“Notably, anonymous online research typically relies on self-report to measure symptoms and identify participants with specific psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions. Without the added context of clinical evaluation, self-reported symptoms may be limited in their ability to capture the experiences and diagnoses of people who have difficulties describing their emotions and struggles – including many autistic individuals. Our study sought to evaluate whether autistic participants identified through online self-reported symptoms show similar profiles to those identified through in-person clinical evaluation.”
The researchers compared three groups of adults. One group included 56 individuals who were diagnosed with autism after undergoing in-person clinical evaluations. The second group consisted of 56 people recruited online who reported high levels of autistic traits using a standard survey. A third group, also recruited online, reported low levels of autistic traits and served as a comparison. All participants were matched in age and gender to allow for fair comparisons.
The study involved a mix of questionnaires and interactive tasks. All participants completed the Broad Autism Phenotype Questionnaire, which measures characteristics often associated with autism, including social difficulties and rigid behavior. The in-person group also underwent clinical interviews and standardized assessments conducted by trained professionals.
Additionally, all three groups participated in two computer-based tasks designed to simulate social interactions. One task measured the participant’s ability to influence the behavior of virtual characters to gain rewards, while the other tracked their social decision-making over time, such as whether they acted warmly or distantly toward new characters.
The results showed that although the high-trait online group and the in-person autism group reported similar levels of autistic traits, their profiles differed in key ways. The online group with high autistic traits reported more symptoms of social anxiety and avoidant personality disorder than the clinically diagnosed group. In fact, their psychiatric profiles resembled those of people who are socially anxious but not necessarily autistic. This suggests that some people who score high on autism trait questionnaires in the general population may actually be describing a different type of social struggle—one rooted more in anxiety than in autism.
One of the most striking findings came from the comparison between self-report and clinical assessment. Among participants with a confirmed autism diagnosis, there was no meaningful relationship between how they rated their own symptoms and how clinicians rated them. This held true for both core domains of autism: repetitive behaviors and social communication. The two types of measures seemed to capture different aspects of the condition—one reflecting internal experience and the other focusing on observable behavior.
“We were surprised to find that, for adults with a confirmed autism spectrum disorder diagnosis (and without co-occurring intellectual disability), higher clinician-rated symptoms did not correspond to higher self-reported symptoms,” Banker and Gu told PsyPost. “This finding suggests that the two measures capture different aspects of autism: while self-reported assessments may capture internal experiences, clinician-rated assessments may capture external presentations.”
Differences also emerged in how participants behaved during the social interaction tasks. In the first task, which tested whether participants could influence virtual characters by accepting or rejecting monetary offers, the in-person autism group showed reduced ability to recognize and use social influence. They rejected fewer high offers and did not adjust their behavior in ways that would have led to better future outcomes. They also reported less awareness of their ability to influence the game, suggesting a diminished perception of social controllability.
In contrast, both the high-trait and low-trait online groups performed similarly on this task and showed more awareness of their influence. This points to a key distinction: while individuals in both online groups may share internal feelings of social difficulty, their external behavior in social contexts does not mirror the social differences seen in people with a clinical autism diagnosis.
In the second task, which involved choosing how to interact with different characters during a simulated narrative, the in-person autism group again showed unique patterns. They were less likely to choose friendly or affiliative responses, even when their self-reported feelings toward the characters were similar to those of the online high-trait group. This gap between internal attitude and external behavior was specific to the clinically diagnosed group, suggesting that their social behavior was more affected by their condition than by their feelings or intentions alone.
“Despite similarly high levels of self-reported autistic traits, adults recruited online (without self-identification of an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis) and those recruited in-person (with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis confirmed through clinical evaluation) displayed different psychiatric profiles and tendencies during simulated social interactions, suggesting they may represent different groups,” Banker and Gu explained.
“Our results suggest that, without additional information (such as diagnostic information collected by trained professionals), self-reported symptom surveys may not be sufficient to identify or draw representative conclusions about certain diagnoses, including autism spectrum disorder. This work emphasizes the important distinction between diagnoses and traits and provides a caution against the potential for generating assumptions about one group based on the findings from research conducted in another.”
This matters not just for research, but also for clinical care. If online studies are used to shape understanding of autism or to develop interventions, it is important that the participants truly reflect the population the research aims to help. Otherwise, there is a risk of creating treatments or policies that are not effective—or even relevant—for those who are clinically diagnosed with autism.
“This finding is also interesting when considering the emerging use of online mental health platforms, where clinician evaluation is not always available and symptom severity (and improvement) only relies solely on self-report,” the researchers noted. “Our finding suggests that such approach might need to be revisited and compared against human clinician evaluations/ratings.”
But the researchers were also careful to note that self-reports still have an important role to play. They are valuable tools for understanding how individuals experience their own challenges. In fact, self-reports can offer insights that clinicians might miss, particularly when it comes to internal states like anxiety or depression.
“Although our findings highlight discrepancies between self-reported and clinician-rated symptoms, they do not diminish the value of self-report surveys in autism research,” Banker and Gu said. “In fact, self-reports are crucial for understanding individuals’ own experiences, internal distress, and overall wellbeing. They also empower individuals with lived experience to shape narratives about their condition and help to challenge inaccurate assumptions about the reasons behind autistic behaviors. Rather than discounting personal perspectives, our results emphasize caution for researchers in relying solely on self-reported symptom measures when defining or generalizing about diagnostic groups.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00385-8) Phenotypic divergence between individuals with self-reported autistic traits and clinically ascertained autism,” was authored by Sarah M. Banker, Miles Harrington, Matthew Schafer, Soojung Na, Matthew Heflin, Sarah Barkley, Jadyn Trayvick, Arabella W. Peters, Abigaël A. Thinakaran, Daniela Schiller, Jennifer H. Foss-Feig, and Xiaosi Gu.

(https://www.psypost.org/scientists-discover-how-to-psychologically-inoculate-narcissists-against-dishonesty/) Scientists discover how to psychologically inoculate narcissists against dishonesty
Mar 30th 2025, 06:00

A new study published in the journal (https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241276562) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin has found that individuals high in narcissism may be more likely to behave ethically when they are exposed to a specific kind of message designed to prevent rationalizations for bad behavior. Across three experiments, researchers found that people who scored high on narcissism—often associated with entitlement and self-centeredness—were less likely to cheat or lie after receiving a psychological “inoculation” that made unethical justifications seem less persuasive.
The researchers, led by Daniel N. Jones of the University of Nevada, Reno, were interested in exploring a new approach to ethical training, particularly for individuals who are more prone to dishonesty but still care about maintaining a positive self-image. Rather than relying solely on traditional codes of ethics, the team investigated whether an “inoculation” strategy could protect against the rationalizations that often lead to unethical decisions.
The researchers focused on a concept called “moral disengagement”—the psychological process by which people justify unethical behavior in a way that allows them to avoid feeling guilty. Examples include telling yourself that “everyone else does it,” or minimizing the harm done by saying “nobody really gets hurt.” These rationalizations act like self-persuasion, allowing people to maintain a sense of integrity even as they engage in dishonest acts.
The idea behind the inoculation method is to warn people that they will encounter such justifications and then expose them to weakened versions of these arguments, along with counterarguments. Much like a vaccine works by training the body to resist a virus, this psychological inoculation helps the mind build up defenses against future unethical reasoning.
To test this approach, the researchers conducted three separate experiments involving a total of 972 participants. In each study, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. One group read a standard code of ethics—a type of message commonly used in schools and workplaces to promote ethical behavior. The other group read an inoculation message designed to expose and counter common rationalizations for unethical conduct. Each message took about two to four minutes to read.
The code of ethics emphasized the importance of upholding integrity in academic and professional environments. It encouraged people to act with honesty, accountability, and responsibility, and to serve as ethical role models for others by resisting temptation, taking ownership of one’s actions, and promoting a culture of ethical behavior.
The inoculation message, in contrast, warned that unethical behavior, even when it seems harmless or justified, can damage reputations and lead to serious consequences. It explained several common rationalizations people use to excuse bad behavior—such as blaming others, minimizing harm, or using euphemistic language—and countered each one to help individuals resist these faulty justifications.
In the first study, which involved 443 Canadian university students, participants completed a series of personality assessments and answered questions about how likely they were to engage in dishonest behavior in the future. The researchers specifically measured narcissism using two different tools, along with assessments of Machiavellianism and psychopathy. The key finding was that individuals who scored high on narcissism reported stronger ethical intentions after reading the inoculation message, compared to those who read the standard code of ethics. This effect did not appear for those low in narcissism, nor did it appear for individuals high in Machiavellianism or psychopathy.
The second study, which included 224 American business students, took things a step further by measuring actual dishonest behavior. Participants were given a virtual coin-flipping task where they could cheat to earn extra exam credit. If they flipped the coin once and accepted the result, they were considered honest. However, the software allowed them to flip multiple times until they got a favorable outcome. The researchers found that narcissistic participants who received the inoculation were less likely to cheat than those who received the ethics code. Again, no such pattern emerged for the other two traits.
The third study followed 305 participants over time to see whether the inoculation had lasting effects. Participants completed the same kind of initial reading task and were then contacted a week later to report how many lies they had told in the past week. The results showed that individuals high in narcissism who had received the inoculation reported fewer lies, suggesting that the intervention had some durability. Interestingly, this delayed effect was tied more to reductions in dishonest behavior than increases in self-reported honesty.
Across all three studies, the inoculation approach consistently influenced only those high in narcissism. The researchers argue that this makes sense given what is known about narcissistic individuals. People high in narcissism often feel entitled and are motivated by personal gain, but they also care deeply about how they are perceived by others and want to maintain a positive self-image. This internal conflict makes them more likely to rely on rationalizations when they behave unethically—and more receptive to an intervention that targets those rationalizations.
In contrast, individuals high in psychopathy often lack guilt or concern for others and are unlikely to experience internal conflict about their actions, while those high in Machiavellianism may see dishonesty as a strategic tool rather than something to justify.
However, the researchers caution that the inoculation approach is not universally effective. In fact, they found evidence that it might backfire for people who are already internally motivated to be honest or who score low on narcissism. In these cases, exposure to the inoculation message—which highlights common rationalizations—might inadvertently increase awareness of justifications for unethical behavior, even if that wasn’t the intended effect. The same unintended effect was found among participants with low internal motivation to be honest. For these individuals, the inoculation message seemed to prompt more dishonesty compared to the ethics code.
These findings suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to ethics training may not be optimal. Instead, ethical interventions might need to be customized based on personality traits and motivational factors. People who are already motivated to be ethical may benefit more from standard reminders and ethical codes, while those who struggle with self-serving tendencies—but still care about being seen as good people—may respond better to inoculation messages that challenge their ability to justify dishonest behavior.
“In this research, we found that individuals high in narcissism behaved more ethically when they were exposed to inoculation that prevented them from engaging in moral disengagement tactics,” the researchers concluded. “This finding was exclusive to narcissism and did not apply to the other two Dark Triad traits. Furthermore, the benefits of inoculation seemed exclusive to narcissism, such that those low in narcissism were not more ethical in response to inoculation. In such cases (i.e., high dispositional ethics) merely repeating a code of ethics may be the best approach. Thus, we find not only does inoculation depend on the target audience in this context, but also that individuals high in narcissism may behave ethically under the right circumstances.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241276562) Inoculating Against Moral Disengagement Creates Ethical Adherence for Narcissism,” was authored by Daniel N. Jones, Rafik Beekun, Julie Aitken Schermer, Kristi Baerg MacDonald, and Josh Compton.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-women-have-more-sensitive-hearing-than-men-regardless-of-age-or-environment/) New study finds women have more sensitive hearing than men, regardless of age or environment
Mar 29th 2025, 14:00

A new study of hearing sensitivity across global populations has revealed that women consistently have more sensitive hearing than men—by about two decibels on average—regardless of age or where they live. The researchers also found that the local environment plays a significant role in shaping how our ears respond to different sound frequencies. The study, published in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92763-6) Scientific Reports, suggests that both biological and environmental factors influence human hearing more than previously thought.
The research was led by Patricia Balaresque at the Centre for Biodiversity and Environmental Research in Toulouse, France, in collaboration with Professor Turi King from the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. The team set out to explore a question that has been surprisingly underexamined: What shapes the diversity in human hearing beyond aging and noise exposure?
Most previous studies of hearing have focused on people living in industrialized countries, often assuming that any loss in hearing ability is due mainly to age, loud noise, or harmful chemicals. But those explanations don’t apply to everyone. People who haven’t been exposed to excessive noise or toxins still show different levels of hearing sensitivity. The team wanted to understand whether these differences could also be linked to biology, such as sex and age, or to external factors like language, local ecology, or population history.
To answer this, the researchers studied a wide variety of human populations. They tested 448 healthy adults from 13 distinct groups across five countries: Ecuador, England, Gabon, South Africa, and Uzbekistan. These populations were chosen to represent a broad mix of environments, from dense forests and high-altitude rural areas to urban settings. By looking at such a diverse sample, the researchers hoped to capture how both human biology and the surrounding environment might influence hearing.
To measure hearing sensitivity, the team used a technique called Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions. This test doesn’t require the person to respond to sounds, which makes it ideal for comparing hearing across languages and cultures. Instead, a small device plays a clicking sound into the ear and then records the tiny sounds the inner ear sends back in response. These returning signals are created by cells in the cochlea and give a reliable indication of how sensitive the ear is to sound.
The team recorded these signals from both ears of each participant, collecting thousands of individual profiles. They also took detailed notes on each person’s age, sex, and hearing health history, excluding anyone with known hearing problems or recent ear infections. Participants completed questionnaires about their general health and lifestyle, and researchers made sure that no one taking medications that could affect hearing was included in the final analysis.
Once the data were collected, the researchers examined several features of the signals, including how strong they were (measured in decibels) and which frequencies the ear responded to most strongly. They also compared how these features varied based on a person’s sex, age, which ear was tested, their population, the type of environment they lived in, and their language group.
The results were striking. Across all 13 populations, women had more sensitive hearing than men—by about two decibels on average. This pattern held across all tested frequencies, not just at high frequencies where earlier studies had noted differences. The researchers suggest that this may reflect a universal biological trait rather than a culturally specific pattern. They point to possible causes such as hormonal influences during development or subtle structural differences in the cochlea between sexes.
In contrast, the effect of age was present but less pronounced. People’s hearing did become less sensitive as they got older, particularly after the age of 35, but this decline was smaller than the difference observed between men and women. The left and right ears also differed slightly, with the right ear being a bit more sensitive on average—a pattern that has been seen before and may relate to how the brain processes sound.
The most unexpected finding was the strong role of the environment. People living in different ecological settings had not only different hearing sensitivity levels but also responded best to different ranges of sound frequencies. For instance, individuals from high-altitude rural areas in the Andes had the lowest hearing sensitivity overall. This may relate to the body’s response to low oxygen or other altitude-related stressors. In contrast, people living in tropical forests had higher sensitivity, especially in frequency ranges important for detecting natural sounds, which may help in environments with dense vegetation and rich animal life.
Urban environments also appeared to shape hearing in unique ways. People in cities had hearing profiles shifted toward higher frequencies, possibly as a response to the constant low-frequency hum of traffic and other city noise. This adaptation mirrors what has been observed in birds living in cities, which often sing at higher pitches to be heard over the background noise.
The researchers also explored whether language played a role, grouping participants by their language family (such as Indo-European or Niger-Congo). While language had some effect, it was not as strong as the influence of the physical environment, suggesting that ecological factors play a larger role in shaping hearing than cultural or linguistic differences.
As with any study, there are some limitations. The researchers did not follow individuals over time, so they couldn’t directly measure how hearing changes in response to environmental shifts. Also, while the study excluded people with known hearing damage, there may still have been unreported exposures to noise or other unknown influences. Genetic data were not analyzed, so it’s unclear whether the observed differences are inherited or are the result of adaptation during a person’s lifetime.
The authors say future research should explore whether the variations they found are due to genetic adaptation to local environments or whether they reflect flexible responses to the conditions people live in—what scientists call phenotypic plasticity. If environmental changes like noise pollution or altitude can reshape hearing, it suggests the human auditory system is more adaptable than previously thought.
In a statement, King noted the broader importance of the findings: “We know that humans are continuing to evolve, so the next question is whether our hearing can change in response to different environments generally or whether there are genetic adaptations involved.”
Dr. Patricia Balaresque added, “Our findings challenge existing assumptions and highlight the need to consider both biological and environmental factors when studying hearing. Identifying drivers behind natural hearing variation will improve our understanding of hearing loss and individual differences in noise tolerance.”
The study, “(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92763-6) Sex and environment shape cochlear sensitivity in human populations worldwide,” was authored by Patricia Balaresque, Sébastien Delmotte, Franklin Delehelle, Andreia Moreira, Nancy Saenz-Oyhéréguy, Myriam Croze, Tatyana Hegay, Tamara Aripova, Sylvie Le Bomin, Philippe Mennecier, Didier Descouens, Sylvain Cussat-Blanc, Hervé Luga, Angel Guevara, Maria Eugenia D’Amato, Turi King, Catherine Mollereau, and Evelyne Heyer.

(https://www.psypost.org/regular-sauna-users-report-better-health-more-energy-and-greater-happiness/) Regular sauna users report better health, more energy, and greater happiness
Mar 29th 2025, 12:00

People who regularly use saunas in northern Sweden report better overall health, higher energy levels, and greater happiness than those who do not. They also tend to have lower rates of high blood pressure and experience less physical pain. These findings come from a new population-based study published in the (https://doi.org/10.1080/22423982.2024.2419698) International Journal of Circumpolar Health, which compared people who sauna bathe regularly with those who do not.
Most earlier findings on sauna use and health have been based on Finnish populations, where sauna bathing is deeply embedded in the culture. While northern Sweden also has a strong tradition of sauna use, little was known about how sauna habits relate to health in this population. The researchers wanted to understand whether regular sauna use was associated with measurable differences in physical and mental health and whether these associations held true outside of Finland. To do this, the research team used data from the (https://www.umu.se/en/research/infrastructure/norra-sveriges-monica-studie/) 2022 Northern Sweden MONICA study, a long-running health survey designed to monitor cardiovascular risk factors in the general population.
“I have done a lot of research on nursing in emergency and intensive care, but in recent years, I have developed a growing interest in health and nature,” said study author (https://www.ltu.se/en/staff/a/asa-engstrom#h-Aboutme) Åsa Engström, a professor at the Luleå University of Technology. “In connection with that, I have read about the benefits of sauna bathing, such as its positive effects on cardiovascular health. We then had the opportunity to include questions about sauna bathing habits in the Northern Sweden MONICA Study, which allowed us to compare various health parameters between those who used saunas and those who did not.”
In the spring of 2022, a random sample of 1,180 adults aged 25 to 74 from the northern counties of Norrbotten and Västerbotten were invited to participate. Of these, 971 people (about 82 percent) answered questions about their sauna habits. Participants who reported sauna bathing at least once per month were categorized as “sauna bathers,” a group that made up 66 percent of the sample.
The survey collected a wide range of information, including demographic details, health status, lifestyle habits, and mental well-being. It also included specific questions about sauna use, such as how often participants used a sauna, how long they stayed in, the temperature of the sauna, and whether they bathed alone or with others. Other questions assessed participants’ levels of physical activity, smoking and drinking habits, sleep satisfaction, and experience of pain, anxiety, and depression. Participants also rated their general health, energy levels, and happiness on standard scales.
The results showed several significant differences between people who used saunas regularly and those who did not. Sauna bathers were generally younger, more often male, and more likely to be physically active. They also smoked less, although they tended to drink alcohol more frequently—typically two to three times per week. Despite this, they reported better overall health. Compared to non-sauna bathers, they had lower rates of diagnosed high blood pressure and reported experiencing less physical pain.
Mental health outcomes also differed between the two groups. Sauna bathers reported lower levels of anxiety and depression, and higher levels of energy and happiness. They also expressed greater satisfaction with their sleep patterns. Interestingly, these benefits were most noticeable among those who sauna bathed one to four times per month. Bathing more frequently than that did not lead to additional improvements in mental health or energy, and happiness scores were actually lower among those who used the sauna more than four times per month compared to moderate users.
The majority of sauna users in the study followed fairly typical sauna routines. Most stayed in the sauna for 15 to 20 minutes at a time, usually in one or two bouts per session. The temperature ranged between 60 and 80 degrees Celsius for most users, and electric saunas were the most common type. Most people bathed with others rather than alone, but relatively few combined sauna use with cold-water or ice swimming.
The study also found that the association between sauna use and better health was not strongly tied to socioeconomic status. Sauna bathers and non-sauna bathers did not differ significantly in terms of education or where they lived. This suggests that the benefits seen among sauna bathers may not be explained solely by financial resources or living conditions.
While these results are consistent with previous studies suggesting health benefits from sauna use, the researchers caution that the study has limitations. One key limitation is its cross-sectional design, which means the data were collected at a single point in time. This makes it impossible to say whether sauna use causes better health, or whether healthier people are simply more likely to use saunas. Long-term studies or clinical trials would be needed to determine whether sauna use directly leads to health improvements.
Another limitation is that the group of sauna users tended to be younger and included more men, which may have influenced the results. Age and gender can both affect health outcomes independently of sauna use. Although the researchers compared groups statistically, more detailed analysis adjusting for these factors would be needed in future studies.
“We have begun analyzing more of the parameters in the MONICA data,” Engström said. “Our aim is to better understand the health effects of sauna bathing and how factors such as the environment and social context influence the experience. We have now developed a new survey on sauna bathing to help answer our research questions, and so far we have received nearly 400 responses. I am also conducting interviews with people, not only about sauna bathing but also about cold baths and winter bathing.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1080/22423982.2024.2419698) Sauna bathing in northern Sweden: results from the MONICA study 2022,” was authored by Åsa Engström, Hans Hägglund, Earric Lee, Maria Wennberg, Stefan Söderberg, and Maria Andersson.

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/20250330/c8aa71a8/attachment.htm>