<table style="border:1px solid #adadad; background-color: #F3F1EC; color: #666666; padding:8px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; line-height:16px; margin-bottom:6px;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:20px;font-weight:bold;">PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/psychopathy-tied-to-unlawful-firearm-use-but-not-legal-gun-ownership-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Psychopathy tied to unlawful firearm use but not legal gun ownership, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 28th 2024, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-16284-001?doi=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychology of Violence</a></em> has uncovered a key link between psychopathic traits and firearm violence. The research found that individuals with certain psychopathic tendencies, especially those related to emotional coldness and antisocial behavior, are more likely to engage in illegal gun use and violent confrontations. Interestingly, the study also revealed that psychopathy has no connection to legal gun carrying, highlighting a distinction between lawful and unlawful firearm behaviors.</p>
<p>Psychopathy is one factor that has been linked to violence in general. It is a personality disorder characterized by traits such as emotional coldness, manipulativeness, impulsivity, and a lack of regard for the well-being of others. Although individuals with psychopathic traits make up only a small percentage of the population, they are responsible for a disproportionately large share of violent crimes. The disorder is divided into different facets, including affective traits (lack of empathy), interpersonal traits (manipulativeness), impulsive lifestyle behaviors, and antisocial tendencies.</p>
<p>The rationale for the study was to explore the connection between psychopathy and gun violence, particularly in the context of the U.S., where firearms are often involved in violent crimes. While previous research has linked psychopathy to general violence, the new study aimed to fill a gap in the literature by focusing specifically on gun-related behaviors.</p>
<p>“The goal of my research is to improve our understanding of what drives violence, particularly gun violence. This knowledge can help us develop more targeted prevention and intervention strategies,” said study author Nicholas D. Thomson, an associate professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, the director of research for the Injury and Violence Prevention Program at VCU Health Trauma Center, and author of <em><a href="https://www.routledge.com/Understanding-Psychopathy-The-Biopsychosocial-Perspective/Thomson/p/book/9781138570733" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Understanding Psychopathy: The Biopsychosocial Perspective</a>.</em></p>
<p>His co-author, postdoctoral fellow Sophie L. Kjaervik, explained that “the link between psychopathic traits and various forms of gun behaviors is of interest to me because my work focuses on individual differences in aggression and violence.”</p>
<p>The study was conducted using a sample of 343 adult participants who had been treated for violent injuries at a trauma center in Virginia. These individuals, ranging in age from 18 to 75, were recruited because they were considered to be at high risk for future violence. The majority of participants were male (74%) and identified as Black or African American (65%). All participants completed a series of interviews and self-report surveys to assess their psychopathic traits and gun-related behaviors.</p>
<p>The study’s findings revealed significant associations between certain facets of psychopathy and gun-related behaviors. Most notably, the antisocial facet was strongly linked to carrying a gun without a legal permit. This suggests that individuals with antisocial tendencies, characterized by impulsivity and a disregard for social norms, are more likely to engage in illegal gun behaviors.</p>
<p>Those who reported using a firearm in self-defense also scored higher on measures of antisocial behavior. This may reflect a tendency for individuals with antisocial traits to find themselves in situations where violence escalates, requiring them to use a gun for protection. Alternatively, these individuals may perceive or frame their actions as self-defense in situations where they are actually the aggressors.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that both the antisocial and affective facets were linked to firearm violence, meaning individuals high in these traits were more likely to have engaged in violent gun-related incidents.</p>
<p>The study demonstrated “a clear association between psychopathic tendencies and specific gun-related behaviors in adults, including carrying a concealed gun without a permit, shooting a gun in self-defense, and engaging in firearm violence,” Kjaervik told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“While this is one of the few studies exploring the relationship between gun violence and psychopathy, there is substantial data showing psychopathy is robustly linked violence more generally,” Thomson noted. “These findings are in line with our expectations.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, the study found no connection between psychopathy and carrying a concealed gun with a legal permit. This suggests that individuals who follow legal procedures for carrying firearms may not be driven by the same psychological factors as those who carry guns illegally.</p>
<p>The absence of a link between legal gun carrying and psychopathy highlights the potential differences in motivations between lawful gun owners and those who engage in illegal or violent gun behaviors. This distinction could be important for informing gun violence prevention efforts.</p>
<p>“This means that psychopathy differentiates those who engage in gun violence from others but does not predict legal gun use, suggesting that psychopathy is an important target for gun violence prevention efforts that do not impact law-abiding owners,” Kjaervik explained.</p>
<p>The findings shed light on the relationship between psychopathic traits and gun violence. However, the cross-sectional design of the research limits the ability to draw conclusions about cause and effect. The study only shows correlations between psychopathic traits and gun-related behaviors, but it does not establish whether these traits cause individuals to engage in violence or illegal gun use. Longitudinal research, which tracks individuals over time, would be needed to clarify the direction of these relationships.</p>
<p>The study highlights several areas for future investigation. First, researchers should continue to explore the relationship between psychopathy and gun violence, especially with a focus on different types of violence, such as proactive (planned) versus reactive (impulsive) aggression. These distinctions could help clarify which aspects of psychopathy are most relevant to different forms of violence. Additionally, future studies should examine the role of sex differences, as this study’s predominantly male sample may not capture important variations in gun-related behaviors among women.</p>
<p>“Our goal is to develop a solid understanding of what drives gun violence,” Thomson said. “With this knowledge we can develop more targeted intervention and prevention programs to stop gun violence.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000534" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychopathy, Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence</a>,” was published online on August 22, 2024.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/experiment-reveals-limited-ability-to-spot-deepfakes-even-with-prior-warnings/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Experiment reveals limited ability to spot deepfakes, even with prior warnings</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 28th 2024, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An experiment conducted in the UK has shown that people generally struggle to distinguish deepfake videos from authentic ones. Participants watching all authentic videos were almost as likely to report something unusual as those who watched a mix of real and deepfake content. When asked to select the deepfake video from a set of five, only 21.6% of participants correctly identified the manipulated video. The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231214"><em>Royal Society Open Science</em></a>.</p>
<p>Deepfake videos are artificially manipulated to appear real using deep learning techniques. These videos use artificial intelligence to superimpose faces, mimic voices, and create hyper-realistic imitations of real people, making it challenging to distinguish between real and fake content.</p>
<p>Initially developed for entertainment and creative purposes, deepfakes are now raising ethical and security concerns due to their potential for misuse. They can be employed to manipulate public opinion, harm reputations, or commit fraud by placing individuals in fabricated scenarios. Despite their risks, deepfakes also have legitimate applications in film, education, and digital content creation.</p>
<p>Study author Andrew Lewis and his colleagues wanted to explore whether people are able to recognize deepfake videos. They were interested in finding out whether people are able to point them out without any warning (without anyone telling them that there might be deepfakes among the contents they are viewing) and whether giving a warning about possible deepfakes changes the situation. For example, the researchers wanted to know if participants could identify which video in a series used deepfake technology if they were told that at least one video was altered. To test this, they designed a controlled experiment.</p>
<p>The study recruited 1,093 UK residents through Lucid Marketplace, an online platform for gathering survey participants. The participants were divided into three experimental groups, and the survey was conducted via Qualtrics.</p>
<p>In the first group, participants watched five authentic videos with no deepfakes. The second group viewed the same set of videos, but one of them was a deepfake, without the participants being warned about its presence. After watching the videos, participants were asked if they noticed anything unusual.</p>
<p>The third group also watched the same video set with one deepfake, but they were informed beforehand that at least one of the videos would be manipulated. They were given a brief explanation of deepfakes, described as “manipulated videos that use deep learning artificial intelligence to make fake videos that appear real,” and were explicitly told, “On the following pages are a series of five additional videos of Mr. Cruise, at least one of which is a deepfake video.” After watching, participants were asked to select which video or videos they believed to be fake.</p>
<p>The deepfake video in the study featured the actor Tom Cruise, with the other videos being genuine clips of him sourced from YouTube. To account for familiarity with the actor, all participants first watched a one-minute interview excerpt of Tom Cruise to provide a baseline understanding of his appearance and speech patterns.</p>
<p>The results showed that participants were largely unable to detect deepfakes. In the group that watched only authentic videos, 34% reported noticing something unusual, compared to 33% in the group that unknowingly watched a deepfake. This small difference suggests that people did not perform better at detecting deepfakes than spotting irregularities in authentic videos.</p>
<p>In the group that received a warning about deepfakes, 78.4% were still unable to correctly identify the manipulated video. Participants were generally more likely to mistake one of the genuine videos for a deepfake than to correctly identify the actual fake. However, among those who selected only one video, 39% correctly identified the deepfake, a rate somewhat higher than random guessing.</p>
<p>“We show that in natural browsing contexts, individuals are unlikely to note something unusual when they encounter a deepfake. This aligns with some previous findings indicating individuals struggle to detect high-quality deepfakes,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>“Second, we present results on the effect of content warnings on detection, showing that the majority of individuals are still unable to spot a deepfake from a genuine video, even when they are told that at least one video in a series of videos they will view has been altered. Successful content moderation—for example, with specific videos flagged as fake by social media platforms—may therefore depend not on enhancing individuals’ ability to detect irregularities in altered videos on their own, but instead on fostering trust in external sources of content authentication (particularly automated systems for deepfake detection)”, study authors concluded.”</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the general population’s limited ability to detect deepfake videos. However, it is important to note that deepfakes are a relatively new phenomenon, and most people have little experience in identifying them. As deepfakes become more common, it is possible that individuals may develop greater skill in spotting them.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231214">Deepfake detection with and without content warnings,</a>” was authored by Andrew Lewis, Patrick Vu, Raymond M. Duch, and Areeq Chowdhury.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-confirms-thinking-hard-feels-unpleasant/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New study confirms: Thinking hard feels unpleasant</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 28th 2024, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>If you’ve ever felt drained by intense mental effort, science now backs up your experience. A new meta-analysis, published in <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000443" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Psychological Bulletin</a></em>, shows that mental tasks requiring effort are often accompanied by unpleasant emotions. From students solving tough problems to professionals tackling complex work, the study found that mental exertion leads to feelings of frustration and stress across a wide range of tasks. This may help explain why we tend to shy away from mentally challenging activities.</p>
<p>The idea that people tend to avoid effort is a long-standing principle in psychology. It’s a central part of what is often referred to as the “law of less work.” This principle, grounded in studies on animal behavior, suggests that when given a choice, individuals—like animals—opt for less effort-intensive ways to achieve the same goal. This concept has influenced several fields, from neuroscience to economics, where effort is seen as a cost to be minimized.</p>
<p>But there’s a gap in the research. While many studies have demonstrated that people prefer to minimize effort, fewer studies have examined the actual experience of mental effort. Is mental exertion inherently unpleasant, or are there conditions under which people might find mental tasks rewarding? This study aimed to answer the first part of that question by investigating whether people generally find mental effort unpleasant and how this aversion varies across different contexts.</p>
<p>“There’s a longstanding debate in psychology about mental effort,” explained study author Louise David, a PhD student at the School of Health Professions Education at Maastricht University.</p>
<p>“On one hand, it’s clear that people tend to avoid mental effort when they can—for example, aligned with Daniel Kahneman’s concept of ‘System 1’ thinking, where individuals prefer easier, more automatic ways of making decisions, people generally prefer the path of least resistance and avoid investing mental effort when not strictly necessary or not sufficiently rewarded.” </p>
<p>“However, there’s also an argument that people can learn to associate mental effort with positive rewards, like praise in educational settings. We were intrigued by this unresolved debate and sought to explore whether people generally dislike mental effort or can come to appreciate it under certain circumstances. To do so, we conducted a comprehensive review of prior research involving adults who engaged in mentally effortful tasks.”</p>
<p>To explore the relationship between mental effort and unpleasant feelings, researchers conducted a meta-analysis, a method that pools data from multiple studies to draw broader conclusions. They focused on studies that used the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a self-report measure that asks participants to rate their perceived mental effort and frustration after completing a task.</p>
<p>In each of the studies included in the meta-analysis, participants were asked to complete a task and then rate both the mental effort they expended and the frustration or negative feelings they experienced while performing the task. The NASA-TLX uses a visual analog scale that ranges from very low to very high, allowing participants to score their experience on a continuum from 0 to 100.</p>
<p>The key variables in this study were mental effort, measured by the question, “How hard did you have to work to accomplish your level of performance?” and negative affect, captured by a question asking how much participants felt “insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed, and annoyed.” These two measures allowed the researchers to quantify both the amount of effort participants exerted and the level of frustration or stress they experienced during the task.</p>
<p>The meta-analysis included 358 tasks from 125 studies, with data from over 4,670 participants. These studies came from a variety of fields, including psychology, ergonomics, and computer science. Participants were drawn from a wide range of populations, including American physicians, Indian fighter pilots, and Japanese students. The tasks varied in nature, but all required some level of cognitive effort, whether it was a computer-based challenge or a real-world simulation.</p>
<p>The primary finding of the meta-analysis was that mental effort is consistently linked to negative feelings across a wide range of tasks and populations. On average, participants who reported higher mental effort also reported more frustration, stress, and irritation. This suggests that mental effort, in and of itself, tends to feel unpleasant to people.</p>
<p>This effect was consistent across different types of tasks. Whether participants were engaged in repetitive or varied tasks, whether they had control over the task or not, and whether they received feedback on their performance, the relationship between mental effort and negative affect remained strong. Even tasks that involved working with others or that had significant real-world consequences, such as medical procedures or flight simulations, showed the same pattern. More effort resulted in more negative emotions.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that mental effort often feels unpleasant, regardless of the task or individual,” David told PsyPost. “Our study confirmed a strong and consistent link between mental effort and negative emotions, such as frustration or irritation. This suggests that, even in situations designed to be engaging or rewarding, people still find effort aversive. This insight could help us better understand why we often avoid mentally demanding tasks, even when they are important or rewarding in the long run.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, the study found some variation in the strength of this relationship across different geographic regions. In particular, the link between mental effort and frustration was weaker in studies conducted in Asia compared to those in Europe and North America. </p>
<p>Despite this regional difference, the association between mental effort and negative feelings remained robust across all the other factors the researchers examined. The level of education, work experience, task design, and even whether the task involved physical activity or was performed in a group setting did not significantly alter the relationship. Regardless of the specific conditions, mental effort seemed to feel unpleasant to most people, most of the time.</p>
<p>“We were surprised by how robust the association between mental effort and negative emotions was across different tasks and populations. Regardless of the type of task, even those that had game-like features or performance feedback, the negative feelings remained. Even people who had likely been rewarded for their mental effort in the past, such as university-educated individuals, still found effort unpleasant. We had expected to find some exceptions, but the association was remarkably consistent. </p>
<p>“One intriguing nuance was that people in Asian populations seemed to find mental effort slightly less unpleasant (but still unpleasant) compared to those in North America and Europe, which could for example be due to cultural differences in educational systems. However, this finding could also be due to other explanations such as different connotations of the word ‘effort’ across languages.”</p>
<p>While the study provides important insights, it is not without its limitations. The study focused primarily on tasks performed in controlled settings, such as laboratory experiments or simulations. While this allowed the researchers to draw clear comparisons across different tasks, it is possible that people experience mental effort differently in more naturalistic settings, such as at work or in school. Future research could explore how mental effort is experienced in real-world environments and whether different task contexts or social settings might change how effort feels.</p>
<p>Another interesting avenue for future research would be to explore whether certain types of rewards can make mental effort feel less aversive. For example, studies could investigate whether people who are rewarded for effortful thinking—either through praise, money, or a sense of accomplishment—find these tasks more tolerable over time. This could help shed light on how to encourage people to engage in mentally demanding tasks.</p>
<p>“I am currently doing research in which we try to better understand how perceived mental effort influences decision-making in learning,” David explained. “I am interested in how students make choices about their learning strategies, especially when these strategies are effective but feel effortful and how we can help them to use these effective but effortful learning strategies during their studying. The ultimate aim is to find ways to support students in adopting these more challenging strategies and help them to embrace the mental effort necessary for this. I hope to contribute to the development of educational practices that balance the need for mental effort with the motivation to engage in meaningful learning.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-07056-001" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Unpleasantness of Thinking: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Association Between Mental Effort and Negative Affect</a>,” was authored by Louise David, Eliana Vassena, and Erik Bijleveld.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/anticipated-emotions-shape-moral-praise-and-character-judgments-of-helpers/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Anticipated emotions shape moral praise and character judgments of helpers</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 27th 2024, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000377"><em>Journal of Personality & Social Psychology</em></a> shows that people’s anticipated emotional responses to situations significantly shape their moral praise and character judgments of others.</p>
<p>Prior research shows that moral praise is distinct from blame and is often linked to the observer’s perception of the actor’s moral character. While earlier studies demonstrated that emotional responses influence how positively we view charitable actions, many relied on participants being explicitly informed about the helper’s emotional state. In this work, Paige Amormino and colleagues sought to understand how people infer a helper’s emotions and how this affects their moral evaluations.</p>
<p>In daily life, acts of kindness are commonly interpreted through an emotional lens, with observers often assuming that helping behaviors stem from empathy and concern. This assumption drives judgments about the moral worth of the act and the person who performed it. The researchers hypothesized that when people anticipate how they would feel in a given situation, they use that information to assess the moral character of others involved in similar scenarios.</p>
<p>In Study 1, the researchers examined whether helpers in emotionally arousing situations received more praise and were judged to have better moral character than those in less emotional scenarios. The study involved 284 participants, recruited through Prolific, who were randomly assigned to evaluate 10 out of 20 helping scenarios.</p>
<p>The scenarios varied in emotional intensity, such as helping an elderly woman cross the street or finding lost kittens. Participants were asked to rate their anticipated emotional responses, specifically distress and empathic concern, and then evaluate the moral character and praiseworthiness of the helper. To account for confounding factors, the researchers also measured participants’ perceptions of the helping act’s benefits.</p>
<p>The results confirmed that helpers in more affectively arousing situations received significantly higher praise and were viewed as having more positive moral character. Anticipated distress and empathic concern were strong predictors of these moral evaluations, even when accounting for the perceived benefits of the helping act. The findings suggested that people attribute more moral credit to helpers in situations that evoke stronger emotional reactions, and this relationship held even after accounting for how beneficial the helping behavior was perceived to be.</p>
<p>Study 2 expanded on Study 1 by exploring whether the link between anticipated affect and moral evaluations was mediated by perceptions of the helper’s moral motivation. A larger sample of 2,863 participants was recruited, and each participant evaluated one of the 20 scenarios used in Study 1. In addition to rating their anticipated distress and empathic concern, participants were asked to judge the moral motivations of the helper, such as whether the action was driven by genuine moral concern or self-interest. They also provided ratings of the helper’s praiseworthiness and overall moral character.</p>
<p>Helpers in more emotionally arousing situations were seen as more morally motivated, which in turn led to greater praise and higher moral character evaluations, suggesting that people infer moral motivations based on the emotional intensity of the situation. Specifically, scenarios that evoked more distress and empathic concern led participants to believe that the helper was acting out of genuine moral concern, which then resulted in more positive judgments of the helper’s character and praiseworthiness.</p>
<p>Study 3 moved from a between-participants to a within-participants design, allowing the same participants to assess multiple aspects of each helping scenario. A total of 959 participants were recruited to evaluate one of the 20 helping scenarios from Study 1. This time, participants first rated how much distress and empathic concern they themselves would feel if they were the helper.</p>
<p>They then evaluated the helper’s own emotional state, moral motives, and the praiseworthiness and moral character of the helper. Additionally, the study tested the entire proposed causal chain, including participants’ perceptions of the helper’s emotions.</p>
<p>The results replicated the findings from Studies 1 and 2. Participants’ own anticipated distress and empathic concern predicted their judgments of the helper’s emotional state, which in turn influenced their assessments of the helper’s moral motivation. Helpers who were perceived as more emotionally affected by the situation were viewed as more morally motivated, leading to greater praise and higher moral character ratings. Importantly, this study showed that the pathway from participants’ own emotions to their moral evaluations was mediated by their perceptions of the helper’s emotionality.</p>
<p>Study 4 tested whether disrupting the link between participants’ anticipated emotions and their perceptions of the helper’s emotional state would weaken the effect of anticipated affect on moral judgments. A total of 958 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the control condition, participants read one of the 20 helping scenarios from the previous studies and rated their own anticipated affect, the helper’s emotional state, and the helper’s praiseworthiness and character.</p>
<p>In the experimental condition, participants were told that the helper had a brain condition that made them unemotional and reliant solely on rational calculation. The goal was to see if removing the emotional component from the helper’s behavior would affect participants’ moral evaluations.</p>
<p>In the unemotional condition, participants were less likely to use their own anticipated emotions to infer the helper’s emotional state, which reduced the effect of anticipated distress and empathic concern on moral judgments. Participants in the unemotional condition rated the helpers as less morally motivated, giving them lower praise and moral character ratings compared to those in the control group. This finding underscored the role of anticipated emotional reactions in shaping how people infer the emotions and motivations of others and how they evaluate moral actions.</p>
<p>Overall, this research highlights the significant role of emotions in shaping moral judgments.</p>
<p>One limitation was the variability in participants’ ratings of their own anticipated emotions, particularly empathic concern, which reduced statistical power in some analyses.</p>
<p>The research, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000377">Anticipated Affect Predicts Moral Praise and Character Judgments</a>”, was authored by Paige Amormino, Brett Mercier, and Yoel Inbar.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-research-uncovers-an-insidious-form-of-workplace-sexism/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New research uncovers an insidious form of workplace sexism</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 27th 2024, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01463-4"><em>Sex Roles</em></a> sheds light on a troubling phenomenon: when women claim sexism from other women in the workplace, their claims are often viewed as less legitimate compared to claims made against men. This delegitimization leads to harsher judgments of women who report such ingroup-directed sexism, with many perceiving these women as complainers. The study suggests that even though sexism from both men and women can be harmful, discrimination from other women is particularly damaging because it tends to be downplayed.</p>
<p>Despite some expectations that women would support each other in male-dominated workplaces, previous studies suggest that women in leadership roles may discriminate against their female subordinates. For example, research has shown that women supervisors may not offer higher salaries or more promotion opportunities to other women, and in some cases, they actively discriminate against them.</p>
<p>This raises the question: when women report sexism by another woman, are they taken as seriously as when they report it against a man?</p>
<p>The study also builds on previous work regarding prototypes of discrimination—the expectations people have about what discrimination looks like and who commits it. Typically, discrimination is imagined as something that happens when a member of a dominant group (like a man) mistreats a member of a lower-status group (like a woman). The study set out to investigate how claims of sexism against other women are perceived when they violate this common stereotype.</p>
<p>The research consisted of three experiments involving different groups of participants.</p>
<p>In the first study, 175 participants were recruited through an online survey platform, with 167 participants remaining after removing those who failed an attention check. The participants were told that the study was about workplace incidents and were presented with a scenario involving an employee named Chelsea, who claimed she was denied a promotion in favor of a less qualified male coworker. The key variable in this study was the gender of the supervisor who made the decision—either Rachel (female) or Steven (male).</p>
<p>After reading the scenario, participants were asked to evaluate the legitimacy of the claim, whether they viewed Chelsea as a complainer, and how likable they found her. The legitimacy of the claim was assessed with statements like “Chelsea was denied the promotion because of sex discrimination,” while perceptions of her as a complainer were gauged using phrases such as “The employee filing the report is hypersensitive.” The likeability of Chelsea was measured with items like “The employee filing the report is friendly.”</p>
<p>The second study was a replication of the first but with a different sample and slightly adjusted methodology. This time, 131 undergraduate students participated, with data from 119 analyzed after removing those who failed attention checks. The procedure followed the same structure: participants read the same scenario involving Chelsea’s discrimination claim, but again, the key variable was whether the supervisor was a man or a woman.</p>
<p>However, in this study, the participants were asked to describe the scenario in their own words after reading it, which provided the researchers with a measure of how participants interpreted the discrimination claim. The same scales were used to assess the legitimacy of the claim, perceptions of Chelsea as a complainer, and her likeability.</p>
<p>In the third study, the researchers aimed to further explore the mechanisms behind the delegitimization of ingroup discrimination claims. A larger sample of 202 undergraduate students was recruited, and data from 181 participants were analyzed. The same discrimination scenario was used, with Chelsea making a claim of sexism by either a male or female supervisor.</p>
<p>In addition to assessing the legitimacy of the claim, perceptions of Chelsea as a complainer, and her likeability, this study introduced new measures to explore whether the claims violated participants’ expectations of what discrimination looks like (the prototype of discrimination).</p>
<p>Participants rated how much they agreed with statements such as “The supervisor wouldn’t discriminate against a woman” to assess whether the claim violated the prototype that discrimination is typically perpetrated by men. They also evaluated whether the supervisor (regardless of gender) violated general expectations of who can be a perpetrator of discrimination, with statements like “The supervisor is capable of being biased.”</p>
<p>Across all three experiments, the researchers found consistent results. When women reported sexism by a woman supervisor, their claims were judged as less legitimate compared to when the same claims were made against a man supervisor. The participants were more likely to see these women as complainers when the perpetrator of discrimination was another woman.</p>
<p>However, there was no significant difference in how likable the employees were perceived to be, regardless of whether they reported discrimination by a woman or a man.</p>
<p>The researchers also found evidence that these judgments were driven by the violation of discrimination prototypes. When the perpetrator of the sexism was a woman, it went against the common expectation that discrimination is typically carried out by men. This led to delegitimization of the claims, which in turn caused the claimants to be seen as complainers.</p>
<p>The study demonstrated that when participants perceived a claim of sexism by a woman as violating the prototype of what discrimination looks like, they were more likely to view the claim as less legitimate. This, in turn, led to harsher judgments of the woman making the claim.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on how ingroup-directed sexism is perceived. But it also has some limitations. One key limitation is the sample size and demographics. Most participants in the study were either White or Asian, and they were primarily recruited from a university undergraduate pool or an online platform. The researchers noted that this limits the generalizability of the findings to broader populations.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the study highlights the unique challenges women face when they experience sexism from other women. Since discrimination claims are often a crucial first step toward addressing unfair treatment, the fact that women’s claims against other women are often seen as less legitimate could discourage many from speaking up. This, in turn, could allow such discrimination to go unchecked, perpetuating inequality in the workplace.</p>
<p>“Women who experience discrimination at the hands of a woman superior find themselves in a difficult position in which they may experience especially harsh repercussions if they claim discrimination, yet by not claiming they miss out on the potential psychological and economic benefits,” the researchers wrote.</p>
<p>They further noted that studies have shown that after a discrimination lawsuit, companies often become more diverse and inclusive, indicating that reporting discrimination can lead to systemic change.</p>
<p>“Following confrontation, perpetrators of discrimination are less likely to discriminate in the future (Czopp et al., 2006), which benefits both the current and future targets of mistreatment. Conversely, unconfronted discrimination creates norms that this behavior is acceptable (Mallett et al., 2021), which may embolden perpetrators to continue their abuse… Given the legal importance of discrimination claims in changing organizational norms and preventing future discrimination, the costs of unreported ingroup discrimination are high.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-024-01463-4">The Delegitimization of Women’s Claims of Ingroup‑Directed Sexism</a>,” was authored by Kerry E. Spalding, Rebecca Schachtman, and Cheryl R. Kaiser.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/online-dating-and-relationship-success-the-potential-role-of-social-media-sharing/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Online dating and relationship success: The potential role of social media sharing</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 27th 2024, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2024.0136" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking</a></em> provides new details regarding how relationships that begin through online dating differ in success compared to those that start offline. The researchers found that married couples who met through online dating experienced lower relationship success if they did not talk about their relationship on social media. In contrast, for those who discussed their relationships online, there was no difference in success between online and offline couples.</p>
<p>As online dating becomes an increasingly common way for people to meet, researchers have been curious about its long-term impact on relationships. But previous findings were mixed: some studies showed online dating leading to more satisfying marriages, while others found it led to less stable and less satisfying relationships. The new study aimed to explore whether these differences could be explained by the presence (or absence) of relationship discussions on social media.</p>
<p>“Research shows that meeting a partner online is becoming more common than traditional methods like through friends or family,” said study author <a href="https://junwenhu.github.io/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Junwen Hu</a>, a PhD student in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. “My collaborators and I often heard my peers struggle to find meaningful relationships online, yet I also kept hearing stories of people who met online and ended up happily married. This contrast made us curious whether online dating really helps people build better relationships.”</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers used data from the Pew Research Center’s American Trends Survey, conducted in 2019. This survey included a nationally representative sample of 4,860 adults in the United States, with a focus on online dating behavior. For this particular study, the researchers selected participants who were either married or in committed, non-marital romantic relationships. The sample was further narrowed to only include those who clearly indicated whether they had met their partner through online dating or offline methods, resulting in a final sample of 2,787 individuals.</p>
<p>In addition to asking how participants met their partners, the survey asked about their relationship success, which was measured by how well they felt things were going in their relationship on a four-point scale. The survey also asked whether participants had shared or discussed their relationship on social media.</p>
<p>Of this sample, most participants were between 30 and 64 years old. Most participants identified as White and heterosexual, though there was representation from non-White and non-heterosexual populations as well. The survey also captured data on the duration of relationships, with most participants having been in their relationships for more than five years.</p>
<p>The results showed that for married couples, meeting online was linked to lower relationship success—but only if the couple did not share or discuss their relationship on social media. Among married couples who did share their relationship experiences online, there was no significant difference in success between those who met online and those who met offline. This finding suggests that social media can help compensate for the lack of traditional social support that might be missing in relationships that start through online dating.</p>
<p>In non-marital relationships, the pattern was different. Meeting through online dating was actually linked to higher relationship success, but only for those who talked about their relationship on social media. For non-married couples who did not share their relationship online, there was no significant difference in success between those who met online and those who met offline.</p>
<p>“My collaborators and I were surprised that online dating seemed to have a more negative impact on marriages than on non-marital relationships,” Hu told PsyPost. “We would have expected people to be more selective when it comes to marriage.”</p>
<p>In summary, for married couples, online dating was linked to less relationship success unless the couple actively discussed their relationship on social media. For non-married couples, discussing their relationship online appeared to enhance the positive effects of online dating, leading to greater success compared to offline relationships.</p>
<p>“Meeting a partner online versus offline can affect relationships, but the impact may be more nuanced than simply saying ‘online dating leads to worse relationships,'” Hu explained. “For instance, in our study, online dating was linked to less successful marriages but didn’t significantly affect non-marital relationships. Also, involving one’s social network (like friends) in the relationship process, such as seeking advice or sharing updates, may boost success in relationships that start online.”</p>
<p>While this study provides important insights into the dynamics of online dating and relationship success, there are some limitations. “This is a correlational study, so we can’t draw conclusions about causality,” Hu noted. “It’s possible that other factors play a role. For example, research suggests that people with attachment anxiety are more likely to use online dating and also tend to have more challenging romantic experiences than securely attached people.”</p>
<p>Looking forward, Hu hopes “to explore ways to improve people’s online dating experiences. As online dating continues to grow in popularity, we need to figure out how to make the process more satisfying. One area my collaborators – in and beyond this project – and I are working on is how people’s beliefs about online dating and AI-powered matchmaking affect their success and satisfaction. This draws on the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully, we can help users navigate these platforms more effectively.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cyber.2024.0136" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Does Online Dating Make Relationships More Successful? Replication and Extension of a Previous Study</a>,” was authored by Junwen M. Hu, Rui Zhu, and Yue Zhang.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Forwarded by:<br />
Michael Reeder LCPC<br />
Baltimore, MD</strong></p>
<p><strong>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. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><s><small><a href="#" style="color:#ffffff;"><a href="https://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/565/DY9DKf">unsubscribe from this feed</a></a></small></s></p>