<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/the-confrontation-effect-revealed-outrage-over-opposing-political-views-fuels-social-media-engagement/" 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;">The confrontation effect revealed: Outrage over opposing political views fuels social media engagement</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 14th 2024, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Social media users are more likely to engage with posts that provoke rather than affirm their political beliefs, according to new research published in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S074959782400058X"><em>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</em></a>. This “confrontation effect” is driven by outrage, pushing people to respond to opposing viewpoints. The findings shed light on the emotional dynamics that drive online engagement.</p>
<p>The researchers — Daniel Mochon, the Edward H. Austin Jr. Professor of Business Administration and an associate professor of marketing at Tulane University’s A. B. Freeman School of Business, and Janet Schwartz, the executive director of Duke University’s Center for Advanced Hindsight — were motivated by a puzzling contradiction in existing knowledge about how people process information. Prior studies have shown that individuals tend to avoid content that challenges their beliefs, a behavior known as “confirmation bias.”</p>
<p>However, social media platforms frequently showcase highly polarized and combative interactions between individuals with opposing views. This raises questions about why people, who are generally expected to avoid conflicting information, engage more frequently with it online. Mochon and Schwartz sought to explain this paradox, hypothesizing that the outrage provoked by opposing views might be a key factor driving this unexpected engagement.</p>
<p>“We wanted to better understand how people interact with ideologically charged content online,” Mochon told PsyPost. “We commonly observed online settings where negative sentiments posted by users with ideology-inconsistent views dominated the threads, and we wanted to reconcile this pattern with the well-established finding that people tend to avoid information inconsistent with their beliefs.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers conducted a series of studies using a combination of real-world data from social media platforms and controlled online experiments.</p>
<p>In three initial field studies, the researchers aimed to test whether people engage more with content that opposes their political views (ideology-inconsistent) rather than content that aligns with their beliefs (ideology-consistent). They used Facebook’s advertising platform to target U.S. users with different political views (liberal and conservative).</p>
<p>The researchers created political posts related to three topics: gun control (Study 1A), Obamacare (Study 1B), and President Trump (Study 1C). Each post was designed to support either a liberal or conservative stance. For example, one post might advocate for gun control, while another opposes it. These posts appeared in users’ newsfeeds as paid advertisements.</p>
<p>The results showed that people were more likely to click on and comment on posts that opposed their political views than those that supported them. For example, liberals were more likely to engage with posts supporting President Trump than those criticizing him. This pattern, observed across all three studies, provided evidence for the confrontation effect.</p>
<p>“We were surprised by the size of the confrontation effect in the field studies,” Mochon said. “We found situations where users were four times more likely to engage with content they disagreed with than content they agreed with.”</p>
<p>Next, Mochon and Schwartz sought to replicate the findings of the Facebook field studies in a more controlled setting, allowing for a clearer understanding of the confrontation effect. The researchers also extended their investigation beyond politics to another emotionally charged issue: vegetarianism.</p>
<p>The study recruited 1,001 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online platform commonly used for academic research. Participants were categorized based on their dietary practices (vegetarian/vegan or non-vegetarian) and were shown two tweets: one supporting vegetarianism and another opposing it. They were then given the option to comment on each tweet, and the researchers recorded whether participants chose to engage.</p>
<p>The findings mirrored those of the Facebook studies, with participants more likely to comment on tweets that conflicted with their dietary practices. For instance, non-vegetarians were more likely to respond to pro-vegetarian tweets, often expressing negative emotions such as anger or disgust.</p>
<p>The researchers then explored whether the type of engagement response moderated the confrontation effect. They hypothesized that when people are asked to comment on ideology-inconsistent content, they are more likely to engage than when asked if they want to follow or see more content from the same source.</p>
<p>Participants (802 individuals recruited from the research platform Prolific) were assigned to one of two conditions: they were either asked to comment on an ideology-inconsistent tweet or decide whether they wanted to see more content from the same source. The tweets addressed a highly charged topic: COVID-19 vaccines. Participants’ emotional reactions were measured, and the researchers recorded their engagement behavior in both conditions.</p>
<p>The results showed a stark difference depending on the type of engagement. Participants were more likely to comment on tweets that contradicted their views on vaccines (in line with the confrontation effect). However, when given the option to follow the user who posted the tweet, participants were less likely to do so if the content conflicted with their beliefs. This suggested that while people are drawn to confront opposing views, they avoid prolonged exposure to such content.</p>
<p>Mochon and Schwartz also tested whether the way a message is framed affects the likelihood of engaging with ideology-inconsistent content. Their fourth study was conducted using Facebook again, targeting users with liberal or conservative posts about gun control. The posts were framed either as information-based (low threat) or action-based (high threat). For example, a low-threat post might provide facts about gun control, while a high-threat post might call for immediate action to change gun laws. The researchers measured the engagement rates, including clicks and comments, for each type of post.</p>
<p>The findings revealed that posts framed as high-threat (fighting for a cause) generated more engagement from users with opposing views than low-threat (informational) posts. This suggested that the emotional intensity of the message plays a key role in driving the confrontation effect, with more provocative content leading to greater engagement.</p>
<p>In Study 5, the researchers investigated whether the importance of the topic being discussed affects the confrontation effect. The hypothesis was that people would be more likely to engage with ideology-inconsistent content on important topics, like COVID-19 vaccines, than on less personally relevant topics, such as smartphone brands.</p>
<p>Participants (803 individuals from Prolific) were randomly assigned to read tweets about either COVID-19 vaccines (a high-importance topic) or smartphone brands (a low-importance topic). As in previous studies, participants were asked to comment on ideology-consistent or inconsistent tweets, and their emotional reactions were measured.</p>
<p>The results showed that participants were more likely to engage with opposing views on important topics like vaccines, but not on less important topics like smartphones. This finding indicated that the confrontation effect is stronger when the issue at hand is personally or socially significant, providing a boundary condition for the effect.</p>
<p>Finally, in their fifth study, Mochon and Schwartz examined whether confronting ideology-inconsistent content (by commenting on it) could reduce the emotional distress or outrage people experience. Prior research suggests that people might feel better after expressing their negative emotions, so the researchers tested whether commenting on an opposing viewpoint would lower the outrage participants felt.</p>
<p>In this study, 400 participants from Prolific were exposed to political tweets from either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Some participants were given the opportunity to comment on the tweet, while others were not. The researchers measured their levels of outrage and satisfaction both before and after exposure to the tweet.</p>
<p>The findings showed that participants who were able to comment on the ideology-inconsistent tweet experienced a reduction in their outrage levels, compared to those who were not given the chance to respond. This suggests that part of the reason people engage with opposing views online is to relieve their emotional discomfort.</p>
<p>“Outrage is a powerful driver of online engagement, often leading users to interact with content they would prefer to avoid,” Mochon told PsyPost. “Users should be more mindful of their reactions to online content and whether it is in their best interest to engage with it.”</p>
<p>Despite its important insights, the study also had limitations. One of the main challenges was the complexity of measuring engagement across different types of online platforms. Each social media platform has unique features that may influence how users engage with content, and the study focused on specific actions like clicking or commenting.</p>
<p>Future research could explore other forms of engagement, such as sharing or following, to gain a fuller understanding of how people interact with ideology-inconsistent content. Additionally, the study largely focused on political content, leaving room for further exploration of how the confrontation effect operates in non-political contexts.</p>
<p>“Social media is a complex and constantly changing environment,” Mochon said. “While outrage is a strong driver of engagement, the specific behaviors it leads to online may depend on the platform and social content.”</p>
<p>Future research could also explore whether this effect varies across cultures or social groups, as well as how it might evolve with changing social media dynamics. There may be other emotions besides outrage, such as fear or sadness, that drive engagement with opposing viewpoints. Understanding these nuances could help researchers develop more comprehensive theories about how people interact with conflicting information online.</p>
<p>“We would like to understand how to help people engage more constructively and reduce the amount of toxic content online,” Mochon said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104366">The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online</a>,” was published October 5, 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/the-flirting-paradox-why-others-attention-to-your-partner-can-cool-your-desire/" 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;">The flirting paradox: Why others’ attention to your partner can cool your desire</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 14th 2024, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Choosing a partner is one of life’s most consequential decisions, profoundly impacting one’s future trajectory and quality of life. The search itself presents numerous challenges, from the time investment required to the risk of deception or misjudgment. So, it’s no wonder we’ve developed strategies to help us identify good potential partners while minimizing effort and risk.</p>
<p>One common approach is to observe how others respond to a potential mate. Have you ever found someone more attractive after seeing them receive positive attention? This phenomenon, known as “mate choice copying,” occurs in both humans and animals. It’s a shortcut we use to identify desirable partners.</p>
<p>Research has consistently shown that when people see others desire a potential partner, they tend to find that person more attractive<sup>2</sup>. It’s as if they are thinking, “If others desire them, they must be worth pursuing.”</p>
<p>But there’s a fascinating twist: This evaluation process doesn’t stop once people are in a relationship. People continue to assess their partner’s value<sup>3</sup>, often influenced by how attractive others find them. However, the meaning of others’ attention may change within the context of a committed relationship.</p>
<p>When you are single, seeing others interested in a potential partner might make that person seem more desirable. But what happens when you see others flirting with your current partner? Does it have the same effect, or does it trigger something entirely different, as it may signal a risk of losing your partner to someone else?</p>
<p>This is the question at the heart of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2024.2391105">our recent research</a><sup>4</sup>. We wanted to understand how unsolicited attention from others towards a current partner affects desire and relationship maintenance efforts. Does it make people desire their partner more, or does it perhaps make them wary of potential threats to the relationship, leading them to react defensively?</p>
<p><strong>What was our methodology?</strong></p>
<p>We conducted three experiments to explore what happens in people’s minds and hearts when others show interest in their current partner. In all studies, participants in committed relationships were exposed to situations where their partner either received unsolicited flirtatious advances (external attention condition) or had a neutral interaction with another person (control condition).</p>
<p>Participants then rated their sexual desire for their partner, their interest in engaging in relationship-maintaining efforts, such as taking on a chore for their partner, and their interest in deterring the rivals who hit on their partner.</p>
<p>In each study, we used a different method to manipulate exposure to the external attention given to the partner. In the first study, participants visualized a scenario where someone else showed interest in their partner (without reciprocation) or interacted neutrally with the partner.</p>
<p>For example, one participant described the external attention scenario this way: “We’re at our go-to bar, and out of nowhere, this stunning girl starts eyeing my guy. I’m thrown off, asking him, ‘Who is she?’ It’s weird ‘cause he’s like, ‘No clue.’ But it feels off, you know? Stuff like this doesn’t just happen. Who is she, and what’s the story?”</p>
<p>In our second study, we wanted to create a realistic but controlled environment to study reactions to unwanted attention towards a romantic partner. We turned to the immersive power of virtual reality (VR).</p>
<p>Imagine this: participants in our study put on VR headsets and were transported to a bustling bar. They watched their real-life partners interact with a virtual stranger, who either flirted with their partner or remained neutral. This innovative use of VR allowed us to create a safe environment to study the very real emotions of jealousy and possessiveness – without anyone actually coming to blow over a beer!</p>
<p>In our third study, we shifted from imagined scenarios to real-life experiences. Participants were asked to recall and describe a past episode in their relationship where someone had either expressed unreciprocated interest in their partner or had interacted with their partner in a neutral manner.</p>
<p>For example, one participant recounted the experience like this: “We’re out in Tel Aviv when, suddenly, this guy comes up and asks for my girlfriend’s number. I’m annoyed, like, who does he think he is!? My girlfriend shuts him down fast, but my mind is already racing. What if she liked him? Could I lose her? Maybe she would be happier?”</p>
<p><strong>What did we find?</strong></p>
<p>People reacted to unsolicited attention given to their partner by feeling less desire for their partner, showing reduced interest in investing in the relationship, and becoming more interested in thwarting potential rivals.</p>
<p><strong>So why does this happen?</strong></p>
<p>The meaning you attach to others’ attention changes once you’re committed to someone. When you’re single, external interest in a potential partner can serve as a valuable cue to their desirability. But in a committed relationship, that same attention may be perceived as a threat.</p>
<p>The fear of losing a partner can trigger a cascade of defensive reactions. To shield ourselves from potential pain, we might create emotional distance and withdraw investment in the relationship, hoping to soften the blow if our fears materialize. At the same time, the anger ignited by others’ interest in our partner can manifest as confrontation towards these perceived rivals. These reactions, however, may be rooted more in retaliation than in genuine efforts to maintain the relationship.</p>
<p><strong>What is the takeaway?</strong></p>
<p>While some people might try to induce jealousy in their partner by seeking attention from others to feel more desired or secure<sup>5</sup>, our research shows this tactic often backfires. Instead of strengthening the relationship, it can damage the very connection it aims to enhance.</p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Gouda-Vossos, A., Nakagawa, S., Dixson, B. J., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). Mate choice copying in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis. <em>Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 4</em>, 364–386.</li>
<li>Burch, R. L., Moran, J. B., & Wade, T. J. (2021). The reproductive priming effect revisited: Mate poaching, mate copying, or both? <em>Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 15</em>(3), 251–264.</li>
<li>Birnbaum, G. E., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Slotter, E. B., & Luchies, L. B. (2021). Sexual desire mediates the relationship-promoting effects of perceived partner mate value. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50</em>, 3733–3755.</li>
<li>Birnbaum, G. E., Friedman, D., Zholtack, K., Gilad, N., Bergman, N., Pollak, D., & Reis, H. T. (in press). When your partner is being flirted with: The impact of unsolicited attention on perceived partner desirability and mate retention efforts. <em>The Journal of Sex Research</em>.</li>
<li>Mattingly, B. A., Whitson, D., & Mattingly, M. J. B. (2012). Development of the Romantic Jealousy-Induction Scale and the Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale. <em>Current Psychology</em>, <em>31</em>(3), 263–281.</li>
</ol></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/does-spanking-harm-child-development-major-study-challenges-common-beliefs/" 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;">Does spanking harm child development? Major study challenges common beliefs</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 14th 2024, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2024.2392672"><em>Marriage & Family Review</em></a> explores the long-debated effects of spanking on children’s development. The researchers found that spanking explained less than 1% of changes in child outcomes. This suggests that its negative effects may be overstated. The study recommends that if spanking is used, the most effective approach is two open-handed swats on the bottom for children aged 2 to 6 when they don’t respond to milder discipline like time-outs.</p>
<p>The question of whether spanking causes harm to children has been a topic of intense debate for years. Previous studies have shown strong correlations between <a href="https://www.psypost.org/longitudinal-study-provides-more-evidence-that-spanking-might-harm-kids-early-developmental-skills/">physical punishment and negative child outcomes</a>, but these studies often failed to account for children’s pre-existing behavioral problems. As a result, it has been difficult to establish whether spanking itself causes these problems or if it is simply used more frequently with children who already have behavior issues.</p>
<p>“I have been doing research for 40 years to try to answer two questions,” explained study author <a href="https://experts.okstate.edu/robert.larzelere" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Robert E. Larzelere</a>, an Endowed Professor for Parenting Research in the Department of Human Development and Family Science at Oklahoma State University and author of <em><a href="https://amzn.to/4dFcw0I" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Authoritative Parenting</a></em>.</p>
<p>“(1) What disciplinary responses are more effective than spanking, so that we can recommend them to replace spanking? Answer so far: none, although parents should prefer milder and verbal disciplinary responses as much as possible. (2) Although it is clear that spanking is correlated with adverse outcomes such as delinquency, does it <em>cause</em> those outcomes (like smoking) or not (like hospitalization, which is also associated with worse outcomes compared to those never hospitalized)? Answer so far: Spanking does not cause harmful outcomes unless it is used too often or too severely or out of meanness rather than out of concern for the child’s welfare.”</p>
<p>For their study, Larzelere and his colleagues conducted meta-analyses using data from earlier reviews of longitudinal studies, which track the same children over time. These studies allowed for more accurate comparisons because they controlled for children’s baseline behavior—meaning the children’s behavior before the spanking was taken into account. This method helped the researchers isolate spanking’s effects and avoid attributing pre-existing behavioral issues to spanking itself.</p>
<p>The meta-analysis included data from 12,727 participants across 47 studies, with children ranging in age from 18 months to 11 years. The researchers focused on four key child outcomes: externalizing problems (such as aggression and defiance), internalizing problems (such as anxiety and depression), cognitive performance, and social competence.</p>
<p>To better understand the impact of spanking, the researchers applied two different statistical methods: the “beta method” and the “slope method.” The beta method controls for initial behavior scores and compares changes over time, while the slope method directly examines changes in behavior over the study period. These two methods provided complementary perspectives on spanking’s potential effects and helped identify any biases in the findings.</p>
<p>In addition to general spanking, the researchers analyzed “back-up spanking,” a specific form of discipline involving two open-handed swats to a child’s bottom when they refuse to cooperate with time-out. This method had been evaluated in randomized controlled trials, which the researchers included in their analysis to compare the effectiveness of back-up spanking with other disciplinary strategies.</p>
<p>After controlling for baseline behavior, the researchers found that spanking explained less than 1% of the variation in child outcomes. Using the beta method, the researchers found small harmful-looking effects, but these were trivial in size. For example, spanking explained only 0.64% of the variance in externalizing problems and even less in internalizing problems, cognitive outcomes, and social competence.</p>
<p>In contrast, the slope method showed slightly more beneficial-looking effects. For instance, spanking was associated with a minor decrease in externalizing problems, but this effect was so small that it explained less than 0.1% of the variance.</p>
<p>This suggests that spanking has a minimal impact on externalizing problems, internalizing problems, cognitive performance, and social competence. The results indicate that previous reports of the harmful effects of spanking may have been overstated due to residual confounding—meaning other unmeasured factors may have influenced the negative outcomes rather than spanking itself.</p>
<p>The analysis of “back-up spanking,” which involves two open-handed swats to enforce cooperation with time-out, provided more compelling results. In randomized controlled trials, back-up spanking was shown to be significantly more effective than allowing children to leave time-out without consequences.</p>
<p>Children who received back-up spanking were more likely to comply with parental commands and cooperate with time-out procedures. The effects were particularly pronounced in terms of faster cooperation with time-out, suggesting that in certain situations, spanking can be an effective tool for reinforcing discipline.</p>
<p>However, the effectiveness of spanking varied depending on the child’s age. The researchers found that spanking had slightly better outcomes for younger children, particularly those aged 2 to 6 years. For children in this age group, spanking was associated with slight reductions in externalizing behaviors.</p>
<p>As children grew older, spanking became less effective and was linked to slightly worse outcomes, particularly for children aged 8 to 11 years. This suggests that spanking may be more appropriate for younger children but less beneficial, or even harmful, as they age.</p>
<p>“Although different things work for different children (or for the same child at different times), spanking can be an effective disciplinary tool under some circumstances,” Larzelere told PsyPost. “The most effective way to use spanking is two open-handed swats to the bottom of 2- to 6-year-olds when they refuse to cooperate with milder disciplinary responses, such as time-out.”</p>
<p>“When used that way, defiant children learn to cooperate with the milder disciplinary responses, so that spanking can be phased out. Similarly, timeout and privilege removal can be used to back up verbal explanations and negotiations, which should be preferred by all parents when appropriate.”</p>
<p>The new findings are in line with a previous study, published in <em>Child Development</em> in 2021, which found that occasional, mild spanking <a href="https://www.psypost.org/can-spanking-a-child-ever-have-beneficial-results/">had minimal negative effects on child behavior</a>. Importantly, the results suggested that the harmful effects of spanking may have been overestimated due to a failure to separate between-subject and within-subject variance. In other words, earlier studies may have conflated differences between individual children with the effects of spanking itself, leading to conclusions that were influenced by pre-existing behavioral traits.</p>
<p>Larzelere expressed surprise that research on parental discipline has “rarely tried to distinguish between more and less effective ways to use spanking or other disciplinary techniques.” He noted that, in contrast, medical research consistently defines the correct dosage and the conditions under which a treatment or medication is most effective. This level of precision is often missing in studies on discipline, where guidelines for appropriate use are rarely specified.</p>
<p>“The studies of two-swat back-up spanking were done by one research clinic in the 1980s to try to find an effective alternative for back-up spanking,” Larzelere said. “They showed that a brief room isolation was just as effective on average, although they questioned whether rooms in homes would be as suitable for room isolation as in their clinic.”</p>
<p>“But hardly any conclusive research has been done since then. The failure to specify precise implementations and appropriate situations in research since 1990 may help explain why clinical treatments for oppositional defiance in young children are half as effective now as they were 30 to 50 years ago when psychotherapists trained parents to use spanking (or a brief room isolation) to enforce cooperation with time-out.”</p>
<p>The findings suggest that spanking, when used in a controlled and limited manner, does not cause significant harm, particularly for younger children. However, this should not be interpreted as implying that all forms of spanking are harmless. Inappropriate or excessive use of physical punishment can still result in negative outcomes and should be avoided.</p>
<p>“Obviously, spanking can be misused and is then likely to have harmful effects on children,” Larzelere said. “Spanking will have harmful effects if it is used too severely, too frequently, or as part of a rejecting, neglecting, or chaotic approach to parenting.”</p>
<p>It is also important to note that the results are based on average effects, which means individual children may respond differently to spanking depending on their temperament, family environment, and other factors.</p>
<p>“Different things work for different children,” Larzelere said. “Parents should try disciplinary and parenting strategies they hear about to see if they help with their children. But they are justified in questioning the absolute opposition to all disciplinary consequences sometimes expressed online. Any disciplinary method can be harmful, but even spanking can be used appropriately in a very limited role within a positive parent-child relationship.”</p>
<p>Future research could focus on identifying the specific circumstances in which spanking might be harmful or beneficial. This includes looking at factors such as the frequency and severity of spanking, the relationship between the parent and child, and alternative disciplinary methods.</p>
<p>“I would like to collaborate with anti-spanking researchers to conduct more conclusive research on how parents should discipline their children, with or without spanking,” Larzelere said. “Many popular parenting books say that parents should avoid <em>all</em> negative disciplinary consequences. That may work for easily managed children, but it is likely to be unrealistic and harmful for children who are more oppositional and defiant. European researchers have shown that these unrealistic expectations may help explain why parental burnout is more common in our country than in many others.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01494929.2024.2392672" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Resolving the Contradictory Conclusions from Three Reviews of Controlled Longitudinal Studies of Physical Punishment: A Meta-Analysis</a>,” was authored by Robert E. Larzelere, Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, Joshua Pritsker, and Christopher J. Ferguson.</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/trumps-election-fraud-allegations-linked-to-temporary-decline-in-voter-turnout/" 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;">Trump’s election fraud allegations linked to temporary decline in voter turnout</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 13th 2024, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09952-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Political Behavior</a></em> provides evidence that high-profile claims of electoral fraud, like those made by Donald Trump after the 2020 presidential election, can discourage voter participation—but only temporarily. The study examined Georgia’s 2021 Senate runoff elections and found a modest drop in turnout among Trump supporters. These effects, however, were short-lived, with turnout returning to normal in subsequent elections.</p>
<p>The researchers aimed to explore whether claims of electoral fraud and misconduct, especially those made by political elites, can influence voter turnout. This question has gained importance following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, where Trump and his allies mounted an extensive and well-publicized campaign alleging fraud, despite a lack of evidence.</p>
<p>These claims raised concerns about the potential for such misinformation to undermine public confidence in elections and, ultimately, democratic participation. The viability of democracy relies on shared trust in election integrity, and this study sought to understand whether elite claims of fraud might discourage voters from participating in elections.</p>
<p>The researchers were specifically interested in how these allegations impacted the 2021 Senate runoff elections in Georgia, which followed closely after the contentious 2020 presidential election. The Senate races were significant, as they would determine the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. Given the high stakes and the intense focus on election integrity, Georgia provided a unique opportunity to study how such claims might affect voter behavior.</p>
<p>The study was conducted using a combination of aggregate and individual-level data from Georgia’s voter file, which includes information on voters’ demographics, voting history, and turnout in various elections for over 7.6 million registered voters. This large dataset allowed them to track changes in turnout at the precinct level, as well as estimate individual voter behavior based on factors like race, gender, age, and previous voting patterns.</p>
<p>In analyzing voter turnout between the November 2020 general election and the January 2021 Senate runoff, the study found a small but notable decline in turnout in areas where Trump was more popular. On average, precincts with higher levels of Trump support saw turnout decline by 0.7 to 1.3 percentage points.</p>
<p>When looking at individual voters, those who were predicted to be strong Trump supporters showed a larger decrease in turnout, about 1.7 percentage points, compared to non-Trump supporters. This finding supports the idea that Trump’s fraud claims, amplified by widespread media coverage, may have discouraged some of his supporters from voting in the runoff.</p>
<p>“Our findings illustrate the potential for exposure to conspiracy theories and misinformation to erode not only attitudes toward the electoral system, but also participation in democratic politics,” the researchers wrote.</p>
<p>However, the study also found that this demobilizing effect was temporary. By the time of the 2022 Georgia Senate runoff, turnout among Trump supporters had largely returned to pre-2021 levels. In that election, the turnout decline among Trump supporters was less than one percentage point compared to non-Trump supporters, suggesting that the impact of the fraud allegations was short-lived.</p>
<p>“Our quantitative case study takes place in an admittedly extreme context,” the researchers explained. “The sustained allegations of electoral fraud by the highest-profile politician in the United States in the months leading up to the runoff received enormous attention. When we expand our analysis to examine persistence across multiple election cycles, we find smaller turnout effects in the 2022 runoff. Absent a steady stream of high-profile claims and the attendant media coverage they receive, specious allegations of electoral fraud are unlikely to have long-term demobilizing effects.”</p>
<p>The methodology used in the study allowed the researchers to control for various factors that could influence turnout, such as voters’ historical voting behavior and demographic characteristics. This gave them confidence that the observed declines in turnout were likely linked to the fraud allegations, rather than other campaign factors or natural variations in voter behavior.</p>
<p>But as with any study, there are some some limitations to consider. First, the researchers were unable to completely disentangle the effects of fraud allegations from other factors that might have influenced turnout in the 2021 runoff, such as changes in campaign strategies, voter fatigue, or the outcome of the 2020 general election itself. The analysis can only measure the net effect of these various factors combined.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study focuses on a specific electoral context—the 2021 Georgia runoff elections—and the findings may not be generalizable to other elections or contexts. The high-profile nature of the fraud allegations and the extensive media coverage surrounding the 2020 election make it a unique case. It is unclear whether similar claims of fraud would have the same effect in a different setting or if they were made by a less prominent figure.</p>
<p>The study opens the door for further research on the effects of elite rhetoric on voter turnout and democratic participation. Future studies could explore how different types of fraud allegations—such as claims of widespread fraud versus more localized or procedural misconduct—affect voter behavior. Researchers could also investigate whether the effects of fraud claims vary depending on the source of the allegations, the media environment, or the partisan composition of the electorate.</p>
<p>Additionally, experimental studies could help clarify how voters respond to different types of misinformation about elections and whether such claims have different effects depending on the political context or timing of the election. As misinformation continues to be a concern in democratic societies, understanding its potential to erode not only trust in elections but also voter participation will remain an important area of study.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-024-09952-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Can Elite Allegations of Election Fraud Demobilize Supporters?</a>“, was authored by Bernard L. Fraga, Zachary Peskowitz, and James Szewczyk.</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/riding-the-waves-of-recovery-surf-therapys-impact-on-mental-health-and-trauma/" 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;">Riding the waves of recovery: Surf therapy’s impact on mental health and trauma</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 13th 2024, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>As a lifelong surfer, born to pioneering surfing parents and named after a wave, the ocean has shaped my <a href="https://easkeybritton.com/saltwater-in-the-blood/">identity and sense of belonging</a>. The movement and touch of ocean waves ignites a whole cascade of changes in emotions in me and affects how I sense the world around me. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780323952279/oceans-and-human-health">Scientific research</a> is now evidencing what I have intuitively known and felt my whole life – the <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-10812-9_28">power of the sea to heal</a>.</p>
<p>Ocean therapy or <a href="https://academic.oup.com/heapro/article/35/1/50/5252008">blue care</a> involves ocean programmes and water-based activities designed to help people cope with mental, emotional and physical illness by accessing the ocean. Engaging with <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7967635/">blue spaces</a> – from marine and coastal environments to inland lakes and rivers – can have restorative health and wellbeing outcomes. As a marine social scientist, I firmly believe that this so-called “blue attunement”, the ability to create a connection with these blue spaces, is at the core of improving efforts to restore ocean health.</p>
<p>In my book, <a href="https://easkeybritton.com/ebb-flow/">Ebb and Flow</a>, I investigate how restoring our connection with water through therapeutic settings can help recovery from trauma. Ocean therapy can help the body feel emotions that get lost in highly traumatic situations. “We live the world through our body,” explains environment and health researcher <a href="https://www.aru.ac.uk/people/nick-caddick">Nick Caddick</a>, who researches how <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nick-Caddick/publication/265394153_The_Effects_of_Surfing_and_the_Natural_Environment_on_the_Well-Being_of_Combat_Veterans/links/55f03f6908ae199d47c1ae0d/The-Effects-of-Surfing-and-the-Natural-Environment-on-the-Well-Being-of-Combat-Veterans.pdf">surf therapy helps combat veterans</a> who have experienced severe trauma.</p>
<p>Immersion in water, and surfing in particular, requires a form of mindful embodiment, or <a href="https://www.wallacejnichols.org/122/the-blue-mind-movement.html">“blue mind”</a> that supports the repair of the mind-body connection. This rewires the brain and rebalances hormones, reducing fears and anxieties.</p>
<p>As an <a href="https://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/BrittonEtAl-Final.pdf">embodied way</a> of experiencing the natural world, <a href="https://intlsurftherapy.org/">surf therapy</a> is emerging as one of the most rapidly growing blue care activities. There is <a href="https://core.ac.uk/reader/580975520">strong evidence</a> to support the restorative benefits of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0193723520928597">immersion in the sea and surf</a>, especially for our <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10620">psychological wellbeing</a>.</p>
<p>The mechanisms for how ocean therapy <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14729679.2021.1884104">affects our wellbeing</a> are not yet well understood, but <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978032395227900021X">research shows</a> that benefits are linked to its fluid and dynamic nature — surfing demands a focus on the present, offering respite from everyday anxieties. Feelings of presence, flow, joy and a connection to nature were often reported by participants across various <a href="https://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/BenningerEtAl-Final.pdf">surf therapy studies</a>, in some cases reducing dependency on conventional treatments for <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10620">mental illness</a> such as antidepressant medication.</p>
<p>The multisensory nature of being immersed in the ocean activates the entire sensory system at a cellular level. This is believed to enhance <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/12/2/211">neuroplasticity</a>, the ability of <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-brain-plasticity-and-why-is-it-so-important-55967">brain cells</a> to modify their connections, helping the brain become more agile and adaptive. Physically responding to the movement of waves and learning to balance on a surfboard can help improve functional mobility for those with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2024.2320265">acquired brain injury</a> and other physical injuries. This can lead to a reduction in the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Stedje-Larsen/publication/232113675_Surf_Medicine_Surfing_as_a_Means_of_Therapy_for_Combat-Related_Polytrauma/links/605221d4458515e834516efa/Surf-Medicine-Surfing-as-a-Means-of-Therapy-for-Combat-Related-Polytrauma.pdf">use of narcotics</a> for pain management.</p>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42322-023-00152-2">Surf therapy</a> can help people <a href="https://www.liquidtherapy.ie/our-story/blue-space-research-and-liquid-therapy/">overcome fears in a playful way</a>. According to surf therapy expert <a href="https://www.stokedresearch.com/">Jamie Marshall</a>, the dynamic learning environment associated with surfing builds resilience and helps people cope with stress. Learning to surf in a group can enhance a sense of belonging and identity through <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780815359159-7/d%C3%BAchas-easkey-britton">shared ocean encounters</a> too.</p>
<h2>Attune to the blue</h2>
<p>Despite these positive findings, there is growing tension between the desire to engage with blue space for the restoration of human health and the fact that many of our local blue spaces are <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4170">polluted, harmful</a>, considered <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780815359159-9/ducking-diving-running-pushing-hannah-pitt">dangerous</a> or <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829224001370">exclusionary</a>.</p>
<p>This stems partly from the growing disconnect in modern society between humans and nature. The dominant narrative within <a href="https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gec3.12415">nature therapy literature</a>, including blue health, has tended to emphasise what <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exiting-the-anthropocene/">nature can do for us</a>. Terms like “back to nature” and <a href="https://richardlouv.com/blog/what-is-nature-deficit-disorder">“nature-deficit disorder”</a> emphasise our separation from nature.</p>
<p>Nature therapy is largely aligned with western values to the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02614367.2019.1640774">exclusion of other value systems</a> and interpretations of nature with a tendency to <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315161839-10/surfers-leisure-easkey-britton-rebecca-olive-belinda-wheaton">neglect race, ethnicity or sexuality</a> from these studies.</p>
<p>As interest in blue health grows, it’s important to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2159676X.2021.1879921">consider the ethics</a> of how we interact with the ocean beyond controlling and extracting resources from it for our own benefit. By embracing the value of bringing play, love and intention into that relationship, our encounters can incorporate a sense of stewardship and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X18301738">marine custodianship</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.robinwallkimmerer.com/">Robin Wall Kimmerer</a>, a leading Indigenous scientist and author calls this renewal of relationship with the living world “reciprocal restoration”. She argues that the restoration of our relationships with land and water are as essential as the work to clean up pollution.</p>
<p>Ocean therapy provides a lens to see, understand and experience the ocean as restorative and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780323952279/oceans-and-human-health#book-description">health-enabling</a>. Even when coastal blue spaces are considered places of exclusion, danger or risk, the ocean can be transformed into a place of healing and connection through initiatives like <a href="https://www.seasisterslk.com/">Sea Sisters</a> in Sri Lanka, a social enterprise that empowers local girls and women using swimming and surfing as tools for social change. <a href="https://outsider.ie/lifestyle/kindness-of-strangers-easkey-britton/">I co-founded</a> another project in Iran, <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-53318-0_50">Be Like Water</a>, with triathlete Shirin Gerami to make surfing more accessible to minority groups of women and girls while strengthening their connection to nature.</p>
<p>Ocean therapy opens up possibilities for new health care interventions and time spent immersed in the sea can awaken a deeper understanding of the vulnerable <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5819">nature of the ocean</a>.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://irishgeography.ie/index.php/irishgeography/article/view/1478">blue attunement</a> – becoming aware and responsive <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-53318-0_50">to the body of water</a> we interact with – enables a deeper form of listening and can encourage more <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494423002736">pro-environmental actions</a>, collectively demonstrating <a href="https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000390126?posInSet=10&queryId=ae1682bd-5c4b-4e5c-8456-e72b76c4fb50">care for the ocean</a>. To realise the potential of blue care, the ocean must be restored as a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829224001370">safe and healthy space for all</a>. My hope is that we will understand our interdependence with watery places, and sense the <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/6/3342">aliveness of these connections</a>. To feel that we too are water.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/232862/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/surf-therapy-connects-people-to-water-ocean-health-depends-on-this-blue-attunement-232862">original article</a>.</em></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/first-study-to-capture-real-time-impact-of-phone-use-on-infant-speech-environment/" 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;">First study to capture real-time impact of phone use on infant speech environment</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 13th 2024, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study is the first to document the real-time connection between phone use and the amount of speech directed at infants during everyday interactions. Published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14125"><em>Child Development</em></a>, the research tracked phone use and speech over the course of a week, revealing that even short phone use episodes are associated with a notable decrease in the speech infants hear from their mothers.</p>
<p>Previous studies have shown that parental phone use can interfere with engagement and responsiveness, but much of the existing research has been conducted in controlled laboratory settings or public spaces. These studies may not accurately reflect the typical daily experiences between parents and their children at home.</p>
<p>This gap in knowledge is particularly important because early speech input is critical for a child’s language development. By observing parent-infant interactions in a natural, everyday context, this study aimed to provide a more realistic understanding of how phone use might affect the amount of speech directed toward infants during these interactions.</p>
<p>“A growing number of studies are finding associations between parental phone use and children’s language development,” said study authors Miriam Mikhelson and Kaya de Barbaro from the University of Texas at Austin. “We wanted to look at the way phone use may impact the quantity of speech infants hear as a potential mechanism for this connection. However, the language environment of an infant is complex, and the existing research only provides a snapshot of how distractions such as smartphones impact parents’ rates of speech.</p>
<p>“We designed our study so that we could characterize patterns of parental phone use and infants’ speech input (for infants ranging from 1-7 months old) during everyday interactions in the home over an extended period of time. Our results, therefore, provide greater ecological validity in the study of phone use behavior and language development.”</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 16 mother-infant pairs and collected detailed data on both phone use and verbal interactions over the course of a week. The infants, who had an average age of about four months, wore small audio recording devices, while the mothers’ phone use was tracked via an app on their smartphones. The researchers used these synchronized data to observe how often and how much mothers spoke to their infants during times when they were using their phones compared to times when their phones were not in use.</p>
<p>The methodology allowed the researchers to capture data across a full week of real-world, ecologically valid interactions, avoiding the artificiality of laboratory settings. The study divided phone use events into three categories based on duration: short (1-2 minutes), medium (3-6 minutes), and long (more than 7 minutes).</p>
<p>“We were surprised by the overall quantity of phone use across participants,” the researchers said. “Our sample had an average of 4.4 hours of phone use per 12-hour period. While other studies show comparably high rates of phone use, seeing the numbers, particularly on the higher end, were still striking.”</p>
<p>The findings revealed a significant association between maternal phone use and a reduction in the amount of speech infants were exposed to. Overall, the researchers found that phone use was linked to a 16% decrease in maternal speech directed toward the infant. The reduction was more pronounced during short phone use events of 1-2 minutes, with speech dropping by 26% during these periods.</p>
<p>The findings suggest that even brief interruptions caused by checking a phone can sharply decrease verbal engagement with an infant. Longer periods of phone use were also associated with reduced speech, but the effect was less substantial, with a 12% reduction during phone use lasting more than seven minutes.</p>
<p>Additionally, the researchers observed that the relationship between phone use and speech varied depending on the time of day. The largest decreases in speech were observed during late morning, early afternoon, and mid-afternoon, times which may correspond with key daily routines like mealtimes or caregiving activities that typically involve more interaction with the child.</p>
<p>These results suggest that the impact of phone use on maternal speech is not uniform and may be more pronounced during certain parts of the day when active engagement with the infant is more common.</p>
<p>“We do not yet know the specific factors that drive the association between parental phone use and decreased speech input or the longer-term effects on language learning,” Mikhelson and de Barbaro explained. “Our results show us that phone use does not have a uniform or consistently ‘negative’ impact on children’s speech input. It is therefore unlikely that eliminating phone use entirely during childcare is necessary, nor is it realistic.”</p>
<p>“Our advice to new parents is to be cognizant of the impact phones can have on their ability to be attuned to their child’s needs. It is critical for infants to have consistent and responsive care which can be more difficult with the alluring and consuming nature of a smartphone. Some parents, however, may not have the luxury of turning off or putting their phones away due to work obligations or other responsibilities they hold.”</p>
<p>“For parents who are already anxious about the quality of their caregiving, like many new parents are, we recommend that they simply try their best to attend to their children – and to be honest with themselves about the degree to which smartphones hinder their ability to do so. Being aware of how easily we become consumed by our phones, despite our best intentions, is an important first step.”</p>
<p>While the study provides valuable insights into how phone use affects parent-infant interactions, it is not without limitations. One key limitation is the small and homogenous sample size. With only 16 mother-infant pairs, most of whom were White, highly educated, and from the same geographic area, the findings may not be fully representative of the broader population. Future research should aim to include more diverse participants in terms of race, socioeconomic status, and family structure to ensure that the results are generalizable.</p>
<p>Another limitation is the inability to directly observe the content of the phone use. The study relied on whether the phone screen was on or off to infer phone use, but this method does not provide information about what the mothers were doing on their phones. For example, using a phone for a video call might still involve talking to the infant, whereas reading a social media post or email likely involves less verbal interaction. Future research could benefit from more detailed data on the type of phone activity taking place to better understand how different forms of phone use impact parent-infant interactions.</p>
<p>Finally, while the study demonstrated a strong association between phone use and decreased speech, it does not establish a causal relationship. It is possible that mothers may use their phones more during periods when their infants are less engaged or during routine tasks where less verbal interaction is expected. Future research could explore this issue by examining not just the amount of phone use but also the specific contexts in which it occurs and how these contexts influence parent-child communication.</p>
<p>“The continuous advances in wearable sensor technology and multimodal data collection are enabling researchers to obtain more finite, ecologically-valid measures of parent and child behavior in the home,” the researchers said. “Future work will therefore be able to assess the impact of different kinds of phone use (e.g., text, phone call, social media, etc.) and different contexts (e.g., meals, play time, breastfeeding) which may have distinct effects on parents’ rates of speech, especially given the variation seen in our results.”</p>
<p>“Future work should also prioritize the diversity of participants, including greater variation in class, race, gender, and family composition. While smartphones are increasingly ubiquitous across populations, the ways in which parents engage with them are likely to vary.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.14125">Mothers speak less to infants during detected real-world phone use</a>,” Miriam Mikhelson, Adrian Luong, Alexander Etz, Megan Micheletti, Priyanka Khante, was authored by Kaya de Barbaro.</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/antisocial-personality-disorder-tied-to-hazardous-alcohol-and-drug-misuse/" 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;">Antisocial personality disorder tied to hazardous alcohol and drug misuse</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 13th 2024, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study has shed light on the relationship between antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders, revealing that people with antisocial personality disorder are significantly more likely to struggle with alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco addiction. Published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-024-03054-z"><em>Translational Psychiatry</em></a>, the research also highlights a strong association between antisocial traits and hazardous substance use, which may help explain the increased severity of addiction seen in these individuals.</p>
<p>Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by traits such as manipulativeness, impulsivity, irritability, and a lack of remorse. People with this disorder often struggle with a variety of behavioral issues, including substance use disorders, which encompass problematic use of substances like alcohol, cannabis, tobacco, cocaine, and opioids.</p>
<p>Previous research has shown that individuals with substance use disorders are more likely to also have antisocial personality disorder, but the specifics of this relationship remained unclear. The researchers sought to fill this gap by investigating whether antisocial personality disorder was related to the severity of different substance use disorders and specific patterns of behavior associated with substance misuse.</p>
<p>“One of my research interests is to understand comorbidities affecting patients affected by psychiatric disorders,” said study author Renato Polimanti, an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine. “With respect to addiction, we still know very little about differences among substance use disorders. Because Ms. Aislinn Low (a former postgraduate associate in my group, now a PhD student at Michigan State University) was interested in personality research, we decided to investigate the different relationships of substance use disorders with antisocial personality disorder.”</p>
<p>To carry out their study, the researchers analyzed data from the Yale-Penn cohort, a large sample of individuals selected to study addiction-related traits. The cohort included 1,660 participants diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and 6,640 control participants without the disorder. These control participants were matched with the antisocial personality disorder group based on age, sex, and race/ethnicity to ensure comparability.</p>
<p>The researchers focused on five specific substance use disorders: alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioids, and tobacco. Each substance use disorder was analyzed for both diagnosis (whether a participant met the criteria for the disorder) and severity (whether the disorder was mild, moderate, or severe, based on the number of criteria met). They also examined individual diagnostic criteria for each substance use disorder, such as whether participants used the substance in hazardous situations, experienced cravings, or made attempts to quit.</p>
<p>The results showed that antisocial personality disorder was related to both the diagnosis and the severity of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco use disorders. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, more than twice as likely to have cannabis use disorder, and one and a half times more likely to have tobacco use disorder compared to the control group. The severity of these disorders was also greater among people with antisocial personality disorder, meaning they tended to exhibit more problematic behaviors related to substance misuse.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that the relationship between antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders extended beyond mere diagnosis to specific behaviors associated with these disorders. One particularly notable finding was that individuals with antisocial personality disorder were more likely to engage in “hazardous use” across all five of the substance use disorders examined. Hazardous use refers to the consumption of substances in dangerous situations, such as driving under the influence or engaging in risky behaviors while intoxicated.</p>
<p>Another interesting finding related to the “attempts to quit” criterion, particularly for cocaine use disorder. The study found that individuals with antisocial personality disorder were less likely to report making efforts to quit using cocaine, indicating that this population may struggle more with the motivation or ability to reduce or stop cocaine use. This finding was specific to cocaine and was not seen with the other substances studied.</p>
<p>“The main take-home message of this study is that there are both differences and similarities among substance use disorders that can lead to psychiatric comorbidities,” Polimanti told PsyPost. “With respect to antisocial personality disorder, we observed different patterns of associations when testing severity and diagnoses of alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders. However, when looking at specific symptoms, hazardous use showed the strongest relationship with antisocial personality disorder across the five substance use disorders investigated.”</p>
<p>The study also highlighted sex differences in the relationship between antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders. Even though the researchers matched participants by sex, they found that sex continued to play a significant role in how antisocial personality disorder related to substance use disorder severity and specific criteria.</p>
<p>Controlling for internalizing disorders helped explain some of the observed sex differences. For instance, when the researchers included these disorders in their regression models, they found that the role of sex in the relationship between antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders was somewhat attenuated. This suggests that part of the sex differences observed in the antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder relationship could be attributed to internalizing conditions, which tend to differ between men and women.</p>
<p>“A surprising finding related to our study is the potential role of internalizing disorders (i.e., anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder) in contributing to the sex differences observed in the comorbidity between substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder,” Polimanti explained. “This is an interesting hypothesis that will need further efforts to be completely understood.”</p>
<p>The study adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorders are closely intertwined. But there are some caveats to consider. One limitation is that the study’s sample was specifically selected to include individuals with substance use disorders and related traits, which means the findings may not be representative of the general population.</p>
<p>“Our study is based on a cohort enriched for participants with lifetime diagnoses of substance use disorders,” Polimanti noted. “For instance, 64% and 39% of our participants have lifetime diagnoses of cocaine and opioid use disorders, respectively. In the United States, the prevalence of these substance use disorders is less than 5%. Accordingly, the results observed in our study may not be generalizable to population groups with different characteristics.”</p>
<p>“This study is part of a larger study where we are investigating comorbidity trajectories among substance use disorders using longitudinal information. Additionally, we will assess how genetic and epigenetic factors contribute to psychiatric comorbidities among substance use disorders.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-024-03054-z">Association patterns of antisocial personality disorder across substance use disorders</a>,” was authored by Aislinn Low, Brendan Stiltner, Yaira Z. Nunez, Keyrun Adhikari, Joseph D. Deak, Robert H. Pietrzak, Henry R. Kranzler, Joel Gelernter, and Renato Polimanti.</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>