<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/scientists-ran-a-simulation-on-political-polarization-heres-the-key-insight-that-emerged/" 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;">Scientists ran a simulation on political polarization—here’s the key insight that emerged</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 26th 2024, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><div class="theconversation-article-body">
<p>What do immigration, inheritance taxation and cannabis legalisation have in common? Not much, actually. Yet if we know somebody’s stance on one of these issues, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X2030096X">we can make a good guess</a> about their view on the others.</p>
<p>Politics often seems to work in one dimension: parties and politicians are located on a spectrum stretching from from far left to far right. Knowing someone’s opinion on a single wedge issue is often enough to place them on this ideological dimension, which in turn makes it possible to predict their positions on other issues. And in countries such as the US we’ve seen more and more people <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532673X17703132">polarised into opposing political camps</a> at either end of this spectrum.</p>
<p>One-dimensional politics can seem as natural to us as an apple falling from a tree – it’s simply how we think about politics. But just like gravity, the mysterious force shaping our politics in this way does warrant a scientific explanation.</p>
<p>My colleagues and I wanted to understand how people end up so profoundly divided, and the <a href="https://www.jasss.org/27/1/15.html">study we published</a> earlier this year proposes a model for how it might work. It suggests the less we are able to separate politics from personal relations, the more polarised we become.</p>
<p>This is more than just an academic matter. If politics is reduced to a single ideological dimension it can keep us from finding innovative solutions to our most urgent problems.</p>
<p>If, for example, the best solution to a housing crisis were a combination of deregulation and public investment, it might not be possible to enact if each half of the solution were rejected by one side of the political spectrum. That makes understanding how politics can become so polarised important on a very practical level.</p>
<p>The problem is that, no matter how far we look into the past, we overwhelmingly find politics organised along one main dimension of ideological conflict: before left v right, it was Catholics v Protestants, Roundheads v Cavaliers, all the way back to Optimates v Populares in ancient Rome.</p>
<p>The issues may have changed, but the basic dichotomy has remained stable. This makes it very difficult to investigate the origins of one-dimensional politics. After all, we can’t experiment with whole societies – at least not in real life.</p>
<h2>Simulating societies</h2>
<p>To overcome this limitation, we decided to opt for an unusual approach. We <a href="https://www.jasss.org/27/1/15.html">created virtual societies</a>, each populated by a multitude of simulated people, known as agents.</p>
<p>Each agent had a variety of opinions, represented as coordinates in a space with several dimensions. We didn’t give specific meanings to the coordinates or the dimensions, but you can think of them as representing disconnected issues like defence spending, railway nationalisation or abortion rights.</p>
<p>At the start of each simulation, the agents’ positions were purely random and not organised along a single ideological dimension of left versus right. But over time, the agents interacted and influenced each other, organising themselves into new collective states.</p>
<p>These simulated societies therefore provided us with a testbed for different theories used in political science, such as the assumption that people are rational, to see whether they could explain one-dimensional politics and the emergence of political polarisation.</p>
<p>To do this, we translated these theories into computational protocols that governed the agents’ interactions and the way they adapted their opinions. We then checked whether these protocols were enough to trigger the emergence of a single ideological dimension.</p>
<p>Initially, we modelled our agents as rational decision makers in the tradition of mainstream political science. When encountering other agents, they would either meet them halfway, or reject them, But either way, this did not give rise to a single ideological dimension. Agents would either converge on a consensus or remain scattered.</p>
<p>However, politics isn’t a purely rational affair. It’s often characterised by gut feelings and anger. But political science <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585257/">hasn’t always been successful in</a> integrating emotion into decision-making models. So for inspiration we looked to one of the founders of social psychology.</p>
<p>In the 1950s, Austrian-born psychologist <a href="https://research.clps.brown.edu/SocCogSci/Publications/Pubs/Malle_Ickes_(2000)_Heider.pdf">Fritz Heider</a> coined the term <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/balance-theory">cognitive balance theory</a>, which claims that people strive for consistency in their mental patterns. For example, we find it disconcerting when two of our friends hate each other, or a friend is in love with someone we despise. Similarly, we try to avoid disagreeing with people we like just as much as we avoid agreeing with people we dislike.</p>
<p>We translated this balance mechanism into our simulation. When two of our agents encountered each other, they first determined how much they agreed or disagreed on various political issues. Then, they translated agreement into sympathy and disagreement into dislike. Finally, they adjusted their issue positions in a way that increased consistency.</p>
<p>If they met someone with whom they mostly agreed, they adjusted their opinions to defuse the remaining disagreements. In the opposite case, they tried to make their disagreement stronger.</p>
<p>All this happened in tiny increments every time agents met. But through a myriad of interactions, agents finally self-organised into single ideological dimensions – no matter how many issue dimensions we started the simulation with.</p>
<p>Where exactly individual agents ended up on this ideological continuum depended on one crucial factor: the strength of the connection between disagreement on issues and personal dislike.</p>
<p>If this connection is weak – meaning agents could dislike each other but still agree, or like each other and disagree – agents remained close to the centre. If it was strong, the simulated society broke into two opposed camps – it became polarised.</p>
<p>This suggests polarisation is linked to people’s ability to connect to others on a personal level. When we lose sight of the fact that those we disagree with are usually decent human beings with good intentions, we may find ourselves diverging more and more on political issues, with less room for compromise.</p>
<p>This is notable at a time when so much political debate is conducted online through impersonal or anonymous social media accounts. The real world is much more complex than a one-dimensional view of politics would suggest. And people are much more than the political views they share online.</p>
<p>In the end, we will never be able to eliminate the force of cognitive balance – just as we can’t get rid of gravity. But we can find ways to increase the personal connection between people who hold different political views.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/239130/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>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/the-science-of-polarisation-our-model-shows-what-happens-when-political-opponents-lose-their-personal-connection-239130">original article</a>.</p>
</div></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/dark-personality-traits-and-attachment-styles-linked-to-perceptions-of-exclusion/" 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;">Dark personality traits and attachment styles linked to perceptions of exclusion</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 26th 2024, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research sheds light on the kinds of people most likely to feel ostracized, revealing a link between personality traits, attachment styles, and perceptions of social exclusion. Published in <em><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223980.2024.2396837#abstract" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Journal of Psychology</a></em>, the study finds that individuals with certain antagonistic personality traits, known as the “dark tetrad,” and those with insecure attachment orientations tend to feel ignored or excluded more often than others. These findings highlight important psychological factors that may increase sensitivity to social rejection.</p>
<p>Previous research on ostracism has primarily focused on short-term effects, with little emphasis on personality traits that might heighten the perception of social exclusion. This new study broadens the scope by investigating long-term experiences of ostracism and including both antagonistic personality traits—collectively known as the “dark tetrad”—and attachment orientations, which may influence sensitivity to exclusion.</p>
<p>The “dark tetrad” refers to four socially aversive traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. Narcissism is characterized by self-centeredness, grandiosity, and a constant need for admiration, often driving individuals to prioritize their own needs. Machiavellianism entails a strategic, manipulative approach, where individuals exploit others through deceit to achieve personal goals. Psychopathy involves impulsivity, a lack of empathy, and a tendency toward antisocial behavior. Sadism, in turn, is marked by pleasure in causing others pain or harm, reflecting an enjoyment in inflicting suffering.</p>
<p>Attachment orientations, rooted in attachment theory, describe patterns of behavior and expectations in relationships, shaped by early interactions with caregivers. These orientations are categorized along two dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Attachment anxiety reflects a fear of abandonment, leading people to seek reassurance and approval, sometimes resulting in clinginess. Attachment avoidance, on the other hand, involves discomfort with intimacy and a preference for independence, prompting individuals to emotionally distance themselves.</p>
<p>The researchers aimed to identify hows these traits were related to perceiving ostracism, potentially guiding interventions to alleviate associated distress.</p>
<p>“Exploring the topic of ostracism has always been of interest to me, even before doing my PhD, as I observed people being excluded by healthcare professionals and thought, how must that feel? How do people cope with these experiences?” said study author <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nlJU0lgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Daniel Waldeck</a>, an assistant professor of psychology at Coventry University and co-author of <a href="https://amzn.to/3NEiILS"><em>How to Make the Most of Your Psychology Degree: Study Skills, Employability and Professional Development</em></a>.</p>
<p>“In this paper, we wanted to explore who is more likely to perceive ostracism. There was a lack of empirical literature exploring the so-called dark personality traits (which is itself quite fascinating) and how this is linked with perceived ostracism. Given there was some research to suggest that narcissists may react aggressively to ostracism, it was interesting to examine whether people who score high in narcissism in particular would be more prone to feeling more excluded.”</p>
<p>The study involved a sample of 604 adults who participated in an online survey. The researchers utilized a questionnaire to assess participants’ levels of antagonistic traits, including narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. They measured attachment orientations using questions that evaluated tendencies toward attachment anxiety and avoidance, asking participants to rate statements like “I’m afraid other people may abandon me” (for anxiety) and “I don’t feel comfortable opening up to others” (for avoidance). Lastly, they adapted a workplace ostracism scale to measure how often participants felt ignored or excluded in their everyday lives over the last six months.</p>
<p>The researchers identified five distinct personality groups based on combinations of antagonistic traits. The “<strong>High Antagonizers</strong>” group included individuals with consistently high scores across all four dark traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. Another group, the “<strong>Spiteful Manipulators</strong>,” was characterized by high scores specifically in Machiavellianism and sadism.</p>
<p>The “<strong>Average High</strong>” and “<strong>Average Low</strong>” groups represented participants with moderate scores across the four antagonistic traits but at different levels. “Average High” individuals exhibited slightly elevated, though not extreme, levels of these traits. The “Average Low” group had similarly moderate scores but at lower levels than “Average High.” Finally, the “<strong>Non-Antagonizers</strong>” group scored low across all antagonistic traits, representing individuals who generally avoid behaviors associated with the dark tetrad.</p>
<p>The researchers found that the “High Antagonizers” group reported noticeably higher levels of perceived ostracism than any other group. This indicates that individuals with elevated levels of all four antagonistic traits tend to feel excluded or ignored more often, possibly because their social interactions are negatively impacted by these traits.</p>
<p>“We found that people who score high on all of the dark traits perceived significantly more ostracism than those lower in these traits,” Waldeck told PsyPost. “This suggests that a particular group, which we called the High Antagonizers, may be a particularly sensitive to feelings of exclusion. Given that people who score high on these traits may engage in bullying or in the case of narcissism may react aggressively once they feel ostracised could be a risk factor for intimate partner violence (among other potential contexts).”</p>
<p>Interestingly, the “Spiteful Manipulators” group did not report significantly higher levels of perceived ostracism compared to the “Average High” and “Average Low” groups. This suggests that possessing one or two high antagonistic traits does not automatically predispose someone to perceive social exclusion; rather, it is the cumulative presence of all four traits that seems to intensify the perception of ostracism.</p>
<p>When looking at individual predictors, several stood out. Psychopathy was a positive predictor, indicating that individuals with higher psychopathic traits are more likely to feel ostracized. Narcissism, however, was a negative predictor, implying that individuals with higher narcissistic traits report lower levels of perceived ostracism.</p>
<p>“It was surprising to see that when looking at the influence of narcissism alone, there is a different effect,” Waldeck said. “This was noted in our supplementary information. We found that in isolation, narcissism has a negative relationship with perceived ostracism.”</p>
<p>“In other words, the higher the levels of reported narcissism, the less they feel ostracised. Which makes sense — people who are narcissistic will likely have protection from such feelings due to an inflated ego (e.g., ‘why would people ignore me, I am awesome’). However, what our study shows is that there is a particular group (the High Antagonizers) which includes high levels of narcissism, which show the reverse – they perceive more ostracism.”</p>
<p>In addition to these personality-based findings, attachment orientation also played a role. Both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were linked with higher perceptions of ostracism. Participants with attachment anxiety, who often fear abandonment, were more likely to perceive exclusion, possibly due to heightened sensitivity to social cues. Those with attachment avoidance, who prefer emotional distance, may also experience a sense of exclusion as they habitually withdraw or distance themselves, potentially interpreting normal social dynamics as exclusionary.</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are some caveats. The study relied on self-reported data, which can be subject to bias, and they did not investigate how personality traits might change over time due to experiences of social exclusion. Additionally, the study did not explore potential behavioral outcomes of perceived ostracism, such as aggression or social withdrawal. Future studies could focus on these aspects, exploring how different personality profiles react to feelings of ostracism in various contexts.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2024.2396837" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unraveling Perceived Ostracism: The Role of Antagonistic Traits and Attachment Orientation</a>,” was authored by Daniel Waldeck, Eryn Berman-Roberts, Chris Smyth, Paolo Riva, James Adie, Andrew John Holliman, and Ian Tyndall.</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/conspicuous-logos-and-clothing-colors-influence-perceptions-of-mens-mating-priorities-and-attractiveness/" 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;">Conspicuous logos and clothing colors influence perceptions of men’s mating priorities and attractiveness</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 26th 2024, 06:00</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/10.1007/s40806-024-00404-4"><em>Evolutionary Psychological Science</em></a> found that exaggerated features in luxury goods can influence perceptions of men’s behavioral strategies.</p>
<p>Conspicuous consumption, where individuals display wealth through luxury products, could be a tool for social differentiation. Evolutionary psychologists tend to focus on its function in mate attraction, suggesting that men’s luxury displays signal potential paternal investment. In this work, Daniel J. Kruger investigated an alternative theory, proposing that some of men’s conspicuous consumption signals mating effort over paternal investment.</p>
<p>The researcher tested the phenotypic mimicry model, suggesting that the features of luxury goods, like large logos, can mirror secondary sexual characteristics. Across species, exaggerated features in males are linked to mating competition and reduced paternal investment. Thus, Kruger hypothesized that men with showier luxury goods would be perceived as prioritizing mating effort over parenting effort.</p>
<p>In Study 1, 357 ethnically diverse undergraduate students (62% women) participated in an online survey where they rated hypothetical male shirt owners based on images of Ralph Lauren polo shirts. The shirts featured four different logo conditions: no logo, a small logo, a medium logo, and a large logo. The logos were digitally manipulated so that only the size varied, while the shirt design remained consistent.</p>
<p>Participants rated the men on characteristics such as mating effort (energy spent attracting mates), parental investment (willingness to invest in family), attractiveness for brief sexual affairs or long-term relationships, and how they might achieve social status—either through dominance (intimidation) or prestige (cooperation and skill). They also assessed the perceived unpredictability or harshness of the men’s developmental environments. To reduce bias, the order in which the shirt images were presented was balanced based on participants’ birth month.</p>
<p>The findings confirmed that larger logos were associated with higher ratings of mating effort and lower ratings of parental investment. Men who owned shirts with large logos were perceived as more likely to pursue short-term sexual relationships and use dominance to gain social status, often through intimidation. In contrast, men who wore shirts with smaller or no logos were rated as more likely to invest in long-term relationships and parental effort, using prestige (cooperation and skill) to gain status.</p>
<p>Interestingly, participants rated men wearing no-logo shirts as having grown up in more unpredictable environments, which was unexpected. Despite being rated higher in parental investment, these men were perceived as less attractive for long-term relationships, possibly because the absence of a logo signaled lower social or economic status.</p>
<p>In Study 2, 133 undergraduate students (52% women) participated in a similar experiment, but instead of manipulating logo size, the researcher varied shirt color. Participants rated men wearing either a vividly colored shirt (blue and red) or a drab-colored shirt (khaki brown). The shirts were otherwise identical in design, with the logos resized to be the same in both images.</p>
<p>Participants were asked to evaluate the men on the same dimensions as in Study 1, including mating effort, parental investment, attractiveness for brief or long-term relationships, and social status strategies. The goal was to determine if vivid shirt coloration, akin to exaggerated physical traits in animals, would lead participants to perceive the men as more mating-oriented and less focused on parenting.</p>
<p>The results of Study 2 were consistent with Study 1. Men wearing the vividly colored shirts were rated higher in mating effort and lower in parental investment compared to those in drab-colored shirts. These men were also viewed as more likely to pursue brief sexual affairs and less interested in long-term relationships. Participants found them more attractive for short-term flings and saw them as more dominant, reinforcing the idea that conspicuous features, whether in color or logo size, signal mating strategies. Meanwhile, men in drab-colored shirts were rated higher in parental investment and more suited for long-term relationships.</p>
<p>Unlike Study 1, however, there was no significant difference in how participants perceived the unpredictability of the developmental environments between the two shirt colors. The vivid shirt owners continued to be seen as more likely to use dominance to achieve social status, similar to the findings of the first study.</p>
<p>Overall, the results from both studies demonstrated that conspicuous product features, such as logo size and coloration, influence how individuals are perceived in terms of their reproductive and social strategies.</p>
<p>One limitation was that the no-logo condition may have been perceived as non-luxury, thus not fully representing a subtle luxury display, which could have influenced participant responses.</p>
<p>The research, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-024-00404-4">Advancing the Understanding of Phenotypic Mimicry in Men’s Conspicuous Consumption</a>,” was authored by Daniel J. Kruger.</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/sexual-emotional-and-digital-the-complex-landscape-of-romantic-infidelity/" 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;">Sexual, emotional, and digital: The complex landscape of romantic infidelity</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 25th 2024, 17:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Romantic infidelity is a common yet complex issue that affects relationships across the globe. A new meta-analysis published in <em><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12571" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Personal Relationships</a></em> has synthesized data from over 300 studies to explore the true prevalence of infidelity, revealing that it takes many forms—from sexual betrayal to emotional and electronic connections. The findings shed light on the significant gender differences in infidelity patterns and highlight the lack of consistent definitions and measurements in existing research.</p>
<p>Infidelity is a widespread phenomenon that affects romantic relationships across different cultures and social contexts. It often leads to relationship breakdowns and can have a profound impact on the mental and physical health of those involved. However, the research landscape on infidelity is fragmented, with many studies providing conflicting prevalence estimates.</p>
<p>“Prevalence estimates of romantic infidelity often vary significantly between studies. We wanted to assess how much these differences stem from variations in researchers’ operationalizations of ‘infidelity,’ as well as the data collection techniques and sampling methods that they employ,” explained study author Benjamin Warach, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral health at Stony Brook Medicine.</p>
<p>The researchers undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis, meaning they gathered and analyzed a large body of existing research on infidelity to look for overarching trends and patterns. To find relevant studies, they searched databases such as PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science, using terms related to infidelity, such as “extra-marital,” “cheating,” and “affair.”</p>
<p>Out of the thousands of articles identified, 305 met the study’s inclusion criteria. These criteria required that the studies were peer-reviewed, involved human participants, and provided clear data on infidelity rates. The final dataset included 508,241 respondents from 47 countries, making this one of the most comprehensive reviews of infidelity research to date.</p>
<p>The researchers categorized different types of infidelity into three main forms: sexual, emotional, and electronic. Sexual infidelity was defined as any form of sexual activity outside the primary relationship. Emotional infidelity involved forming deep emotional bonds with someone outside the relationship, while electronic infidelity referred to engaging in intimate behaviors online, such as sexting or participating in online relationships.</p>
<p>The researchers then examined how these different forms of infidelity were measured in the studies, whether through anonymous questionnaires, interviews, or other data collection methods. They also considered demographic factors such as gender, age, relationship status, and nationality to see how these variables influenced the results.</p>
<p>The meta-analysis revealed significant differences in the prevalence of different types of infidelity. Sexual infidelity remains the most studied form (making up over 58% of the studies), with around 25% of men and 14% of women admitting to sexual unfaithfulness.</p>
<p>However, emotional and electronic infidelity, although less studied, were shown to be prevalent as well. About 35% of men and 30% of women reported being emotionally unfaithful, forming intimate emotional connections outside their romantic relationships. Electronic infidelity, which includes behaviors like online flirting or engaging in sexual conversations over the internet, was reported by 23% of men and 14% of women.</p>
<p>One of the key findings of the study is that nonsexual forms of infidelity, such as emotional and electronic betrayal, are underexplored in the research literature. Despite their potential to harm relationships, most studies tend to focus on sexual infidelity. Emotional infidelity accounted for only 9.5% of the studies, while electronic infidelity was featured in just 5.6% of the research.</p>
<p>The researchers argue that emotional and electronic infidelity can be just as damaging, if not more so, depending on the relational dynamics. For instance, many people might feel more betrayed by an emotional connection than a one-time sexual encounter. The rise of digital communication has also created new opportunities for infidelity, yet research has not fully kept up with these technological changes.</p>
<p>The findings also highlighted that many studies used vague or inconsistent definitions for infidelity, which could skew the results. “We found that authors operationalize and/or report romantic infidelity prevalence using behaviorally unclear terms (e.g., ‘cheated’ or ‘been unfaithful’) in approximately 30% of studies; research has previously shown that individuals have widely varying perceptions of what these terms mean. This is a major problem for our research field,” Warach told PsyPost.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the methods researchers used to collect data on infidelity appeared to have an impact on the results. When infidelity data was collected anonymously, participants were more likely to report engaging in sexual infidelity compared to non-anonymous methods, such as in-person or telephone interviews. This suggests that people are more comfortable disclosing sensitive behaviors like infidelity when their identity is protected.</p>
<p>The discrepancy was especially clear with sexual infidelity, but this effect was not observed with emotional infidelity, which might be less stigmatized than sexual infidelity, making people more willing to admit it in both anonymous and non-anonymous settings.</p>
<p>As for sampling methods, the researchers observed that convenience sampling—where participants are selected based on availability rather than being randomly chosen—resulted in higher reported rates of infidelity compared to studies that used more representative, randomized sampling methods that aim to reflect the broader population. This is likely because participants in convenience samples tend to self-select into studies, often bringing more liberal attitudes toward relationships or higher levels of sexual experience.</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that the field of infidelity research should aim to develop clearer, more consistent definitions of what constitutes infidelity. Without a shared understanding, comparing results across studies remains challenging, and this limits the applicability of research findings to real-world relationship issues.</p>
<p>“Our study shows that inconsistent definitions and measurement methods contribute to confusion about romantic infidelity prevalence in the research literature,” Warach said. “For the average person, this underscores the importance of clear communication in romantic relationships about boundaries and exclusivity expectations – what one person considers ‘infidelity’ might differ from their partner’s understanding.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12571" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The current state of affairs in infidelity research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of romantic infidelity prevalence and its moderators</a>,” was authored by Benjamin Warach, Robert F. Bornstein, Bernard S. Gorman, and Anne Moyer.</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/study-links-internalized-racism-to-increased-suicidal-thoughts-in-asian-americans/" 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;">Study links internalized racism to increased suicidal thoughts in Asian Americans</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 25th 2024, 16:00</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://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13557858.2024.2413357"><em>Ethnicity & Health</em></a> has revealed a concerning link between internalized racism and suicidal thoughts among Asian Americans. The study found that even after accounting for common mental health factors like anxiety and loneliness, individuals who had internalized negative stereotypes about their own race were more likely to have suicidal ideation. Interestingly, the effect of internalized racism was not only significant but also stronger than external experiences of racism.</p>
<p>The study, led by Fanhao Nie, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, aimed to explore a less studied aspect of racism’s impact on mental health. While prior research has extensively examined how external racism affects mental health and suicide risk, Nie’s study focuses on the internalization of racist attitudes. Internalized racism refers to the process by which individuals from a marginalized group come to accept and integrate negative stereotypes about their own race or ethnicity.</p>
<p>“I was interested in this topic for several reasons. First, suicide rates have worsened since the COVID-19 pandemic. This deteriorating issue is particularly troubling to the U.S. Asian community. For example, <a href="https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/mental-and-behavioral-health-asian-americans#footnote1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to the CDC data</a>, in 2022, suicide was the leading cause of death for US Asians aged 15 to 24. To make matters even worse, due to structural barriers and cultural stigma surrounding mental health and suicide, U.S. Asians are much less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to receive mental health services to prevent suicide.”</p>
<p>“In my literature reviews of the social determinants of suicide among US Asians, I found that prior research on racism and suicide tended to measure racism as perceived racism from the outside. However, the racially subordinated can also internalize and reproduce racism. Famed theoretical frameworks, such as the Minority Stress Theory, have suggested that internalized racism may lead to a host of undesirable mental health outcomes, including anxiety and depression among the minorities, which are the key predictors of suicides.”</p>
<p>“In addition to the paucity of research on internalized racism and suicide among U.S. Asians, prior research in this subfield has also inadequately assessed the roles of religion. Founders in sociology, such as Emile Durkheim, have argued that religion, through its social integration and control function, may significantly influence individual attitudes and behaviors about suicide, in addition to religious teachings and values about suicide.”</p>
<p>“Regarding race, religion has played a significant role as a social institution in shaping the identity and experiences of racial minorities in the United States. What impact does religion have on suicide among Asians in the United States? Specifically, how does religion interact with race in relation to suicide risks?”</p>
<p>To answer these questions, Nie conducted a national survey of 970 Asian adults living in the United States. Participants were recruited through an online panel and included individuals from various ethnic and religious backgrounds. The sample was designed to be as representative of the U.S. Asian population as possible, following census quotas for key demographics like gender, ethnicity, and education.</p>
<p>Participants completed a survey that measured several variables. Suicidal ideation was assessed using a scale that asked how frequently they had thought about suicide in the past month. Internalized racism was measured using a scale that asked participants to rate their agreement with statements reflecting negative stereotypes about Asians, such as “I sometimes wish I weren’t Asian” or “Asians are less physically attractive than whites.”</p>
<p>The survey also included measures of external racism, anxiety, loneliness, and religious involvement. External racism was assessed by asking participants how often they had experienced overt discrimination, such as being called racial slurs or treated differently because of their race. Religious involvement was measured by how frequently participants attended religious services, prayed, and how important religion was in their lives.</p>
<p>Nie’s analysis revealed several important findings. First, internalized racism was strongly associated with suicidal ideation, even after accounting for other factors.</p>
<p>“This effect was not only robust after controlling a host of sociodemographic variables, but it also had a larger magnitude than other important predictors of suicide, such as anxiety and perceived external racism,” Nie told PsyPost. “Therefore, for readers, particularly those from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, our internalized racial repression poses a greater threat than observable, external racism. This is probably the area that deserves more public attention and resources in the fight against racism.”</p>
<p>The study also found that the harmful effects of internalized racism were particularly strong among those who attended religious services more frequently. This is an unexpected result, as religion is often thought to provide social support and protection against mental health issues.</p>
<p>“I was surprised by the interactive effect of religious service attendance on internalized racism and suicidal ideation. Contrary to conventional beliefs, the study results indicate that frequent religious service attendance amplified the deleterious internalized racism effect on suicidal ideation.”</p>
<p>However, Nie speculates that for Asian Americans, frequent participation in religious services may heighten awareness of their minority status, especially if they are part of a predominantly non-Asian congregation. Alternatively, if the religious community is predominantly Asian, frequent exposure to cultural values emphasizing emotional restraint and avoidance of mental health discussions might worsen the effects of internalized racism.</p>
<p>“When one is frequently exposed to a religious group where s/he is a racial minority, the racial differences and inequalities within such an organization may possibly exacerbate internalized racism and its effect on suicidal ideation,” Nie explained.</p>
<p>“On the other hand, an Asian-majority religious organization may potentially reinforce cultural values of self-restraint and perpetuate stigmas about mental illnesses among its frequent participants. As a result, one may be less likely to seek help to combat the negative mental health effects of internalized racism. Future research using qualitative methods, such as observation and in-depth interviews, may be better able to illuminate how religion intersects with race across different social contexts.”</p>
<p>While this study provides important insights, it also has limitations. One key limitation is its cross-sectional design, meaning that it cannot establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship.</p>
<p>“It’s possible that U.S. Asian adults with poorer mental health or suicidal thoughts are more likely to perceive their race negatively, leading to internalized racism,” Nie said. “Future research using longitudinal data may help us resolve the issue of causality. Another limitation is that, although the data is quite representative for key demographic variables, such as ethnicity and sex, it may not reflect the actual images of the U.S. Asian population for some other demographic variables. Therefore, readers may want to exercise some degree of caution when generalizing the results to the general U.S. Asian population.”</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the study sheds light on the underexplored relationship between internalized racism and suicidal ideation among Asian Americans. It highlights that internalized racism may be a more powerful predictor of suicidal thoughts than external racism or common mental health issues. Healthcare providers, mental health professionals, and community leaders should be aware of the unique mental health challenges faced by Asian Americans, Nie said.</p>
<p>“Both racism and health are multi-dimensional constructs,” Nie added. “For my long-term goals, I am interested in exploring how race may intersect with other critical demographic variables, such as gender and sexuality, to influence different aspects of health among U.S. Asians. For instance, the meaning of internalized racism may vary depending on an individual’s gender. How might gendered internalized racism impact U.S. Asian males and females differently in terms of various health outcomes? In addition, I would like to adopt a mixed-methods approach to better understand the mechanisms behind these quantitative findings.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2024.2413357">Devil among us or inside us? Exploring the relationships of internalized racism and suicidal ideation among US Asian adults</a>,” was published online on October 7, 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/how-democrat-party-became-a-gop-slur-study-highlights-medias-role-in-political-rhetoric/" 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;">How “Democrat Party” became a GOP slur: Study highlights media’s role in political rhetoric</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 25th 2024, 15:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>In a recent study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241279098" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Political Research Quarterly</a></em>, researchers explored the growing trend of Republican elites using the term “Democrat Party” instead of the correct “Democratic Party.” This slight mislabeling, often overlooked by casual observers, is no accident; it’s a deliberate slur meant to demean the opposing party. The study showed that while the usage is not entirely new, it has increased significantly in recent years, particularly following the 2016 election.</p>
<p>Political polarization has been a growing concern for decades, with scholars noting a sharp increase in negative partisanship—where individuals not only support their party but also deeply dislike the opposing one. The researchers behind the new study were interested in understanding how political elites, especially Republicans, contribute to this trend through language. The use of “Democrat Party” as a slur, they argue, reflects deeper intra-party dynamics and the influence of partisan media in shaping the political discourse.</p>
<p>The study aimed to answer two key questions: Why has the use of the term “Democrat Party” surged recently? And what role do elite Republicans and conservative media play in popularizing this mislabeling? The researchers hoped that by documenting and explaining these trends, they could shed light on how political elites influence public opinion and contribute to an increasingly polarized political environment.</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers collected and analyzed various data sets of political communication, focusing on Republican politicians and conservative media. They gathered information from sources such as Donald Trump’s Twitter feed, Republican members of Congress’ communications, and transcripts from prominent conservative media outlets like Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and Fox News.</p>
<p>The study covered a time frame from 2010 to 2020, a period marked by significant political upheaval in the United States. This decade included the rise of the Tea Party, the election of Donald Trump, and growing influence from conservative media outlets. The researchers looked at how often Republican politicians used the term “Democrat Party” in their speeches, tweets, and public statements. They also analyzed the content of right-wing media broadcasts to see how often these outlets used the term and whether there was a correlation between media usage and political adoption of the slur.</p>
<p>A key part of the analysis involved identifying whether there was a causal relationship between conservative media’s use of “Democrat Party” and its increasing adoption by Republican politicians. The researchers used a statistical method called Granger causality tests to determine whether changes in media usage of the term influenced political elites.</p>
<p>The results showed a marked increase in the use of “Democrat Party” as a slur in recent years, particularly around 2018 and 2019. While the term has been used sporadically for decades, its prevalence exploded during and after the 2016 election.</p>
<p>The study identified Donald Trump as one of the key figures responsible for mainstreaming the term. Trump, in his speeches and tweets, often referred to the “Democrat Party,” explaining that he did so because “<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-make-america-great-again-rally-great-falls-montana" target="_blank" rel="noopener">it sounds worse</a>.” This intentional mislabeling was echoed by other prominent Republicans, including Ted Cruz and Kevin McCarthy.</p>
<p>However, Trump wasn’t the originator of this trend. The study found that conservative media outlets, particularly Fox News and personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, were instrumental in pushing the use of “Democrat Party.” These media figures regularly used the term, and their large audiences helped spread it further. Republican politicians, particularly those aligned with more performative and partisan factions of the party, adopted the term, likely as a result of the media’s influence.</p>
<p>“Trump has captured the attention of analysts, yet our findings suggest that while he engages in incivility and uses polarizing language, the former President is responding to trends within the Republican Party as much as he is driving them,” the researchers wrote.</p>
<p>One of the most interesting findings was that the use of “Democrat Party” was not necessarily tied to specific criticisms of the Democratic Party’s policies or actions. Instead, it was often used as a performative insult—simply a way to demean the opposing party without engaging in substantive critique. This shift reflects a broader trend in American politics toward more performative partisanship, where political actors focus more on signaling their loyalty to their party and less on engaging in meaningful policy debates.</p>
<p>While the study provides insights into the role of language in political polarization, it does have some limitations. One of the main limitations is its focus on Republican elites and conservative media. The researchers did not examine whether similar patterns exist among Democrats or in left-leaning media. This leaves open the question of whether Democrats are also engaging in performative partisanship through language.</p>
<p>The researchers noted that “we do not claim that what we have referred to as a ‘slur’ and an ‘epithet’ is necessarily cause for alarm. It is uncivil, to be sure, yet politics and campaigns have frequently veered into the crass and demeaning… We choose those words because they most accurately represent what is intended by the mislabeling of the Democratic Party. By all accounts, it is a memetic device meant to convey a curse.”</p>
<p>“Yet it may be that the routinization of disrespect inherent in widespread adoption of the slur by Republican elites is one more indication of ongoing challenges to democratic pluralism in the U.S., in the current climate, even if it is more symptom than cause and its direct effects on individuals are not great,” they added.</p>
<p>The study also raises questions about the broader impact of partisan media on political discourse. While it’s clear that media figures play a significant role in shaping how politicians talk about their opponents, more research is needed to understand how this dynamic affects voters. Does the use of terms like “Democrat Party” actually change how ordinary citizens view the opposing party, or is it merely a tool for rallying the base?</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10659129241279098" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Rise of the “Democrat Party”: Republican Elites, Partisan Slurs, and Linguistic Polarization</a>,” was authored by David Karol and Zachary Scott.</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/researchers-identify-brain-activity-patterns-linked-to-movie-genre-preferences/" 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;">Researchers identify brain activity patterns linked to movie genre preferences</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 25th 2024, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A neuroimaging study conducted in Germany found that individuals who like action movies show higher activity in the amygdala, a brain region involved in emotional processing, compared to those without such preferences. Similarly, those with a preference for comedies showed increased activity in both the amygdala and the nucleus accumbens, which is associated with the brain’s reward and pleasure systems. In contrast, people who preferred crime/thriller movies or documentaries displayed lower activity in these regions. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1396811"><em>Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience</em></a>.</p>
<p>Since they were invented in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century, movies remained an important source of entertainment. Today, movie-making is an industry worth more than 100 billion USD. This is why many scientists ask themselves – what makes movies entertaining?</p>
<p>Early researchers believed that the central aspect of movies is that they incite emotions and that it is this capacity to elicit emotions that keeps viewers immersed and entertained. However, people do not react to movies equally. While a certain movie can make one person completely immersed in its contents and very entertained, other people might not even wish to watch the same movie.</p>
<p>People differ in their movie preferences. These preferences sometimes have to do with specific movies, but people also differ in the movie genres they like or dislike. What is even more important, movies that elicit negative emotions, emotions that most people do not like experiencing in real life, are extremely popular and attract broad audiences.</p>
<p>Study author Esther Zwiky and her colleagues wanted to investigate whether preferences for movies that elicit different emotions might have to do with interpersonal differences in brain activity. They hypothesized that differences in brain activity might be observed in regions of the brain that process emotions. They focused on the amygdala region, a small, almond-shaped structure in the brain that plays a key role in processing emotions, especially fear, threat detection, and emotional memory. They also included the nucleus accumbens in their analysis, given its role in processing pleasure and reward.</p>
<p>To explore this, the researchers recruited 257 adults from the ongoing Muenster Neuroimaging Cohort study, which examines the neurobiology of emotional disorders. The participants, who were around 40 years old on average and split roughly evenly between men and women, completed a questionnaire about their movie preferences. They were asked to select their favorite genres from options including action, comedy, crime/thriller, and documentary. The participants then underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a technique that measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow, to observe how their brains responded to emotional stimuli.</p>
<p>During the fMRI scan, participants were shown a series of faces expressing fear or anger. Their task was to match each face with one that appeared identical on the screen, a task designed to engage the brain’s emotional processing circuits. The researchers focused on two key regions: the amygdala, which plays a crucial role in processing fear, anger, and emotional memories, and the nucleus accumbens, which is involved in the brain’s reward system and is central to feelings of pleasure and motivation.</p>
<p>Results showed that individuals who expressed a preference for action movies showed significantly higher activity in the amygdala when processing fearful or angry faces compared to those who did not prefer action films. This suggests that action movie fans may have a heightened emotional response to fear and anger, emotions that are frequently evoked in action films.</p>
<p>Similarly, individuals who preferred comedies exhibited increased activity not only in the amygdala but also in the nucleus accumbens. This heightened activation in the brain’s reward system may explain why these individuals find comedies particularly enjoyable, as their brains may be more sensitive to the pleasure associated with emotional stimuli.</p>
<p>On the other hand, people who preferred crime/thriller movies or documentaries exhibited the opposite pattern. They showed reduced activity in both the amygdala and the nucleus accumbens during the task. This finding is particularly interesting given that crime/thriller movies often feature intense scenes designed to evoke fear and suspense, much like action films.</p>
<p>However, the reduced brain activity in these individuals suggests that their enjoyment of these movies may not come from the emotional intensity itself but rather from other aspects, such as unraveling mysteries or piecing together complex plots. Similarly, documentary viewers may be less emotionally engaged and more focused on the factual content of the films they prefer.</p>
<p>“The study revealed associations between participants’ genre preferences and brain reactivity to negative affective stimuli. Interestingly, preferences for genres with similar emotion profiles (action, crime/thriller) were associated with oppositely directed neural activity,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between movie preferences and brain activity. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any cause-and-effect inferences to be drawn from the data. Additionally, it remains unknown whether these differences in brain activity would be seen when watching movies, as they were measured while participants were doing a relatively standard experimental task, not while they were watching movies.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1396811">How movies move us – movie preferences are linked to differences in neuronal emotion processing of fear and anger: an fMRI study,</a>” was authored by Esther Zwiky, Philine König, Rebekka Maria Herrmann, Antonia Küttner, Janine Selle, Lena Esther Ptasczynski, Konrad Schöniger, Mareike Rutenkröger, Verena Enneking, Tiana Borgers, Melissa Klug, Katharina Dohm, Elisabeth J Leehr, Jochen Bauer, Udo Dannlowski, and Ronny Redlich.</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>