<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/study-links-barriers-to-divorce-and-reproductive-healthcare-to-higher-pregnancy-associated-homicide-rates/" 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 barriers to divorce and reproductive healthcare to higher pregnancy-associated homicide rates</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 28th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study published in <em><a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2825998" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JAMA Network Open</a></em> highlights a chilling reality: pregnant women face higher risks of homicide in states with restrictive reproductive healthcare policies and legal barriers to divorce during pregnancy. The research found that state-level rates of pregnancy-associated homicide, a leading cause of maternal death in the United States, were elevated in areas where divorce cannot be finalized during pregnancy and where reproductive healthcare access is limited. The findings underscore how legal and policy environments can shape the safety and well-being of pregnant individuals.</p>
<p>Homicide is a leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States, surpassing medical complications like preeclampsia or hemorrhage. Researchers have long observed that intimate partner violence plays a substantial role in these deaths, with younger women and Black women being at the highest risk. The study’s lead researcher, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kaitlin-Boyle" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kaitlin Boyle</a>, was motivated to explore how state laws might influence these outcomes after learning about Missouri’s prohibition on finalizing divorces during pregnancy.</p>
<p>“I had already been studying violence against women for years, and I knew that homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant women,” explained Boyle, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. “Then, in early 2024, I saw several articles about Missouri state representative Ashley Aune, who proposed a bill to make it easier for women in Missouri to access divorce while pregnant. Related stories made me start to wonder about general patterns (across the United States and over time) of legislation that restrict access to reproductive care and legal barriers to divorce, and whether women are more likely to be killed while pregnant in general or by their partners in more restrictive states.”</p>
<p>Boyle and her colleagues used data from the National Violent Death Reporting System, which compiles information on violent deaths, including homicides, from medical examiners, law enforcement, and death certificates. The researchers analyzed state-level pregnancy-associated homicide rates from 2018 to 2021 across 49 states and Washington, D.C., focusing on deaths that occurred during pregnancy or within a year postpartum. Homicide rates were calculated for all women of reproductive age (15–49 years) and for younger women (ages 10–24), a group at particularly high risk.</p>
<p>The researchers also examined state policies regarding reproductive healthcare and divorce. Barriers to reproductive healthcare included restrictions on abortion access, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental consent requirements, and limitations on public funding. These policies were quantified into a “Reproductive Health Care Access Index,” where higher scores indicated more expansive access. Legal prohibitions on finalizing divorce during pregnancy were documented for states like Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas, where such laws are explicitly enforced.</p>
<p>The study confirmed a significant association between legal and healthcare restrictions and higher rates of pregnancy-associated homicide. States that prohibited finalizing divorce during pregnancy had notably higher rates of homicide among pregnant individuals. This trend was particularly pronounced among younger White women but was observed across all racial and ethnic groups.</p>
<p>In addition, reproductive healthcare access—or the lack thereof—was closely linked to homicide rates. States with more restrictive policies and abortion barriers had higher rates of pregnancy-associated homicides, both by intimate partners and non-partners. These findings align with previous research suggesting that limited reproductive healthcare access increases the vulnerability of women in abusive relationships and restricts their ability to escape dangerous situations.</p>
<p>“It takes a lot to leave a violent relationship—women may be financially dependent on their partner, they may have children with them, and abusers isolate victims, cutting them off from important social, financial, and emotional support systems,” Boyle told PsyPost. “Pregnancy—and the inability to divorce while pregnant—exacerbate these barriers, given the medical, psychological, and economic vulnerabilities that come with pregnancy and the postpartum period.”</p>
<p>“People in abusive marriages need to know that even in states with barriers to divorce during pregnancy, they can begin divorce proceedings and access protective orders from violent partners. We, as members of society, need to support access to healthcare and domestic violence services and support the individuals in our lives who need help.”</p>
<p>The racial and ethnic disparities in homicide rates were also striking. Younger Black women faced the highest rates of pregnancy-associated homicide, followed by younger Hispanic women and younger White women. The study found that states with greater reproductive healthcare access had lower homicide rates for Black and Hispanic women, highlighting the protective effects of these policies.</p>
<p>“People think of pregnancy and the postpartum period as a vulnerable time where women need to be protected more than ever, so people tend to be surprised when I talk about how pregnancy can be the <em>result</em> of violence and it can also <em>increase</em> violence,” Boyle said. “Unfortunately, I was not surprised by my findings. Instead, they confirmed my concern that women, especially young and Black and Hispanic women, would be endangered by laws that restrict their reproductive care access, and that women who cannot finalize a divorce from a violent partner would be more at risk for fatal violence.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, data on pregnancy status is often incomplete, even with standardized reporting systems, which could lead to underestimations of pregnancy-associated homicides. Additionally, the study relied on state-level data, which may mask local variations in policy enforcement and access to care.</p>
<p>“Any research study is going to have its limitations, and ours is no different,” Boyle noted. “For instance, there are state-level factors that we do not account for that might shape rates of reproductive coercion, reproductive care access, and/or homicide, such as economic factors (e.g., poverty rates) and access to healthcare more generally. State laws are more complicated than it is measured here, but it is a starting point to understand national patterns of pregnancy-associated homicide.”</p>
<p>Future research could address these limitations by examining data at the county level or exploring how urban, suburban, and rural contexts influence access to care and safety. Longitudinal studies could also investigate how changes in state policies—such as the overturning of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>—affect pregnancy-associated homicide rates over time.</p>
<p>“The data we examine are only from the years 2018 to 2021, but vast changes occurred in reproductive care access both before and after that time period,” Boyle explained. “Many states that already restricted access to reproductive healthcare before Roe was overturned in 2022 then implemented total or near-total bans when it was overturned. Research suggests this has led to increases in rape-related pregnancies and infant mortality, and it must be examined how these changes are associated with pregnancy-associated violence and homicide.</p>
<p>“In the 2024 election, there were also laws and ballot measures approved in states that increased reproductive care access. Understanding whether and how these legislative changes affect pregnancy-associated homicide rates is a goal for my future work.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.44199" target="_blank" rel="noopener">State Divorce Laws, Reproductive Care Policies, and Pregnancy-Associated Homicide Rates, 2018-2021</a>,” was authored by Kaitlin M. Boyle, Wendy Regoeczi, and Chase B. Meyer.</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/psychologists-pinpoint-a-subtle-sign-of-relationship-quality/" 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;">Psychologists pinpoint a subtle sign of relationship quality</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 28th 2025, 06:00</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://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-57957-001?doi=1"><em>Emotion</em></a> reveals a connection between the synchrony of smiles in romantic partners and their overall relationship satisfaction. By examining the timing and coordination of smiles during partner interactions, the researchers discovered that couples who reported high relationship satisfaction exhibited greater levels of smile synchrony compared to couples seeking therapy for relational distress. The findings position smile synchrony as a potential behavioral marker of relationship quality.</p>
<p>Close romantic relationships significantly impact both physical health and psychological well-being. Satisfying partnerships have been linked to benefits such as reduced depression risk and enhanced life satisfaction, whereas distressed relationships may contribute to poor mental health outcomes. Researchers have increasingly explored how emotional processes, such as emotional synchrony, influence the connection between relationship quality and well-being.</p>
<p>Emotional synchrony occurs when partners’ emotional experiences align, whether through shared physiological states or synchronized behaviors. While previous studies have documented synchrony in verbal communication and physiological responses, the role of facial expressions, particularly smiles, had received less attention. Smiles are universally recognized nonverbal signals that convey positive emotions and affiliation, making them an ideal focus for examining emotional synchrony in romantic relationships.</p>
<p>“The inspiration for this research stemmed from a deep curiosity about the world of nonverbal communication between romantic partners,” said study author Reut Machluf-Ruttner, a PhD student at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 61 cohabiting couples, including 30 nondistressed couples and 31 couples seeking therapy for relationship distress. Nondistressed couples were selected based on high relationship satisfaction scores, while therapy-seeking couples reported satisfaction levels within the clinical range for relational distress. The nondistressed couples were younger, with an average age of 25.6 years for women and 26.4 years for men, whereas the therapy-seeking couples were older, averaging 37 and 39 years, respectively.</p>
<p>During the study, each couple participated in a laboratory session involving four six-minute discussions. These interactions alternated between positive topics, such as relationship strengths, and negative topics, such as sources of disagreement. The partners’ facial expressions were recorded using high-definition cameras, and their smiles were analyzed using advanced facial recognition software. This software continuously coded the presence and intensity of smiles, allowing the researchers to track the timing and synchrony of smile exchanges between partners.</p>
<p>To quantify smile synchrony, the researchers calculated how closely aligned the timing of partners’ smiles was and how quickly one partner responded with a smile after the other. These measures were compared across nondistressed and therapy-seeking couples, as well as between positive and negative discussion contexts.</p>
<p>The researchers found that nondistressed couples displayed higher levels of smile synchrony, with an average synchrony score of 0.46 (on a scale from 0 to 1) compared to 0.32 for therapy-seeking couples. This means their smiles were more closely aligned in timing and intensity. They also reciprocated each other’s smiles more quickly, achieving their peak synchrony in an average of 0.62 seconds, whereas therapy-seeking couples took 1.07 seconds to reach the same level. These findings suggest that nondistressed couples are more emotionally attuned to each other, while therapy-seeking couples exhibit less alignment in their nonverbal communication.</p>
<p>“Despite being automatic and largely uncontrollable, findings from this study—and others in the field—highlight that these signals are highly indicative and can serve as markers of relationship quality,” Machluf-Ruttner told PsyPost. “In this particular study, we discovered notable differences in the patterns of smile synchrony between couples who are satisfied with their relationships and those seeking therapy due to relationship difficulties.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, smile synchrony was greater during discussions of positive relationship aspects than during negative discussions for both groups. However, the difference was more pronounced in nondistressed couples, who showed faster and more consistent smile coordination during positive interactions. This pattern highlights the importance of emotional connection through smiles, particularly in fostering positive relational dynamics.</p>
<p>The researchers also noted that smile synchrony showed a high degree of consistency across interactions within the same couple, with approximately 45% of the variance in synchrony explained by stable couple-level factors. This stability suggests that smile synchrony may be a characteristic of the relationship itself rather than a fleeting response to specific situational factors, further reinforcing its potential as a marker of relationship quality.</p>
<p>“Currently, I am working on follow-up studies exploring the relationship between couples’ subjective reports of closeness and their facial expression synchrony,” Machluf-Ruttner said. “Additionally, I aim to examine whether smile synchrony might predict which couples are more likely to benefit from couple therapy or from certain approaches to couple therapy. Beyond my research, I am also a clinical psychology intern, and I find the integration of research findings with clinical practice both fascinating and valuable.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001466">The Dance of Smiles: Comparing Smile Synchrony in Nondistressed and Therapy-Seeking Couples</a>,” was authored by Reut Machluf-Ruttner, David A. Sbarra, Ben Shahar, Carmel Sofer, and Eran Bar-Kalifa.</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/brain-inflammation-may-be-the-reason-behind-muscle-fatigue-after-infection-and-injury/" 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;">Brain inflammation may be the reason behind muscle fatigue after infection and injury</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 27th 2025, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Infectious or chronic diseases such as long COVID, Alzheimer’s disease and traumatic brain injury can cause inflammation in the brain, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9999146">or neuroinflammation</a>, that weakens muscles. While scientists are aware of this link between inflammation and muscle weakness, the molecules and processes involved have been unclear.</p>
<p>In our research, our team <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=C-3wbQ0AAAAJ&hl=en">of neuroscientists</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rAkVQqUAAAAJ&hl=en">and biologists</a> uncovered the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.adm7908">hidden conversation</a> between the brain and muscles that triggers muscle fatigue, and potential ways to treat it.</p>
<h2>Neuroinflammation and muscle fatigue</h2>
<p>Neuroinflammation results when your central nervous system – the brain and spine – activates its own immune system to protect itself against infection, toxins, neurodegeneration and traumatic injury. Neuroinflammatory reactions primarily occur in the brain. But for unknown reasons, patients also experience many symptoms outside the central nervous system, such as debilitating fatigue and muscle pain.</p>
<p>To solve this puzzle, we studied brain inflammation in the context of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.adm7908">three different diseases</a>: bacterial infection in <em>E. coli</em>-induced meningitis; viral infection in COVID-19; and neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. Then, we analyzed how these immune changes affect muscle performance.</p>
<p>We measured immune changes in the brains of fruit flies and mice infected with live bacteria, viral proteins or neurotoxic proteins. After the initial accumulation of toxic molecules in the brain that commonly increase in response to stresses such as infection, the brain produces high levels of <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/24585-cytokines">cytokines</a> – chemicals that activate the immune system – that are released into the body. When these cytokines travel to muscles, they activate a series of chemical reactions that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.adm7908">disrupts the ability</a> of the powerhouse of cells – mitochondria – to produce energy.</p>
<p>Though the result of these immune changes doesn’t seem to damage muscle fibers, it does cause fatigue. When we measured the muscle performance of these animals after giving them treatments to offset the effects of immune activation, we found that both flies and mice <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.adm7908">moved significantly less</a> in response to manual or mechanical stimuli compared with those that were not infected. This indicated that the animals had reduced endurance.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable"></figure>
<h2>Conversations between brain and muscle</h2>
<p>Our findings suggest that the muscle fatigue that results from infection or chronic illness is caused by a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.adm7908">brain-to-muscle communication pathway</a> that depletes energy in muscles without disrupting their structure or integrity. Unlike traditional explanations for muscle dysfunction that focus on causes outside the brain, such as damage to the muscle fibers, this pathway directly causes fatigue.</p>
<p>Since the key cytokine involved in brain-to-muscle communication has been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2013.04.107">preserved throughout evolution</a> across different species, we believe this signaling pathway could represent a universal mechanism the brain uses to claim and reallocate energy to fight against infection.</p>
<p>Since we studied the brain-muscle axis only in the context of simplified models, we don’t know whether it applies to more complex conditions such as fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome. We also don’t know how impaired energy production in muscles correlates with impaired energy production in the brain.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the brain-muscle axis works through a series of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-024-01074-w">interconnected steps</a>. But the precise mechanism of this communication and the potential involvement of other cytokines are unknown.</p>
<h2>Muscle fatigue common across disease</h2>
<p>Muscle weakness and fatigue are <a href="https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003174.htm">common symptoms in multiple diseases</a>, ranging from bacterial and viral infections to chronic disorders and neurodegenerative conditions. These symptoms are distressing and reduce the quality of life of millions of people worldwide.</p>
<p>For instance, most of the 65 million people around the world struggling with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00493-2">long COVID</a> experience <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.8823">disabling fatigue</a> lasting from months to years.</p>
<p>Similarly, reduced muscle strength is a common symptom of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00659.2022">early stage Alzheimer’s disease</a>, a condition that affects at least <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12694">50 million people globally</a>.</p>
<p>Better understanding of how neuroinflammation causes muscle fatigue can lead to potential treatments that improve muscle function.</p>
<h2>New treatments on the horizon</h2>
<p>Our work suggests that targeting the brain-muscle axis could offer new treatment strategies for muscle fatigue.</p>
<p>Currently, we are testing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/intimm/dxv063">neutralizing antibodies</a> – proteins that bind to and inhibit the function of cytokines – in mice with neuroinflammation. These FDA-approved treatments specifically target cytokines secreted by the brain and prevent signaling to muscle. We are interested in identifying which neutralizing antibodies, or combinations of antibodies, prevent muscle fatigue in mice.</p>
<p>We are also planning a long COVID clinical trial to profile cytokine levels in patients. It is unclear whether other COVID-19 proteins can also trigger neuroinflammation and muscle fatigue. Recent evidence suggests that long COVID may be linked to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05542-y">lingering viral particles</a> in several organs, including the brain, even months after infection. However, it is uncertain whether and how this might be connected with the high levels of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-023-01086-z">cytokines seen in long COVID</a>.</p>
<p>With further development, targeting the brain-muscle axis could be a useful treatment for people suffering with long COVID and other diseases that cause brain inflammation.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/239817/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/brain-inflammation-may-be-the-reason-behind-muscle-fatigue-after-infection-and-injury-239817">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/anger-might-enhance-creative-performance/" 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;">Anger might enhance creative performance</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 27th 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research has found a positive association between anger and creative performance. Anger appears to enhance creative performance, particularly when elicited through imaginative processes and directed toward malevolent aspects of creativity. The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2392614"><em>Cognition and Emotion</em></a>.</p>
<p>Anger is an intense emotional response to perceived threats, injustices, or frustrations. It is often accompanied by physiological arousal, such as an increased heart rate and tension. Anger serves as a natural and adaptive reaction, motivating individuals to address problems or protect themselves from harm. While anger can be constructive when expressed healthily, uncontrolled or excessive anger may lead to interpersonal conflicts, stress, and negative health outcomes.</p>
<p>Some researchers have found that anger can stimulate more creative thoughts, while others have proposed that it hinders creativity. However, the nature of the link between anger and creative performance might depend on the specific characteristics of the situation and the motivation behind the anger.</p>
<p>Study author Liangyu Xing and her colleagues aimed to explore the relationship between anger and creative performance in greater detail. They were particularly interested in identifying the factors that determine whether anger boosts or hinders creative performance. These researchers conducted a meta-analysis.</p>
<p>They began by searching a number of databases for scientific articles exploring the link between creative performance and anger. They used various formulations of anger and creativity as their search terms, including “creativity,” “creative,” “divergent thinking,” “innovation,” “anger,” and “angry” in both English and Chinese. The authors looked for studies that measured performance on at least one creativity-related task and either explicitly manipulated mood states (to make participants angry) or measured naturally occurring mood states (how angry participants felt).</p>
<p>This search resulted in 2,947 articles matching the search terms. After excluding articles that were irrelevant to the topic or did not meet the inclusion criteria, 23 articles remained. Of these, 18 presented results from experimental studies, in which researchers manipulated participants’ moods (i.e., made them angry), while 5 were non-experimental studies, in which researchers measured how angry participants naturally felt. These studies were published between 2008 and 2024 and included a total of 2,413 participants.</p>
<p>Overall, the researchers found a weak positive association between anger and creative performance. In other words, angry participants tended to perform slightly better on creative tasks. However, the strength of this association varied significantly both within and between studies.</p>
<p>Further analysis revealed that the positive association between anger and creative performance was somewhat stronger in studies conducted on participants from Eastern countries, while it was almost nonexistent in studies on participants from Western countries. More recent studies also showed a stronger association between anger and creative performance compared to older studies.</p>
<p>Anger was more strongly associated with malevolent creativity than with general creativity. Malevolent creativity refers to the use of creative thinking to devise harmful, unethical, or destructive solutions, ideas, or actions to achieve malicious goals. Anger was also more strongly linked to creative performance when imagination was involved. Finally, experimental studies (those that actively induced anger in participants) found stronger associations between anger and creative performance than non-experimental studies.</p>
<p>“Specifically, anger appears to enhance creative performance, particularly when it is elicited through imaginative processes and directed towards malevolent facet of creativity. However, the link between anger and creative performance was not influenced by the type of creative task used, the reported creative outcome, or the time limitation of the task,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the connection between anger and creativity. However, it focused on basic mood anger and did not examine secondary emotions, such as aggression and hostility, that often accompany anger. These emotions might play an important role in understanding the link between creativity and anger.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2392614">The relationship between anger and creative performance: a three-level meta-analysis,</a>” was authored by Liangyu Xing, Wenyu Zhang, Yikuan Kan, and Ning Hao.</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/men-value-romantic-relationships-more-and-suffer-greater-consequences-from-breakups-than-women/" 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;">Men value romantic relationships more and suffer greater consequences from breakups than women</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 27th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Romantic relationships are more central to men’s well-being than women’s, according to a forthcoming article in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24001365"><em>Behavioral & Brain Sciences</em></a>.</p>
<p>Popular culture suggests women prioritize romantic relationships more than men, though recent evidence paints a different picture. Studies often depict women as emotionally dependent on their partners, while men are stereotypically viewed as independent and emotionally reserved. These assumptions have influenced not only cultural narratives but also academic research.</p>
<p>Iris V. Wahring and colleagues challenge this narrative by providing a comprehensive analysis of how romantic relationships impact men and women differently, drawing on interdisciplinary research across psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology.</p>
<p>The researchers argue that men, on average, rely more on their romantic partners for emotional support and intimacy than women do. They suggest that this discrepancy stems from gendered socialization patterns: men are less likely to cultivate strong, emotionally supportive friendships or family ties outside of romantic relationships, while women are encouraged to develop broader networks of intimacy and care. These differences make romantic relationships disproportionately significant for men in fulfilling emotional and psychological needs.</p>
<p>The authors outline four key findings to support their argument. First, men expect greater benefits from relationships and are more motivated to form romantic partnerships. Compared to women, men perceive romantic relationships as offering a more substantial improvement in their well-being, partly because they tend to have fewer alternatives for fulfilling emotional and intimacy needs.</p>
<p>For example, research indicates that single men are more likely than single women to actively search for a partner, and men are more likely to idealize romantic connections, believing in concepts such as “love at first sight” and confessing love earlier in a relationship. Men also report falling in love more often and more quickly than women, reinforcing their stronger drive to initiate romantic involvement.</p>
<p>Second, men derive more mental and physical health benefits from romantic involvement compared to women. Romantic relationships provide men with a source of emotional support, which translates to higher life satisfaction, improved mental health, and better physical health outcomes. The paper cites evidence showing that single men experience higher rates of depression, stress, and <a href="https://www.psypost.org/boys-and-men-experience-more-social-isolation-than-girls-and-women-study-finds/">loneliness</a> compared to single women, and men who lack a partner are at greater risk of adverse health outcomes, including reduced life expectancy.</p>
<p>Conversely, married or partnered men tend to experience lower rates of hypertension, inflammation, and other health issues compared to single men. Women’s broader social networks and alternative sources of support mean that they are less dependent on their romantic partners for these health benefits, resulting in a weaker overall association between relationship status and health for women.</p>
<p>Third, men are less likely to initiate breakups than women, partly due to their stronger dependence on the emotional support provided by romantic partners. The authors highlight that approximately 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and women are more likely to end non-marital relationships as well. Men’s greater reluctance to end relationships is explained by their perception that the costs of leaving, primarily the loss of emotional and intimacy support, outweigh the potential benefits. Additionally, men are less likely to view breakups as opportunities for growth or self-discovery, further decreasing their likelihood of initiating separation.</p>
<p>Fourth, men experience greater emotional and psychological distress following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. After a breakup, men are more likely to report feelings of loneliness, sadness, and reduced life satisfaction compared to women. They also experience more severe physical health consequences, including an increased risk of suicide and mortality after losing a partner through separation or death. The authors argue that these negative outcomes are tied to men’s dependency on romantic partners as their primary source of emotional support. Women, by contrast, are more likely to turn to friends and family for support during and after a breakup, which helps them cope more effectively and recover more quickly.</p>
<p>These findings are grounded in broader societal and cultural norms that discourage men from seeking or expressing emotional vulnerability outside of romantic relationships. From an early age, men are socialized to prioritize independence and emotional restraint, which limits their ability to form deep, supportive connections with friends and family. As a result, romantic partners often become the sole providers of emotional intimacy and care in men’s lives. This dynamic explains why men tend to strive harder for relationships, benefit more from being in them, and struggle more deeply when they end.</p>
<p>Wahring and colleagues highlight the importance of rethinking cultural narratives around gender and relationships, particularly in recognizing men’s emotional vulnerabilities and their reliance on romantic relationships for well-being.</p>
<p>The authors acknowledge that the findings they draw from are largely based on studies conducted in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) populations, as well as heterosexual populations, and do not sufficiently account for non-WEIRD or non-heteronormative experiences.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24001365">Romantic Relationships Matter More to Men than to Women</a>,” was authored by Iris V. Wahring, Jeffry A. Simpson, and Paul A. M. Van Lange.</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/shared-genetic-factors-uncovered-between-adhd-and-cannabis-addiction/" 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;">Shared genetic factors uncovered between ADHD and cannabis addiction</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 27th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00277-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nature Mental Health</a></em> has shed new light on the genetic connection between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and cannabis use disorder. Researchers identified dozens of genetic loci shared between ADHD and cannabis use disorder. The research provides a better understanding of the genetic overlap between ADHD and cannabis-related behaviors and offers potential insights into early identification of those at high risk for developing cannabis use disorder.</p>
<p>Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental condition that typically begins in childhood and often persists into adulthood. Characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that exceed age-appropriate levels, ADHD can significantly impair daily functioning and quality of life. It affects about 5% of children and 2.5% of adults worldwide. The disorder has a strong genetic component, with heritability estimates around 74%, and previous studies have shown that common genetic variations account for a significant portion of the risk.</p>
<p>Among substance use disorders, cannabis use disorder is particularly prevalent in individuals with ADHD, especially in adolescents and young adults. Research has shown that people with ADHD are 10 times more likely to develop substance use disorders compared to those without the condition. Externalizing behaviors like impulsivity and risk-taking, which are hallmark features of ADHD, are thought to increase susceptibility to cannabis use and eventual dependence.</p>
<p>The researchers behind the new study hypothesized that shared genetic factors might also contribute to this comorbidity and sought to investigate these links using large-scale genetic data. By comparing the genetic architecture of ADHD with cannabis use disorder and general cannabis use, they aimed to identify overlapping genetic factors, clarify how ADHD contributes to cannabis use disorder risk, and explore whether these genetic pathways differ for cannabis use versus cannabis use disorder.</p>
<p>To investigate, the researchers conducted a genome-wide association study, a research approach used to identify genetic variations associated with specific diseases or traits. By analyzing the genomes of large groups of individuals, some with and some without a particular condition, researchers can pinpoint genetic variants that are more common in those with the condition.</p>
<p>This large-scale study analyzed genetic data from individuals of European ancestry, leveraging datasets from existing GWAS meta-analyses of ADHD, cannabis use disorder, and cannabis use. Specifically, the ADHD data included 38,691 individuals diagnosed with the disorder and 186,843 controls, the cannabis use disorder dataset included 42,281 individuals with the condition and 843,744 controls, and the cannabis use dataset comprised 162,082 individuals reporting lifetime cannabis use.</p>
<p>The researchers identified 36 genetic loci shared between ADHD and cannabis use disorder, with these loci demonstrating significant activity in brain tissues and across brain developmental stages. This contrasts with ADHD and general cannabis use, which shared only 10 genetic loci and showed no evidence of consistent brain-specific gene expression.</p>
<p>Among the key findings, the DRD2 gene, which encodes a dopamine receptor, emerged as a significant risk factor for both ADHD and cannabis use disorder. This is particularly noteworthy given dopamine’s established role in both ADHD and addiction.</p>
<p>The study also found that the genetic regions shared by both ADHD and cannabis use disorder were more likely to affect genes related to brain function and development compared to the regions shared by both ADHD and general cannabis use. This suggests that the genetic connection between attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and cannabis use disorder is stronger and more biologically significant.</p>
<p>To explore individual risk, the researchers employed polygenic risk scores (PGS), which estimate an individual’s genetic susceptibility to a condition based on the cumulative effect of multiple genetic variants. Individuals with ADHD who had a high PGS for cannabis use disorder were found to have an absolute risk of 22% for developing cannabis use disorder, compared to a risk of just 1.6% in controls without ADHD.</p>
<p>The risk was particularly pronounced in men, who were 10% more likely than women to develop cannabis use disorder in the highest-risk group. These findings highlight the potential for PGS to predict individual risk for cannabis use disorder among people with ADHD, offering a tool for early identification and prevention strategies.</p>
<p>The researchers also examined rare genetic variants and found that individuals with both ADHD and cannabis use disorder had a higher burden of rare deleterious mutations compared to those with ADHD alone. These rare mutations were particularly concentrated in genes that are more evolutionarily tolerant to loss-of-function changes, indicating that genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder may involve both common and rare genetic factors.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the researchers also uncovered significant differences in the genetic overlap of ADHD with cannabis use disorder versus general cannabis use. While ADHD and general cannabis use shared some genetic variants, these overlaps were weaker and less specific to brain function than those associated with ADHD and cannabis use disorder. This supports the idea that the genetic mechanisms underlying cannabis use as a behavior differ from those driving cannabis dependence as a disorder.</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider. The data were derived from individuals of European ancestry, limiting the generalizability of the results to other populations. Additionally, the definition of cannabis use was broad, encompassing individuals with varying levels of use, which may have introduced heterogeneity in the analyses. Future research could refine the definitions of cannabis use and explore the impact of environmental factors and comorbid conditions, such as conduct disorder or schizophrenia.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00277-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shared genetics of ADHD, cannabis use disorder and cannabis use and prediction of cannabis use disorder in ADHD</a>,” was authored by Trine Tollerup Nielsen, Jinjie Duan, Daniel F. Levey, G. Bragi Walters, Emma C. Johnson, Thorgeir Thorgeirsson, VA Million Veteran Program, Thomas Werge, Preben Bo Mortensen, Hreinn Stefansson, Kari Stefansson, David M. Hougaard, Arpana Agrawal, Joel Gelernter, Jakob Grove, Anders D. Børglum, and Ditte Demontis.</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/conservatives-share-more-false-claims-in-polarized-settings-research-reveals/" 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;">Conservatives share more false claims in polarized settings, research reveals</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 27th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>In polarized political environments, conservatives are more likely than liberals to share misinformation, driven by a heightened desire for their group to achieve dominance, according to new research from the University of California-Irvine. However, in less polarized settings, misinformation-sharing decreases significantly, and the ideological divide all but disappears. The research has been published in the <em><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00222429241264997" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Marketing</a></em>.</p>
<p>Previous studies have consistently found that conservatives are more likely to spread political misinformation than liberals, but there has been little exploration of whether specific situations, such as polarized political discourse, exacerbate this behavior. Given the global rise in political polarization and its damaging effects on democratic processes, the researchers sought to pinpoint the situational and ideological drivers of misinformation in an effort to identify potential solutions.</p>
<p>“The rise of misinformation during the 2020 U.S. election season caught our attention. Early on, we didn’t see much difference between Republicans and Democrats in sharing misinformation,” said study authors Xiajing Zhu (a PhD candidate) and Connie Pechmann (a professor of marketing).</p>
<p>“But as the election approached, there was a noticeable increase in misinformation coming from the Republican side. This made us curious: why were so many people posting misinformation on social media, and why did this change so dramatically during the election? In the long run, we want to better understand what drives the misinformation crisis and develop actionable interventions to mitigate both misinformation and polarization.”</p>
<p>To explore these dynamics, the researchers conducted a series of studies combining real-world data analysis, controlled experiments, and historical text analysis.</p>
<p>The first study used a dataset of fact-checked political statements by U.S. public figures, compiled by PolitiFact and spanning 2007 to 2016. Researchers augmented this dataset with additional information on the ideological affiliation of each public figure—conservative (Republican) or liberal (Democrat)—and categorized the topics of their statements as either highly polarized or less polarized. Polarization levels were determined using survey data from the Pew Research Center, which measured ideological disagreement on various political issues.</p>
<p>The researchers analyzed 3,532 statements that could be matched to Pew’s data, representing 36% of the original dataset. Using PolitiFact’s ratings, they measured the degree of misinformation in each statement and compared it across levels of polarization and ideology. They found that conservatives were more likely to share misinformation than liberals, but this pattern emerged only in highly polarized contexts. In less polarized situations, there was no significant difference in misinformation between the two groups.</p>
<p>The second study extended the analysis to a larger dataset, covering PolitiFact-rated statements from 2007 to 2022, and incorporated a monthly polarization index developed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. This index measures the extent to which political news in a given month is polarized based on keywords related to conflict and division. Researchers examined 13,517 statements, with 59% made by conservatives and 41% by liberals.</p>
<p>The researchers used the polarization index to calculate changes in polarization over time and linked this trend to the level of misinformation in statements by public figures. The findings revealed that when polarization increased, conservatives were more likely to spread misinformation than liberals. However, in periods of declining polarization, this ideological gap in misinformation-sharing disappeared.</p>
<p>In the third study, the researchers conducted a controlled experiment to assess how manipulated levels of polarization influenced individuals’ willingness to share misinformation. They recruited 283 U.S. adults, evenly divided by ideology, to participate in an online survey. Participants were first exposed to quotes from political leaders that either framed interparty relations as cooperative (low polarization) or oppositional (high polarization). They were then shown a series of politically skewed, factually questionable social media posts designed to either support their own political group or attack the opposing group. Participants rated how likely they were to share these posts.</p>
<p>The experiment showed that conservatives exposed to high-polarization framing were more likely to express intent to share misinformation compared to liberals in the same condition. In the low-polarization condition, both groups showed comparable levels of intent to share misinformation. Further analysis revealed that the conservatives’ behavior was driven by an increased desire for their group to achieve dominance in polarized settings.</p>
<p>The fourth study replicated and extended the third by varying the type of misinformation participants encountered. The researchers recruited 581 U.S. adults, balanced by political ideology, and exposed them to either high- or low-polarization scenarios similar to those in Study 3. The misinformation posts were divided into two types: those that directly supported participants’ own political group and those that attacked the opposing group. Participants rated their likelihood of sharing these posts.</p>
<p>The results showed the same pattern as in Study 3: conservatives were more likely to share misinformation in high-polarization scenarios, regardless of whether the posts supported their ingroup or attacked the outgroup. Liberals, in contrast, did not show increased intent to share misinformation in polarized settings. These findings confirmed that the specific type of misinformation did not affect conservatives’ behavior; rather, it was the heightened desire for group dominance in polarized contexts that drove their actions.</p>
<p>“Our findings don’t suggest that conservatives are inherently prone to spreading misinformation,” the researchers told PsyPost. “Instead, it’s situational. Polarization and perceived group threats are the key factors driving this behavior, and these broader contexts are what need to be addressed.”</p>
<p>The fifth study simulated real-world social media conditions to examine the impact of polarization on misinformation-sharing. The researchers recruited 288 U.S. adults and presented them with a mock social media newsfeed containing seven articles. The articles were based on real news stories but were manipulated to either emphasize conflict and division (high polarization) or highlight bipartisanship and cooperation (low polarization). After reading the newsfeed, participants were shown politically skewed misinformation posts and asked to rate their likelihood of sharing them.</p>
<p>Conservatives who viewed the high-polarization newsfeed were more likely to share misinformation than liberals. However, when exposed to the low-polarization newsfeed, conservatives and liberals were equally unlikely to share misinformation. This demonstrated that polarization within news content could provoke misinformation-sharing behavior, particularly among conservatives, by activating their desire for ingroup dominance.</p>
<p>“We were surprised by how much influence media and social media can have on misinformation sharing,” Zhu and Pechmann said. “We showed participants a simulated social media newsfeed with seven articles, either highly polarized or less polarized, similar to the content people encounter daily. We found that a polarized newsfeed caused conservatives to share more misinformation as a way to support their group. In contrast, liberals did not react this way, and even conservatives behaved differently when exposed to less polarized newsfeeds. This raises an important question: what will happen when people are exposed to polarized content in the media and on social platforms every day?”</p>
<p>The sixth study analyzed nearly a century of speeches delivered by U.S. presidents to investigate how political polarization influenced expressions of ingroup dominance. The researchers examined 18,315 speeches by 16 presidents, evenly divided by political ideology, from 1929 to 2023. They compared speeches delivered during election campaigns (high polarization) to those delivered after elections (low polarization) and analyzed the use of first-person plural pronouns, such as “we” and “our,” in conjunction with positive or negative language. These linguistic markers were used to measure the presidents’ motive to achieve ingroup dominance.</p>
<p>The analysis found that conservative presidents expressed more ingroup dominance than liberal presidents during elections. However, in less polarized, postelection contexts, this pattern diminished and even slightly reversed. These findings underscored the role of polarization in triggering conservatives’ ingroup dominance motives, which in turn influenced their rhetoric and potentially their actions.</p>
<p>“Polarization plays a big role in how misinformation spreads,” Zhu and Pechmann concluded. “Conservatives are more likely to share misinformation when they feel their group is under threat or in competition, such as during elections. However, if not in a polarized context, conservatives and liberals share misinformation at similar levels. Thus, to address misinformation, we need to focus on reducing polarization and the motivations behind it, not just correcting false information.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429241264997" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Political Polarization Triggers Conservatives’ Misinformation Spread to Attain Ingroup Dominance</a>,” was published June 16, 2022.</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/are-middle-children-more-cooperative-and-honest-heres-what-a-massive-study-discovered/" 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;">Are middle children more cooperative and honest? Here’s what a massive study discovered</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jan 27th 2025, 11:15</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A large-scale study has uncovered links between personality traits, birth order, and family size. Published in the <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2416709121"><em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em></a>, the research analyzed data from hundreds of thousands of participants and found that individuals from larger families tend to exhibit higher levels of traits related to honesty and agreeableness. Additionally, middle-born children scored highest on measures of cooperation and modesty compared to their older, younger, or only-child counterparts.</p>
<p>The notion that birth order influences personality has fascinated scientists and the public for decades. Traditional stereotypes suggest that firstborns are conscientious leaders, while youngest siblings are rebellious and attention-seeking. However, many earlier studies—often using limited personality measures—failed to find significant evidence supporting these ideas. This led some researchers to dismiss birth order as an influential factor in personality development.</p>
<p>In their new study, Michael Ashton of Brock University and Kibeom Lee of the University of Calgary revisited the question with two aims. First, they wanted to examine whether broader and more precise personality dimensions, such as those in the HEXACO model, could reveal patterns missed in earlier work. The HEXACO framework measures six key traits: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Second, the researchers sought to understand whether family size, a related but often overlooked variable, influences personality.</p>
<p>“Most previous research had found that adults’ personality trait levels were unrelated to their birth order,” Ashton and Lee told PsyPost. “When we started collecting online personality data about 10 years ago, we decided to include birth order in our survey, because we were measuring a wider array of personality traits than had been examined in previous research. We found—somewhat to our surprise—that birth order was related to some personality traits, and we then added a question to our survey about sibship size (i.e., number of siblings, including oneself).”</p>
<p>Ashton and Lee relied on two large-scale datasets collected through an online personality assessment platform, <a href="https://hexaco.org/">hexaco.org</a>. The first sample included over 710,000 adults, while the second sample consisted of nearly 75,000 participants. Both samples were composed mainly of English-speaking participants from countries like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.</p>
<p>In addition to completing the HEXACO personality inventory, participants provided demographic information, including their birth order (categorized as only child, oldest, youngest, or middle child) and their age and gender. In the second sample, participants also indicated the number of children in their family, referred to as sibship size.</p>
<p>To ensure the reliability of their data, the researchers implemented strict screening procedures. Participants had to complete all 100 HEXACO items, pass three attention-check questions, and provide consistent demographic responses. For the second sample, additional checks ensured that participants’ reported birth order aligned with their sibship size (e.g., an “only child” could not come from a family with more than one child).</p>
<p>The researchers also controlled for several confounding factors. Age and gender were statistically controlled in both samples, ensuring these variables did not unduly influence the results. In the second sample, the researchers also considered participants’ religious upbringing and current religiousness, as these factors are known to correlate with traits like agreeableness and honesty.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed several consistent patterns linking personality traits to both birth order and family size. Middle-born participants scored highest on Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness, traits that reflect modesty, fairness, and cooperative behavior. These findings held true across both samples, with middle children scoring approximately 0.20 standard deviations higher than only children on these traits. Following middle-borns, the rank order of scores for these traits was youngest children, oldest children, and only children, who scored the lowest.</p>
<p>Family size also emerged as a significant factor. Participants from larger families tended to exhibit higher levels of Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness. For example, in the second sample, participants from families with six or more children scored 0.30 to 0.36 standard deviations higher on these traits compared to those from one-child families. These findings suggest that growing up with more siblings may foster social and cooperative tendencies, potentially due to increased opportunities for interaction and the need to share resources and responsibilities.</p>
<p>“We found that for two personality dimensions—Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness—middle-borns averaged highest and only children averaged lowest, with ‘oldests’ and ‘youngests’ in between,” Ashton and Lee explained.</p>
<p>“However, these differences were mainly a reflection of how many children were in one’s family when growing up—what researchers call ‘sibship size.’ (Note that ‘middles’ are always from families with at least three children, whereas oldest and youngest children are in many cases from families with exactly two children, and only children by definition are from families with one child.)”</p>
<p>“On average, people from larger families tended to be higher in Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness,” the researchers said. “When we compare people from families with the same sibship size, the birth order differences became rather small, although middles and youngests tended to be slightly higher in these traits than oldests did.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, the study found that only children scored higher on Openness to Experience, a trait associated with intellectual curiosity and creativity. Within families of the same size, oldest children also tended to score slightly higher on Openness compared to their younger siblings. These differences in openness may stem from the greater intellectual stimulation often experienced by only children or the added responsibilities and expectations placed on firstborns.</p>
<p>While differences in other personality traits were generally smaller, the study noted some additional patterns. For instance, middle children tended to score slightly higher on Extraversion compared to only children, and older siblings were marginally more conscientious than their younger counterparts. These findings, though less pronounced, further highlight the subtle ways in which family dynamics can shape personality.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that religious upbringing partially mediated the relationship between family size and cooperative traits. Participants from larger families were more likely to report a religious upbringing, which in turn correlated with higher levels of Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness. However, even after controlling for religious influences, the link between family size and these traits remained significant, suggesting that other factors, such as sibling interactions, play a role.</p>
<p>“Although we found significant effects of sibship size and birth order on prosocial personality traits, we emphasize that these effects are modest differences that occur on average—many people are exceptions to these trends,” Ashton and Lee told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“One way to think of it is like this: If you choose at random someone who was an only child and someone who grew up in a family of six or more kids, there’s a 60% chance that the more agreeable or cooperative person of these two will be the latter (as opposed to 50% if there were no difference). So, you can’t tell much about the personality of a given individual from their birth order or family size, even though there are clear differences when averaging across many people.”</p>
<p>Additionally, the study focused primarily on English-speaking participants, most of whom were from Western countries. Cultural differences in family dynamics and parenting practices might influence how birth order and family size affect personality in non-Western contexts.</p>
<p>“We are planning to investigate how robust these findings are in non-English-speaking countries,” the researchers said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2416709121">Personality differences between birth order categories and across sibship sizes</a>,” was published December 23, 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>
<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>