<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/hostility-towards-outsiders-motivates-engagement-on-social-media/" 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;">Hostility towards outsiders motivates engagement on social media</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 21st 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of nearly 3 million posts from news media accounts and U.S. congressional members on Facebook and Twitter found that people share or retweet posts about opposing political groups twice as often as posts about their own political group. The study was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118"><em>PNAS</em></a>.</p>
<p>Social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram allow users to share content, communicate, and interact in real time. For many, these platforms have become a primary source of news, but they also play a central role in how people build and maintain social relationships.</p>
<p>Unlike traditional media—where all viewers see the same content—social media sites use algorithms to personalize the content shown to each user. These algorithms determine what posts appear in someone’s feed, meaning that no two users see exactly the same content.</p>
<p>While the purpose of these algorithms is to keep users engaged by showing them content they are likely to enjoy, researchers have long warned that such personalization, combined with user behavior, can create “echo chambers”—informational bubbles in which users are primarily exposed to content that confirms their existing beliefs. While this may be harmless in contexts like music or movie recommendations, echo chambers around political content can exacerbate polarization and deepen societal divisions.</p>
<p>Study author Steve Rathje and his colleagues investigated whether out-group animosity—hostility toward political opponents—generates greater engagement on social media. They hypothesized that in a polarized society, expressing hostility toward opposing groups may be a more effective way of signaling partisan identity than praising one’s own group.</p>
<p>In their first analysis, the authors examined Facebook and Twitter accounts of U.S. liberal (e.g., The New York Times, MSNBC) and conservative (e.g., Fox News, Breitbart) media outlets. They found that each additional negative emotional word in a post was associated with a 5% to 8% increase in shares and retweets—except for posts from conservative media on Facebook, where such words actually decreased sharing. More strikingly, posts referring to political out-groups had a 35% to 57% higher chance of being shared for each additional out-group word. These posts also attracted more “angry” and “haha” reactions—across both liberal and conservative media.</p>
<p>The second analysis focused on the Facebook and Twitter accounts of U.S. congressional members from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Similar patterns emerged: negative emotional language made posts more likely to go viral. Each additional negative emotion word increased the likelihood of a post being shared by 12% to 45%. Posts referring to political out-groups were again much more likely to be shared, with a 65% to 180% increase in odds per out-group word. Posts attacking the out-group drew more “angry” reactions, while those referring to the in-group (i.e., the poster’s own political party) attracted more “love” reactions.</p>
<p>“While social media platforms are not fully transparent about how their algorithmic ranking system works, Facebook announced in a post titled “Bringing People Closer Together” that it was changing its algorithm ranking system to value “deeper” forms of engagement, such as reactions and comments. Ironically, posts about the political out-group were particularly effective at generating comments and reactions (particularly the “angry” reaction, the most popular reaction across our studies). In other words, these algorithmic changes made under the guise of bringing people closer together may have helped prioritize posts including out-group animosity,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between social media contents and people’s reactions to them. However, it’s important to note that whether a post is shared or receives reactions doesn’t depend solely on users. While users choose how to engage with content, it is the social media algorithms that decide which posts are shown to whom—and how frequently. If these algorithms were to change, user behavior and engagement metrics could shift accordingly.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024292118">Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media,</a>” was authored by Steve Rathje, Jay J. Van Bavel, and Sander van der Linden.</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/ai-tools-may-weaken-critical-thinking-skills-by-encouraging-cognitive-offloading-study-suggests/" 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;">AI tools may weaken critical thinking skills by encouraging cognitive offloading, study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 21st 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6" target="_blank">Societies</a></em> suggests that frequent reliance on artificial intelligence tools may negatively affect critical thinking skills. People who used AI tools more frequently demonstrated weaker critical thinking abilities, largely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as cognitive offloading. This effect was particularly pronounced among younger individuals, while those with higher education levels tended to retain stronger critical thinking skills regardless of AI tool usage.</p>
<p>As AI continues to integrate into education, workplaces, and daily decision-making, <a href="https://www.psypost.org/catastrophic-effects-can-ai-turn-us-into-imbeciles-this-scientists-fears-for-the-worst/" target="_blank">researchers have raised concerns</a> about its potential effects on cognitive skills. Critical thinking, the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information to form reasoned conclusions, is essential for problem-solving and independent decision-making. AI tools can provide users with quick solutions, but over-reliance on these tools may reduce opportunities for deep cognitive engagement.</p>
<p>“The motivation for this study stemmed from the increasing integration of AI tools into everyday life and their potential cognitive consequences. While AI offers efficiency and convenience, there is growing concern that reliance on these tools could diminish critical thinking abilities,” said study author Michael Gerlich, the Head of Center for Strategic Corporate Foresight and Sustainability at SBS Swiss Business School.</p>
<p>“Cognitive offloading, where individuals delegate cognitive tasks to AI rather than engaging in deep analytical reasoning, is an emerging phenomenon that has not been extensively studied. Given the crucial role of critical thinking in decision-making, education, and professional competence, understanding how AI influences cognitive engagement is imperative.” </p>
<p>“The study aimed to explore these implications, providing insights that can inform educators, policymakers, and technology designers in fostering a balanced approach to AI adoption. As generative AI enables the offloading of cognitive processes – not merely providing information but allowing users to bypass critical thinking by delivering direct answers – it presents a potential risk that this study sought to examine.”</p>
<p>Gerlich used a mixed-method approach, combining survey data with in-depth interviews. A total of 666 participants from diverse age groups and educational backgrounds completed a survey assessing their AI tool usage, cognitive offloading habits, and critical thinking skills. The survey incorporated standardized measures of critical thinking, including self-reported assessments and performance-based evaluations.</p>
<p>To supplement these findings, Gerlich conducted interviews with 50 participants, allowing them to gain deeper insights into how people perceive their dependence on AI tools and its impact on their cognitive engagement. The interview transcripts were analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and concerns.</p>
<p>For the quantitative data, Gerlich used statistical techniques, including correlation analysis and analysis of variance, to examine relationships between AI tool usage, cognitive offloading, and critical thinking performance. A machine learning model known as random forest regression was also employed to determine the relative importance of different factors influencing critical thinking.</p>
<p>The results indicated a strong negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities. Participants who reported heavy reliance on AI tools performed worse on critical thinking assessments compared to those who used these tools less frequently.</p>
<p>Cognitive offloading played a significant role in this relationship. Participants who frequently delegated cognitive tasks to AI tools, such as using search engines for quick answers or relying on recommendation algorithms for decision-making, exhibited weaker critical thinking skills. This pattern suggests that AI tools may be reducing the need for individuals to engage in independent analysis and evaluation.</p>
<p>“The key takeaway is that while AI tools can enhance productivity and information accessibility, their overuse may lead to unintended cognitive consequences,” Gerlich told PsyPost. “The findings reveal a strong negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by cognitive offloading. This suggests that reliance on AI tools could reduce opportunities for deep, reflective thinking. </p>
<p>“For individuals, this means being mindful of how they interact with AI and ensuring they continue to engage in critical analysis and independent problem-solving. AI should complement cognitive engagement rather than replace it. This is particularly relevant for education, where AI-driven learning platforms must be integrated in ways that encourage active thinking rather than passive dependence.”</p>
<p>Age and education level were also important factors. Younger participants (aged 17–25) showed higher AI tool usage and greater cognitive offloading, which coincided with lower critical thinking scores. In contrast, older participants (aged 46 and above) demonstrated stronger critical thinking skills and were less reliant on AI tools.</p>
<p>“One surprising finding was the extent to which younger participants exhibited higher dependence on AI tools and, correspondingly, lower critical thinking scores,” Gerlich said. “This suggests that digital natives, who have grown up with AI-integrated technologies, might be more prone to cognitive offloading than older generations.”</p>
<p>Education level played a protective role—those with higher education tended to maintain strong critical thinking skills, even if they used AI tools frequently. This suggests that formal education may provide individuals with strategies to critically assess AI-generated information rather than accepting it uncritically.</p>
<p>“The role of education level was striking – higher educational attainment was consistently associated with stronger critical thinking skills, regardless of AI usage,” Gerlich told PsyPost. “This implies that educational interventions could play a crucial role in mitigating the cognitive costs of AI dependence. Similar results showed the Microsoft study that showed that knowledge workers with lower self confidence trust AI more and offload cognitive processes compared to people with higher self confidence.”</p>
<p>The qualitative data from interviews reinforced these findings. Many participants expressed concerns about their growing dependence on AI tools. Some younger users admitted that they rarely questioned the accuracy of AI-generated recommendations, while others worried that they were losing their ability to analyze and solve problems independently. Participants with higher education backgrounds were more likely to critically evaluate AI outputs, demonstrating skepticism and cross-checking information from multiple sources.</p>
<p>The findings highlight the need to encourage users to engage with information actively rather than passively accepting AI-generated conclusions. But as with all research, there are some caveats. The study does not establish a direct causal relationship—while AI tool usage is associated with lower critical thinking scores, it is possible that individuals with weaker critical thinking skills are simply more inclined to rely on AI tools in the first place.</p>
<p>“The study highlights correlations rather than direct causation, meaning that while AI usage and cognitive offloading are linked to reduced critical thinking, additional factors may also contribute to this relationship,” Gerlich noted. “Moreover, the study focuses on self-reported and assessment-based measures of critical thinking, which may not capture all dimensions of cognitive engagement. The findings should be interpreted in the broader context of evolving AI-human interactions, and further research is needed to explore long-term effects across different demographic groups and technological contexts.”</p>
<p>Future research could use experimental designs to test whether interventions, such as teaching users how to critically engage with AI-generated information, can mitigate cognitive offloading effects. Longitudinal studies tracking individuals’ AI tool usage and critical thinking development over time could also provide deeper insights into how technology shapes cognitive abilities in the long run.</p>
<p>“The long-term objective of this research is to deepen our understanding of how AI influences human cognition, particularly in the areas of critical thinking, decision-making, and trust,” Gerlich explained. “Future studies will explore how individuals develop cognitive dependencies on AI, the extent to which AI-generated content affects analytical reasoning, and strategies for mitigating potential cognitive decline. </p>
<p>“Additionally, I aim to investigate the role of AI in educational settings, assessing how AI-driven learning tools can be designed to enhance rather than diminish critical thinking. Beyond academia, the goal is to contribute to policy discussions and educational frameworks that ensure AI integration supports, rather than undermines, cognitive engagement and intellectual autonomy. All of my research focuses on the Human Factor of AI implementation, which is too often overlooked when discussing the amazing technical opportunities AI offers.”</p>
<p>“As AI becomes increasingly embedded in daily life, it is essential to foster awareness of its cognitive implications,” Gerlich concluded. “AI tools are not inherently detrimental; rather, their impact depends on how they are used. The challenge lies in striking a balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities for efficiency and ensuring that individuals remain cognitively engaged and capable of independent critical thought. Moving forward, interdisciplinary collaboration between educators, policymakers, and technologists will be crucial in designing AI systems that support human cognition rather than replace it.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006" target="_blank">AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking</a>,” was published January 3, 2025.</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/neuroscience-research-reveals-unexpected-role-of-dopamine-in-reshaping-reward-memories/" 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;">Neuroscience research reveals unexpected role of dopamine in reshaping reward memories</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 21st 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research has uncovered an unexpected function of dopamine, a brain chemical traditionally associated with pleasure and motivation. Scientists found that dopamine plays a role in reducing the value of memories linked to rewards, suggesting that it can help reshape past experiences in ways that influence future behavior. The findings, published in <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-07440-7" target="_blank">Communications Biology</a></em>, challenge long-standing theories about how dopamine functions in learning and memory.</p>
<p>Dopamine is a neurotransmitter—a chemical messenger in the brain—that plays a key role in motivation, pleasure, and reinforcement learning. It is often described as the brain’s “feel-good” chemical because it is released during rewarding experiences, such as eating, social interactions, and other pleasurable activities. Dopamine helps animals, including humans, predict future rewards based on past experiences. Traditional theories suggest that dopamine is involved in reinforcement learning through a process called reward prediction error. This means that dopamine signals help adjust expectations when there is a mismatch between expected and actual rewards.</p>
<p>However, new evidence suggests that dopamine may have a more complex role beyond simple reward signaling. Some studies indicate that dopamine may help encode detailed sensory information about rewards, influencing not only how much we value a reward but also the way we remember and associate it with different experiences. The new study was designed to explore whether dopamine plays a role in modifying reward-related memories and, if so, how this process works.</p>
<p>“The function of dopamine has always fascinated me. It’s been implicated in a vast array of learning and motivation processes, whereas dysfunction of the dopamine system is associated with many mental disorders. Accordingly, understanding more about the nature of dopamine encoding can have wide-reaching implications,” said study author <a href="https://www.awjlab.com/" target="_blank">Alex Johnson</a>, an associate professor at Michigan State University.</p>
<p>To test their hypothesis, the researchers used mice in a controlled experiment. They trained the mice to associate an auditory cue with a sweet-tasting food. The sound signaled the arrival of the reward, helping the mice form a strong connection between the cue and the experience of consuming the treat. Later, when the mice heard the same cue, their brains retrieved the memory of the food, even though the food itself was not present.</p>
<p>At this point, the researchers introduced an unexpected twist. Instead of giving the mice the food, they administered a mild treatment that made them feel temporarily unwell. This was similar to how humans might feel after eating something that causes an upset stomach. The key aspect of this experiment was that the mice were not directly consuming the food at the time they felt unwell—they were only recalling the memory of the food.</p>
<p>When the mice had fully recovered, their behavior had changed. They reacted to the sweet-tasting food as if it had made them sick, even though the food itself had never been paired with the illness. This suggested that altering the memory of the food was enough to change how the mice valued it in the future. Instead of associating it with a positive experience, the food now seemed less appealing.</p>
<p>The researchers wanted to identify which brain mechanisms were responsible for this effect. By using specialized techniques to track and manipulate brain activity, they discovered that dopamine-producing cells played a critical role in this process. When they artificially reactivated the dopamine cells that had been engaged during the memory retrieval phase, the mice displayed an even stronger reduction in their preference for the sweet food. Conversely, when the researchers blocked dopamine activity in these cells, the mice did not show the same memory-based devaluation of the food.</p>
<p>“We were able to show that dopamine encodes and reshapes how we process memories associated with reward,” Johnson told PsyPost. “This is important as it tells us that dopamine can play a more elaborate role in learning than originally proposed and may offer the potential in the future to devalue memories associated with certain problematic behaviors, such as those seen with addiction and other neuropsychiatric conditions.”</p>
<p>The findings were surprising because they contradicted the traditional view of dopamine as a simple reward signal. Instead, dopamine appeared to be actively reshaping the memory of the reward, reducing its appeal based on new information. The researchers also used computational models to simulate how dopamine signals might contribute to this process, providing further support for their findings.</p>
<p>“Our study is particularly striking in that we were able to reveal a role for dopamine using a variety of different techniques, each of which revealed a critical role for dopamine in memory devaluation,” Johnson said. “This included labelling, reactivating, inhibiting and recording dopamine circuitry, as well as accurately predicting how dopamine would go about this role through computational modeling.”</p>
<p>While this study sheds new light on dopamine’s role in modifying reward memories, there are limitations. The experiments were conducted in mice, and while the basic mechanisms of dopamine function are shared across species, further research is needed to determine whether the findings apply to humans in the same way. Additionally, the study focused on a specific type of learning and memory—associating a cue with a reward—so it remains unclear whether dopamine has a similar effect in other types of memory processing.</p>
<p>“The study used mice, thus one needs to be cautious in generalizing the findings to humans,” Johnson noted. “Also, it’s unclear whether other approaches could be used to induce a temporary state of malaise for memory devaluation.”</p>
<p>Future studies could explore whether dopamine’s influence on memory extends to more complex behaviors, such as decision-making and habit formation. There is also interest in investigating whether similar mechanisms are involved in conditions like addiction, where problematic reward memories can drive compulsive behavior. Understanding how dopamine reshapes memory could lead to new approaches for reducing the impact of harmful memories, potentially offering new treatment strategies for addiction, eating disorders, and other psychiatric conditions.</p>
<p>The long-term goal of the research is “to further elucidate brain circuitry controlling how we encode rewards in our environment and whether the approaches used in the study could be adopted to help treat neuropsychiatric conditions,” Johnson explained.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-07440-7" target="_blank">Devaluing memories of reward: a case for dopamine</a>,” was authored by Benjamin R. Fry, Nicolette Russell, Victoria Fex, Bing Mo, Nathan Pence, Joseph A. Beatty, Fredric P. Manfredsson, Brandon A. Toth, Christian R. Burgess, Samuel Gershman, and Alexander W. Johnson.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-sheds-light-on-why-objectification-lowers-womens-relationship-satisfaction/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New study sheds light on why objectification lowers women’s relationship satisfaction</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 20th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Women who feel sexually objectified by their romantic partners may experience a diminished sense of personal power in their relationships, which in turn is associated with lower relationship satisfaction, according to new research published in <em>Psychology of Women Quarterly</em>. The study, conducted in Italy, provides new evidence that being viewed primarily as a sexual object by a partner can shape women’s perceptions of their own influence within the relationship, ultimately affecting their overall satisfaction with their romantic life.</p>
<p>Sexual objectification—the act of reducing someone to their physical appearance or sexual value—has been widely studied in contexts such as media representation and workplace dynamics. However, less attention has been given to how sexual objectification functions within romantic relationships. Previous research suggests that being objectified by a partner is linked to negative consequences such as increased self-objectification, reduced sexual agency, and a greater likelihood of experiencing coercion. </p>
<p>The authors of the new study sought to expand this body of research by examining how partner-sexual objectification impacts women’s perception of their personal power—their ability to influence their partner—and whether this, in turn, affects their relationship satisfaction.</p>
<p>To investigate these questions, the researchers conducted two separate studies. The first was an experimental study designed to assess the direct impact of partner-sexual objectification on women’s personal power. A total of 284 women in heterosexual relationships participated. They were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: one group was asked to recall an experience where their partner had treated them as a sexual object, another group was asked to recall a time when their partner valued them for their internal qualities, and a third group was instructed to remember a neutral event such as grocery shopping with their partner. After recalling these experiences, participants completed a measure assessing their perceived personal power within their relationship.</p>
<p>The findings revealed that women who recalled a moment of sexual objectification by their partner reported feeling significantly less personal power compared to those who remembered being valued for their internal qualities or who described a neutral event. In contrast, the other two groups reported similar levels of personal power, suggesting that objectification, rather than simply reflecting on a relationship memory, was the key factor affecting their perceptions of influence.</p>
<p>In the second study, the researchers sought to replicate and extend these findings using a cross-sectional design. They recruited 187 women in heterosexual relationships and asked them to complete surveys assessing their experiences of partner-sexual objectification, their sense of personal power, and their relationship satisfaction. To measure objectification, the researchers adapted a scale originally used to assess self-objectification, modifying it to evaluate women’s perception of their partner’s tendency to focus on their physical appearance.</p>
<p>The results of this second study reinforced those of the first. Women who reported higher levels of partner-sexual objectification also reported lower personal power, and this diminished sense of influence was strongly linked to lower relationship satisfaction. Importantly, statistical analysis showed that personal power acted as a mediator between objectification and relationship satisfaction. In other words, feeling objectified by a partner did not just directly reduce relationship satisfaction—it did so by undermining women’s sense of agency and influence within the relationship.</p>
<p>The findings align with recent studies suggesting that <a href="https://www.psypost.org/feeling-objectified-by-partner-linked-to-fewer-orgasms-and-more-emotional-labor-for-women/" target="_blank">women’s perceptions of objectification</a> in their relationships play a key role in shaping their sexual and emotional well-being. For example, research has found that women who feel objectified by their partners report lower orgasm frequency and higher levels of sexual emotional labor, such as pretending to enjoy sex or tolerating discomfort. This suggests that partner-sexual objectification may have far-reaching consequences for women’s overall relationship and sexual satisfaction.</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledge some limitations to their work. In the experimental study, they relied on self-reported memories of partner-sexual objectification, which could be influenced by participants’ current relationship dynamics or mood. In the second study, the cross-sectional design means that causal conclusions cannot be firmly established. While the data suggest that objectification leads to lower personal power and reduced relationship satisfaction, it is also possible that women who are less satisfied with their relationships are more attuned to their partner’s objectifying behaviors.</p>
<p>Future research could address these limitations by using longitudinal designs to track changes in women’s experiences of objectification, personal power, and relationship satisfaction over time. Additionally, while this study focused on heterosexual women in Italy, it would be valuable to examine whether similar patterns exist across different cultures and relationship structures, including same-sex couples.</p>
<p>The study, “Who Is in Charge? Partner-Sexual Objectification, Personal Power, and Relationship Satisfaction in Heterosexual Women,” was authored by Chiara Pecini, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, Bianca Tallone, Daniela Ruzzante, Eleonora Crapolicchio, and Luca Andrighetto.</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-subtle-motor-signs-in-children-to-white-matter-structure-but-not-uniquely-to-adhd/" 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 subtle motor signs in children to white matter structure, but not uniquely to ADHD</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 20th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.70002" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Human Brain Mapping</a></em> has found that subtle motor difficulties in children, such as problems with coordination and involuntary movements, are linked to differences in the brain’s white matter structure. However, these differences were not specific to children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), suggesting that white matter organization plays a role in motor development across all children. The researchers observed that smaller fiber bundles in key brain pathways were associated with greater motor difficulties, but these white matter differences were present in children with and without ADHD alike.</p>
<p>ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by persistent difficulties with attention, impulse control, and hyperactivity. It affects children and adults, often leading to challenges in academic, social, and daily life activities. While ADHD is primarily known for its effects on behavior and executive functioning, research has increasingly recognized that it also involves motor difficulties.</p>
<p>Many children with ADHD display subtle motor signs, such as trouble with coordination, involuntary movements, and difficulty performing precise motor tasks. These difficulties are not as severe as those seen in full-blown movement disorders but can still impact a child’s ability to complete everyday tasks smoothly. Despite their prevalence, the underlying brain mechanisms of these motor difficulties in ADHD are not well understood.</p>
<p>White matter plays a crucial role in brain function by serving as the brain’s communication network. It consists of nerve fibers, or axons, that connect different brain regions, allowing signals to travel efficiently between them. Unlike gray matter, which primarily contains nerve cell bodies, white matter is coated in a fatty substance called myelin that helps speed up electrical signals.</p>
<p>White matter pathways are essential for coordinating movement, integrating sensory information, and regulating higher-order cognitive functions. In typically developing children, white matter undergoes significant changes as the brain matures, improving motor control and cognitive abilities over time. Previous research has suggested that abnormalities in white matter may be linked to the motor difficulties seen in ADHD, but this connection had not been directly tested.</p>
<p>The rationale for this study was to investigate whether subtle motor difficulties in children with ADHD are associated with differences in white matter structure. Given that white matter pathways play a key role in motor control, the researchers aimed to determine whether variations in white matter organization could explain the increased presence of subtle motor signs in ADHD. They also wanted to test whether these differences were specific to ADHD or whether they were part of a broader pattern of motor development in children.</p>
<p>To examine this, the researchers recruited 92 children with ADHD and 185 typically developing children, all between the ages of 8 and 12. Each child underwent a standardized motor assessment called the Physical and Neurological Examination for Soft Signs (PANESS), which evaluates subtle motor difficulties through tasks like timed hand and foot movements, coordination tests, and assessments of involuntary movements.</p>
<p>In addition to these motor tests, the children completed brain imaging using diffusion MRI, a technique that maps the brain’s white matter pathways. The researchers applied a sophisticated analysis called fixel-based analysis, which allowed them to examine the size of fiber bundles in specific motor-related tracts. These included the corpus callosum, which connects the brain’s two hemispheres; the corticospinal tract, which controls voluntary movement; the superior longitudinal fasciculus, which is involved in coordination; and the fronto-pontine tract, which connects the motor cortex to deeper brain regions involved in movement planning.</p>
<p>The researchers found that children with ADHD had significantly more motor difficulties than typically developing children, as indicated by higher PANESS scores. However, when looking at white matter structure, they discovered that differences in fiber bundle size were associated with greater motor difficulties in both groups, rather than being specific to children with ADHD.</p>
<p>Lower fiber cross-section in the corticospinal tract was linked to worse overall motor performance. Similar patterns were seen in the corpus callosum and fronto-pontine tract when looking at specific timed movement tasks, such as hand and foot coordination exercises. Interestingly, these effects were consistent across both children with ADHD and typically developing children, meaning that white matter structure appeared to influence motor ability regardless of whether a child had ADHD or not.</p>
<p>No significant differences in white matter structure were found between children with ADHD and those without in the brain regions that were linked to motor difficulties. This suggests that while white matter plays an important role in motor function, it does not explain why children with ADHD have more pronounced motor difficulties compared to their peers.</p>
<p>These findings provide important insights into the neurological basis of motor development in childhood. They suggest that white matter structure contributes to subtle motor signs in children but is not uniquely altered in ADHD. This challenges previous assumptions that motor difficulties in ADHD are driven by distinct white matter abnormalities and instead highlights the possibility that broader developmental factors influence these differences.</p>
<p>However, the study had some limitations. Because it was cross-sectional, meaning it only measured children at one point in time, it could not determine whether these white matter differences cause motor difficulties or simply reflect normal variation in development. A longitudinal study following children over time would be needed to see how these white matter pathways change with age and whether they influence long-term motor outcomes.</p>
<p>Additionally, while the study used advanced imaging techniques to assess white matter structure, it focused on macroscopic differences in fiber bundle size rather than microstructural properties like fiber density or myelination. Future research using higher-resolution imaging might provide more insight into the finer details of white matter organization and its relationship to motor function.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.70002" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Subtle motor signs in children with ADHD and their white matter correlates</a>,” was authored by C. Hyde, I. Fuelscher, K. S. Rosch, K. E. Seymour, D. Crocetti, T. Silk, M. Singh, and S. H. Mostofsky.</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/sex-differences-in-brain-structure-are-present-at-birth-and-remain-stable-during-early-development/" 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;">Sex differences in brain structure are present at birth and remain stable during early development</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 20th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-024-00657-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biology of Sex Differences</a></em> has found that sex differences in brain structure are already present at birth and remain relatively stable during early postnatal development. The study found that while male infants tend to have larger total brain volumes, female infants, when adjusted for brain size, have more grey matter, whereas male infants have more white matter. These findings suggest that prenatal biological factors play a significant role in shaping early sex differences in brain structure.</p>
<p>Researchers have long been interested in how male and female brains differ, but the origins of these differences have remained uncertain. While studies have documented sex differences in brain structure in older children and adults, it has been unclear whether these differences are present at birth or whether they emerge later due to environmental and social influences. Understanding when sex differences first appear in the brain can help researchers determine whether they are primarily shaped by prenatal biological factors or by early-life experiences.</p>
<p>The question is particularly important because many neurological and psychiatric conditions, such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and depression, show differences in prevalence and symptoms between males and females. If some of these differences are rooted in early brain development, studying the neonatal brain may provide new insights into the biological foundations of these conditions.</p>
<p>Previous research on brain development in infants has been limited, with most studies including infants older than one month. The new study aimed to fill that gap by examining newborns in the first four weeks of life, a period of rapid brain development. By studying infants so early, researchers hoped to gain a clearer picture of the biological factors that contribute to sex differences in brain structure.</p>
<p>“Sex differences in the brain are a topic of both scientific and public interest, but our interest in the area is also driven by their practical significance,” explained study author <a href="https://www.autismresearchcentre.com/people/yumnah-khan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yumnah Khan</a>, a PhD student at the University of Cambridge.</p>
<p>“A vast majority of psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions show sex differences in prevalence or presentation, and it is hypothesized that these arise due to sex differences in the brain. A better understanding of sex differences, their underlying causes, and the timeline of their emergence can explain why this is the case. This may also ultimately help towards tailoring diagnostic and support strategies to facilitate optimal health outcomes.”</p>
<p>To explore sex differences in neonatal brain structure, the researchers analyzed data from 514 healthy, full-term newborns who were part of the Developing Human Connectome Project. The sample included 278 male and 236 female infants who were scanned within the first 28 days of life. The researchers used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure brain volume and analyze differences between male and female infants.</p>
<p>The MRI scans were conducted while the infants were naturally asleep and swaddled to minimize movement. No sedation was used. The researchers measured total brain volume as well as the volume of grey and white matter. Grey matter consists of brain regions responsible for processing information, while white matter consists of the neural pathways that connect different parts of the brain.</p>
<p>The study also accounted for factors such as birth weight, which is known to be slightly higher in male infants on average. By adjusting for these factors, the researchers aimed to isolate the effects of biological sex on brain structure.</p>
<p>The findings confirmed that male infants had larger total brain volumes compared to female infants, a pattern that has been consistently reported in older children and adults. However, when researchers adjusted for overall brain size, they found that female infants had significantly more grey matter, while male infants had more white matter.</p>
<p>Further analysis of specific brain regions showed that, even after accounting for differences in total brain volume, certain areas were larger in female infants, while others were larger in male infants. Female infants had relatively greater volumes in regions such as the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres of the brain, and the parahippocampal gyrus, an area involved in memory processing. Male infants had larger volumes in regions such as the medial and inferior temporal gyri, which are associated with visual and auditory processing.</p>
<p>“Several on-average sex differences in the brain are already present from birth, indicating that prenatal factors play an important role in initiating sex differences in the brain,” Khan told PsyPost.</p>
<p>Importantly, the study found that these sex differences remained stable during the first month of life, suggesting that they were already established at birth rather than emerging as a result of early postnatal experiences. While some regions showed slight changes over time, the overall pattern of differences between male and female infants did not significantly shift.</p>
<p>“We found it very interesting that several of the sex differences that were previously observed in older children and adults were already present at birth,” Khan said. “This emphasises that these differences are present from the very beginning of life and likely emerge prenatally.”</p>
<p>While this study provides evidence that sex differences in brain structure are present at birth, there are some limitations to consider. The study was not designed to investigate the causes of these differences, meaning it remains unclear whether they are primarily driven by genetic factors, prenatal hormone exposure, or other influences during fetal development. Additionally, while the study identified structural differences, it did not examine whether these differences are linked to cognitive or behavioral traits.</p>
<p>The researchers also emphasize that, while group-level differences exist, they do not imply that male and female brains are fundamentally different in function. The observed differences are based on averages across large samples, and individual variation is substantial. In other words, while certain patterns may be more common in one sex, they do not apply universally to every male or female infant.</p>
<p>“It is important not to overstate or exaggerate the differences,” Khan explained. “The brain is not ‘sexually dimorphic’ the way that the reproductive organs are. The brains of males and females are more similar than they are different. Any sex differences that we have observed here are simply in group averages, and may not apply to each individual male or female.”</p>
<p>“There is still much more to uncover,” she added. “Although we now know that there are sex differences in brain structure at birth, one of the most pressing questions is whether there are also observable sex differences in behavior and cognition from birth. Secondly, it is important to identify whether sex differences in the brain at birth are actually linked to sex differences in behavior/cognition, and also whether they are linked to sex differences in future developmental outcomes (potentially explaining why several psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions show sex differences in prevalence and presentation). Finally, we would also like to understand what the exact causes that lead to sex differences in the brain at birth.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-024-00657-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sex Differences in Human Brain Structure at Birth</a>,” was authored by Yumnah T. Khan, Alex Tsompanidis, Marcin A. Radecki, Lena Dorfschmidt, APEX Consortium, Topun Austin, John Suckling, Carrie Allison, Meng-Chuan Lai, Richard A. I. Bethlehem, and Simon Baron-Cohen.</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>