<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</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/people-with-adhd-symptoms-report-more-involuntary-memories-in-daily-life/" 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;">People with ADHD symptoms report more involuntary memories in daily life</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 10th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12749" target="_blank" rel="noopener">British Journal of Psychology</a></em> has found that individuals who report symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder tend to experience more involuntary memories in everyday life than those without such symptoms. These spontaneous recollections were also rated as less positive and more repetitive.</p>
<p>The researchers set out to explore whether spontaneous remembering—unintended recollections of personal experiences—might be more frequent among people with ADHD traits. While past research has established a connection between ADHD and increased mind wandering, it was unclear whether this tendency also extended to involuntary memories.</p>
<p>Earlier studies had produced mixed results. Some naturalistic studies hinted at a link between distractibility and spontaneous remembering, while others using laboratory-based measures found no such association. The authors of the current study suspected that traditional lab tasks might fail to detect real-life differences and designed two complementary studies to investigate.</p>
<p>In the first study, 453 undergraduate participants completed the Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale (BAARS-IV), a validated questionnaire used to identify symptoms of ADHD. Based on their scores, participants were grouped into those who scored within the ADHD range and those who did not. All participants then took part in a vigilance task, which was designed to measure spontaneous thoughts and memories in a controlled setting.</p>
<p>During this task, participants viewed a sequence of slides and were asked to report any unplanned memories or thoughts they experienced. After the task, they completed a separate questionnaire asking them to estimate how often they experienced involuntary memories in their daily lives, how emotionally positive or negative these memories tended to be, and how often the same memories repeated.</p>
<p>The results of this first study showed no difference in the number of spontaneous memories reported during the laboratory task between those with ADHD symptoms and those without. However, the questionnaire responses painted a different picture. Participants who scored in the ADHD range estimated that they experienced significantly more involuntary memories in their daily lives compared to the other groups. They also described these memories as being less positive and more repetitive. These findings suggest that while laboratory settings may not always detect variations in spontaneous memory experiences, self-reported everyday experiences can reveal meaningful differences.</p>
<p>To build on these findings, the researchers conducted a second study using a more naturalistic method. A new sample of 116 participants, including both students and community members, also completed the BAARS-IV. They were then asked to carry a pocket-sized diary for 48 hours and record every involuntary memory they experienced during that time. For each memory, they noted the time, their age in the memory, and rated its emotional tone, emotional impact, how often the memory had occurred before, and how focused their attention was at the time.</p>
<p>This diary-based study provided additional support for the researchers’ expectations. Participants with ADHD-range scores recorded significantly more involuntary memories over the 48-hour period than those in the non-ADHD range. On average, they reported nearly twice as many memories. As in the first study, they also rated their memories as less emotionally positive. However, unlike the questionnaire results, there were no significant group differences in how repetitive the memories were or in attention levels reported at the time the memories occurred.</p>
<p>Together, these findings indicate that people with ADHD symptoms may experience more frequent spontaneous memories than others, particularly in their day-to-day lives. The difference was not apparent during a controlled laboratory task, which the researchers believe may not reflect real-world attention dynamics. In fact, they propose that the vigilance task, which includes meaningful word phrases, may actually help participants with ADHD maintain their focus, suppressing spontaneous memories that would otherwise occur in less structured settings. Alternatively, the task may have artificially elevated the rate of spontaneous memories in non-ADHD participants, masking any differences between groups.</p>
<p>The diary method, in contrast, offered a more natural glimpse into how often these memories arise in ordinary circumstances. Since participants were recording experiences in real time as they went about their daily lives, this method may better reflect genuine cognitive differences between people with and without ADHD symptoms.</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledged several limitations in their work. First, the participants were not formally diagnosed with ADHD, but rather scored in the ADHD range on a self-report scale. While this method is commonly used in psychological research, future studies with clinically diagnosed samples would help confirm the findings.</p>
<p>The study also relied on self-report measures, which can be vulnerable to inaccuracies. For instance, people with ADHD may over- or underestimate how often they experience repetitive memories. Although the diary method helps address some of these concerns, it too has limitations. Participants may have forgotten to record some memories, especially if they occurred frequently, which could lead to underreporting.</p>
<p>Despite these challenges, the study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that people with ADHD symptoms tend to experience more spontaneous cognitive events, including not only future-oriented mind wandering but also unintentional recollections of past experiences. These findings could help researchers better understand how attention and memory interact in people with attentional difficulties.</p>
<p>The authors suggest that future research could use longer diary recording periods to capture patterns that might not appear over just two days. They also recommend further investigation into why these differences arise. While one theory holds that people with ADHD have weaker mechanisms for filtering out irrelevant memories, the evidence for this remains inconclusive. More research is needed to clarify what drives these differences in spontaneous remembering and how they affect daily functioning.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12749" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Involuntary remembering and ADHD: Do individuals with ADHD symptoms experience high volumes of involuntary memories in everyday life?</a>“, was authored by John H. Mace, Assegedetch HaileMariam, Jian Zhu, and Natalie Howell</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/music-therapy-might-improve-quality-of-life-and-emotion-regulation-in-depressed-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;">Music therapy might improve quality of life and emotion regulation in depressed women</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 10th 2025, 09:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An experiment involving women with major depressive disorder found improvements in their quality of life, emotion regulation strategies, and everyday depression symptoms following group music therapy. However, there were no effects on depression symptoms as measured by self-report assessments or observer ratings. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.01.011"><em>Journal of Affective Disorders</em></a>.</p>
<p>Music therapy is a therapeutic approach that uses music to address the physical, emotional, cognitive, and social needs of individuals. It offers a creative outlet for expression and emotional release. This type of therapy is used to treat a broad range of conditions, including emotional and mental health issues, developmental and learning disabilities, neurological conditions, chronic illnesses, and more. It is also used in elder care, with individuals suffering from dementia, and in palliative care settings.</p>
<p>In music therapy, participants engage in music-based activities such as singing, playing instruments, or moving to music within a therapeutic setting guided by a trained music therapist. Sessions can be conducted individually—tailored to the specific goals and needs of one person—or in a group setting. Group therapy offers a sense of community and support, allowing individuals to feel less isolated. By creating or listening to music together, participants can explore their emotions in a safe environment, which may lead to improved mood and reduced anxiety.</p>
<p>Study author Christine Gaebel and her colleagues sought to evaluate the effectiveness of group music therapy in treating women with major depressive disorder. They hypothesized that group music therapy would not only reduce depressive symptoms but also improve quality of life and mood regulation through music.</p>
<p>They conducted an experiment involving 102 women between the ages of 18 and 65 who were diagnosed with major depressive disorder but had no other severe mental disorders or physical illnesses. Participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups consisting of 16–18 women each. Fifty-two were assigned to the intervention group (i.e., they received group music therapy), while fifty were placed in a waitlist control group (i.e., they received no treatment during the study but were scheduled to receive it afterward).</p>
<p>Each participant first underwent a 60-minute individual session consisting of an interview, followed by ten weekly 120-minute group music therapy sessions. Each session included welcome music at the beginning and a closing musical reflection at the end. In the main portion of the session, participants were invited to raise personal issues or concerns, which were then addressed through music therapy interventions guided by the therapist.</p>
<p>These interventions included, for example, free musical improvisation, relaxation techniques, and guided imagery accompanied by music. “The selection of the appropriate interventions was based on therapists’ assessments of patient needs and group dynamics. Even if only a single patient raised a concern, the entire group participated in the intervention, which is not a disadvantage, as there is a significant overlap in patient concerns due to the nature of the disorder,” the authors explained.</p>
<p>Participants completed assessments at three time points: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and 10 weeks following the intervention. Depression symptoms were evaluated using three different tools: an observer-rated assessment (the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), a self-report questionnaire (BDI-II), and a momentary assessment of depression symptoms in daily life using a visual analog scale. Participants also completed assessments of emotion regulation (the Heidelberg Form for Emotion Regulation Strategies and the Brief Music in Mood Regulation Scale) and quality of life (the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire).</p>
<p>The results showed that group music therapy did not significantly improve self-rated or observer-rated depression symptoms. However, participants did show improvement in depression symptoms as measured in everyday life. Additionally, emotion regulation strategies and quality of life improved. These effects were more pronounced immediately after the intervention than at the 10-week follow-up.</p>
<p>life using a visual analog scale. Participants also completed assessments of emotion regulation (the Heidelberg Form for Emotion Regulation Strategies and the Brief Music in Mood Regulation Scale) and quality of life (the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire).</p>
<p>The results showed that group music therapy did not result in improvements in self-rated or observer-rated depression symptoms. However, the assessment of depression symptoms in everyday life did improve. Participants’ mood regulation strategies and quality of life improved as well. The effects were larger when comparing the time before the intervention to time immediately after the intervention than when looking at the 10-week follow-up (10 weeks after the end of the intervention).</p>
<p>“GMT [group music therapy] is an economical approach to treat MDD [major depressive disorder], yielding health-promoting effects regarding DS [depression symptoms], emotion regulation, and QoL [quality of life]. Manualization [creating a therapy manual and codifying the procedures of the therapy] and further evaluation of MT [music therapy] is strongly recommended,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the potentials of music therapy for treating depression. However, it should be noted that the study only involved women. Effects on men might not be identical. Additionally, only one of the three measures of depression showed improvements after the therapy, so it remains unclear how effective the examined treatment really is on depressive symptoms.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.01.011">Effects of group music therapy on depressive symptoms in women – The MUSED-study: Results from a randomized-controlled trial,</a>” was authored by Christine Gaebel, Martin Stoffel, Corina Aguilar-Raab, Marc N. Jarczok, Sabine Rittner, Beate Ditzen, and Marco Warth.</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/money-and-happiness-major-psychology-study-reveals-surprising-differences-between-income-and-financial-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;">Money and happiness: Major psychology study reveals surprising differences between income and financial satisfaction</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 10th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A large-scale international study has found that people who feel satisfied with their finances tend to report better mental, physical, and emotional well-being in the present—regardless of how much they actually earn. However, when it comes to predicting changes in well-being over time, it is income—not financial satisfaction—that shows a stronger connection. The study, published in the <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-81796-001?doi=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</a></em>, suggests that subjective feelings about money and objective income levels influence well-being in different ways.</p>
<p>The study was conducted by Vincent Y. S. Oh, a senior lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, who wanted to better understand how money—both in terms of what people earn and how they feel about their finances—relates to overall well-being. Although it is often said that “money doesn’t buy happiness,” the relationship between financial circumstances and life satisfaction has long been debated.</p>
<p>Some studies have found links between higher income and greater happiness, but these findings have typically focused on short-term outcomes or used limited definitions of well-being. Oh sought to build a more comprehensive understanding by examining both income and financial satisfaction across many types of well-being over a long period.</p>
<p>“The question of whether money buys happiness is one that I think has great appeal to many, probably because money is such an inescapable reality of almost everyone’s lives. You see it being discussed online on Reddit and news commentaries, you hear people talk about it, you see memes about it online, and so on,” Oh told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“More personally as well, financial pressures were also a significant part of my memories of growing up. I think our experiences of life can be shaped quite significantly by our economic and financial circumstances, and this was thus a practically important and relevant topic that was worth delving into empirically.”</p>
<p>For his study, Oh analyzed three large longitudinal datasets from the United States and South Korea, which together followed more than 7,600 people over time. The studies used included the Midlife in the United States Study, the Understanding America Study, and the Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging. Participants were tracked over multiple years, with measures taken at different time points to assess income, financial satisfaction, and 22 indicators of well-being. These included emotional states, physical and mental health, life satisfaction, social relationships, and a sense of purpose.</p>
<p>Income was measured using reported annual earnings, adjusted for comparability across time points and across currencies. Financial satisfaction was measured with simple self-report questions that asked participants to rate how satisfied they were with their financial situation. Well-being was assessed using a range of items, such as how satisfied people were with their lives, how often they experienced positive or negative emotions, and how they rated their physical and mental health. The researchers applied statistical techniques called latent growth modeling and meta-analysis to track both starting levels and changes in these variables over time.</p>
<p>The findings showed that financial satisfaction at the beginning of the study was strongly associated with higher well-being across nearly all domains. People who felt good about their finances tended to also feel more satisfied with life, healthier, less depressed, and more positive in general. The size of this relationship was substantial. In contrast, starting levels of income were not reliably associated with starting levels of well-being. In fact, in some cases, higher income was linked to lower well-being after accounting for financial satisfaction.</p>
<p>But the picture changed when looking at long-term changes. Higher starting income was consistently linked to more positive trajectories of change in well-being. That is, people with higher income at the start were more likely to experience improvements—or smaller declines—in things like emotional health and life satisfaction over time. Financial satisfaction, on the other hand, did not predict long-term improvement in well-being. While it was strongly tied to how people felt in the moment, it did not seem to help people get better or stay well in the future.</p>
<p>“It was interesting that although subjective financial satisfaction was clearly more strongly related to one’s current well-being, there was no evidence that it played a role in predicting future trajectories of change in well-being,” Oh said. “Instead, income had relatively stronger evidence supporting its role as a predictor of future changes in well-being. Thus, it seems that both income and subjective financial satisfaction could matter to well-being, albeit in different ways.”</p>
<p>The researcher also explored whether being happier or healthier at the start of the study predicted future increases in income or financial satisfaction. There was little evidence to support this. In most cases, people with higher well-being at the beginning did not go on to earn more money or feel more satisfied with their finances later on.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that there isn’t a single answer to the question of whether money buys happiness or whether one should be content with what one has,” Oh told PsyPost. “Money does matter in that higher-income-earners were more likely to have better future well-being, but at the same time, being subjectively happy with one’s finances played a much larger explanatory role in current well-being than how much one earns.”</p>
<p>“Any conventional wisdom that takes the form of asking people to forgo material concerns entirely is unlikely to be good advice, because ultimately, money is important to our day-to-day lives and can make a significant difference to our psychological and physical wellness. At the same time, time and again, research has shown that excessive materialism is likely to be detrimental.”</p>
<p>“Independently of how much we actually earn, our subjective relationship with money makes a lot of difference. As much as many of us chase after material goals (and for good reason, since money does matter), we do need to moderate this pursuit and to try to cultivate some level of contentment with our finances as this may ultimately play a more significant role in our current sense of wellness. I do acknowledge, however, that this can be easier said than done.”</p>
<p>There were some important limitations to the study. The average participant was middle-aged or older, and some of the measures—especially for financial satisfaction—were fairly simple. The researchers also caution that the study cannot show cause-and-effect relationships. For example, it’s possible that people who feel good about their lives are more likely to feel good about their finances, even if their financial circumstances haven’t changed.</p>
<p>“The present findings do not support a direct causal inference since the studies reported are non-experimental,” Oh noted. “Still, the present findings provide longer-term findings spanning over a decade, which complements some other studies reported which do support a causal role of money in well-being over shorter time frames.”</p>
<p>“Additionally, the findings reported are quite comprehensive, spanning multiple well-being measures as well as participants from two relatively distinct nations (the United States and Korea). Despite this, we should be cautious of generalizing beyond what the methodology allows. There is some previous work suggesting that there are divergent relationships between money and well-being across countries, and the present findings may not generalize to all other countries equally or to other forms of well-being (e.g., meaning) that weren’t measured in the present work.”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the large sample sizes and long follow-up periods make this one of the most thorough investigations of money and well-being to date.</p>
<p>Looking forward, Oh told PsyPost he would be “keen to pursue further research that examines the nuances of socioeconomic status and its relationship with well-being. For example, beyond indexing monetary wealth in terms of income, I’m also curious how financial obligations (e.g., the amount of financial support provided to others, such as caregiving for children or parents) or debts might have an independent explanatory role in happiness and well-being.”</p>
<p>“I’m also curious why regardless of their actual wealth, some individuals may tend to be more easily content with their finances, while others less so, and I think an interesting direction could be to explore the reasons behind such individual differences as well as whether there are ways to mitigate excessive materialism given its reliable links to poorer well-being.”</p>
<p>“Amidst global inflationary pressures and other economic uncertainties, I think these are times where economic concerns are really critical to the everyday experiences of many people,” Oh added. “While the present research may offer little direct comfort, I hope they at least provide some validation of the experiences of those struggling with economic/financial concerns – money (and our subjective experience of money) does matter to our psychological and physical wellness, and such concerns should be taken very seriously and hopefully addressed by policy-makers throughout the world.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000552" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Money Matters for Future Well-Being: A Latent Growth Analysis and Meta- Analytic Integration of Associations Between Income, Financial Satisfaction, and 22 Well-Being Variables Across Three Data Sets</a>,” was published February 17, 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/youre-more-welcome-than-you-think-the-psychology-of-self-inviting-to-social-plans/" 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;">You’re more welcome than you think: The psychology of self-inviting to social plans</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 10th 2025, 07:00</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://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251324232" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</a></em> sheds light on a common but often misunderstood social scenario: the hesitation many people feel when considering whether to ask to join the plans of others. Across eight studies, researchers found that people frequently underestimate how welcome their self-invitations would be. As a result, they miss out on social opportunities that the original planners would have happily included them in.</p>
<p>The research was inspired by a simple question: Why do people hesitate to ask if they can tag along when friends mention plans? For example, when someone casually brings up going to a festival or a movie, their friend may want to join but hold back, unsure whether they’d be seen as intrusive. Lead author <a href="https://juliangivi.wixsite.com/juliangivi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Julian Givi</a>, an associate professor at West Virginia University’s John Chambers College of Business and Economics, became interested in the topic after working on a related study about <a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-study-reveals-we-overestimate-the-consequences-of-declining-social-invitations/#google_vignette" target="_blank" rel="noopener">how people feel when their invitations are declined</a>. That earlier project sparked curiosity about the flip side—what happens when someone wants to join plans but hesitates to ask.</p>
<p>The idea of self-inviting—when someone asks to join plans rather than being directly invited—is widely understood in everyday life, but it had received little scientific attention. Givi and his colleagues set out to explore whether people are as likely to ask to join others as those with the plans would actually want. They also wanted to understand the thought processes that drive both groups’ behavior.</p>
<p>To explore this, the researchers conducted eight separate studies involving thousands of participants. These included both real-life recollection studies and hypothetical scenario-based experiments. In the first study, 340 participants recalled situations from the past five years where they either self-invited or were asked by someone else to join a social activity. These events ranged from casual outings to everyday plans like going to a park or attending a museum. Participants described how they felt during the interaction, and researchers used text analysis software to measure the emotional tone of their responses.</p>
<p>Later studies used structured scenarios to isolate specific psychological factors. Participants were randomly assigned roles as either “potential self-inviters” (those considering asking to join plans) or “plan-holders” (those already making plans). They were asked to imagine situations where a mutual friend had plans and to report either how likely they would be to ask to join or how they would feel if someone else asked to join them. The researchers measured both behavioral intentions and emotional responses, such as how irritated or annoyed the participants believed others would be by a self-invitation.</p>
<p>The findings were consistent across studies. In nearly every case, people imagining themselves as potential self-inviters were less likely to ask to join than plan-holders said they would prefer. For instance, in one study, only 59% of self-inviters said they would ask to join plans, while 92% of plan-holders said they would have liked to be asked. This pattern held even when the plan-holders had previously invited the self-inviter in the past or when logistical issues were minimized.</p>
<p>“The effect sizes were quite large,” Givi told PsyPost. “In other words, self-inviters and plan-holders really disagreed.”</p>
<p>Why do people hold back from asking to join? The research pointed to two major factors. First, potential self-inviters overestimated how annoyed plan-holders would be by the request. Second, they wrongly believed that the plan-holders had likely thought about inviting them and then decided not to, which felt like a form of social rejection. In reality, the people making plans often hadn’t thought about inviting others at all. Their decisions were based more on logistics or timing than on exclusion.</p>
<p>This mistaken belief—the idea that others intentionally left them out—fed into people’s reluctance to self-invite. The researchers connected this to broader psychological tendencies, such as egocentrism and sensitivity to rejection. People often overestimate how much others think about them, which can lead them to imagine slights that weren’t intended. That kind of misperception makes a simple ask feel emotionally risky, even when it’s not.</p>
<p>Additional experiments confirmed that this sequence of thoughts—believing one was deliberately excluded and expecting irritation from others—was a key reason people chose not to self-invite. In fact, mediation analyses showed that these beliefs helped explain why self-inviters acted more cautiously than plan-holders would have liked.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the mismatch disappeared in situations where the self-inviter had already received a previous invitation but had initially declined. In these cases, both parties had shared knowledge that an invitation had been considered and extended. Without the uncertainty of being “deliberately” left out, self-inviters were more likely to ask again to join if their plans changed.</p>
<p>“We demonstrate that potential self-inviters fail to ask to join the plans of others as often as plan-holders would prefer, because potential self-inviters overestimate how irritated plan-holders would be by such self-invitations,” Givi explained. “Further, we show that these asymmetries are rooted in differing viewpoints about the mindsets of plan-holders when they originally made the plans. Namely, potential self-inviters exaggerate the likelihood that plan-holders had already considered inviting them but decided against it (vs. made plans without considering inviting them).”</p>
<p>“The make takeaway is that we as a general public should give more consideration to the prospect of asking to join the plans of others. Of course, we shouldn’t self-invite in any context, but in many, it does not hurt to ask.”</p>
<p>However, Givi also cautioned that “you wouldn’t want to self-invite to anything that involves a formal invitation (e.g., a wedding). In these cases, the people with the plans have already given lots of consideration to who they want to invite—and who they didn’t want to invite.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are a few limitations to consider. Many of the studies relied on hypothetical scenarios or recollections of past events, which can be affected by memory biases. Though the researchers attempted to account for this with varied methodologies, future work could benefit from real-time observation or diary studies tracking social behavior as it happens. Also, while their scenarios focused on casual, everyday plans between friends, it’s possible that the findings would differ for more formal events or in relationships with less emotional closeness.</p>
<p>Further research could also explore cultural and personality influences on self-inviting. Do some cultures normalize asking to join plans more than others? Are extroverted people less concerned about being seen as intrusive? And how do self-inviters handle being turned down? These are questions the authors suggest for future study.</p>
<p>“The invitation psychology research area is brand new,” Givi said. “I want to keep exploring all aspects of it.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251324232" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Self-Invitation Hesitation: How and Why People Fail to Ask to Join the Plans of Others</a>,” was authored by Julian Givi, Daniel M. Grossman, Colleen P. Kirk, and Constantine Sedikides.</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-reveal-the-opposers-loss-effect-framing-preferences-in-opposition-makes-losses-feel-worse/" 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 reveal the “opposer’s loss effect”: Framing preferences in opposition makes losses feel worse</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 10th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000436"><em>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</em></a> has found that people who form their preferences based more on opposing an alternative than supporting a favorite react more negatively when outcomes don’t go their way. Whether in elections or sports, individuals who said they preferred a side because they disliked the opponent—rather than liking their own choice—tended to respond more negatively when their preferred option lost. This pattern, which researchers call the “opposer’s loss effect,” held true across a series of studies using both real-world and experimental data.</p>
<p>The researchers were motivated by a simple but puzzling question: why do some people get more upset than others when experiencing the same disappointing event? Co-author <a href="https://everydaypsych.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jacob Teeny</a>, an assistant professor of marketing at Northwestern University, was inspired by observing how differently people react to their favorite teams or political candidates losing.</p>
<p>“I always thought it was confusing when two people both said they loved the same sports team or political candidate, and then after something bad happened, like that team or candidate lost, some people would be so much more upset than others,” Teeny explained. “I wasn’t exactly sure how to research the topic until I stumbled upon this paper on support-oppose framing (originally called valence framing). I ran an exploratory study on a realistic but fictional student election, not sure what I would find, framing some students’ preference between candidates in terms of support or opposition. Interestingly, no matter the framing, both sets of participants preferred the same candidate to the same degree. However, after I revealed that their preferred candidate had lost, the opposition-framed people were significantly more negative toward the outcome.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted several studies using a combination of real-world data, longitudinal surveys, and controlled experiments. In their first study, they surveyed 234 voters from Ohio and Georgia just before their 2018 gubernatorial elections, asking how much they preferred one candidate over the other and whether their preference was based more on support or opposition. Two days after the election, they followed up with participants whose candidate had lost.</p>
<p>Even among voters who expressed the same strength of preference, those whose preference was rooted in opposition to the other candidate reacted more negatively to the loss than those who said their preference was based on support.</p>
<p>The second study applied the same idea to football fans ahead of the 2019 Super Bowl. The researchers surveyed 404 fans of the Rams and Patriots before the game, then recontacted Rams fans after the team lost. Again, those who had framed their team preference in terms of opposition to the other team (the Patriots) reported more negative reactions than those who framed their preference in support of the Rams—even though both groups said they preferred the Rams to the same degree.</p>
<p>To rule out other explanations and directly test causality, the researchers then ran controlled experiments. In one study with 111 college students, participants were asked to choose between two videos: a popular advertisement compilation and a dishwasher tutorial. Everyone preferred the ad video, but participants were randomly assigned to focus either on why they liked the ad video (support framing) or why they disliked the tutorial video (opposition framing). When told they would be watching the less preferred video, those in the opposition condition reported stronger negative reactions and were quicker to stop watching.</p>
<p>In another experiment with 151 adults on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform, participants selected a preferred online task and were then told the task had unexpected downsides. Again, those who had framed their preference in opposition reacted more negatively and were more likely to report antagonistic intentions, such as leaving a bad review.</p>
<p>These patterns remained consistent across several studies, even when the undesired outcome was not a loss, but a disappointment—such as discovering that a supposedly better product or job option turned out to be worse than expected. The researchers also examined potential mechanisms behind the effect and found that people who framed their preferences in opposition tended to feel less ambivalent about their choice. That is, they were less likely to see the upsides of the other option or the downsides of their own. As a result, when their chosen outcome failed or disappointed them, they were less able to find a silver lining.</p>
<p>In further studies, Teeny and his colleagues tested this effect in more natural settings. One study analyzed tweets before and after the 2012 Super Bowl, using artificial intelligence to categorize whether fans expressed support for their team or opposition to the other. Those who tweeted in opposition to the rival team used more negative language after the game if their side lost.</p>
<p>Another study drew from national surveys conducted during the 2008 to 2020 United States presidential elections. Using participants’ warmth ratings toward each candidate, the researchers calculated whether voters’ preferences were rooted more in support or opposition. In every election, voters who based their preferences more on opposition to the losing candidate felt less satisfied with democracy after the election—even when compared to voters with equally strong preferences rooted in support.</p>
<p>Importantly, none of the studies found that opposition-framed preferences were stronger at the start. People who preferred something because they disliked the alternative were not more passionate overall than those who preferred it because they liked it. But they did react more strongly to unwanted outcomes.</p>
<p>“How you think about the basis for your preference matters — both before the event and afterward,” Teeny told PsyPost. “Whether it’s a financial investment, a sports game, a health-based decision, or many other things, if you think about your preference in terms of the option you oppose versus the option you support, it can lead you to react more negatively to relevant, unwelcome news.”</p>
<p>The effect wasn’t large—about a third of a standard deviation on average—but it was reliable across different contexts, including sports, consumer decisions, and politics. It also seemed to have behavioral consequences: people who reacted more negatively were more likely to disengage, retaliate, or badmouth those responsible for the disappointing outcome.</p>
<p>“We were a little surprised by how robust the effect was,” Teeny said. “We ran a bunch of different experiments in different contexts, and the basic “opposer’s loss effect” continued to receive support. There really seems to be something about conceiving a preference in terms of an opposition frame that can really amplify a person’s negativity toward an undesired outcome.”</p>
<p>The researchers also identified potential boundaries for the effect. In studies testing personality differences, people who were already more comfortable with emotional complexity or regularly experienced mixed feelings were less affected by opposition framing. For example, those high in dialectical thinking—a style associated with East Asian cultures—did not show the same increase in negativity when their opposition-framed preferences were thwarted.</p>
<p>As with any psychological research, there are limitations. All of the participants were based in the United States, so it’s unclear how these results might generalize across cultures. And while the researchers used a variety of methods to assess support versus opposition framing, some relied on self-report, which can be subject to bias.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the implications are noteworthy, especially in politics and advertising, where campaigns often emphasize opposition to the other side.</p>
<p>“A lot of advertising and messaging frames their content in terms of support for the preferred option or opposition to the nonpreferred one — especially politics,” Teeny told PsyPost. “From other research, opposition framing, relative to support framing, can lead to stronger opinions, meaning opposition-framed opinions are more resistant to changing and more likely to guide behavior. However, our research highlights a potential downside of doing that. If those preferences are ultimately thwarted — a political candidate loses, a competitor’s product outperforms the purchased one — people are going to react more negatively.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2025-84315-001">Reactions to Undesired Outcomes: Evidence for the Opposer’s Loss Effect</a>,” was authored by Jacob D. Teeny and Richard E. Petty.</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-finds-conscientiousness-linked-to-higher-reproductive-success-worldwide/" 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 finds conscientiousness linked to higher reproductive success worldwide</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 9th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049251324908"><em>Evolutionary Psychology</em></a> finds that personality trait conscientiousness—the tendency to be organized, responsible, self-disciplined, and goal-oriented—is consistently linked to having more children across cultures, suggesting it may be favored by natural selection.</p>
<p>Researchers understand that personality traits are influenced by both genetics and behavior, making them potential targets for natural selection. According to evolutionary theory, traits positively linked to reproductive success should become more common over time. Previous research has shown mixed results regarding how the “Big Five” personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness) relate to having children, with findings often varying by cultural context.</p>
<p>While prior studies have generally found positive links between extraversion and having more children, and negative associations between neuroticism and reproductive success, evidence for the other three traits has been inconsistent. This raises important questions about whether these traits are under selective pressures and if these pressures might vary across different environments.</p>
<p>To address these questions, Janko Međedović examined data from the World Values Survey, which provided them with an exceptionally large and diverse sample spanning 17 countries. Their goal was to determine how the Big Five traits relate to reproductive success globally and whether these relationships differ based on cultural context.</p>
<p>Drawing from Wave 6 of the World Values Survey (2010-2012), Međedović analyzed data from 22,635 participants (51% female, average age approximately 42 years). Personality was measured using a shortened version of the Big Five Inventory, with two questions per trait except for openness, which was assessed with a single item due to translational issues. Reproductive success was measured simply as the self-reported number of biological children.</p>
<p>Initial correlations showed small but significant associations: conscientiousness was positively related to having more children, while extraversion, neuroticism, and openness showed negative associations. After controlling for demographic variables like age, sex, education, and social class, conscientiousness emerged as the only trait consistently linked to greater reproductive success across the overall sample.</p>
<p>Interestingly, Međedović discovered a nonlinear relationship between openness and fertility: individuals with above-average openness had significantly fewer children, while those with low or average openness had similar (and higher) reproductive success. This pattern suggests a threshold-like effect rather than a simple linear trend and may reflect selection pressures acting specifically against high levels of openness.</p>
<p>Perhaps most notable was the finding that the relationship between personality and reproductive outcomes varied significantly across countries. Traits like neuroticism, extraversion, and openness showed both positive and negative associations depending on the cultural context. For example, extraversion was positively associated with fertility in some countries (like Thailand), but negatively associated in others (such as Algeria and Tunisia). Similarly, neuroticism showed a negative association in Yemen but a positive one in Iraq.</p>
<p>In contrast, conscientiousness stood out as the most consistently selected-for trait across countries. Wherever a significant association was found between conscientiousness and number of children, the relationship was always positive. This pattern suggests that conscientiousness may be under uniform directional selection across diverse populations, likely due to its alignment with traits that facilitate long-term planning, goal pursuit, and relationship commitment—factors that may reliably contribute to greater reproductive success across cultural contexts.</p>
<p>These findings support “state-dependent” theories of personality evolution, which propose that environmental conditions influence which personality traits confer reproductive advantages in different contexts.</p>
<p>The cross-sectional design limits definitive causal conclusions. Additionally, the brief personality measures used likely underestimates the strength of these relationships.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049251324908">Consistency and Variation in Natural Selection on Personality Across 17 Countries</a>,” was authored by Janko Međedović.</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/lack-of-racial-knowledge-predicts-opposition-to-critical-race-theory-new-research-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Lack of racial knowledge predicts opposition to critical race theory, new research finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 9th 2025, 11:00</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/10.1177/01461672251321993" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</a></em> suggests that many people who oppose critical race theory may do so out of ignorance rather than ideology. Across four studies involving college students in the United States, researchers found that individuals who possessed accurate knowledge about the history and realities of race in the country were more likely to support the central ideas of critical race theory. This increased understanding did not make participants feel less patriotic or alienated from their country, countering a common argument made by critics of the theory.</p>
<p>Critical race theory is a scholarly framework that examines how racism is embedded in the fabric of society—across laws, institutions, and historical systems of power. Rather than viewing racism as merely the product of individual bias or isolated incidents, the theory suggests that it is woven into the structures that govern life in the United States. Although originally developed in legal scholarship, critical race theory has since spread into other academic fields and educational contexts. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, it has become a flashpoint in contemporary political discourse.</p>
<p>In recent years, conservative lawmakers across the United States have taken aim at critical race theory, passing legislation to ban or limit discussions of race in classrooms. Their argument is often framed as a defense of national unity and identity. Critics claim that teaching about structural racism and inequality will cause students to feel ashamed of their country or to adopt a hostile view toward American history.</p>
<p>The new research, conducted by Scott Eidelman and his colleagues at the University of Arkansas, sought to examine this assumption. The team hypothesized that many people may reject the tenets of critical race theory not because they have deeply considered and rejected its ideas, but because they lack basic knowledge about race and racism in the country.</p>
<p>“The political climate seemed to assume learning about race and racism was a problem rather than a solution. Also, many seemed to have strong and confident opinions about an obscure legal theory,” explained Eidelman, an associate professor of psychological science</p>
<p>“It got us thinking, why are people so opposed to something they seemingly know little about? We recognized that there would be several answers, but homed in on one we found ironic: that lack of racial knowledge explains why people oppose CRT and even teaching about racial knowledge! What opponents to CRT see as a solution (not teaching about race and racism) would only exaggerate people’s interest in and concerns about race and racism.”</p>
<p>To explore this, the researchers conducted four studies with undergraduate students, the first of which involved 356 participants. These students were given a quiz designed to measure their factual knowledge about race in the United States. The questions covered both historical and contemporary information, such as laws that excluded non-White people from citizenship, disparities in criminal sentencing, and the changing definitions of racial categories. Participants were then asked to indicate how much they agreed with core propositions of critical race theory, such as the idea that racism is common and systemic, that race is socially constructed, and that intersecting identities shape how people experience discrimination.</p>
<p>The researchers found that students with more accurate racial knowledge were more likely to support these tenets, even after controlling for other factors like political conservatism, racial prejudice, and preference for social hierarchies. In other words, the link between knowledge and belief in structural racism was not simply a reflection of political leanings or personal bias. The researchers also asked students about their patriotism, distinguishing between “blind patriotism” (unquestioning loyalty to one’s country) and “constructive patriotism” (the belief that loving one’s country includes a willingness to criticize it to improve it). Racial knowledge was associated with less blind patriotism but greater constructive patriotism.</p>
<p>The next three studies tested whether teaching people about race could actually change their views. Each experiment involved only White participants and compared the effects of teaching students about race versus other topics, such as poverty, transportation infrastructure, or pig intelligence. In the second study, for example, 446 participants were randomly assigned to read a short essay about either racial injustice in the United States or economic inequality. The race essay discussed redlining, the one-drop rule, and the ways racial disparities intersect with other identities. Participants completed a measure of CRT tenet support both before and after reading the essay.</p>
<p>The results showed that students who read about race increased their support for CRT-related ideas more than those who read about poverty. Notably, this shift in perspective was not accompanied by any reduction in positive feelings toward the United States or identification as an American. The third and fourth studies repeated this experiment with different control topics and found consistent results. In each case, learning about structural racism led to more support for CRT principles, while feelings of national identity remained unchanged.</p>
<p>In the fourth study, the researchers tested whether teaching people about just one aspect of systemic racism—housing policy—could have a broader effect on their beliefs. Participants listened to an interview with a historian discussing how housing laws helped to create racial segregation and Black ghettos. Those who heard this interview expressed greater support for CRT tenets afterward, even though the lesson focused on only one area of inequality.</p>
<p>Taken together, the four studies suggest that when people learn accurate, critical information about race in the United States, they become more likely to accept the idea that racism is systemic and enduring. These findings point toward a possible explanation for the widespread opposition to critical race theory among people who may not fully understand it: they simply may not know the historical and social context that makes such a theory persuasive to scholars and advocates.</p>
<p>The researchers also pushed back against a central claim made by opponents of CRT—that teaching about race will undermine national unity. Across all studies, participants who learned more about racism did not express less affection for their country. In fact, those with greater racial knowledge were more likely to say they wanted to make America better, indicating that confronting the truth about racism can inspire civic engagement rather than alienation.</p>
<p>The findings indicate that “learning critical facts about race increases support for the tenets of critical race theory,” Eidelman told PsyPost. “Moreover, acquisition of racial knowledge did not come at the expense of people’s attachment to their country, despite the claims of cultural critics of CRT. You can teach people facts about race and racism, and this makes them more understanding and sympathetic toward matters of racism but at the same time does not result in people hating their country.”</p>
<p>“We were surprised by the consistency of our effects. Critical racial knowledge increased support for the tenets of critical race theory across three experiments, and in each, we did not find a corresponding devaluing of one’s country. In other words, knowledge was consistently strong enough to increase CRT tenet support yet not strong enough to cause any change to detach people from their country.</p>
<p>Like all research, the study has limitations. The participants were mostly young adults enrolled at a single university, which may limit the generalizability of the results to older or more politically diverse populations. The manipulations—brief lessons or essays—were relatively short, and while they produced measurable effects, the size of these effects was small. It’s possible that longer-term educational interventions or more interactive forms of learning might have stronger impacts. Additionally, while the study focused on one type of knowledge—critical knowledge about race—it did not directly compare this with more neutral or traditional forms of racial education.</p>
<p>“We only looked at two means of operationalizing critical racial knowledge, only one way of operationalizing CRT tenet support, and we used convenience samples of college students from only one part of the United States,” Eidelman noted. “For these reasons, we must be very careful before generalizing our findings.”</p>
<p>Future research might explore how racial knowledge affects people outside of academic settings or examine whether similar patterns apply to other controversial topics, such as diversity training or equity initiatives.</p>
<p>“We are now considering whether lack of racial knowledge might explain in part people’s opposition to DEI programs,” Eidelman said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251321993" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Racial Knowledge and the Tenets of Critical Race Theory: Is Opposition to CRT Due to Ignorance?</a>“, was authored by Scott Eidelman, Mejdy Jabr, Emily Vance, Marie Altgilbers Roweton, and Austin Eubanks.</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>