<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/even-people-who-dont-enjoy-music-still-feel-the-urge-to-move-to-it/" 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;">Even people who don’t enjoy music still feel the urge to move to it</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 9th 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 <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312030" target="_blank">PLOS One</a></em> has found that individuals with musical anhedonia — a condition where people feel little or no pleasure from music — still report a strong desire to move when listening to rhythmic music. This urge to move appears to generate its own form of pleasure, even in the absence of the typical reward experienced from listening to music. The findings suggest that the sensation of “groove” — the pleasurable feeling that makes us want to dance — may stem more from our drive to move than from the direct enjoyment of the music itself.</p>
<p>Previous studies have shown that the feelings of enjoyment and the desire to move to music are highly correlated. Yet they’ve also hinted that these sensations may rely on different brain mechanisms. The current study took this question a step further by examining a group of people who don’t feel musical pleasure and asking whether they still experience the urge to move — and if that urge could produce its own rewarding experience.</p>
<p>“I, myself, am a musician, and I’ve spent a lot of time enjoying, creating, and seeking out the pleasurable urge to move to music in my free time,” said study author Isaac Romkey, a PhD student at Concordia University and member of the <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/artsci/psychology/research/penhune-lab/research-team/lab-personnel.html#isaac" target="_blank">Penhune Laboratory for Motor Learning and Neural Plasticity</a>. “This study centered on trying to dissociate the two components of groove, pleasure and urge to move.”</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers recruited 204 participants through an online platform. Seventeen of these individuals were identified as having specific musical anhedonia, meaning they had a selective lack of pleasure in music, but not in other rewarding activities like eating or socializing. The rest served as controls, including a subset that was matched to the musical anhedonia group by age, gender, and musical experience.</p>
<p>To identify those with musical anhedonia, participants completed the Barcelona Music Reward Questionnaire, a tool used in previous studies to classify people based on their musical reward sensitivity. The researchers also ruled out alternative explanations like depression or global anhedonia (a general inability to experience pleasure), and screened for basic musical perception skills such as pitch recognition and beat synchronization. This ensured that any differences observed weren’t due to hearing impairments, motor deficits, or overall lack of musical exposure.</p>
<p>Participants then listened to short, computer-generated musical clips that varied in two key musical features: rhythmic complexity and harmonic complexity. Some rhythms were simple and predictable, while others were syncopated or more unpredictable. Likewise, the harmonic content ranged from basic chords to more complex, dissonant ones. After each clip, participants rated how much pleasure they felt and how much the music made them want to move, using a five-point scale. The researchers were especially interested in whether musical anhedonics would show different patterns of response from controls.</p>
<p>As expected from previous research, the control group showed the strongest responses — both in pleasure and desire to move — when listening to music with moderate rhythmic complexity. This follows a well-known inverted U-shaped pattern: music that’s too simple is boring, while overly complex rhythms are hard to follow. Mid-level syncopation strikes the right balance between surprise and predictability, which tends to produce the most groove. Harmonic complexity had a similar, though more linear, effect: simpler chords were generally preferred.</p>
<p>The group with musical anhedonia showed some surprising results. Although they reported lower overall pleasure ratings compared to the control group, their urge to move was remarkably intact. Like the controls, they showed peak responses to medium rhythmic complexity, and their movement ratings closely matched those of the control group. This suggests that while they may not feel typical musical pleasure, they still engage with rhythmic stimuli on a motor level.</p>
<p>“We were surprised that individuals with musical anhedonia showed the same ratings,” Romkey told PsyPost.</p>
<p>But the most striking finding came from the mediation analyses. In the musical anhedonia group, the urge to move completely explained the little pleasure they did report. In other words, the desire to move wasn’t just intact — it was actually driving their limited pleasurable experience. By contrast, in the control group, both the music itself and the urge to move contributed to the pleasure, indicating a more complex interaction between these two components of groove.</p>
<p>These results suggest that the pleasure people derive from groove may not always stem from musical appreciation in the traditional sense. Instead, the desire to move — a response tied to motor circuits in the brain — can be a powerful source of enjoyment on its own. This aligns with theories of predictive coding, which argue that we find pleasure in music when it strikes a balance between fulfilling and violating our expectations. Moving to the beat may help us resolve these prediction errors, reinforcing motor patterns and rewarding the brain’s effort to sync up with the rhythm.</p>
<p>“The pleasure we receive from music appears to be multifaceted; we can get pleasure from many different aspects of music, and the type of pleasure that the component of music evokes is different as well,” Romkeys aid.</p>
<p>Interestingly, prior brain imaging studies have shown that the dorsal striatum, a region involved in movement and habit learning, is more active when people feel the urge to move to music. This contrasts with the ventral striatum, which is typically linked to reward and pleasure. The current findings add behavioral evidence to this neural distinction, supporting the idea that groove is rooted in motor planning as much as — or perhaps more than — in musical enjoyment.</p>
<p>The study has several strengths, including a rigorous screening process for musical anhedonia and a large, diverse sample tested online using standardized musical stimuli. However, the authors acknowledge a few limitations. </p>
<p>“Mediation analyses are not causal, meaning that they do not prove anything on their own,” Romkey noted. “These analyses should be thought of as an indication of where future research should grow towards. As well, we used simple piano chords for our stimuli. We may see different results with more ecologically valid stimuli.”</p>
<p>In addition, the group of musical anhedonics was small, and their diagnosis relied on behavioral questionnaires rather than clinical assessments.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study offers a new perspective on how music moves us. It suggests that the desire to move may be a more universal and resilient form of musical engagement than previously thought — one that can persist even when other sources of musical pleasure are absent. This has implications not only for understanding musical anhedonia but also for developing music-based therapies that harness movement to improve well-being.</p>
<p>“The next steps in this line of research are to investigate the relationship between the brain connectivity of those with and without musical anhedonia and groove ratings,” Romkey said. “We are hypothesizing that those with musical anhedonia will have their groove relationship maintained via connections to motor planning networks, as opposed to reward networks of the brain.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312030" target="_blank">The pleasurable urge to move to music is unchanged in people with musical anhedonia</a>,” was authored by Isaac D. Romkey, Tomas Matthews, Nicholas Foster, Simone Dalla Bella, and Virginia B. Penhune.</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/people-with-lower-cognitive-ability-more-likely-to-fall-for-pseudo-profound-bullshit/" 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 lower cognitive ability more likely to fall for pseudo-profound bullshit</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 9th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new meta-analysis published in <em>Applied Cognitive Psychology</em> offers insight into why some people are more likely than others to be taken in by pseudo-profound statements—sentences that sound deep and meaningful but are essentially meaningless. The study found that receptivity to this type of language is more common among individuals with lower cognitive abilities and greater faith in intuition, and is also linked to stronger belief in the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and religion.</p>
<p>Pseudo-profound bullshit refers to statements that appear meaningful but don’t actually convey any real substance. These phrases are often grammatically correct and filled with abstract, inspirational words, but upon closer examination, they lack any concrete or verifiable content. </p>
<p>For example, the sentence “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty” might sound insightful, but it doesn’t actually say anything meaningful. The term gained attention after a 2015 study by Gordon Pennycook and colleagues, which found that some people consistently rate such statements as profound—even though they were generated using random buzzwords.</p>
<p>Since then, researchers have become increasingly interested in what makes someone more susceptible to these kinds of statements. In an age of information overload, distinguishing truth from nonsense is more important than ever. Pseudo-profound bullshit may seem harmless on the surface, but it can shape people’s beliefs in ways that promote misinformation, influence political attitudes, and even affect health behaviors.</p>
<p>To better understand who is most likely to fall for pseudo-profound bullshit, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis—a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to identify patterns across a larger body of evidence. They analyzed 46 separate experiments drawn from 26 articles published between 2015 and 2023. The studies included more than 13,600 participants in total, with most of the data coming from Canada and the United States.</p>
<p>All of the included studies used variations of the Bullshit Receptivity Scale, which presents people with meaningless but syntactically correct statements and asks them to rate how profound they find each one. The researchers then looked at how responses on this scale were related to other variables, such as cognitive reflection, verbal intelligence, belief systems, and thinking styles.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed a consistent pattern: people who scored higher in receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, religious and paranormal claims, and had greater faith in intuition. These individuals also tended to score lower on measures of cognitive reflection, verbal intelligence, and mathematical ability.</p>
<p>Cognitive reflection, which refers to the ability to override intuitive but incorrect answers in favor of more deliberate reasoning, showed the strongest negative correlation with bullshit receptivity. In other words, people who are more reflective and analytical are less likely to fall for nonsense that sounds deep. Verbal intelligence and arithmetic skills also showed negative correlations, although these effects were somewhat smaller.</p>
<p>On the other hand, individuals who expressed stronger intuitive thinking tendencies—such as relying on gut feelings—were more likely to find pseudo-profound statements meaningful. They also tended to find mundane or motivational quotes more profound. These findings support the idea that some people have a general tendency to see depth and wisdom in all kinds of statements, regardless of their actual content.</p>
<p>Interestingly, people who were more prone to ontological confusions—such as believing that thoughts can influence physical objects—also rated pseudo-profound statements as more meaningful. This suggests that a blurry distinction between abstract and concrete concepts might play a role in how people assess meaning.</p>
<p>The researchers found that these relationships were generally consistent across the studies, though the strength of the effects varied. One of the most robust findings was the link between bullshit receptivity and motivational quotes. People who were more receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit were also more likely to find depth in simple, inspirational phrases, even if those phrases lacked substance.</p>
<p>Although the findings paint a fairly consistent picture, the authors caution that the data come with some limitations. Most of the studies were conducted in Western countries, primarily the United States and Canada, which means the results might not generalize to other cultural contexts. Additionally, the studies used slightly different versions of the bullshit receptivity measure, which could introduce inconsistencies.</p>
<p>Another limitation involves the measurement tools themselves. While widely used, the Bullshit Receptivity Scale and the Cognitive Reflection Test have been criticized for their reliability and for overlapping with other cognitive traits, such as numeracy. These concerns suggest that future research should aim to refine these tools and develop more precise ways to assess how people process ambiguous or misleading information.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the meta-analysis offers a comprehensive overview of what is currently known about bullshit receptivity and provides a foundation for future work. It shows that bullshit receptivity is not random but is meaningfully connected to individual cognitive differences and belief systems.</p>
<p>The authors suggest that future research could explore how different cultural, educational, or political environments shape bullshit receptivity. They also recommend that future studies look into whether interventions aimed at improving critical thinking skills could reduce susceptibility to pseudo-profound nonsense.</p>
<p>The study, “Relationship Between Bullshit, Cognitive Skills, and Belief Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review,” was authored by Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez, Marcelo Leiva-Bianchi, Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina, Javier Escudero-Pastén, and Fabiola Salas.</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/narcissism-may-be-fueling-political-polarization-according-to-new-psychology-research/" 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;">Narcissism may be fueling political polarization, according to new psychology research</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 9th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People with narcissistic personality traits—especially those who feel entitled and antagonistic—are more likely to display extreme loyalty to their political in-group and hostility toward their opponents, according to a new study published in <em><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-024-09963-5" target="_blank">Political Behavior</a></em>. The research suggests that personality may play a central role in deepening affective polarization, regardless of party or ideological stance.</p>
<p>Affective polarization refers to the growing emotional divide between political groups, where individuals not only strongly identify with their own group but also express distrust, dislike, or even hatred toward opposing groups. While past research has often focused on ideological or demographic sources of this divide, the current study highlights how a common personality trait—narcissism—may predispose individuals to both fervent group loyalty and contempt for outsiders.</p>
<p>Narcissism is a personality trait centered around self-importance and entitlement. It involves a heightened sense of superiority, a strong desire for admiration, and in many cases, a tendency to demean or devalue others. The researchers focused on a particular form of narcissism called “grandiose narcissism,” which can be broken into two subtypes: admiration and rivalry. Admiration involves self-promotion and a desire to be seen as special, while rivalry is about defensiveness and antagonism—especially toward perceived threats to one’s status or ego.</p>
<p>“We often have a sense that ‘extremists’ have something in common, but it is unclear what that is,” explained study author James Tilley, a professor at the University of Oxford. “There is a sentence in a C. P. Snow novel (<em>The Affair</em>) that I quote in my new book (<em>Tribal Politics</em> with Sara Hobolt, due out next year) that sums this up nicely: “They stood at the two extremes, both utterly recalcitrant. As often with extremists, they felt linked. They had a kinship, much more than with their own sides, the safe and sensible people in the middle.'”</p>
<p>“Our idea was that disposition, or personality, helps explain why people have 1) different levels of attachment to their own political identity and 2) different levels of animosity towards people with a different political identity,” Tilley continued. “Previous research has not found consistent links between the standard Big-5 personality traits and affective polarization, so we wanted to explore the role of narcissism.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a two-wave national panel survey in Britain using data collected by the polling company YouGov. The first wave, in March 2021, included over 3,500 adults and measured their personality traits. In July 2021, about 2,000 of those same individuals completed a follow-up survey assessing their political identities and attitudes toward in-group and out-group partisans. The time gap between the surveys helped reduce the chance that political questions would influence how participants responded to personality measures.</p>
<p>Participants were asked about both traditional party identities (e.g., Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) and newer political groupings related to Brexit (Leavers and Remainers). Roughly three-quarters of respondents reported identifying with a political party or a Brexit position.</p>
<p>To measure narcissism, the researchers used the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ), an 18-item scale that distinguishes between admiration and rivalry. Participants rated how much they agreed with statements like “I am great” or “I want my rivals to fail.” Higher scores indicated greater narcissistic tendencies.</p>
<p>The researchers also measured affective polarization in two parts. First, they assessed in-group affinity using questions like whether criticism of one’s political group felt like a personal insult or whether participants felt connected to other group members. Second, they measured out-group animosity using items that captured emotional reactions to opposing groups, such as feeling good when the opposing party was criticized or getting angry when it was praised.</p>
<p>The researchers found a clear pattern: people with higher levels of narcissism were more likely to report both stronger emotional ties to their own group and more intense animosity toward political opponents. This held true across both party and Brexit identities. Importantly, narcissism had a stronger association with out-group animosity than with in-group affinity. In other words, narcissistic individuals were more likely to dislike their opponents than to express admiration for their own side.</p>
<p>When broken down by narcissism subtype, the researchers found that rivalry—the aspect marked by defensiveness, entitlement, and antagonism—was the strongest driver of affective polarization. People high in rivalry expressed greater loyalty to their political in-group and significantly more negative feelings toward the out-group. In contrast, the admiration subtype had only weak or inconsistent effects.</p>
<p>“People high in narcissism tend to have a stronger attachment to people who share their politics and are also more hostile towards people on the other side of the political debate,” Tilley told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“This association is mostly due to the ‘rivalry’ aspect of narcissism rather than the ‘admiration’ aspect. ‘Rivalry’ is less about feelings of superiority, and more about feelings of antagonistic entitlement. This form of entitlement means that people are hostile to political out-groups (people on the other side), but also cling more strongly to their in-group (people on their own side) due a greater perceived threat of the out-group.” </p>
<p>These results held even when accounting for other well-established personality traits, such as the Big Five dimensions (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). Among these, only neuroticism came close to matching the effect of narcissism on political attitudes, but its impact was still consistently smaller. The findings suggest that rivalry in particular may play a unique and underappreciated role in shaping political divisions.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the influence of narcissism on polarization appeared relatively consistent across identity types. Whether someone identified as a Remainer or a Leaver, a Conservative or a Labour supporter, narcissism predicted more extreme political attitudes. This points to a deeper psychological commonality among highly polarized individuals—regardless of which side they are on.</p>
<p>Despite its strengths, the study has some limitations. Because the data is observational, the findings show association rather than causation. It remains possible, for example, that being deeply involved in partisan politics might reinforce narcissistic traits over time. </p>
<p>“It is possible that people with strong political identities may become more narcissistic,” Tilley noted. “Our results simply show a correlation. Having said that, we measure personality three months prior to the political attitudes, so any reverse causation is not due to immediate survey effects.”</p>
<p>The researchers argue that these findings have important implications for understanding both mass and elite polarization. At the mass level, they raise the possibility that rising narcissism—if occurring generationally or culturally—could be contributing to increasingly divided electorates. At the elite level, the results may help explain why political leaders, who tend to score high on narcissistic traits, often appear more polarized than average citizens. </p>
<p>“One consistent, and unsurprising, finding in the literature is that politicians score highly in narcissism,” Tilley explained. “The more we select narcissistic politicians at elections, the more we might expect elite politics to become affectively polarized and uncivil. To the extent that affective polarization is a ‘bad thing,’ this is probably not good news because voters often take their cues from politicians.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09963-5" target="_blank">Narcissism and Affective Polarization</a>,” was authored by James Tilley and Sara Hobolt.</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/scientists-studied-fox-news-heres-what-they-discovered/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Scientists studied Fox News — here’s what they discovered</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 8th 2025, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p class="" data-start="744" data-end="1270">As a dominant force in American media, Fox News has long attracted both loyal viewers and fierce critics. Known for its conservative slant, the network has become a key player in U.S. political discourse, influencing everything from election outcomes to public health behaviors.</p>
<p class="" data-start="744" data-end="1270">Given its reach and impact, Fox News has been the subject of numerous academic studies across psychology, political science, and communication. Click on each headline below to learn more about what the research reveals.</p>
<p> </p>
<hr>
<h3>1. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/how-did-trumps-tweets-really-affect-fox-news-new-research-offers-interesting-insights/">Trump’s attacks on Fox News altered conservative media consumption</a></h3>
<p>A study in <em>Public Opinion Quarterly</em> explored how Donald Trump’s frequent criticism of Fox News reshaped audience perceptions and behaviors. By analyzing nearly 25,000 of Trump’s tweets, the study found that his public attacks on Fox News correlated with dips in the network’s ratings and changes in how both Republicans and Democrats viewed the network.</p>
<p>The research showed that when Trump promoted alternatives like One America News Network (OANN), Republican viewers expressed more willingness to switch from Fox to more hardline outlets. Democrats, interestingly, responded by viewing Fox News as more moderate and were more open to watching it. This highlights how elite cues can shift media preferences even within partisan audiences.</p>
<hr>
<h3>2. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/watching-anthony-fauci-on-fox-news-makes-people-more-willing-to-engage-in-pandemic-reducing-behaviors-study-finds/">Watching Fauci on Fox News improved public health behaviors</a></h3>
<p>A study in the <em>Journal of Applied Social Psychology</em> revealed that Fox News viewers who watched Dr. Anthony Fauci were more likely to adopt COVID-19 mitigation behaviors—such as using disinfectant and social distancing—compared to those who saw him on other platforms like CNBC.</p>
<p>The researchers found that viewers’ feelings toward scientists mattered more than political ideology. Although watching Fauci didn’t change beliefs about hydroxychloroquine, it did lead to increased commitment to health behaviors—but only when he appeared on Fox News. This suggests that scientists may be more persuasive when speaking directly to skeptical audiences through trusted channels.</p>
<hr>
<h3>3. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/consuming-content-from-foxnews-com-is-associated-with-decreased-knowledge-of-science-and-society/">FoxNews.com users showed reduced knowledge</a></h3>
<p>A study published in <em>American Politics Research</em> found that using Fox News’ website did not harm people’s understanding of basic political processes, like how the Senate works. However, it did correlate with reduced knowledge of societal issues, such as climate change, unemployment, and economic trends.</p>
<p>This distinction—between political mechanics and real-world conditions—suggests Fox News may selectively inform or misinform depending on the topic. Notably, these findings held even after controlling for ideology and other demographics, indicating the effects were not merely due to who watches but potentially how Fox covers key issues.</p>
<hr>
<h3>4. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-pundits-thrive-by-exploiting-viewers-distaste-for-political-opponents/">Fox News opinion shows intensify political polarization</a></h3>
<p>In <em>Political Research Quarterly</em>, researchers analyzed the influence of opinion shows during the 2008 presidential election and found that Fox News opinion programming increased hostility toward Barack Obama more than it increased support for John McCain.</p>
<p>The shows employed a highly oppositional tone, attacking the out-party candidate more than promoting the in-party candidate. This resulted in viewers adopting more extreme views of the opposition’s ideology, reinforcing polarization through negative partisanship. Fox News viewers, for example, came to view Obama as more extreme without necessarily adjusting their views of McCain.</p>
<hr>
<h3>5. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/populism-and-conservative-media-linked-to-covid-19-conspiracy-beliefs-among-both-republicans-and-democrats/">Fox News consumption linked to COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs</a></h3>
<p>A study in <em>Research & Politics</em> found that populist individuals—regardless of party—who consumed Fox News were more likely to believe in COVID-19 conspiracies, such as that the virus was a bioweapon or that a vaccine was being hidden by elites.</p>
<p>The study highlighted that Fox News viewers with populist attitudes, whether Democrat or Republican, were more susceptible to misinformation. These beliefs were tied to lower engagement in protective health behaviors, such as social distancing and mask-wearing, demonstrating how conservative media can influence both belief systems and real-world actions.</p>
<hr>
<h3>6. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/people-who-trust-fox-news-more-than-cnn-engage-in-fewer-preventive-and-more-risky-covid-19-behaviors/">Trust in Fox News linked to fewer COVID-19 precautions</a></h3>
<p>Published in <em>BMJ Global Health</em>, a survey of nearly 5,000 Americans found that those who trusted Fox News more than CNN were less likely to wear masks or avoid risky behaviors like going to bars during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>The study revealed that Fox viewers not only engaged in fewer protective behaviors but also changed their behaviors more quickly when Fox News downplayed the severity of the pandemic. In contrast, those who trusted CNN maintained more consistent health precautions, showing how partisan messaging can influence public health at scale.</p>
<hr>
<h3>7. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/fox-news-exposure-linked-to-republican-gains-in-elections-over-two-decades/">Fox News increased Republican vote shares over two decades</a></h3>
<p>A large-scale study in the <em>Journal of Public Economics</em> found that increased Fox News viewership, driven partly by the network’s channel position on cable lineups, led to a significant rightward shift in political preferences and a boost in Republican vote shares at all levels of government.</p>
<p>From 2000 to 2020, the study tracked millions of Americans’ political attitudes and voting outcomes and found that Fox News shaped not just how people voted in presidential elections, but also in House, Senate, and gubernatorial races. Even modest increases in viewership were enough to tip the scales in close contests—such as the 2016 election.</p>
<hr>
<h3>8. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-links-regular-use-of-fox-news-twitter-and-facebook-to-reduced-knowledge-about-covid-19/">Fox News use associated with COVID-19 misinformation and prejudice</a></h3>
<p>A study in <em>Frontiers in Psychology</em> found that people who relied on Fox News for information were more likely to believe misinformation about COVID-19 and to hold prejudiced views toward Asian Americans during the early months of the pandemic.</p>
<p>Those who trusted Fox News were less knowledgeable about how the virus spreads and more likely to endorse myths—such as that COVID-19 was manmade. In contrast, regular readers of NPR or the New York Times were more accurately informed and expressed lower levels of prejudice. The researchers emphasized the importance of credible news sources during health crises.</p>
<hr>
<h3>9. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/fox-news-appears-to-have-made-republicans-more-likely-to-challenge-vulnerable-democratic-incumbents/">Fox News encouraged more Republican challenges to Democrats</a></h3>
<p>Published in the <em>American Journal of Political Science</em>, a study showed that the entry of Fox News into new congressional districts increased the likelihood that quality Republican candidates would run against vulnerable Democratic incumbents. The effect was not mirrored for Democratic challengers.</p>
<p>The availability of Fox News changed Republican perceptions of electoral viability, encouraging stronger candidates to enter races they previously might have avoided. Interestingly, this didn’t translate into more successful challenges—suggesting the network influenced perception more than electoral outcomes. Still, it highlighted the role of partisan media in shaping the strategic decisions of political elites.</p>
<hr>
<h3>10. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/partisan-tv-consumption-more-widespread-and-isolated-than-previously-thought/">Many Fox News viewers aren’t strong partisans</a></h3>
<p>Contrary to assumptions that only die-hard partisans watch Fox News, a study in the <em>American Journal of Political Science</em> found that many viewers of partisan media—including Fox News—are independents or weak partisans. Around 15% of Americans watch eight or more hours of partisan television per month.</p>
<p>The study used Nielsen and smart TV data to show that even viewers who don’t identify strongly with the Republican Party tend to stick with Fox News once they start watching it. This habit-forming nature of media consumption suggests that Fox’s influence may extend beyond ideology, reaching audiences through entertainment, style, and routine.</p>
<hr>
<h3>11. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/listening-to-joe-rogan-predicts-belief-in-extraterrestrial-ufos-study-finds/">Fox News viewers more likely to believe in UFOs</a></h3>
<p>A study in the <em>Atlantic Journal of Communication</em> found that regular Fox News viewers were more likely to believe that UFOs are real and potentially extraterrestrial. While general TV viewing didn’t correlate with such beliefs, Fox News stood out alongside shows like <em>Ghost Hunters</em> and podcasts like <em>The Joe Rogan Experience</em>.</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that Fox’s frequent coverage of government UFO disclosures, framed in ways that often blur science and speculation, may contribute to public belief in alien visitation. The study cautions that media consumption patterns can shape not only political views, but also beliefs about paranormal and fringe topics.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/researchers-uncover-causal-evidence-that-cannabis-legalization-reduces-problematic-consumption/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Researchers uncover causal evidence that cannabis legalization reduces problematic consumption</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 8th 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Allowing adults to legally purchase cannabis from pharmacies may help reduce problematic use—especially among those who use other drugs—according to new research from Switzerland. The first-of-its-kind randomized controlled trial, published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70080" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Addiction</a></em>, found that legal access to regulated cannabis products was associated with a modest reduction in cannabis misuse over six months compared to continued use through the illegal market.</p>
<p>The study was designed to address a pressing question facing many countries: does regulating cannabis access reduce its harms? While recreational cannabis laws are becoming more common, particularly in parts of Europe and North America, most prior research on their impact has been observational. That means it can be hard to know whether changes in cannabis use or mental health outcomes are actually caused by the laws themselves or by other factors, such as regional differences or shifts in social attitudes.</p>
<p>To overcome these challenges, researchers in Basel, Switzerland, conducted a randomized controlled trial—the first of its kind—to compare legal cannabis access with continued use of the illegal market. The trial was conducted under Switzerland’s unique legal framework that permits pilot studies of legal recreational cannabis. The goal was to examine how a public health-oriented system of regulated cannabis access, including product labeling and optional counseling, might affect users’ consumption and mental well-being.</p>
<p>The study enrolled 378 adults who regularly used cannabis and lived in the canton of Basel-Stadt. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: half were given access to legal cannabis through nine local pharmacies, while the other half continued obtaining cannabis through illegal sources. The legal cannabis was strictly regulated, with quality control standards, capped tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, THC-dependent pricing, and access to educational materials and counseling. Participants were followed over six months and completed online surveys about their cannabis use and mental health.</p>
<p>The primary outcome was cannabis misuse, measured using the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-Revised (CUDIT-R), a standard self-report questionnaire. At the start of the study, the average score for both groups was around 11, which is above the threshold typically used to screen for problematic cannabis use. By the six-month mark, participants in the legal access group had a slightly lower average score (10.1) than those in the illegal market group (10.9). Although this difference was not statistically significant by conventional standards (P = 0.052), the researchers note that it was close and consistent across different types of analysis.</p>
<p>Importantly, when the researchers looked more closely at people who used other drugs in addition to cannabis, the benefit of legal access became clearer. Among these participants, those in the legal cannabis group showed a greater reduction in misuse compared to those in the illegal market group. The difference was nearly two points on the CUDIT-R scale—an amount considered to reflect a meaningful change in behavior. In contrast, no such difference was found among participants who did not use other drugs.</p>
<p>Secondary outcomes included symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychosis, as well as changes in how much cannabis, alcohol, and other drugs participants used. On these measures, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. For example, both groups reported similar levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms after six months, and the total amount of cannabis consumed did not differ meaningfully between legal and illegal users.</p>
<p>About half of the participants in the legal cannabis group also reported continuing to use cannabis from the illegal market. While this crossover reduced the purity of the experimental design, additional analyses showed that excluding these participants did not change the main results.</p>
<p>The researchers also examined whether counseling or access to lower-risk cannabis products played a role in the outcomes. Although formal counseling was voluntary, participants had regular contact with trained pharmacy staff and received informational materials. These interactions may have contributed to the reduced misuse seen among people who also used other drugs, a group that may benefit from increased contact with harm reduction services.</p>
<p>No increase in adverse mental health outcomes was observed in the legal access group. In fact, serious adverse events were rare and evenly distributed between the groups, and none were linked to the cannabis products provided by the study.</p>
<p>While the findings are promising, the authors caution against drawing broad conclusions just yet. The study sample was relatively small, short-term, and not fully representative of the broader population. For example, most participants were men, and individuals with severe mental illness were excluded. Also, many participants continued to use cannabis from illegal sources, suggesting that more work is needed to design legal systems that fully meet users’ needs.</p>
<p>All of the outcomes in this study were based on self-reported data, which can be influenced by participants’ desire to present themselves in a favorable light. And because the study was open-label—participants knew whether they were in the legal or illegal group—this could have affected their responses.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study breaks new ground in evaluating the effects of cannabis regulation under controlled conditions. It offers early evidence that a tightly regulated, health-focused model of legal cannabis access may reduce problematic use among some people, particularly those with more complex drug use patterns. The researchers emphasize that not all legalization models are alike, and outcomes may vary depending on the specific regulatory approach.</p>
<p>Longer-term follow-up is currently underway to examine whether these effects persist or change over time. Future studies will also explore other health outcomes, such as respiratory symptoms, sleep, and physical activity, as well as whether different types of legal cannabis access—like social clubs or dispensaries—produce different results.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70080" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Effects of legal access versus illegal market cannabis on use and mental health: A randomized controlled trial</a>,” was authored by Lavinia Baltes-Flueckiger, Regine Steinauer, Maximilian Meyer, Adrian Guessoum, Oliver Herrmann, Christoph Felix Mosandl, Jens Kronschnabel, Eva-Maria Pichler, Marc Vogel, and Marc Walter.</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/underweight-individuals-are-at-an-increased-risk-of-suicide-study-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;">Underweight individuals are at an increased risk of suicide, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 8th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance Service database found that underweight individuals are 44% more likely to die by suicide compared to their normal-weight peers. In contrast, overweight and obese individuals were 20–30% less likely to die by suicide than those of normal weight. The research was published in <a href="https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-024-06381-z"><em>BMC Psychiatry</em></a>.</p>
<p>Suicide—the act of intentionally ending one’s own life—is a major public health concern worldwide. It typically results from a complex interplay of mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety, or substance use disorders, along with social, emotional, or economic stressors.</p>
<p>Although suicide can affect individuals across all age groups, rates tend to be especially high among adolescents, the elderly, and marginalized populations. Suicide not only ends a life, but also leaves a profound impact on families, friends, and communities. Prior research has identified a wide range of genetic, social, and physical factors associated with suicide risk. These include specific genetic variants affecting brain systems that use the neurotransmitter serotonin, as well as social factors such as living alone, introverted personality traits, exposure to trauma, and financial hardship. Chronic medical and psychiatric conditions—such as depression, migraine, sleep apnea, and insomnia—are also linked to an increased risk of suicide.</p>
<p>Study author Joonyub Lee and his colleagues examined the relationship between body weight—measured by body mass index (BMI)—and suicide risk among South Koreans. The researchers emphasized the importance of this investigation, noting that South Korea is currently facing a rapid and unprecedented rise in both suicide rates and obesity prevalence.</p>
<p>The team analyzed data from the National Health Information Database (NHID), a comprehensive database in South Korea that includes health examination results and insurance claims. The study sample included 4,045,081 adults over the age of 19 who underwent a national health screening in 2009. These individuals were followed from 2009 through the end of 2021—or until death by suicide, if it occurred during the study period.</p>
<p>In their analysis, the researchers considered participants’ BMI, waist circumference (as a measure of abdominal obesity), and diagnoses of depression, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and eating disorders, along with a range of other medical conditions. They also factored in alcohol consumption, household income, and levels of blood glucose and serotonin.</p>
<p>The results showed that individuals who were underweight had a 44% higher risk of dying by suicide compared to those with normal weight. On the other hand, those who were overweight or obese had a 21% and 29% lower risk, respectively. These associations remained significant regardless of whether participants had been diagnosed with depression or lived alone.</p>
<p>“Suicidal death risk was inversely correlated with BMI [body mass index] categories, independent of MDD [major depressive disorder] or living arrangements. Our data suggests the importance of physiological factors associated with body mass in understanding suicidal death risk,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific knowledge about links between suicide and body mass index. However, it should be noted that the study was conducted in South Korea. Results might not be the same in other countries.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06381-z">Inverse association between obesity and suicidal death risk,</a>” was authored by Joonyub Lee, Seung-Hwan Lee, Mee-Kyoung Kim, Hyuk-Sang Kwon, Jae-Seung Yun, Yeoree Yang, KunHo Yoon, Jae-Hyoung Cho, Chi-Un Pae, Kyungdo Han, and Jang Won Son.</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/mental-illness-doesnt-explain-who-owns-or-carries-guns/" 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;">Mental illness doesn’t explain who owns or carries guns</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 8th 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 <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00332941231225169"><em>Psychological Reports</em></a> challenges a widespread belief that mental illness is a key driver of firearm access and carrying in the United States. Instead, the findings suggest that people with mental illnesses tend to own and carry guns for the same reasons as anyone else—reasons rooted in cultural background and personal experiences, not clinical diagnoses. Cultural factors like growing up in a rural area or identifying as Protestant were much stronger predictors of gun access than any mental health-related variable.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/mirandalbaumann/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Miranda L. Baumann</a>, the study’s author, conducted the research to address a persistent gap in the national conversation about gun ownership and mental health. Despite frequent public claims linking mental illness with gun violence—especially in the aftermath of mass shootings—empirical data to support this association has been limited.</p>
<p>Previous studies often focused narrowly on the risk of suicide or violence among people with mental disorders, ignoring the broader context in which gun ownership occurs. Baumann aimed to explore whether mental illness is genuinely linked to firearm access and carrying, or whether other factors offer better explanations.</p>
<p>“I developed a strong research interest in the justice-related experiences of individuals with serious and persistent mental illnesses early in my graduate school career,” said Baumann, a postdoctoral research fellow at Georgia State University and a data & analytics research fellow at the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities.</p>
<p>“But a research collaboration with one of my mentors, Brent Teasdale, exploring the impact of firearm access among individuals recently released from inpatient psychiatric treatment inspired me to dig deeper into the issue of mental health-related gun policy. Given the limited body of empirical evidence available to support sound policy, I wanted to start with a basic question: Why do people with mental health problems own and carry guns?”</p>
<p>To examine these questions, Baumann analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, a nationally representative study conducted between 2001 and 2003. She focused on a subsample of 5,481 adults who answered detailed questions about mental health, firearm access, and personal history. The dataset included a wide range of clinical measures—such as diagnoses of anxiety, mood, and impulse control disorders—as well as information on mental health treatment, suicidal behavior, and functional impairment. In addition, it captured cultural variables like childhood environment and religious affiliation, and criminological experiences like early exposure to intimate partner violence.</p>
<p>Firearm access was defined as having at least one working gun in the home. Gun carrying was defined as having carried a firearm in the past 30 days, not including hunting or target shooting. Baumann used statistical models to evaluate whether mental health conditions predicted these outcomes, and whether they influenced the effects of cultural and criminological factors.</p>
<p>She found that having a mental illness—regardless of type or severity—did not significantly increase the odds of having access to firearms. Nor did past year hospitalizations or suicide attempts. In fact, the only mental health-related variable that showed a consistent relationship with gun access was receiving professional mental health treatment in the past year, which was linked to a lower likelihood of having guns at home.</p>
<p>By contrast, several cultural and personal background factors were strong predictors of firearm access. People who grew up in rural areas were nearly 25% more likely to report having guns than those raised in cities. Those who moved frequently as children—a pattern common in military families—also showed elevated rates of gun access. Protestant religious affiliation was associated with higher firearm access compared to other religions or no religion. Respondents who expressed strong preferences for same-race marriage—a proxy for racial prejudice—were more likely to own firearms than those who expressed little or no preference.</p>
<p>Early life experiences of intimate partner violence also played a significant role. People who reported being victims or perpetrators of dating violence before age 21 were around 10% more likely to have access to firearms in adulthood. Even higher levels of what Baumann calls “criminogenic disinhibition”—a tendency toward risk-taking and getting into trouble—were associated with increased firearm access. Interestingly, angry impulsivity, a different kind of disinhibition characterized by emotional outbursts, was linked to a slightly lower probability of having guns.</p>
<p>These patterns were also reflected in who was most likely to carry guns in public. Although carrying a gun was far less common than simply having one at home—only about 4.5% of people in the sample had carried a gun in the past month—those who did carry were overwhelmingly those who had access. In fact, having a firearm in the home more than doubled the probability of carrying. Other predictors included a history of early dating violence, high criminogenic disinhibition, and prior employment in jobs that require firearms, such as military or law enforcement.</p>
<p>“I was surprised that none of the cultural factors associated with gun access and ownership were predictive of carrying,” Baumann told PsyPost. “I had assumed that cultural contexts that normalized firearms would also normalize carrying behaviors. But that was not the case. I also did not expect the effect of gun access on carrying to be so large in comparison to the other predictive factors. Having access increases the probability of past month carrying by almost 9%, but the next highest magnitude effect, engaging in risky or criminal behaviors (criminogenic disinhibition), only increases the probability of carrying by a little less than 5%.”</p>
<p>Mental illness was not a significant predictor of carrying once cultural and criminological factors were taken into account. Even when the models were adjusted for possible statistical issues related to the low number of people reporting recent carrying, the results held steady. None of the relationships between carrying and cultural or criminal history varied based on mental health status. These findings support Baumann’s conclusion that firearm-related behaviors among people with mental illness are not distinct from those of the general population.</p>
<p>“I think the big takeaway from this study should be that people with mental illnesses own and carry guns for the same reasons and in the same contexts as everyone else,” Baumann said. “In other words, it’s our cultural norms and backgrounds, not our mental health, that influence whether and how we own firearms.”</p>
<p>The implications of these findings are wide-reaching. According to Baumann, efforts to reduce gun-related violence and suicide often target people with mental illnesses, based on the assumption that they pose a special risk. But the evidence from this study suggests that such policies may be misguided. While gun violence prevention is a valid goal, focusing on mental illness may unfairly stigmatize a vulnerable population without addressing the real drivers of firearm access and misuse.</p>
<p>At the same time, Baumann emphasizes that her study has limitations. The data were collected over two decades ago, and the gun-related questions were limited in scope. Respondents may have underreported their access or carrying behaviors, and many of the other measures lacked information about when certain experiences occurred. These limitations make it difficult to determine cause-and-effect relationships or assess recent trends.</p>
<p>“Unfortunately, limitations imposed by Congress on how federal funds could be used for firearm-related research served as barriers to the collection of comprehensive data on firearm-related behaviors and outcomes,” Baumann noted. “While Congress has attempted to clarify its stance on firearm-related research in recent years, we are still living the consequences of a <em>de facto</em> research ban.”</p>
<p>Baumann, who conducted the study as part of her dissertation, is continuing her research on the topic. In follow-up work, she has developed models to estimate firearm access rates among people with various mental health conditions using newer datasets, and she is examining the potential impact of different policy approaches. Looking ahead, she plans to participate in the evaluation of projects funded through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.</p>
<p>“In the longer term, I plan to participate in the evaluation of Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program projects funded through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022,” Baumann explained. “Those grants funded a wide array of community, court, and law enforcement initiatives to reduce gun violence and improve mental health service utilization among individuals at risk of gun-related offending or victimization.”</p>
<p>“While this study did not examine respondents’ willingness to seek treatment for mental illness, I believe that the study’s findings should be considered with respect to the effect of stigma on treatment engagement. One of the goals of my line of research is to reduce this stigma by providing empirical insights into the causes and consequences of gun-related violence. By emphasizing that the processes underlying gun ownership or access and carrying are no different for people with and without mental illnesses, I hope this study will serve to inform the public and counter the popular, and false, narrative that our nation’s gun violence problem is a mental health problem.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231225169" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mental Illness, Gun Access and Carrying: A Test of Competing Hypotheses</a>,” was published January 7, 2024.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/artificial-intelligence-7-eye-opening-new-scientific-discoveries/" 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;">Artificial intelligence: 7 eye-opening new scientific discoveries</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 8th 2025, 13:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>As artificial intelligence becomes woven into the fabric of daily life, scientists are racing to understand its deeper psychological, social, and cognitive impacts. From diagnosing mental health conditions to shaping political beliefs, AI tools—especially large language models like ChatGPT—are influencing how we think, work, and interact with technology and each other. A wave of new research is beginning to uncover what this means for our minds, our behaviors, and our society.</p>
<p>Read on for seven recent discoveries that reveal how artificial intelligence is reshaping human thought, behavior, and culture in surprising ways. Click on each headline to explore the full story behind the research.</p>
<hr>
<h3><strong>1. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/llm-red-teamers-people-are-hacking-ai-chatbots-just-for-fun-and-now-researchers-have-catalogued-35-jailbreak-techniques/">The curious hackers of AI: Inside the world of LLM red teamers</a></strong></h3>
<p>A study published in <em>PLOS One</em> sheds light on the emerging culture of “LLM red teaming,” where individuals push large language models to their limits—not to cause harm, but to explore, experiment, and understand their behavior. Through interviews with 28 practitioners, including software engineers, artists, and hobbyists, researchers discovered that these testers are motivated by curiosity, ethics, and a desire to expose hidden vulnerabilities in AI systems. Their work often involves creative, improvisational strategies designed to prompt unintended or restricted responses from the models.</p>
<p>Participants described their activities using metaphors like “alchemy” and “scrying,” reflecting the mysterious nature of LLM behavior. Many were part of vibrant online communities sharing prompts and techniques. The study identified five broad categories of red teaming strategies, such as rhetorical framing and fictional world-building, and emphasized that most testers acted without malicious intent. Rather than seeking security flaws for exploitation, they aimed to understand how language alone can “hack” these models. The researchers argue that a human-centered, qualitative approach is key to grasping the evolving practice of AI red teaming, especially as traditional cybersecurity methods fall short in this new linguistic terrain.</p>
<hr>
<h3><strong>2. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/chatgpt-produces-accurate-psychiatric-diagnoses-from-case-vignettes-study-finds/">ChatGPT aces psychiatry case vignettes without a single diagnostic error</a></strong></h3>
<p>A study published in the <em>Asian Journal of Psychiatry</em> evaluated ChatGPT’s diagnostic capabilities using 100 psychiatric case vignettes. Remarkably, the model received the highest grade on 61 cases and the second-highest on 31, with no diagnostic errors recorded. These results suggest that ChatGPT 3.5 is highly competent at interpreting psychiatric symptoms and proposing treatment strategies, raising the possibility of AI as a future aid in clinical mental health settings.</p>
<p>The study used vignettes from a widely known textbook, which may or may not have been included in the model’s training data. Each case involved a detailed symptom narrative followed by diagnostic questions, which were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists. ChatGPT’s strongest performance was in suggesting management plans, though it also excelled at differential diagnosis. The findings support the idea that language models can be used to assist clinicians, especially when supplemented with proper oversight. However, questions remain about generalizability, particularly if future tests rely on less familiar or unpublished data.</p>
<hr>
<h3><strong>3. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/chatgpt-is-shifting-rightwards-politically/">Has ChatGPT’s political compass shifted? New study says yes</a></strong></h3>
<p>Research in <em>Humanities & Social Sciences Communications</em> found that ChatGPT’s political output tends to align with libertarian-left values—but newer versions show a subtle shift toward the political right. Using the Political Compass Test, researchers analyzed 3,000 responses each from ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4. While both versions leaned left-libertarian overall, GPT-4 trended more toward center-right economic values.</p>
<p>This shift may not be due to changes in training data, as the researchers controlled for many external variables. Instead, the findings suggest that even subtle updates to the model’s design can influence the political tone of its responses. Though large language models do not hold political beliefs themselves, they reflect the data they’re trained on and the instructions from their developers. The authors argue for ongoing oversight to track how these shifts occur, especially as LLMs are used more frequently in public communication, education, and decision-making contexts.</p>
<hr>
<h3><strong>4. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-research-reveals-staggering-gender-gap-in-chatgpt-adoption/">AI for some: ChatGPT use widens workplace inequality</a></strong></h3>
<p>A study in the <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em> found that while ChatGPT is being widely adopted in the workplace, the benefits are not equally distributed. Surveying 18,000 Danish workers in occupations highly exposed to AI—like journalism and software development—researchers discovered that younger, higher-earning men are far more likely to use the tool. Women and lower-income workers were less likely to adopt it, even within the same occupation.</p>
<p>These findings suggest that barriers to AI adoption—such as employer policies or lack of training—may be reinforcing existing inequalities. Even when informed about ChatGPT’s time-saving potential, many workers did not change their usage plans, indicating that awareness alone is not enough to drive adoption. Interestingly, early adopters also tended to earn more and be more optimistic about productivity gains. The researchers suggest that these patterns could lead to long-term advantages for some groups and disadvantages for others, unless interventions help level the playing field.</p>
<hr>
<h3><strong>5. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/ai-can-spot-depression-through-driving-habits-study-finds/">AI can spot signs of depression in how older adults drive</a></strong></h3>
<p>A pair of studies led by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis found that driving behavior can reveal signs of depression in older adults—and that AI can help detect it. In the first study, participants aged 65 and older had driving data collected via GPS-enabled devices in their vehicles. Those with depression showed more erratic driving patterns, including hard braking, unpredictable routes, and greater distances traveled—despite having similar cognitive test scores as those without depression.</p>
<p>The second study used machine learning to analyze two years of driving data from 157 older adults. A model combining driving patterns with medication use was able to identify depression with up to 90% accuracy. Surprisingly, demographic data did not significantly improve the model’s performance, suggesting that behavioral data may be more telling than age or gender. While the research doesn’t prove that depression causes these changes, it highlights a promising new approach for mental health screening using real-world behavioral data.</p>
<hr>
<h3><strong>6. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/scientists-shocked-to-find-ais-social-desirability-bias-exceeds-typical-human-standards/">AI takes personality tests and tries to look good</a></strong></h3>
<p>A study in <em>PNAS Nexus</em> reveals that large language models show a strong social desirability bias when taking personality tests. When presented with items from the Big Five personality assessment, models like GPT-4 and Claude 3 consistently gave responses that would make them appear more extroverted, agreeable, and conscientious, and less neurotic. This tendency increased when more questions were asked in a single session, suggesting that models “realize” they’re being evaluated.</p>
<p>The researchers tested multiple versions of each question, randomized the order, and altered the phrasing to ensure that the bias wasn’t simply due to memorization or acquiescence. The effect was large—equivalent to a one-standard-deviation change in personality traits if the same results were seen in humans. These findings have major implications for using AI in psychological research or real-world assessments. If models are subtly trained to be likable, their responses may not always reflect an honest simulation of human behavior.</p>
<hr>
<h3><strong>7. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/ai-tools-may-weaken-critical-thinking-skills-by-encouraging-cognitive-offloading-study-suggests/">Overusing AI may weaken your critical thinking, study warns</a></strong></h3>
<p>A study in <em>Societies</em> finds that people who frequently rely on AI tools may experience declines in critical thinking skills, especially due to a phenomenon called cognitive offloading. This occurs when users let the AI do the hard thinking for them—offering quick answers instead of engaging in deep analysis. The effect was most pronounced in younger users, while people with higher education levels tended to retain better critical thinking skills even with frequent AI use.</p>
<p>The study combined surveys of 666 participants with interviews and statistical modeling. Those who regularly used AI tools for decision-making or problem-solving performed worse on critical thinking tests. Interviews revealed that many users, particularly younger ones, had stopped questioning AI-generated answers. The author calls for educational and design-based solutions that encourage users to engage critically with AI outputs. While the tools themselves aren’t inherently harmful, how we use them will shape their long-term impact on human cognition.</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/childrens-facial-expressions-reveal-fear-response-to-gender-nonconforming-boys-study-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;">Children’s facial expressions reveal fear response to gender-nonconforming boys, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 8th 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 the <em><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03113-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Archives of Sexual Behavior</a></em> suggests that children may experience subtle fear when observing boys who engage in gender-nonconforming behaviors, such as playing with dolls or dressing in feminine clothing. This reaction was not found when children observed gender-nonconforming girls. The research offers a rare glimpse into children’s unconscious reactions using facial expression analysis, and adds to growing evidence that gender-nonconforming boys face heightened social bias in childhood.</p>
<p>The study was led by a team of researchers in Hong Kong and Canada who wanted to better understand how children appraise their peers who do not conform to traditional gender norms. While past studies have consistently shown that children tend to evaluate gender-nonconforming peers—especially boys—less positively, those studies relied mainly on verbal responses. But young children are still developing their language skills, and they may also give socially desirable answers when asked directly. The researchers in this study wanted to see if facial expressions, which are harder to control, might provide insight into children’s more automatic emotional responses.</p>
<p>“For a number of years, I had been working on research about childhood gender role behavior and its association with mental health. A lot of studies by me and other researchers pointed to relationships with peers as a key factor,” said study author <a href="https://sites.utm.utoronto.ca/biglab/content/home" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Doug P. VanderLaan</a>, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Toronto Mississauga and co-editor of <em><a href="http://gender%20and%20sexuality%20development" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gender and Sexuality Development: Contemporary Theory and Research</a></em>.</p>
<p>“Children whose behaviors do not align with gender role stereotypes, who are sometimes referred to in the research literature as gender-nonconforming children, tend to experience poorer relationships with peers. For example, they may be bullied or experience social ostracism. In turn, this pattern can contribute to lower levels of psychological well-being. It occurred to me that fostering more positive peer relations could be one important avenue for addressing this issue.</p>
<p>“But to identify strategies for fostering positive peer relations, we first need to have a deeper understanding of how children think and feel about peers who display gender-nonconforming behaviors,” VanderLaan continued. “So, along with my colleagues, we conducted a series of studies aimed at understanding children’s thoughts and feelings about gender-nonconforming peers.”</p>
<p>One aspect that had not been considered previously was the emotional component. There was no prior research on children’s emotional reactions when they encountered a peer whose behaviors did not follow gender stereotypes. Given that emotions can have an influence in social interactions, we thought this was an important gap in our knowledge that needed to be filled.”</p>
<p>To explore this question, the research team studied 605 children between the ages of 4 and 9 from Hong Kong and Canada. The sample included nearly equal numbers of boys and girls. Children were shown four brief illustrated stories, each about a different hypothetical child: a gender-conforming boy, a gender-nonconforming boy, a gender-conforming girl, and a gender-nonconforming girl. The stories described each child’s preferences across four domains—activities, toys, clothing and hairstyle, and playmates—designed to signal either adherence to or departure from traditional gender expectations.</p>
<p>For example, the gender-conforming boy was shown preferring cars and football, dressing like his dad, and playing with boys. The gender-nonconforming boy preferred Barbie dolls and kitchens, dressed like his mom, and played with girls. Similar contrasts were used for the girl targets. Each vignette lasted about one minute, and the children’s faces were video-recorded as they watched.</p>
<p>These facial recordings were analyzed using a software program called FaceReader, which estimates the presence and intensity of six basic emotions—happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise—based on subtle facial movements. The software uses a facial action coding system and maps over 500 facial points to determine emotional expressions, providing an objective way to analyze children’s responses without relying on their ability or willingness to explain what they feel.</p>
<p>“Ours was the first study to use facial emotional expressions as a window on the emotional aspect of children’s reactions to gender-nonconforming peers,” VanderLaan noted. “At the outset, we were unsure whether this method would be sensitive enough to detect any emotional differences. It is good to know that this method provides a viable route to a more comprehensive understanding of how children respond when presented with peers of varying gender role expressions.”</p>
<p>The researchers found a consistent pattern across the diverse sample: when viewing the gender-nonconforming boy, children showed more fear-related facial expressions than when viewing the gender-conforming boy. This difference was statistically significant, although small in size. No such differences were found when comparing reactions to the gender-conforming and gender-nonconforming girls. The increase in fearful expression was specific to the gender-nonconforming boy, suggesting that children’s emotional reactions are especially sensitive to violations of traditional masculinity.</p>
<p>“This increased fear response parallels other findings suggesting that children from Chinese and Euro-American cultures tend to view gender-nonconforming children less favorably, particularly in the case of feminine boys,” VanderLaan told PsyPost. “For example, they tend to be less interested in being friends with gender-nonconforming children. Also, gender-nonconforming children tend to be seen by their peers as engaging in behaviors that are ‘wrong,’ and peers also perceive them as being less happy and as less likely to be popular.”</p>
<p>“Importantly, rather than being inevitable, the development of these thoughts and feelings appears to be driven by societal influences. Other similar research in Thailand, where there is greater social visibility and acceptance of gender diversity, has indicated that children do not show these same prejudices against gender-nonconforming behaviors. With this in mind, there seems to be merit in the possibility that through greater social and cultural acceptance of gender diversity, we may see improvements in children’s attitudes towards gender-nonconforming peers. In turn, such improvements may help address mental health disparities among gender-nonconforming children.”</p>
<p>To better understand this fear response, the researchers compared the facial data to children’s answers to a set of follow-up questions. After watching each vignette, the children were asked whether they would want to be friends with the target, whether they thought others would like the target, whether they thought the target was happy, whether they liked the activities the target engaged in, and whether the target’s behavior was morally acceptable.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the children who showed more fear in response to the gender-nonconforming boy were also more likely to say he seemed unhappy. But the fear response was not related to the other verbal judgments, such as friendship preference or moral judgment. This finding suggests that the facial expression of fear may reflect children’s internal appraisal of emotional well-being in gender-nonconforming boys, rather than a broader social evaluation.</p>
<p>These results offer a unique window into the emotional side of children’s biases, highlighting how gender norms are policed even at an early age—not just through speech, but through emotion. Prior studies have shown that gender-nonconforming children, especially boys, often face peer rejection and are more vulnerable to poor mental health. The current findings provide evidence that even brief exposure to nontraditional gender expression can elicit negative emotional reactions from peers, which may contribute to these children’s social challenges.</p>
<p>One possible explanation for the observed fear response is that gender-nonconforming boys are perceived as violating expectations in a way that is socially discouraged. Boys, in particular, are often subject to strict rules about how they should behave, dress, and interact. From a young age, children learn these rules from parents, teachers, peers, and media. When a boy violates them—by playing with dolls or wearing feminine clothing—he may be seen as strange or confusing, and that confusion may provoke discomfort or fear.</p>
<p>Another explanation involves social identity and group dynamics. Children tend to prefer peers who are like themselves and may treat those who differ as outsiders. According to developmental theories, violations of gender norms can trigger discomfort because they challenge a child’s understanding of what it means to be a boy or girl. This discomfort could be expressed through subtle emotional cues, such as fearful facial expressions, even if the child does not verbally express disapproval.</p>
<p>“Unfortunately, I was not terribly surprised to see that children had an elevated fear response to the feminine boy character,” VanderLaan said. “There’s a fair amount of research indicating that children and adults often have negative, prejudiced reactions towards gender nonconformity, and particularly towards male femininity. There are also wider literatures on femmephobia, which refers to negativity or aversion towards femininity, and its connection to homophobia and negative reactions towards LGBTQ+ folks.”</p>
<p>“So, our findings fit within this wider frame. At the same time, out findings are unique in showing that this kind of emotional sentiment can emerge in childhood and be detected by using facial emotional expressions, which is an objective and implicit behavioral measure.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations to consider. The facial expression software—while useful—had technical difficulties and required extensive manual checking to ensure accuracy. In total, more than half the original recordings were excluded due to problems with facial detection, especially when children moved their heads.</p>
<p>“Our study of facial emotional expressions relied on automated, computerized tools that are quite new to the field of child development,” VanderLaan said. “There is still a lot of room to make improvements in the accuracy of these tools, which should help to produce even more precise results in the future.”</p>
<p>Additionally, “we relied on stories of hypothetical peers,” he added. “It will be important to see how children respond to gender-nonconforming peers in real-world settings, and how relationships among peers of varying gender role expressions unfold over time. That kind of real-world research would help further inform how we might go about improving peer relations so that children of varying gender role expressions can thrive equally.”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study opens new directions for understanding childhood gender biases. The use of facial expressions as an implicit measure may help uncover attitudes that are otherwise difficult to detect. In future work, researchers could explore how these emotional responses change with age, vary across cultures, or are influenced by parental attitudes and media exposure.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03113-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Children’s Facial Emotional Expressions to Gender‑Nonconforming Hypothetical Peers</a>,” was authored by Karen Man Wa Kwan, Simran Isani, Haley J. James, A. Natisha Nabbijohn, Laura N. MacMullin, Sylvia Yun Shi, Bill Hung Piu Poon, Diana E. Peragine, Wang Ivy Wong, and Doug P. VanderLaan.</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>