<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/testosterone-heightens-mens-sensitivity-to-social-feedback-and-reshapes-self-esteem/" 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;">Testosterone heightens men’s sensitivity to social feedback and reshapes self-esteem</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 1st 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/10.1016/j.bpsc.2025.02.008" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging</a></em> shows that testosterone affects how men respond to social feedback, making them more sensitive to approval and disapproval from others. The hormone doesn’t just raise or lower self-esteem—it actually changes how much social evaluation influences a person’s moment-to-moment feelings of self-worth.</p>
<p>This research sheds light on how testosterone shapes what psychologists call “state self-esteem”—a person’s temporary sense of self-worth that fluctuates in response to social cues. The results could help explain why men with lower self-esteem sometimes show increased vulnerability to mood disturbances or antisocial behavior. The study also opens the door to potential new treatment strategies that combine hormonal and behavioral approaches to boost mental health.</p>
<p>Self-esteem isn’t static. While people often talk about self-esteem as a fixed trait, psychologists distinguish between trait self-esteem, which reflects someone’s overall self-worth, and state self-esteem, which can rise or fall in response to recent experiences. These fluctuations can have real consequences. People with low or unstable self-esteem are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, and even aggressive behavior.</p>
<p>Men’s self-esteem, in particular, may be more sensitive to changes in social status or perceived rejection. Previous research has suggested that testosterone, a sex hormone known to influence dominance behavior and sensitivity to status, might also affect self-esteem. But the evidence has been mixed. Some studies have shown that testosterone increases self-esteem in certain groups, such as men with low baseline levels, while others have found no clear link.</p>
<p>This study was designed to provide more precise evidence by focusing on how testosterone changes the process of self-esteem updating. In other words, do men on testosterone respond differently when they receive approval or disapproval from others?</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 120 healthy young men, aged 18 to 26, and randomly assigned them to receive either a dose of testosterone gel or a placebo. The study used a double-blind, placebo-controlled design, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew who received the real hormone.</p>
<p>After applying the gel, participants waited three hours to allow testosterone levels to rise. They then completed a task designed to mimic real-world social evaluation. Before the experiment, each participant provided personal information used to create a profile. They were told that 184 strangers would view this profile and either approve or disapprove of them.</p>
<p>During the task, participants predicted whether they would receive approval from each “rater” and then received feedback in the form of a thumbs-up, thumbs-down, or no response. After every few trials, they rated how good they felt about themselves at that moment. This rating served as a measure of state self-esteem.</p>
<p>Unbeknownst to the participants, the feedback they received was pre-programmed. Raters were grouped into categories with different approval probabilities: very likely (85% approval), somewhat likely (70%), somewhat unlikely (30%), or very unlikely (15%).</p>
<p>The researchers discovered that testosterone changed how participants formed expectations about social feedback. Men who received testosterone were more optimistic when anticipating approval from high-approval raters, but also more pessimistic with raters known to give negative feedback. In other words, testosterone sharpened the contrast between positive and negative social expectations.</p>
<p>More importantly, testosterone also made men more sensitive to the feedback itself. When men in the testosterone group received positive feedback, their self-esteem increased more than it did in the placebo group. But when they received negative feedback, their self-esteem dropped more sharply.</p>
<p>To better understand these patterns, the researchers used computational modeling. They applied a model that treats self-esteem updating as a learning process—similar to how people adjust their beliefs based on feedback in other situations, like predicting rewards.</p>
<p>The model showed that participants on testosterone gave more weight to two key components: their expectation of social approval and the difference between what they expected and what they actually received, also known as a prediction error. This suggests that testosterone enhances the brain’s attention to social outcomes, making people more responsive to the highs and lows of social evaluation.</p>
<p>Interestingly, while testosterone increased sensitivity to both approval and disapproval, it did not affect the basic learning rate—that is, how quickly people adjusted their beliefs based on prediction errors. Instead, testosterone influenced the importance participants assigned to the feedback and their expectations when forming self-esteem judgments.</p>
<p>These findings help explain why testosterone is often linked with behaviors related to social dominance or status. If testosterone heightens sensitivity to approval and rejection, it could amplify the motivation to seek positive social outcomes—or avoid negative ones.</p>
<p>The results also support the idea that self-esteem functions like a “sociometer,” tracking how accepted or rejected someone feels. Testosterone appears to modulate this system, increasing the emotional impact of social signals.</p>
<p>The study has clinical implications too. Low self-esteem is linked to a variety of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal. In some cases, testosterone therapy has been used to treat mood symptoms in men with low testosterone. This study suggests that combining testosterone with positive social environments or feedback-based therapies might improve self-esteem more effectively than either approach alone.</p>
<p>But the study had some limitations. All participants were young men, so it’s unclear whether the findings would generalize to women or to older adults. Some studies have found that testosterone affects men and women differently, especially in social and emotional contexts.</p>
<p>The researchers also did not measure participants’ natural testosterone levels before the experiment. Since baseline levels may influence how people respond to additional testosterone, future studies could examine whether individual differences in hormone levels change the effect of treatment.</p>
<p>Another limitation is the artificial nature of the task. While the social feedback was designed to mimic real-world interactions, participants knew they were in a study and may have reacted differently than they would in daily life. Nonetheless, the task captured meaningful fluctuations in self-esteem and allowed for precise measurement of the psychological processes involved.</p>
<p>Future research could explore how testosterone affects social learning in more natural settings or in people with mental health conditions linked to low self-esteem. It could also investigate whether similar effects occur with other hormones or in response to different kinds of feedback, such as praise from peers or criticism from authority figures.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2025.02.008" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Testosterone Administration Increases the Computational Impact of Social Evaluation on the Updating of State Self-Esteem</a>,” was authored by Jixin Long, Junsong Lu, Yang Hu, Philippe N. Tobler, and Yin Wu.</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/estrogen-curbs-fentanyl-intake-by-suppressing-brains-reward-response/" 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;">Estrogen curbs fentanyl intake by suppressing brain’s reward response</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 1st 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2025.02.013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neuron</a></em> provides evidence that biological sex differences in brain function and hormone levels may help explain why men are more likely than women to misuse opioids like fentanyl in response to chronic pain. In experiments with rats, male animals with inflammatory pain escalated their fentanyl use over time, while female rats kept their intake steady. This behavioral difference was tied to sex hormones and how they interact with brain regions that regulate reward.</p>
<p>The findings suggest that estrogen plays a protective role against opioid misuse in the context of chronic pain by reducing the brain’s response to the drug. Understanding how pain and hormones shape opioid use could lead to more targeted strategies for preventing addiction, particularly as fentanyl continues to drive overdose deaths in the United States.</p>
<p>Pain is one of the most common reasons people begin using opioids, and in many cases, it is the motivation for misuse. Yet the biological processes that connect chronic pain to increased opioid intake remain poorly understood. Complicating the issue is that women generally report more pain than men, while men are more likely to misuse opioids and die from overdoses.</p>
<p>Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis wanted to understand how chronic pain changes brain activity related to reward and whether these changes differ by sex. Their focus was on the dopamine system—specifically, neurons in the ventral tegmental area (VTA)—which plays a central role in the motivation to seek out rewarding experiences, including drug use. They also investigated the influence of estrogen, a key sex hormone, to see whether it helped explain the observed differences between males and females.</p>
<p>“Opioids are commonly prescribed to treat pain symptoms and while opioids are highly effective, they are also highly addictive,” explained study authors <a href="https://moronconcepcionlab.wustl.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jose Moron-Concepcion</a> and Jessica Higginbotham, the Henry E. Mallinckrodt Professor of Anesthesiology and an instructor in the Department of Anesthesiology, respectively.</p>
<p>“The impact of pain on the propensity for opioid misuse and abuse has not been thoroughly examined, particularly with consideration of females. This is particularly concerning in the context of overdose deaths which have disproportionately impacted men for several decades. Amidst the current epidemic driven by synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, we wanted to see if pain alters how the brain’s reward system responds to fentanyl and if these responses emerge differently between sexes.”</p>
<p>“Our study exploited new wireless photometry technology that allowed us to record activity from specific subsets of neurons in real-time simultaneous to drug-taking, giving us a glimpse at what happens in the brain while drug use is occurring and how it changes over time.”</p>
<p>The research team used a rat model to simulate chronic pain and examine voluntary fentanyl self-administration. Both male and female rats were implanted with intravenous catheters that allowed them to self-administer fentanyl by pressing a lever. Chronic pain was induced by injecting an inflammatory agent into one of the hind paws. Control animals received saline injections.</p>
<p>Over several weeks, the rats participated in daily two-hour sessions where they could press a lever to receive fentanyl, accompanied by a light cue. Throughout the experiment, the researchers recorded real-time activity in dopamine neurons using wireless fiber photometry—a technique that uses genetically encoded fluorescent sensors to monitor neural activity as animals behave freely.</p>
<p>To examine the role of estrogen, the researchers also manipulated hormone levels. In some female rats, the ovaries were surgically removed to eliminate natural estrogen production. In others, the researchers administered estrogen directly, either systemically or into specific brain regions. Male rats were also treated with estrogen to assess how it affected their drug intake and brain activity.</p>
<p>The team used additional tools like chemogenetics—where neurons are made sensitive to specific drugs that can activate or inhibit them—to test whether changes in dopamine neuron activity caused differences in fentanyl intake. They also examined receptor signaling and used pharmacological agents to block specific estrogen receptors in the brain.</p>
<p>The main finding was a stark sex difference in how chronic pain altered fentanyl use. Male rats with chronic inflammatory pain gradually escalated their fentanyl intake over the course of three weeks. Female rats, by contrast, showed no such escalation, even though the level of pain was similar between the sexes.</p>
<p>This behavioral difference was linked to changes in the dopamine system. In male rats with chronic pain, dopamine neurons in the VTA became increasingly active in response to fentanyl over time. This activity was tightly linked to the amount of drug consumed. When the researchers silenced these neurons using chemogenetics, the escalation in drug use stopped. In contrast, stimulating these neurons in female rats was enough to make them take more fentanyl, suggesting this brain pathway plays a causal role in opioid use under pain conditions.</p>
<p>Importantly, estrogen seemed to suppress this dopamine activity. When male rats with chronic pain were given estrogen, they stopped escalating their fentanyl intake, and their dopamine responses dropped to levels similar to those of females. When the researchers blocked estrogen receptors in the VTA, this suppressive effect disappeared, indicating that estrogen works directly in this brain region to reduce reward-related signaling.</p>
<p>In female rats that had their ovaries removed, fentanyl use increased to levels comparable to those seen in pain-affected males. Estrogen treatment reduced this effect, but only in certain contexts. For example, estrogen had a suppressive effect in males with pain but a stimulatory effect in females without pain, suggesting that the hormone’s influence depends on both sex and the presence of chronic pain.</p>
<p>“One surprising thing from our results was that the suppressive effects of estrogen on dopamine neuron activity and fentanyl use were dependent on the presence of pain,” Moron-Concepcion and Higginbotham told PsyPost. “This suggests that pain may also disrupt the function of hormone systems within the brain, but it will be important for future studies to examine this interaction further.”</p>
<p>The researchers also found that the protective effect of estrogen was mediated specifically through estrogen receptor beta (ERβ) in the VTA. Blocking this receptor allowed dopamine neurons to become more responsive to fentanyl again, reinforcing the idea that ERβ signaling is key to this hormonal control.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway from this study is that pain can exacerbate fentanyl use by facilitating dopamine neuron activation during drug taking,” the researchers explained. “This activation is suppressed by higher concentrations of estradiol (estrogen) which inherently provides females with some level of protection from maladaptive opioid use under conditions of pain. Our work demonstrates that pain promotes opioid use by disrupting the function of reward processing centers in the brain rather than those responsible for nociception (pain-sensation); our evidence, for the first time, points to hormones as a critical regulator of these interactions.”</p>
<p>The study indicates that sex-specific mechanisms play a key role in opioid use under pain. But as with all research, there are limitations. First, while rat models are useful for understanding biological processes, they do not fully capture the complexity of human addiction. Factors such as social environment, psychological stress, and access to healthcare all influence real-world opioid misuse and may interact with biological vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Second, the researchers focused mainly on estrogen, but other hormones—like progesterone and testosterone—likely also play roles. Future work will need to examine how the broader hormonal landscape shapes opioid-related behaviors.</p>
<p>“One caveat of these studies is that ovarian hormones are depleted via ovariectomy – meaning that, not just estrogen, but all sex hormones (e.g. testosterone, progesterone) are removed,” the researchers noted. “This allows us to isolate the putative contribution of estrogen but does not account for the potential influence of other hormones or how the balance/imbalance between these hormones regulates these effects.”</p>
<p>The authors suggest that understanding how hormones influence opioid reward could have implications for vulnerable populations, including menopausal women and adolescents. They also emphasize the importance of incorporating sex and hormone considerations into addiction research, particularly in light of the ongoing opioid epidemic.</p>
<p>“Our findings allude to the idea that high levels of estrogen <em>relative to other hormones</em> are important for suppressing opioid reward processing in pain,” Moron-Concepcion and Higginbotham explained. “Males and females have the same hormones (e.g., estrogen, progesterone, testosterone), but the balance between these hormones is distinct. Therefore, a major goal going forward will be to assess how these other potential hormonal regulators are involved in the relationship between pain and opioid reward.</p>
<p>“Along the same lines, existing evidence indicates that populations more vulnerable to opioid misuse are adolescents and women of menopausal age. Given that these represent critical times of change in hormone levels, it will be important to assess how age-related hormone surges and depletions play into this phenomenon.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2025.02.013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Estradiol protects against pain-facilitated fentanyl use via suppression of opioid-evoked dopamine activity in males</a>,” was authored by Jessica A. Higginbotham, Julian G. Abt, Rachel H. Teich, Joanna J. Dearman, Tania Lintz, and Jose A. Morón.</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-psychology-research-feeling-politically-excluded-heightens-antisocial-tendencies/" 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 psychology research: Feeling politically excluded heightens antisocial tendencies</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 1st 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Young adults who feel excluded because of their political identity are more likely to experience anger and less willing to engage with people from the opposing political side, according to new research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.13092" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Applied Social Psychology</a></em>. The study found that experiences of exclusion—whether from one’s own political group or the opposition—threaten psychological well-being and promote polarized behaviors, including avoidance and online hostility.</p>
<p>The findings shed light on one of the psychological processes that may be driving the widening divide in American politics. Rather than simply reflecting ideological disagreements, the study suggests that social experiences, such as being ignored or rejected by political groups, can push people toward stronger partisanship and antagonism.</p>
<p>Political polarization in the United States has been increasing for decades, with Republicans and Democrats expressing growing hostility toward each other. Known as affective polarization, this trend reflects emotional and social distance between partisans, beyond just policy disagreements. Many Americans now view their political opponents as immoral, unintelligent, or even dangerous.</p>
<p>This political divide often spills over into everyday life. Surveys show that friendships and family ties are increasingly strained by politics, and a significant portion of the population avoids interacting with people from the opposing party. Researchers have proposed that these patterns are not only the result of ideological conflict but also stem from social exclusion—the experience of being ignored or rejected because of one’s political identity.</p>
<p>Social exclusion is known to threaten basic psychological needs such as belonging, control, and self-esteem. When people feel excluded, they often become angry and are more likely to retaliate or withdraw. The current research explored how political exclusion influences these psychological processes and whether it contributes to increased polarization by reducing willingness to engage with political opponents and increasing antisocial intentions.</p>
<p>“Early in my graduate program, my mentor and I were interested in exploring different forms of identity-based exclusion we could research,” said study author <a href="https://gufaculty360.georgetown.edu/s/contact/003Hp00002jPoBxIAK/katarina-aubuchon" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Katarina E. AuBuchon</a>, who was a graduate student at George Washington University in the Psychological and Brain Sciences Department at the time of the study.</p>
<p>“Given the political climate at the time, we discussed how families and friendships were ending over politics, and how exclusion based on political affiliation could be hurtful and potentially have unintended negative effects. We wanted to better understand how political exclusion might be negatively impacting the political climate.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted two studies with college-aged adults in the United States during the 2020 presidential election. In both studies, they used a virtual ball-tossing game called Cyberball to simulate experiences of political inclusion or exclusion. Participants believed they were playing with other students who either shared their political views (ingroup) or held opposing views (outgroup).</p>
<p>In Study 1, 135 young adults from the Washington, D.C. area were randomly assigned to be included or excluded by three players from their political outgroup. Participants’ political identity was based on general ideological labels (liberal vs. conservative). After the game, participants completed surveys measuring psychological needs, anger, willingness to interact with outgroup members, and attitudes toward the opposing side.</p>
<p>Study 2 expanded on this design by recruiting a larger sample of 316 participants from both liberal (Washington, D.C.) and conservative (Texas) regions. This time, political identity was defined by candidate support (Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump). Participants were randomly assigned to be included or excluded by either political allies or opponents. The researchers again measured psychological needs, anger, attitudes, and in this case, participants’ willingness to engage in antisocial behaviors toward political opponents on social media—such as insulting or threatening them.</p>
<p>Across both studies, political exclusion had consistent negative effects on participants’ psychological well-being. In Study 1, participants who were excluded by their political outgroup reported lower psychological needs satisfaction and were less interested in interacting with outgroup members in a future task. This reduction in affiliation interest was explained by the decrease in psychological needs—especially the need to feel accepted and in control.</p>
<p>Although the researchers expected that exclusion would also increase anger and reduce positive attitudes toward the outgroup, these effects were less pronounced in Study 1. Anger levels were not significantly higher among excluded participants, and their warmth toward the outgroup did not significantly decline. The researchers suggested that using general ideological labels may not have created strong enough group boundaries to elicit more intense emotional reactions.</p>
<p>“We were surprised that political exclusion from the outgroup didn’t really lead to people wanting to seek out their political ingroup more,” AuBuchon told PsyPost. “This could be because people in our studies perhaps don’t highly identify as liberal/conservative or Trump/Biden supporters.”</p>
<p>In Study 2, where political identity was tied to support for Biden or Trump during a contentious election, exclusion had stronger emotional and behavioral effects. Participants who were excluded—whether by their own group or the opposing group—reported significantly lower needs satisfaction and more anger. Those who were excluded also expressed a greater willingness to engage in hostile behaviors toward political opponents online.</p>
<p>Importantly, mediation analyses showed that different psychological mechanisms were responsible for different outcomes. Decreased needs satisfaction predicted lower interest in affiliating with the political outgroup, while increased anger predicted higher antisocial inclinations, such as insulting or threatening members of the opposing side. This suggests that exclusion influences polarization in at least two distinct ways: by reducing people’s willingness to cooperate and by increasing their hostility.</p>
<p>One unexpected finding was that participants who were excluded by their own political group (ingroup) sometimes responded by expressing more positive attitudes toward the opposing group (outgroup). This suggests that rejection from one’s own side may lead individuals to reevaluate their group affiliations and become more open to political alternatives. However, this effect was relatively modest and needs further investigation.</p>
<p>“Excluding others based solely on their perceived political beliefs or affiliation is unlikely to make people more amenable to changing their political beliefs, and indeed it can influence how that person will then act toward people from different political groups later,” AuBuchon said. “When participants in our study were excluded by the political ‘outgroup’—in other words, if a conservative was excluded by a liberal or vice-versa—this made the participant angrier, which led to them being more inclined to be antisocial toward the political outgroup in the future, and made them feel like they didn’t belong and more likely to avoid the political outgroup in the future. Political exclusion likely increases the likelihood of more political partisanship in the future.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are a few limitations to consider. The studies focused on young adults, who may differ from older voters in how they experience and respond to exclusion. Although young people are an important voting demographic, more research is needed to determine whether similar patterns hold across other age groups.</p>
<p>Additionally, most participants were college students, and the samples were not nationally representative. While the researchers recruited from both liberal and conservative regions, geographical differences may still have influenced the results.</p>
<p>“It was hard to recruit conservatives for our study, in particular due to mistrust,” AuBuchon noted. “Some of the conservative groups outside of our university we reached out to point-blank refused, as they held a lot of mistrust toward psychological research and our intentions. This was surprising and also limited our data’s conclusions. Ultimately, we are grateful to have partnered with colleagues at a Texas university to help with recruitment.”</p>
<p>The researchers also noted that they measured attitudes and intentions rather than actual behavior. While participants reported how tempted they would be to insult or threaten political opponents online, it remains unclear how exclusion affects real-world actions. The simplified experimental scenarios may also differ from the complexities of real-life exclusion.</p>
<p>“As with all basic social psychology experiments, we use very basic manipulations to create artificial conditions that are easy to control,” AuBuchon said. “In other words, when we experience political exclusion in real life, it is unlikely to be in Cyberball! So, it’s hard to know how these minutely measured reactions compare to the real-life experience of political exclusion. But when we put it together with the broader context, it can help us better understand human behavior. Any readers interested should consider learning more about political polarization from leading scholars who conduct this work in real-world settings.”</p>
<p>Another important direction for future research is exploring how people can recover from political exclusion and avoid falling into cycles of polarization. The current findings suggest that addressing anger and restoring psychological needs may be key to reducing hostility and promoting dialogue. Interventions that reduce emotional reactivity or increase feelings of belonging across political lines may help bridge divides.</p>
<p>“This project, though near to my heart, did not become my main focus of research as my graduate work continued to grow,” added AuBuchon, who is currently a T32 Postdoctoral Fellow at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. “This work helped introduce me to the field of social exclusion, which aligned with my interests in understanding how discrimination influences health outcomes. I used Cyberball for my dissertation, which explored acute racism’s influence on pain sensitization. My current scholarship focuses on how we can harness our understanding of social psychology to work toward mitigating health inequities. So, I personally do not have any future plans in this line of work.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.13092" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Effects of Political Exclusion: Threatened Needs and Decreased Affiliation With Increased Anger and Antisocial Inclinations</a>,” was authored by Katarina E. AuBuchon, Michelle L. Stock, Emily Raibley, Adrienne R. Carter-Sowell, and Paul J. Poppen.</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/heres-what-the-data-says-about-who-actually-benefits-from-dei/" 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;">Here’s what the data says about who actually benefits from DEI</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 31st 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Few issues in the U.S. today are as controversial as <a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-americans-vastly-underestimate-public-support-for-diversity-and-inclusion/">diversity, equity and inclusion</a> – commonly referred to as DEI.</p>
<p>Although the term didn’t come into common usage until the 21st century, DEI is best understood as the latest stage in a long American project. Its egalitarian principles are seen in <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript">America’s founding documents</a>, and its roots lie in landmark 20th-century efforts such as the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act">1964 Civil Rights Act</a> and <a href="https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKOH/Taylor%2C%20Hobart/JFKOH-HT-01/JFKOH-HT-01-TR.pdf">affirmative action policies</a>, as well as movements for racial justice, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/12/29/history-of-dei-why-it-matters-for-the-future">gender equity</a>, <a href="https://publichealth.nyu.edu/events-news/news/2023/11/08/how-disability-part-dei">disability rights</a>, <a href="https://adata.org/factsheet/VEVRAA">veterans</a> and immigrants.</p>
<p>These movements sought to expand who gets to participate in economic, educational and civic life. DEI programs, in many ways, are their legacy.</p>
<p>Critics argue that DEI is <a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-dei-regime-trying-make-comeback">antidemocratic</a>, that it fosters <a href="https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/the-radicalization-race-philanthropy-and-dei">ideological conformity</a> and that it leads to <a href="https://www.heritage.org/civil-rights/commentary/dei-sold-way-promote-racial-harmony-does-just-the-opposite">discriminatory initiatives</a>, which they say <a href="https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-6-hiring-managers-have-been-told-to-stop-hiring-white-men/">disadvantage white people</a> and <a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/CORQIE.pdf">undermine meritocracy</a>. Those defending DEI argue just the opposite: that it encourages <a href="https://theconversation.com/anti-dei-guidance-from-trump-administration-misinterprets-the-law-and-guts-educators-free-speech-rights-250574">critical thinking and promotes democracy</a> − and that attacks on DEI amount to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/trump-on-dei-and-anti-discrimination-law">a retreat from long-standing civil rights law</a>.</p>
<p>Yet missing from much of the debate is a crucial question: What are the tangible costs and benefits of DEI? Who benefits, who doesn’t, and what are the broader effects on society and the economy?</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://miamioh.edu/profiles/cas/rodney-coates.html">sociologist</a>, I believe any productive conversation about DEI should be rooted in evidence, not ideology. So let’s look at the research.</p>
<h2>Who gains from DEI?</h2>
<p>In the corporate world, DEI initiatives are intended to promote diversity, and research consistently shows that diversity is good for business. Companies with more diverse teams tend to perform better across several key metrics, including <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/27736058">revenue</a>, <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-matters-even-more-the-case-for-holistic-impact">profitability</a> and <a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/cnbc-workforce-survey-april-2021/">worker satisfaction</a>.</p>
<p>Businesses with diverse workforces also <a href="http://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2020.00020.7">have an edge</a> in <a href="https://diversitycouncil.org/how-workforce-diversity-enhances-creativity-and-innovation/">innovation</a>, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/paologaudiano/2020/03/23/6-ways-diversity-and-inclusion-impact-the-cost-and-effectiveness-of-recruiting/">recruitment</a> and <a href="http://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2020.00020.7">competitiveness</a>, research shows. The general trend holds for many types of diversity, including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000497">age</a>, <a href="http://doi.org/10.22381/PIHRM4220161">race and ethnicity</a>, and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355175156_ACKNOWLEDGING_GENDER_DIVERSITY_AND_INCLUSION_AS_KEY_TO_ORGANIZATIONAL_GROWTH_A_REVIEW_AND_TRENDS">gender</a>.</p>
<p>A focus on diversity can also offer profit opportunities for businesses seeking new markets. Two-thirds of American consumers consider diversity when making their shopping choices, a <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-rise-of-the-inclusive-consumer">2021 survey</a> found. So-called “<a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-rise-of-the-inclusive-consumer">inclusive consumers</a>” tend to be female, younger and more ethnically and racially diverse. Ignoring their values can be costly: When Target backed away from its DEI efforts, the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/target-tgt-q1-earnings-report-stock-59cc82a9">resulting backlash</a> contributed to a sales decline.</p>
<p>But DEI goes beyond corporate policy. At its core, it’s about expanding access to opportunities for groups historically excluded from full participation in American life. From this broader perspective, many 20th-century reforms can be seen as part of the DEI arc.</p>
<p>Consider higher education. Many elite U.S. universities <a href="https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017-03-23/when-women-entered-the-ivies">refused to admit women</a> until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Columbia, the last Ivy League university to go co-ed, <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w16281/w16281.pdf">started admitting women in 1982</a>. Since the advent of affirmative action, women haven’t just closed the gender gap in higher education – <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/18/us-women-are-outpacing-men-in-college-completion-including-in-every-major-racial-and-ethnic-group/">they outpace men</a> in college completion across all racial groups. DEI policies have particularly benefited women, <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace">especially white women</a>, by <a href="https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr_fi/vol105/iss1/4/">expanding workforce access</a>.</p>
<p>Similarly, the push to desegregate American universities was followed by an explosion in the number of Black college students – a number that has <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/02/a-look-at-historically-black-colleges-and-universities-in-the-u-s/">increased by 125%</a> since the 1970s, twice the national rate. With college gates open to more people than ever, <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions">overall enrollment at U.S. colleges has quadrupled</a> since 1965. While there are many reasons for this, expanding opportunity no doubt plays a role. And a better-educated population has had significant implications for productivity and economic growth.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.lbjlibrary.org/news-and-press/media-kits/immigration-and-nationality-act#:~:text=The%20Immigration%20and%20Nationality%20Act%20abolished%20quotas%2C%20opening%20the%20doors,with%20citizens%20or%20U.%20S.%20residents.">1965 Immigration Act</a> also exemplifies DEI’s impact. It abolished racial and national quotas, enabling the immigration of more diverse populations, including from <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/05/01/key-facts-about-asians-in-the-us">Asia</a>, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/27/key-findings-about-black-immigrants-in-the-u-s/">Africa</a>, <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/european-immigrants-united-states-2022#origin">southern and eastern Europe</a> and Latin America. Many of these immigrants were <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states">highly educated</a>, and their presence has boosted U.S. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116727/documents/HHRG-118-JU01-20240111-SD013.pdf">productivity and innovation</a>.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the U.S. economy is more <a href="https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1544&context=pilr">profitable and productive as a result of immigrants</a>.</p>
<h2>What does DEI cost?</h2>
<p>While DEI generates returns for many businesses and institutions, it does come with costs. In 2020, corporate America spent an <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/new-at-mckinsey-blog/most-diversity-initiatives-fall-short-but-success-is-within-reach-with-these-five-factors">estimated US$7.5 billion on DEI programs</a>. And in 2023, the federal government spent more than $100 million on DEI, including <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-harris-health-department-spent-tens-of-millions-annually-on-dei/ar-AA1tWLT7">$38.7 million</a> by the Department of Health and Human Services and another <a href="https://checkyourfact.com/2024/11/21/fact-check-did-the-pentagon-allocate-86-billion-dollars-for-dei-initiatives/">$86.5 million</a> by the Department of Defense.</p>
<p>The government will no doubt be spending less on DEI in 2025. One of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term was to sign an executive order <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5271588/trump-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-federal-workers-government">banning DEI practices in federal agencies</a> – one of several anti-DEI executive orders currently <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-dei-chicago-women-diversity-f3c9773c8f8cb39f70b1250e80704789">facing legal challenges</a>. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/anti-dei-bills-states-republican-lawmakers-map-rcna140756">More than 30 states</a> have also introduced or enacted bills to limit or entirely restrict DEI in recent years. Central to many of these policies is the belief that diversity lowers standards, replacing <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-protects-civil-rights-and-merit-based-opportunity-by-ending-illegal-dei">meritocracy with mediocrity</a>.</p>
<p>But a large body of research disputes this claim. For example, a <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-matters-even-more-the-case-for-holistic-impact">2023 McKinsey & Company</a> report found that companies with higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity will likely financially outperform those with the least diversity by at least 39%. Similarly, concerns that DEI in <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.add7259">science and technology education leads to lowering standards</a> aren’t backed up by scholarship. Instead, scholars are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020126">increasingly pointing out</a> that disparities in performance are linked to built-in biases in courses themselves.</p>
<p>That said, legal concerns about DEI are rising. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice <a href="https://natlawreview.com/article/dei-changes-could-leave-businesses-exposed-discrimination-charges">have recently warned employers</a> that some DEI programs may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anecdotal evidence suggests that <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2023/12/20/dei-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits-increase-woke/71923487007/">reverse discrimination claims</a>, particularly from white men, are increasing, and legal experts expect the Supreme Court to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/straight-womans-reverse-discrimination-case-goes-us-supreme-court-2025-02-26/">lower the burden of proof</a> needed by complainants for such cases.</p>
<p>The issue remains legally unsettled. But while the cases work their way through the courts, women and people of color will continue to shoulder much of the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/success/diversity-work-burden">unpaid volunteer work</a> that powers corporate DEI initiatives. This pattern raises important equity concerns within DEI itself.</p>
<h2>What lies ahead for DEI?</h2>
<p>People’s fears of DEI are <a href="https://theimmigrantsjournal.com/the-racist-roots-of-the-perception-that-dei-excludes-white-people-a-critical-analysis/">partly rooted in demographic anxiety</a>. Since the <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2008/demo/popproj/2008-summary-tables.html">U.S. Census Bureau projected</a> in 2008 that non-Hispanic white people would become a minority in the U.S by the year 2042, nationwide news coverage <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2020.1792810">has amplified white fears of displacement</a>.</p>
<p>Research indicates many white men experience this change as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zf3vc">crisis of identity and masculinity</a>, particularly amid economic shifts such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12315">the decline of blue-collar work</a>. This perception aligns with research showing that white Americans are more likely to believe <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/19/views-of-dei-have-become-slightly-more-negative-among-us-workers">DEI policies disadvantage white men</a> than white women.</p>
<p>At the same time, in spite of DEI initiatives, women and people of color are most likely to be <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/meet-the-low-wage-workforce/">underemployed and living in poverty</a> regardless of how much education they attain. The gender wage gap remains stark: In 2023, women working full time earned a median weekly salary of $1,005 compared with $1,202 for men − <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/womens-earnings-were-83-6-percent-of-mens-in-2023.htm">just 83.6%</a> of what men earned. Over a 40-year career, that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost earnings. For Black and Latina women, the disparities are even worse, with one source estimating lifetime losses at <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-economic-educational-and-health-related-costs-of-being-a-woman/">$976,800 and $1.2 million</a>, respectively.</p>
<p>Racism, too, carries an economic toll. A 2020 analysis from Citi found that systemic racism has cost the U.S. economy <a href="https://ir.citi.com/NvIUklHPilz14Hwd3oxqZBLMn1_XPqo5FrxsZD0x6hhil84ZxaxEuJUWmak51UHvYk75VKeHCMI%3D">$16 trillion</a> since 2000. The same analysis found that addressing these disparities could have boosted Black wages by $2.7 trillion, added up to $113 billion in lifetime earnings through higher college enrollment, and generated $13 trillion in business revenue, creating 6.1 million jobs annually.</p>
<p>In a moment of backlash and uncertainty, I believe DEI remains a vital if imperfect tool in the American experiment of inclusion. Rather than abandon it, the challenge now, from my perspective, is how to refine it: grounding efforts not in slogans or fear, but in fairness and evidence.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/252143/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-backlash-what-evidence-shows-about-the-economic-impact-of-dei-252143">original article</a>.</em></p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/adults-with-adhd-face-long-term-social-and-economic-challenges-study-finds-even-with-medication/" 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;">Adults with ADHD face long-term social and economic challenges, study finds — even with medication</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 31st 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 the <em><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022395625000160" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Psychiatric Research</a></em> sheds light on the long-term challenges faced by individuals diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The research shows that adults with ADHD are more likely to struggle with education, employment, and overall social functioning compared to those without the condition. Even when individuals adhered to prescribed medication over a 10-year period, their outcomes did not significantly improve in key areas such as educational attainment or employment by the age of 30.</p>
<p>ADHD is a developmental condition that affects about 2–3% of children, with symptoms often continuing into adulthood. It is characterized by persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. These behaviors can make it difficult to succeed in academic, social, and workplace settings. While medication is commonly prescribed to manage symptoms, the long-term effects of treatment on real-world outcomes like education and employment have not been well studied.</p>
<p>The researchers set out to understand how adults with ADHD are doing by age 30, and whether sticking to prescribed medication during young adulthood helps improve social outcomes. They also aimed to quantify the broader social and economic impact of ADHD, particularly in terms of healthcare costs and the presence of other mental health conditions.</p>
<p>The research team used national data from Denmark’s health and social registries to track individuals diagnosed with ADHD between 1995 and 2016. To be included, patients had to be under 30 years old by 2005 or turn 30 by 2016, which allowed for at least a decade of follow-up data.</p>
<p>In total, 4,897 people with ADHD were matched with 18,931 individuals from the general population. Matching was based on age, gender, and location. The researchers then compared the two groups across a range of outcomes, including education level, employment status, income, healthcare use, and psychiatric comorbidities.</p>
<p>They also examined medication adherence by tracking how consistently ADHD patients filled prescriptions over the 10 years leading up to age 30. Adherence was defined as receiving at least 70% of the defined daily dose in a given year. The researchers then analyzed whether greater adherence led to better social and economic outcomes.</p>
<p>Overall, adults with ADHD fared significantly worse than their peers in many areas of life by the time they reached 30. Compared to the control group, individuals with ADHD were more likely to live alone, less likely to have completed higher education, less likely to be employed, more likely to rely on social welfare programs, and more likely to have been diagnosed with additional psychiatric disorders.</p>
<p>At age 30, only about 35% of adults with ADHD were employed, compared to over 74% in the control group. A striking 34% of those with ADHD were receiving social security benefits, and 12% were on disability pensions — much higher than their non-ADHD peers.</p>
<p>The economic picture was also sobering. Adults with ADHD had lower predicted income from employment and significantly higher healthcare costs. On average, they received more than double the amount of public financial support compared to the control group.</p>
<p>Mental health was another key difference. Psychiatric comorbidities were far more common among ADHD patients, including depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders. These additional conditions strongly influenced outcomes: people with more severe psychiatric comorbidities were much less likely to finish school or be employed.</p>
<p>One of the central questions of the study was whether sticking to ADHD medication made a difference. Surprisingly, the answer was no — or at least not in the expected way.</p>
<p>Adherence to medication between the ages of 21 and 30 did not increase the chances of completing a vocational or college-level education. Nor did it boost the odds of being employed at age 30. In fact, higher adherence to medication was modestly associated with lower odds of being employed, although the researchers believe this may be due to the fact that people with more severe symptoms — and thus worse outcomes — are also the ones who are more likely to stay on medication.</p>
<p>Educational outcomes were most strongly predicted by whether the patient’s parents had higher levels of education. Similarly, parental education also influenced whether the individual was employed by age 30. This suggests that family background remains a powerful driver of success, even among those with access to medical treatment.</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledged several limitations. One key issue is that the data do not capture the full range of non-medication treatments, such as therapy, special education services, or social support programs. These may play an important role in long-term success but were not included in the study.</p>
<p>Another challenge is that the study design was observational, which means it cannot prove causation. For example, while medication adherence was not linked to better outcomes, this does not mean that medication is ineffective — it may be that the people who need it most already face serious disadvantages that medication alone cannot overcome.</p>
<p>There was also limited information about the age at which patients were first diagnosed. Many participants received their diagnosis as adults, missing out on early intervention that might have changed their life trajectories. The researchers note that earlier diagnosis and a combination of treatments might lead to better long-term results, but more studies are needed to test this idea.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.01.016" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Long-term effects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on social functioning and health care outcomes</a>,” was authored by Poul Jennum, Anne Virring Sørensen, Lone Baandrup, Michael Ibsen, Rikke Ibsen, and Jakob Kjellberg.</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/sleep-deprivation-reduces-attention-and-cognitive-processing-capacity/" 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;">Sleep deprivation reduces attention and cognitive processing capacity</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 31st 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of table tennis players in China found that 36 hours of sleep deprivation prolonged their reaction time and reduced attention and cognitive processing capacity. Functional connectivity between the frontal and occipital regions of their brains also decreased. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2024.11.039"><em>Neuroscience</em></a>.</p>
<p>When a person remains awake for 24 hours or more, they enter a state known as acute sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation can also be chronic, occurring when someone consistently gets insufficient sleep over an extended period of time. It impairs cognitive functions such as attention, memory, and decision-making, increasing the risk of accidents and errors.</p>
<p>Emotionally, sleep deprivation can lead to irritability, mood swings, and heightened sensitivity to stress. Long-term sleep loss has been linked to serious health problems, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and weakened immune function. It also disrupts hormonal regulation, including hormones that control appetite and stress. Sleep-deprived individuals may experience microsleeps—brief, involuntary episodes of sleep—without realizing it.</p>
<p>Study author Ziyi Peng and his colleagues aimed to systematically examine changes in spatial cognitive abilities and brain activity among table tennis players following 36 hours of total sleep deprivation. They hypothesized that this level of sleep deprivation would substantially impair cognitive performance and reduce functional connectivity in the brain—coordinated activity between different brain regions over time.</p>
<p>The study included 20 male second-level table tennis players with an average age of 20. All participants were healthy, right-handed, and reported good sleep habits. None had a history of psychiatric or neurological disorders.</p>
<p>Participants first learned to perform a spatial cognitive processing task and were required to reach at least 80% accuracy before advancing. This task was used to measure cognitive processing speed and attentional performance. During this baseline session, researchers also recorded participants’ brain activity using electroencephalography (EEG).</p>
<p>Afterward, the participants stayed awake for 36 consecutive hours under supervision, with no stimulant drugs allowed. Nursing staff were present to ensure participants remained awake. After the sleep deprivation period, participants repeated the cognitive task and underwent another EEG session.</p>
<p>The results showed that 36 hours of sleep deprivation led to longer reaction times during the task, along with declines in attention and cognitive processing ability. EEG analysis revealed reduced functional connectivity between the frontal and occipital regions of the brain—areas important for visual-spatial processing and executive control.</p>
<p>“After 36 h of SD [sleep deprivation], the spatial cognitive ability of table tennis athletes was impaired. SD not only led to a reduction in the allocation of attentional resources and cognitive processing capabilities in these athletes, but also weakened functional connectivity between the frontal and occipital lobes of the brain,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on how acute sleep deprivation can impair cognitive functioning, particularly in high-performance athletes who rely heavily on rapid visual and motor processing. However, the study did not include a control group. As a result, it is not entirely clear which observed changes were directly caused by sleep deprivation and which may reflect natural variation over time.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2024.11.039">Sleep deprivation impairs spatial cognitive processing and alters brain connectivity in table tennis athletes</a>,” was authored by Ziyi Peng, Zexuan Wang, Lin Xu, Yongcong Shao, Fubing Jiao, and Jing Lv.</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>