<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/scientists-observe-an-abnormal-attentional-bias-in-depressed-individuals/" 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 observe an abnormal attentional bias in depressed individuals</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 10th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An eye-tracking study in China found that individuals with depression looked at threatening and neutral images longer than healthy individuals in an experimental setting. They also tended to spend more time viewing these images compared to positive ones. The longer viewing times suggest that they were paying more attention to threatening and neutral content. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.02.039"><em>Journal of Affective Disorders</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Depression, or major depressive disorder, is a mood disorder characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, emptiness, or irritability, often accompanied by a loss of interest in previously enjoyable activities. It affects people of all ages and backgrounds and is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide.</p>
<p>Symptoms may also include fatigue, changes in appetite or weight, sleep disturbances, feelings of worthlessness or guilt, and difficulty concentrating or making decisions. In more severe cases, depression can lead to thoughts of death or suicide. It may be triggered by stressful life events, trauma, medical conditions, or occur without an obvious cause.</p>
<p>Depression also appears to influence how people process information. Individuals with depression tend to focus more on negative or sad content while paying less attention to neutral or positive information. This phenomenon, known as attentional bias, can reinforce negative thought patterns and contribute to the persistence and severity of depressive symptoms.</p>
<p>Study author Xiaobo Liu and his colleagues aimed to investigate whether individuals with depression display an attentional bias toward threatening images. They hypothesized that depressed participants would pay more attention to threatening pictures compared to healthy individuals. To test this, they conducted an eye-tracking experiment.</p>
<p>The study involved 100 individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder and 100 healthy control participants. The healthy participants were matched to the depressed group by age, education, and gender. The average age in both groups was between 27 and 28 years. Women made up 76% of the depressed group and 73% of the control group. On average, the depressed participants had been experiencing symptoms for about one year, though there was considerable individual variation.</p>
<p>All participants completed assessments for depression and anxiety using the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. They also participated in an eye-tracking task that involved viewing a series of images from the International Affective Picture System, categorized as threatening, positive, or neutral. Participants were instructed to view the images as if they were watching television, while an eye-tracking device recorded their gaze patterns.</p>
<p>Threatening images typically depicted scenes of danger, violence, or injury—such as aggressive animals, weapons, or accidents—and were intended to provoke fear or anxiety. Positive images included content like smiling faces, nature scenes, or playful animals. Neutral images showed everyday objects or people with neutral expressions and were designed to evoke little emotional response.</p>
<p>The results revealed that individuals with depression spent significantly more time looking at threatening and neutral images compared to healthy participants. They also made fewer saccades—rapid eye movements between fixations—suggesting less visual exploration of these images. Additionally, compared to how they viewed positive images, depressed participants spent more time fixating on threatening and neutral images and showed reduced eye movement. These findings indicate an increased attentional focus on emotionally negative or ambiguous content. Healthy participants did not show similar patterns.</p>
<p>“Patients with MDD [major depressive disorder] exhibit abnormal attentional bias toward threatening stimuli, which is associated with the severity of retardation symptoms in MDD,” the authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study offers insights into how individuals with depression process emotionally charged visual information. However, the researchers caution that eye movements are not a perfect measure of attention. While eye-tracking devices can record where someone is looking and how long they maintain their gaze, it does not definitively confirm whether they are mentally engaged with that content.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.02.039">Attentional bias toward threatening stimuli in major depressive disorder: A free-viewing eye-tracking study</a>,” was authored by Xiaobo Liu, Yuxi Li, Yuan Chen, Chen Xue, Jin Fan, Jiaming Zhang, Dongling Zhong, Qinjian Dong, Zhong Zheng, Juan Li, and Rongjiang Jin.</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/the-beautiful-is-moral-stereotype-may-be-an-illusion-shaped-by-how-much-we-like-someone/" 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;">The “beautiful is moral” stereotype may be an illusion shaped by how much we like someone</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 10th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new series of studies challenges a long-standing belief in social psychology known as the “beautiful is moral” stereotype—the idea that people who are physically attractive are also seen as having better moral character. Across three studies, researchers found that while attractiveness can influence how moral someone appears, this effect is mostly driven by how much people like the person. The findings, published in <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97022-2" target="_blank">Scientific Reports</a></em>, suggest that emotional responses may matter more than appearance alone when forming moral impressions.</p>
<p>The research was motivated by the need to clarify mixed findings in previous studies on the relationship between physical attractiveness and moral character judgments. While many people intuitively believe that attractive individuals are “good,” research has shown this assumption doesn’t always hold. Some studies have found no effect of attractiveness on morality, or even negative associations when attractive people are viewed as vain or manipulative. </p>
<p>The researchers behind this new work wanted to explore a possible explanation for these inconsistencies: that feelings of liking mediate the effect of attractiveness on morality, and that people’s belief in a just world—a worldview that people get what they deserve—might shape this effect.</p>
<p>“Two key sources inspired me. Classic work by Dion and Dion (1987) suggested that the ‘beautiful is good’ stereotype depends on belief in a just world—an idea we found questionable, especially in the Polish context, where such beliefs are typically low,” explained study author <a href="https://www.konradbocian.com/" target="_blank">Konrad Bocian</a>, an associate professor at SWPS University.</p>
<p>“More recent research by Han and Laurent (2023) has shown that extreme attractiveness can trigger negative judgments, mediated by traits such as vanity or sociability. These findings led us to explore whether personal liking might be a deeper, underexamined factor driving the link between attractiveness and moral perception.”</p>
<p>To explore these ideas, the researchers conducted three experiments in different cultural contexts using samples from the United States (788 participants), Poland (1,913 participants), and the United Kingdom (1,024 participants). In each study, participants were shown photos of unfamiliar individuals varying in physical attractiveness, and were asked to rate them on a number of traits, including sociability, vanity, and moral character. Participants also reported how much they liked each person and completed a standardized measure of their belief in a just world.</p>
<p>In the first study, conducted with U.S. participants, the researchers randomly assigned participants to see either highly attractive or moderately attractive faces of both men and women. After viewing each face, participants rated the person’s sociability (e.g., happy, agreeable), vanity (e.g., egotistical, self-centered), and moral character (e.g., honest, trustworthy). They also indicated how much they liked each person and completed a measure of personal and general belief in a just world.</p>
<p>The results showed that participants judged highly attractive individuals, especially women, as having greater moral character than moderately attractive ones. However, when the researchers added “liking” into their statistical model, the influence of attractiveness on moral character disappeared. In other words, the more participants liked the target, the more moral they perceived them to be—regardless of how attractive the person was. Importantly, neither general nor personal belief in a just world moderated these effects. That is, people who believed the world is fair were no more likely to associate beauty with morality than those who didn’t.</p>
<p>To see whether these findings would replicate in a different cultural setting, the researchers repeated the experiment with a much larger sample of Polish participants. The procedures were the same, but the survey was translated into Polish and the stimuli were culturally neutral photographs of white faces drawn from a widely used face database.</p>
<p>The results in Study 2 closely mirrored those from Study 1. Again, highly attractive women were judged as more moral than their moderately attractive counterparts, but this association was explained by how much participants liked the person. Once again, the stereotype did not apply to male targets. Ratings of vanity did not differ significantly based on attractiveness, and belief in a just world failed to influence any of the moral character judgments.</p>
<p>To move beyond correlational evidence, Bocian and his colleagues tested the causal role of liking by manipulating not only the attractiveness of the target but also how much participants would like them. This time, a British sample of over 1,000 people participated. Instead of only showing faces, the researchers presented participants with a photo and a personality profile that was either similar or dissimilar to the participant’s own preferences—an established method for inducing liking or disliking. For example, participants saw a target person who shared many of their media and lifestyle preferences (similar condition) or who held opposing preferences (dissimilar condition).</p>
<p>This time, the results did not support the “beautiful is moral” stereotype. In fact, moderately attractive individuals were judged as having higher moral character than highly attractive individuals. However, people who were perceived as similar—and therefore more likable—were consistently rated as more moral, regardless of their attractiveness. Vanity ratings were higher for highly attractive targets and for those who were dissimilar in preferences, supporting the idea that certain negative traits may cancel out the presumed moral advantage of physical attractiveness. Once again, belief in a just world had no effect on participants’ moral character ratings.</p>
<p>“A surprising finding was that belief in a just world did not influence the link between attractiveness and perceived morality,” Bocian told PsyPost. “This challenges earlier assumptions that people see attractive individuals as more moral because they believe the world is fair. Instead, our results suggest that attractiveness shapes moral judgments independently of such beliefs. This suggests that emotional factors, such as personal liking, outweigh rational justifications in stereotype-based evaluations.”</p>
<p>Taken together, these three studies provide strong support for the idea that liking—more than attractiveness—drives moral character judgments. While attractive women may often be seen as more moral, this appears to be less about their looks and more about how much they are liked. This insight revises the classic halo effect theory, which posits that people’s overall impressions of someone—often based on physical traits—color their judgments about unrelated qualities. In this case, liking may be the emotional filter through which attractiveness exerts its influence.</p>
<p>“The key takeaway is that our moral judgments are shaped not just by someone’s appearance, but also by how much we personally like them,” Bocian explained. “While the ‘beautiful is moral’ stereotype exists, especially for women, liking plays a central role in how we evaluate others’ character. This means our impressions can be biased in subtle ways we’re not always aware of. Being mindful of these biases can help us make fair and accurate assessments of others.”</p>
<p>But the study, like all research, has limitations. For one, the researchers used only white faces, which means the findings may not extend to targets of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. Since prior research shows that racial cues can interact with perceptions of attractiveness and morality, future studies should examine whether the same mediating role of liking applies across more diverse samples. Another limitation is the gender specificity of the stereotype. Across all three studies, attractiveness only influenced moral judgments for women. This aligns with cultural norms that emphasize appearance more for women than men, but it also points to the need for more research on gender differences in moral perception.</p>
<p>“Our next steps focus on understanding why the ‘beautiful is moral’ stereotype reversed when participants perceived the target as similar to themselves,” Bocian said. “We plan to investigate how self-rated attractiveness, similarity, and cultural values, such as humility, influence moral judgments. Future studies will also examine the role of race and more diverse facial features, given our current focus on white faces. Ultimately, we aim to uncover the psychological and cultural mechanisms underlying appearance-based moral evaluations, thereby better understanding and reducing social bias.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97022-2" target="_blank">Reevaluating the beautiful is moral stereotype by examining the impact of personal liking and belief in a just world</a>,” was authored by Konrad Bocian, Raluca Diana Szekely-Copîndean, Katarzyna Myslinska-Szarek, and Bogdan Wojciszke.</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-research-shows-2020-u-s-vote-counts-were-extraordinarily-accurate-contradicting-fraud-claims/" 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 research shows 2020 U.S. vote counts were extraordinarily accurate, contradicting fraud claims</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 10th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2419633122" target="_blank">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a></em> provides one of the most comprehensive assessments to date of the accuracy of vote counting in the 2020 United States election. By compiling and analyzing data from postelection audits in 856 jurisdictions across 27 states, researchers found that discrepancies between the original and audited vote totals were exceptionally rare. </p>
<p>The average error rate was measured in thousandths of a percent, with no evidence of systematic bias favoring either major presidential candidate. The findings contradict persistent claims of widespread fraud and support the legitimacy of the election’s outcome.</p>
<p>Following the 2020 election, false claims that votes were miscounted or manipulated gained wide traction, particularly among supporters of President Donald Trump. Although multiple investigations found no evidence of fraud or significant error, the authors of this study noted that previous assessments often lacked the kind of comprehensive, quantitative data that could settle the matter more decisively. They aimed to fill that void by producing a nation-scale estimate of vote-count accuracy based on official audit records.</p>
<p>“There were many prominent allegations that Americans’ votes were not counted correctly in 2020. We conjectured that, if these discrepancies were real, many of them would have been detectable by election audits,” said study author <a href="https://samuelbaltz.net/" target="_blank">Samuel Baltz</a>, who conducted the research when he was the research director of the Election Data and Science Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</p>
<p>To carry out this analysis, the research team assembled a massive dataset by tracking down publicly available results from postelection tabulation audits—where election officials retabulate a sample or the entirety of ballots to verify the accuracy of the initial count. These audits vary widely by state and county, not only in methodology but also in how results are reported.</p>
<p>“In many jurisdictions, auditors double-check the vote count by taking a sample of ballots, tallying them up a second time, comparing the result to the original vote count, and recording how many discrepancies they find,” Baltz explained. “However, these wonderful data sources are individually recorded by local and regional governments across the country in very different formats (everything from datasets on a website to tallies of votes in scanned PDFs), and are never compiled into one place. So, while there was no systematic evidence that votes were counted incorrectly in 2020, we did not have a numerically specific estimate of exactly how accurately they were counted around the country.”</p>
<p>The researchers painstakingly standardized these records to calculate vote-count error rates for candidates across thousands of races. In total, the dataset included information on more than 71 million candidate-level votes and over 1.2 million additional ballots across all types of elections, from local races to the presidential contest. Roughly 6 percent of all votes cast for Joe Biden and Donald Trump were included in the audited sample. While 27 states provided usable data, the researchers note that audit processes also took place in other states, but either used incompatible formats or did not release detailed results.</p>
<p>Across the board, the study found that vote counts were extraordinarily consistent between the original tabulations and the audits. For the presidential election, the median discrepancy in a candidate’s vote total was zero. The average shift in vote margin between Trump and Biden was just 0.007 percent at the county level—a figure that is over 30 times smaller than the margin of victory in the closest state, Georgia. Nationally, the shift in presidential vote margin as a result of audits was less than one one-thousandth of a percent.</p>
<p>The researchers paid particular attention to the areas and allegations that had attracted the most attention in public debate. For instance, some false claims suggested that voting machines had systematically switched votes from Trump to Biden. If that were true, audits using independent tabulation methods—such as hand counts or different software—would have revealed major discrepancies. In fact, they did not. In counties where ballots were hand-counted or retabulated using separate systems, the results were nearly identical to the originals.</p>
<p>Other allegations centered on absentee ballots, which were said to be vulnerable to fraud or mishandling. However, many jurisdictions require audits to include a sample of ballots from all voting methods, including absentee voting. Again, the audits uncovered no consistent problems. Even in Democratic-controlled counties, where critics alleged fraud might occur, audits conducted by bipartisan or independent teams revealed vote counts that aligned with the originals.</p>
<p>To see whether the high level of accuracy held across various types of elections, the researchers also examined results from congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative races. Across all these contests, the net change in votes by party affiliation was effectively zero. Among Democratic and Republican candidates for president, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and state legislatures, audits found no measurable shifts in overall vote totals.</p>
<p>“We combed through thousands of pages that document what auditors found when they double-checked more than 70 million votes cast in 2020,” Baltz told PsyPost. “In state after state, county after county, town after town, and from local races all the way up to the presidency, the number of votes that auditors counted was identical or nearly identical to the number of votes that was originally reported. In about 10 million votes cast for either Biden or Trump that auditors double-checked, the margin between the candidates shifted by a few thousandths of a percentage point. The error rate in vote counting appeared to be microscopic compared to the margins that usually decide elections.”</p>
<p>The study also found that larger audits tended to produce lower error rates. In counties where at least 1,000 votes were audited for a given candidate, the shift in vote total was always less than 1 percent—and often far smaller. For example, in contests where more than 10,000 votes were recounted, the error rates tended to be below one-hundredth of a percent. These findings point to a pattern of highly accurate vote counting, especially in larger jurisdictions.</p>
<p>Even among the handful of counties that did show small discrepancies, the effects were negligible. The largest shift toward Trump found in any single county was about 0.65 percent, based on an audit of just over 1,100 votes in Butte County, Idaho. Officials attributed this to minor issues with ballot storage. In Georgia, where a full manual audit was conducted, the shifts were well within expected margins given the volume of ballots retallied by hand.</p>
<p>Overall, 62 percent of the 2,317 candidates included in the audit data saw no change at all in their vote totals. Where changes occurred, they typically amounted to a difference of just a few votes. The median adjustment was about 59 votes per million counted, an amount too small to affect outcomes even in the closest races.</p>
<p>The ballot-level audit data painted a similar picture. Across the 15 states that reported total ballots counted and discrepancies, only about 0.04 percent of ballots showed any issue. In the vast majority of counties—about 81 percent—no discrepancies were found at all.</p>
<p>“I was absolutely surprised by how small the error rate was,” Baltz said. “I would not have been shocked if simple, honest human error meant that, when you double-check the vote, you sometimes find that a candidate actually did a few tenths of a percent better or worse than the original vote count. Actually, that large a shift turns out to be exceptionally rare. Almost every time auditors double-checked at least 1,000 votes, error rates were in the hundredths or thousandths of a percent.”</p>
<p>Despite these strong results, the study does include some important caveats. First, the analysis is limited to vote counting itself. It does not account for other types of potential problems, such as voter registration errors or voter suppression. Second, while the dataset is the most comprehensive of its kind, it only includes 27 states. In some cases, audit procedures in the remaining states were either incompatible with error rate calculations or not publicly disclosed.</p>
<p>Still, the study provides one of the clearest quantitative answers yet to a question that has roiled American politics since 2020: Were the votes counted accurately? According to this nationwide audit-based analysis, the answer is yes—overwhelmingly so.</p>
<p>“I’m not working on any follow-up right now,” Baltz noted. “I was raised, though, on Carl Sagan, to believe that there is room in science to study practical questions of great social importance, and that when you take up those questions, you are bound to follow the facts exactly where they lead you, and to share your findings honestly and plainly with the public. I’ll keep an ear to the ground for practical questions about elections that matter to people, where some component remains scientifically open.”</p>
<p>“There is a prior piece in <em>PNAS</em> called ‘<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2103619118" target="_blank">No evidence for systematic voter fraud</a>‘ (Eggers, Garro, and Grimmer 2021). I think of our article as a companion piece to that one: they show that there is no systematic evidence for many types of voter fraud, while we follow up with systematic evidence specifically against widespread errors in counting the ballots.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2419633122" target="_blank">Audits of the 2020 American election show an accurate vote count</a>,” was authored by Samuel Baltz, Fernanda Gonzalez, Kevin Guo, Jacob Jaffe, and Charles Stewart III.</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/popular-sugar-substitute-erythritol-may-impair-brain-blood-vessel-health-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;">Popular sugar substitute erythritol may impair brain blood vessel health, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 9th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00276.2025" target="_blank">Journal of Applied Physiology</a></em> suggests that erythritol, a popular sugar substitute, may negatively affect the cells lining blood vessels in the brain. In laboratory experiments, researchers found that erythritol increased oxidative stress, disrupted nitric oxide production, promoted the release of a blood vessel-constricting compound, and impaired the release of a key clot-busting protein. These changes are all associated with a higher risk of stroke.</p>
<p>Erythritol is widely used as a low-calorie sweetener. It is found in many “sugar-free” or “keto” products, including soft drinks, baked goods, and candies. Because it has minimal impact on blood sugar and insulin, erythritol has been promoted as a healthier alternative to sugar for people with obesity, diabetes, or metabolic syndrome. It is naturally present in small amounts in fruits and vegetables and can also be produced in the body. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved erythritol for use as a food additive in 2001.</p>
<p>But concerns about erythritol’s effects on cardiovascular health have been rising. A 2023 study by Witkowski and colleagues reported that higher levels of erythritol in the blood were linked to a greater risk of heart attack and stroke over a three-year period. This association held true across sexes and across populations in the United States and Europe. The same research group also found that drinking a beverage containing erythritol led to increased platelet reactivity—a potential contributor to blood clots. Other studies have similarly noted a possible link between erythritol and heart-related health risks. However, until now, there has been limited direct evidence on how erythritol affects blood vessel function at the cellular level.</p>
<p>To address this gap, researchers in the new study examined how erythritol influences brain microvascular endothelial cells, which line the small blood vessels in the brain and help regulate blood flow. These cells also play a role in controlling inflammation, preventing clot formation, and maintaining the blood-brain barrier. When they become dysfunctional, the risk of stroke and other brain disorders can increase.</p>
<p>The researchers used an in vitro model, meaning they grew human cerebral microvascular endothelial cells in the lab and exposed them to erythritol. The dose they used—6 millimolar—was equivalent to the amount of erythritol found in a typical artificially sweetened beverage, or about 30 grams. The cells were exposed to erythritol for three hours, after which various markers of cell function were measured. These included oxidative stress levels, nitric oxide and endothelin-1 production, and the ability of cells to release tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA), a protein that helps dissolve blood clots.</p>
<p>The results revealed several concerning changes. First, the erythritol-treated cells produced significantly more reactive oxygen species—compounds that can damage cells and are a key sign of oxidative stress. Specifically, cells exposed to erythritol showed about a 75% increase in reactive oxygen species compared to untreated cells. This rise in oxidative stress was accompanied by an increase in antioxidant proteins like superoxide dismutase-1 and catalase, suggesting that the cells were attempting to counteract the harmful effects of the stress but were not able to fully do so.</p>
<p>Next, the researchers examined nitric oxide production. Nitric oxide is a molecule produced by blood vessel cells that helps keep blood vessels open and maintains healthy blood flow. While the overall level of the enzyme responsible for nitric oxide production—endothelial nitric oxide synthase—did not change, the activation of this enzyme was significantly reduced in erythritol-treated cells. </p>
<p>In particular, one form of activation, called phosphorylation at Ser1177, dropped by about 65%, while an inhibitory modification, phosphorylation at Thr495, increased by roughly 85%. As a result, nitric oxide production dropped by about 20%. Reduced nitric oxide availability is a hallmark of endothelial dysfunction and is linked to increased risk of stroke and other cardiovascular events.</p>
<p>At the same time, the study found an increase in the production of endothelin-1, a peptide that causes blood vessels to constrict. Levels of its precursor, Big ET-1, were significantly higher in erythritol-treated cells, and the amount of endothelin-1 released into the surrounding environment was about 30% higher. Elevated endothelin-1 can lead to excessive narrowing of blood vessels and impair cerebral blood flow, especially during times of increased demand.</p>
<p>The final part of the study looked at the cells’ ability to release t-PA, a protein that helps dissolve blood clots and is essential for preventing stroke. While baseline t-PA levels were similar between treated and untreated cells, the erythritol-treated cells failed to increase their t-PA output in response to thrombin, a compound that normally triggers clot-busting activity. In contrast, untreated cells showed a robust increase in t-PA release. This suggests that erythritol impairs the cells’ ability to respond to clot-promoting conditions, potentially weakening the body’s natural ability to prevent strokes.</p>
<p>Taken together, the findings point to a concerning pattern. Erythritol exposure increased oxidative stress, reduced nitric oxide availability, increased production of a vessel-constricting compound, and blunted the release of a key clot-dissolving enzyme. All of these changes are well-established features of cerebrovascular dysfunction and are known contributors to the development and severity of ischemic stroke.</p>
<p>“While erythritol is widely used in sugar-free products marketed as healthier alternatives, more research is needed to fully understand its impact on vascular health,” said Auburn Berry, a graduate student at the University of Colorado Boulder and first author of the study, in a news release. “In general, people should be conscious of the amount of erythritol they are consuming on a daily basis.”</p>
<p>But the researchers caution that the study was conducted in vitro and cannot directly predict how erythritol will affect brain blood vessels in a living person. The experimental model used isolated human endothelial cells and tested only a single, acute exposure. Real-world effects might depend on the dose, frequency, and duration of erythritol consumption, as well as individual health factors. Still, the study’s findings align with recent clinical and epidemiological research linking erythritol consumption to increased cardiovascular risk.</p>
<p>More research is needed to determine whether repeated or long-term exposure to erythritol produces similar effects in living organisms, including humans. Future studies should also explore whether other non-nutritive sweeteners have similar impacts on endothelial health, and whether certain populations may be more vulnerable.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00276.2025" target="_blank">The Non-Nutritive Sweetner Erythritol Adversely Affects Brain Microvascular Endothelial Cell Function</a>,” was authored by Auburn R. Berry, Samuel T. Ruzzene, Emily I. Ostrander, Kendra N. Wegerson, Nathalie O. Fersiva, Madeleine F. Stone, Whitney B. Valenti, João E. Izaias, Joshua P. Holzer, Jared J. Greiner, Vinicius P. Garcia, and Christopher A. DeSouza.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-identifies-top-performing-natural-extracts-for-improving-cognitive-function/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Study identifies top-performing natural extracts for improving cognitive function</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 9th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1573034" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Frontiers in Pharmacology</a></em> suggests that some natural plant extracts may help improve cognitive function in healthy adults. Using a comprehensive comparison of 27 randomized controlled trials, researchers found that certain herbal supplements were associated with better performance in memory, executive functioning, and cognitive flexibility.</p>
<p>Among the top performers were extracts from <em>Polygala tenuifolia</em>, and a combination of <em>Cistanche tubulosa</em> and <em>Ginkgo biloba</em>. While these findings are promising, the authors emphasize the need for more high-quality research to confirm these benefits.</p>
<p>The study was driven by the growing popularity of natural supplements for brain health and the increasing interest in strategies to delay cognitive decline. As people live longer, maintaining mental sharpness into older age has become a priority. However, despite the widespread use of herbal supplements marketed for “brain boosting,” there is little clarity on which ones—if any—are actually effective.</p>
<p>The authors aimed to address this gap by using a technique called network meta-analysis. This method allows researchers to compare the effectiveness of multiple treatments, even if those treatments were not directly compared in individual studies. This approach helps establish a ranking of different interventions based on available evidence. The team focused specifically on healthy adults, excluding studies on people with dementia or other cognitive disorders, to assess whether natural extracts can offer benefits before major decline occurs.</p>
<p>To gather relevant studies, the researchers searched four major scientific databases—PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science—up to September 2024. They included only randomized controlled trials that tested the effects of natural extracts on cognitive function in adults without diagnosed cognitive impairment. Interventions had to last at least four weeks and include placebo-controlled comparisons. They focused on five cognitive domains: global cognition, memory, attention, executive function, and cognitive flexibility.</p>
<p>After screening more than 5,000 articles, the researchers identified 27 qualifying studies, representing 2,334 participants in total. These trials investigated 19 different natural extract treatments. Examples included <em>Ginkgo biloba</em>, <em>Bacopa monnieri</em>, blueberry-derived polyphenols, rosmarinic acid from rosemary, and less familiar combinations like <em>Cistanche tubulosa</em> plus <em>Ginkgo biloba</em>. Most studies used standard cognitive assessments such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and computerized tests to evaluate outcomes.</p>
<p>Each treatment was ranked using a statistical tool called SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve), which estimates the probability that a given treatment is the best among all those studied. This helped the researchers identify which natural extracts showed the most consistent effects across different cognitive measures.</p>
<p>The most striking result was that the root extract of <em>Polygala tenuifolia</em> (RPTW) had the highest ranking for improving overall cognitive function, with a SUCRA value of 95.9%. This plant has traditionally been used in East Asian medicine for its calming and memory-enhancing properties. Evidence suggests that it improves brain glucose metabolism, inhibits enzymes that break down acetylcholine (a neurotransmitter involved in learning and memory), and reduces inflammation and oxidative stress—factors often implicated in age-related cognitive decline.</p>
<p>The combination of <em>Cistanche tubulosa</em> and <em>Ginkgo biloba</em> (referred to as CG) was especially effective for improving specific cognitive domains. CG ranked first for memory (SUCRA: 89.3%), executive function (SUCRA: 96.9%), and cognitive flexibility (SUCRA: 98.0%). These findings are consistent with earlier work showing that Ginkgo biloba improves antioxidant activity in the brain and that Cistanche may promote the growth of neurons and protect against cellular damage.</p>
<p>Attention was the one area where none of the natural extracts consistently outperformed placebo across the board. However, a specific combination of <em>Polygonum odoratum</em> and <em>Morus alba</em> (known collectively as MP) at a higher dose (1500 mg) ranked highest for attention improvement. Quercetin, a key compound in MP, is known for its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, which may help explain the benefits seen in some studies.</p>
<p>The study also assessed the quality of the included trials. While most had low risk of bias in randomization and performance blinding, some had limitations such as unclear reporting of allocation procedures or dropouts. The researchers conducted sensitivity analyses to ensure these issues did not significantly affect the results. They also used funnel plots to check for publication bias and found no strong evidence suggesting that positive findings were more likely to be published than negative ones.</p>
<p>Although the results are promising, the authors caution against drawing strong conclusions based on the current data alone. Many of the studies included were small, with relatively short follow-up periods. There was also significant variation in how cognitive function was measured across trials, which can make it harder to compare outcomes directly. While natural extracts are generally perceived as safe, the current analysis did not include detailed information on potential side effects, which remains an important consideration.</p>
<p>The authors recommend several directions for future research. Longer-term studies are needed to assess whether the cognitive benefits of these extracts are sustained over time. Researchers should also explore optimal dosing strategies and investigate whether certain groups—such as older adults or people at risk of cognitive decline—benefit more than others. Standardizing assessment tools across studies would also help strengthen the evidence base. In addition, future research should report any adverse effects in detail, as even natural substances can pose risks under some conditions or when taken with other medications.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1573034" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Effects of natural extracts in cognitive function of healthy adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by Zhi-yuan Wang, Ya-lu Deng, Ting-yuan Zhou, Yi Liu, and Yu Cao.</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/honor-culture-appears-to-shape-flu-vaccine-decisions-in-opposite-ways-across-two-countries/" 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;">Honor culture appears to shape flu vaccine decisions in opposite ways across two countries</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 9th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who strongly identify with cultural values emphasizing personal strength and reputation may be less likely to get a flu shot—unless those values center on family protection. A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2025.100219" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology</a></em> finds that people who endorse “honor culture” values are more likely to believe they are invulnerable to illness, which is linked to lower rates of flu vaccination in the United States. However, in Turkey—where honor is more tied to family responsibility—these values were associated with higher vaccine uptake.</p>
<p>The research explores how honor culture, which emphasizes maintaining a strong and resilient public image, may interfere with or support preventive health behaviors depending on how those values are expressed. In the United States, this often takes the form of individual self-reliance. In other cultures, like Turkey’s, honor may be expressed through loyalty to family and collective well-being. The study tested whether people who value honor also tend to believe they are unlikely to get the flu—and how that belief influences their willingness to get vaccinated.</p>
<p>The flu vaccine is widely recommended for nearly all individuals over six months of age. Vaccination helps prevent serious illness and death, particularly in vulnerable populations like the elderly, young children, and people with chronic conditions. It also helps reduce the spread of the virus in the broader population. Despite this, many people choose not to get vaccinated. Past research has linked this to concerns about vaccine safety, distrust of government or health institutions, political ideology, and the belief that they are not at risk of infection.</p>
<p>The idea that healthy individuals don’t need vaccines is often rooted in a sense of personal invincibility. Some people believe they have strong immune systems or live healthy lifestyles that eliminate the need for vaccination. These beliefs are especially prominent in cultures or individuals that prize toughness and self-reliance, traits that can be central to what researchers call “honor norms.”</p>
<p>Cultures of honor emphasize the importance of maintaining one’s social reputation, often by demonstrating strength and resilience while avoiding actions that may signal weakness. This can apply to both men and women, though in different ways—such as masculine expectations of physical toughness or feminine expectations of purity and loyalty. While often discussed in relation to aggression or conflict, honor culture has also been shown to influence health behaviors. For example, past studies found that people who endorse honor norms are less likely to seek help for mental health issues or undergo certain medical screenings, fearing that it might undermine their image.</p>
<p>“We were initially intrigued by flu vaccine uptake and how, because of public perception of it being a low-risk illness, people so easily write it off,” said study author Stephen Foster, an associate professor at Penn State York. “Those who endorse honor concerns have been found to be really quick to avoid certain health behaviors, so we figured that if this was the case for the flu, they may be more likely to dodge the flu shot as well. A surprising amount of folks die from the flu, so it is important we figure out the reasons why people don’t get their flu shot and contribute to community health.”</p>
<p>The new research included three studies. The first involved 965 undergraduate students from a university in the southern United States—a region widely considered to endorse honor values. Participants answered questions about their attitudes toward honor, their beliefs about vulnerability to the flu, and whether they had received a flu shot during the previous flu season.</p>
<p>The results showed that individuals who strongly endorsed honor values were less likely to have received a flu shot. This was partly explained by their belief that they were not at risk of getting the flu. In statistical terms, the researchers found that honor values were significantly linked to a sense of invulnerability, which in turn predicted lower vaccination rates. This pattern held for both men and women. The findings suggest that in a U.S. context, where honor is tied to self-reliance and toughness, individuals may avoid vaccination to preserve an image of strength.</p>
<p>In the second study, researchers tested whether these findings would replicate in another honor-oriented culture with a more collectivistic orientation. The study surveyed 794 participants from Ordu University in Turkey. As in the U.S. sample, honor endorsement was linked to greater feelings of invulnerability to the flu. However, in contrast to the U.S. sample, people with stronger honor values were actually more likely to get vaccinated. This suggests that in Turkey, where honor is more connected to group obligations and protecting family, vaccination may be viewed as a responsible and honorable action.</p>
<p>The third study analyzed data at the state level across the United States. Using publicly available data on flu vaccine uptake and flu-related mortality during the 2021–2022 flu season, researchers compared honor-endorsing regions (typically southern and western states) with non-honor regions (northern and eastern states). They also controlled for other relevant factors, including state-level political conservatism, rurality, racial demographics, and healthcare access.</p>
<p>The analysis showed that honor regions had significantly lower flu vaccination rates than non-honor regions, even after accounting for other influences. There was also a moderately higher rate of flu-related mortality in these honor regions. Although the overall direct link between honor region and flu mortality was not statistically significant, an indirect analysis found that honor culture’s association with higher flu mortality could be explained by lower vaccine uptake.</p>
<p>“The links with regional mortality rates surprised me somewhat, only because you truly aren’t exposed to much flu mortality in news media here in the United States,” Foster told PsyPost. “So, I guess I still had some doubts about whether vaccine hesitancy would really be tied to mortality outcomes in this context, but it appears that is the case.”</p>
<p>Together, these three studies suggest that the influence of honor culture on flu vaccine behavior depends on how honor is expressed within a particular cultural setting. In the United States, where honor emphasizes individual strength and toughness, perceived invulnerability to illness leads people to avoid vaccination. In contrast, in Turkey, where honor involves protecting and supporting the family, those same cultural values may actually encourage people to get vaccinated.</p>
<p>“Those higher in honor concerns, which often center around themes of self-reliance and shows of strength, are more likely to perceive themselves as invulnerable to the flu, but the evidence suggests that this only leads to lower flu vaccine uptake in individualistic cultures like the United States,” Foster explained. “In a more collectivist culture like Turkey, that perceived invulnerability doesn’t translate into lower vaccine uptake, and honor is actually linked with <em>higher</em> uptake. On the average, those concerned with their honorable reputations here in the United States may not be getting their flu shot, whereas that effect could be reversed in Turkey.”</p>
<p>The authors note that the concept of perceived invulnerability could stem from either genuine beliefs or self-presentation. It’s possible that people who endorse honor norms genuinely believe they are unlikely to get sick. But it’s also possible that they simply want to appear strong in the eyes of others. Either way, the behavior—vaccine avoidance—remains the same.</p>
<p>One implication of this research is that public health messaging should be tailored to different cultural contexts. In regions where honor is tied to self-reliance, promoting vaccination as a way to protect others may be more effective than emphasizing personal health. Messaging strategies that appeal to loyalty, responsibility, and protecting family members could encourage vaccine uptake even among those who see themselves as strong or invulnerable.</p>
<p>But the study, like all research, includes some caveats.</p>
<p>“This research is cross-sectional, so we can’t talk about causal effects here, although cultural values are often argued to fall at the beginning of the causal chain in these cases,” Foster noted. “We should also remember that perceived invulnerability is just what people are endorsing on a questionnaire — it is hard to know how they actually feel (as opposed to what they are choosing to report) about the flu unless some really comprehensive qualitative work was to be done.”</p>
<p>“Ultimately we want to try and use this information to target honor-related beliefs in intervention programs. There are tons of facets of honor that have unique impacts on health outcomes, so the first step is identifying which honor facet is being threatened by a health behavior then using that information to guide intervention strategies.”</p>
<p>“We need more larger-scale cross-cultural work like this,” Foster added. “A few terrific labs in Europe and Asia have done a great job looking across nations, like Mediterranean nations for example, and we should definitely be looking to do similar things when we test these effects in the United States as well. Otherwise we run the risk of honor research in the U.S. being quite isolated, which prevents us from seeing the full picture of how these concerns actually impact folks around the world, and may give us a false image of what honor really is.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2025.100219" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Differential effects of honor ideology on flu vaccine uptake in the United States and Turkey</a>,” was authored by Stephen Foster and Pelin Gül.</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>