<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/reduced-memory-specificity-linked-to-earlier-onset-of-psychiatric-disorders-in-youth/" 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;">Reduced memory specificity linked to earlier onset of psychiatric disorders in youth</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 11th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new meta-analysis published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000474"><em>Psychological Bulletin</em></a> found that difficulties recalling specific personal memories predicted earlier onset of mental illness in youth, especially depression.</p>
<p>Mental illness often begins during adolescence, but efforts to prevent it have had limited success. Researchers have sought modifiable cognitive markers that could help predict which young people are at greatest risk. One such marker is autobiographical memory specificity: the ability to recall specific, detailed events from one’s past. Reduced specificity has been observed in many psychiatric disorders, but it is unclear whether it predicts illness before symptoms appear.</p>
<p>Uyen Doan and colleagues conducted a preregistered individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) that pooled data from 14 community-based longitudinal studies involving 9,165 children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years. These studies were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: all had measured memory specificity using the Autobiographical Memory Test (AMT), assessed participants’ mental health at least one month after baseline, and recruited participants from non-clinical populations.</p>
<p>Memory specificity was operationalized as the proportion of specific memories (single-incident events lasting fewer than 24 hours) recalled in response to cue words. The AMT was administered in either written or verbal format across studies, with cue words ranging in emotional valence (positive, negative, and sometimes neutral). Each study coded responses into memory types, with only truly specific memories included in the final predictor variable.</p>
<p>Mental health outcomes were indexed in two ways: continuous measures of symptom severity for depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress (using a range of validated scales, harmonized through z-score standardization) and binary clinical diagnoses determined through structured or semi-structured interviews. Follow-up periods ranged widely, from 2 months to over 8 years post-baseline.</p>
<p>Five studies provided diagnostic data, while 13 of 14 offered symptom severity data. Additional variables, including age, sex assigned at birth, prior trauma, family history of depression, and baseline symptom severity, were collected to assess moderation effects. Participants’ histories of trauma and family mental illness were coded from caregiver or self-reports. The study also assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence for each outcome.</p>
<p>Across the pooled sample, reduced memory specificity did not predict increased symptom severity of depression or posttraumatic stress over time. In fact, the strength of associations between memory specificity and these symptom outcomes was small and inconsistent across studies. Surprisingly, greater memory specificity (i.e., better recall of specific events) was linked to slightly higher anxiety symptoms, although the certainty of this result was low, and the effect was not consistently observed. The relationship between memory specificity and symptom change appeared to vary significantly by individual and study characteristics, but no clear patterns emerged across potential moderators such as age, sex, or trauma history.</p>
<p>In contrast, when considering the onset of psychiatric disorders, as defined by clinical diagnosis, the results were more robust. Reduced autobiographical memory specificity significantly predicted the first-time onset of any psychiatric disorder, even after accounting for baseline symptoms. This effect was especially strong for depressive disorders: children and adolescents who recalled fewer specific memories were at substantially higher risk of developing depression during the follow-up period. The association with anxiety, eating, and trauma-related disorders was less consistent or limited by fewer data points.</p>
<p>These findings suggest that while memory specificity may not reliably track symptom levels in the general population, it holds potential as a predictive marker for the emergence of clinically significant disorders.</p>
<p>The authors noted that some findings, especially those related to symptom severity and anxiety, were based on low-quality evidence and subject to considerable heterogeneity across studies.</p>
<p>The research, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000474">The Predictive Power of Autobiographical Memory in Shaping the Mental Health of Young People</a>,” was authored by Uyen Doan, Dou Hong, Leo Mares, Molly Butler, Adrian Dahl Askelund, Charlotte Gutenbrunner, Rachel Hiller, Reginald D. V. Nixon, Vanessa Puetz, Paul E. Jose, Allison Metts, Lauren B. Alloy, Brandon E. Gibb, Alison E. Hipwell, Karen Salmon, Victoria Powell, Naomi Warne, Frances Rice, and Caitlin Hitchcock.</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/democrats-dislike-republicans-more-than-republicans-dislike-democrats-studies-find/" 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;">Democrats dislike Republicans more than Republicans dislike Democrats, studies find</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 11th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A series of new studies published in the <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-12960-001?doi=1" target="_blank">Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</a></em> suggests that Democrats in the United States tend to express more dislike toward Republicans than Republicans do toward Democrats. Across five studies and two additional experiments, researchers found this partisan asymmetry was linked to Democrats’ belief that Republicans pose harm to disadvantaged groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities. This perception appears to drive stronger feelings of moral condemnation and social rejection, especially when individuals encounter someone from the opposing party.</p>
<p>Political polarization in the United States has been growing for decades, not just in terms of disagreement over policies but in the form of personal animosity between ordinary Democrats and Republicans. This phenomenon—often referred to as “affective polarization” or “partisan dislike”—has become a defining feature of the American political landscape. People increasingly avoid socializing, marrying, or even living near those who support the opposite party.</p>
<p>Traditionally, political psychologists have argued that conservatives are more likely to show prejudice toward outgroups due to traits like higher threat sensitivity or loyalty to their in-group. However, a more recent theory—the worldview conflict perspective—suggests that both liberals and conservatives are equally hostile toward people who hold conflicting values. In this framework, dislike stems from ideological disagreement rather than party labels alone.</p>
<p>The new research aimed to go beyond these existing theories. The researchers proposed that moralized values might play an asymmetric role in driving partisan dislike. Specifically, the researchers hypothesized that Democrats are more likely to moralize concerns about harm to disadvantaged groups, such as racial minorities or undocumented immigrants. Because Democrats believe Republicans often oppose policies aimed at helping these groups, this moral framing could fuel stronger negative reactions toward Republicans.</p>
<p>“I have a politically diverse social network, and it has been sad seeing friendships break over politics in the past decade. I personally believe that there is much more to someone than who they voted for. This inspired me to better understand why people feel intense dislike and sometimes, outright hatred, against others over their politics,” said lead author <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZTmmUUUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra" target="_blank">Krishnan Nair</a>, a postdoctoral research associate at the Illinois Strategic Organizations Initiative at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a total of five main studies (along with two supplemental ones) between 2022 and 2023 to investigate partisan dislike and its underlying causes. These studies used a mix of field experiments on social media and controlled survey-based experiments to capture both real-world behaviors and psychological mechanisms. </p>
<p>The first study took place on Twitter and involved over 4,000 users. The researchers created multiple research accounts that were designed to appear as real users. These accounts had unique names, profile pictures, and interests. Half of the accounts were designed to appear liberal (Democratic-leaning), and half conservative (Republican-leaning). These research accounts followed Twitter users who had been identified as Democrats or Republicans based on their online behavior.</p>
<p>The researchers then observed how users responded to being followed by a counter-partisan account—that is, a liberal user being followed by a conservative account or vice versa. They specifically measured whether the user followed the account back (a signal of positive engagement) or blocked the account (a signal of rejection).</p>
<p>The results showed that Democrats were more likely to block a counter-partisan follower than Republicans were. There was no significant partisan difference in following the account back. This behavioral pattern indicated that Democrats expressed stronger aversion to being socially connected with people from the opposing party, even in a low-stakes, anonymous context.</p>
<p>In their second study, Nair and his colleagues recruited participants online (284 Democrats and 288 Republicans) and randomly assigned them to consider a hypothetical neighbor who either shared or did not share their political affiliation. Participants were then asked how much they would like this neighbor and how likely they thought the neighbor would be to harm disadvantaged people, such as racial or ethnic minorities.</p>
<p>Democrats evaluated Republican neighbors more negatively than Republicans evaluated Democratic neighbors. Crucially, Democrats were also more likely to believe that their counter-partisan neighbor would cause harm to disadvantaged people. This belief partially explained their negative evaluations, suggesting that Democrats’ dislike was not based solely on political difference but was tied to a perceived moral threat.</p>
<p>The third study involved 400 employed adults—split evenly between self-identified Democrats and Republicans—who were asked to evaluate a hypothetical job applicant. The applicant’s resume included subtle political cues, such as their involvement with either the Young Democrats or Young Republicans and their campaign work for either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. These cues helped establish whether the applicant was a copartisan or counter-partisan relative to the participant.</p>
<p>Participants rated the applicant’s suitability for a workplace position and answered questions about how likely they believed the applicant would be to harm various groups: disadvantaged coworkers, people like themselves, and the organization as a whole. They also reported how morally wrong they believed it was to hold certain political views typically associated with the opposing party—such as minimizing racism or opposing immigration.</p>
<p>Democrats rated Republican applicants as less suitable for the job than Republicans rated Democratic applicants. This asymmetry in hiring evaluation was driven in part by Democrats’ belief that Republican applicants were more likely to harm disadvantaged employees. These beliefs did not extend to concerns about personal harm or organizational harm, highlighting the specificity of the perceived moral threat.</p>
<p>Moreover, Democrats expressed stronger moral condemnation of opposing views on racism and immigration, but not on transgender rights or general party affiliation. This pattern suggests that certain values—particularly those involving race and immigration—are more heavily moralized among Democrats, which helps explain why these issues uniquely fuel partisan dislike.</p>
<p>In their fourth study, the researchers tested the causal relationship between value alignment and partisan dislike by using a more controlled experiment. The researchers presented 797 participants with a scenario involving a branch manager at a bank who allocated funds to different task forces, including one focused on diversity and inclusion. Participants were told that the manager was a counter-partisan—Democrats saw a Republican manager, and Republicans saw a Democratic one.</p>
<p>The researchers manipulated whether the manager allocated a high or low percentage of funds to the diversity task force. Participants then rated how much they liked the manager and how likely they believed the manager was to harm disadvantaged people.</p>
<p>The results showed that when the counter-partisan manager supported diversity efforts, Democrats liked them just as much as Republicans did. But when the manager did not support those initiatives, Democrats rated them less favorably than Republicans did. In other words, the asymmetry in partisan dislike disappeared when the counter-partisan aligned with the Democrat’s values regarding support for disadvantaged people. This study provided causal evidence that perceived harm to disadvantaged groups plays a key role in Democrats’ stronger partisan dislike.</p>
<p>To replicate the findings in a naturalistic setting, Nair and his colleagues conducted a second Twitter experiment involving 6,000 users. Similar to Study 1, research accounts followed users from the opposing political party. This time, however, the accounts also signaled either support or opposition to disadvantaged groups. For example, some profiles included slogans like “Black Lives Matter” and statements recognizing racism as a major problem, while others explicitly rejected these views.</p>
<p>Democrat users were more likely to block counter-partisan accounts that did not support disadvantaged groups. When the account expressed support for these groups, the rate of blocking dropped noticeably among Democrats, and the difference between Democrats and Republicans narrowed.</p>
<p>This pattern did not appear when looking at follow-back behavior, suggesting that blocking—an active form of social rejection—was a more telling measure of partisan dislike. The findings from this field experiment mirrored those in the survey experiment, reinforcing the idea that perceived moral harm to disadvantaged groups drives asymmetric dislike.</p>
<p>“Various studies have found that Democrats and Republicans in the general population display hostility and animosity against each other. This can cause political segregation, leading to the formation of “red” versus “blue” neighborhoods, businesses, and social media networks,” Nair told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“We find that in the present day, Democrats display greater hostility against Republicans than vice versa across a number of domains, including social media behavior, neighbor relations, and hiring decisions. This tendency is fueled by the belief among Democrats that Republicans pose harm to disadvantaged people, particularly ethnic and racial minorities.”</p>
<p>“At the same time, other research conducted by myself and others suggest that Democrats and Republicans <a href="https://www.psypost.org/racial-bias-in-social-media-connections-crosses-political-lines-study-finds/" target="_blank">don’t actually differ</a> <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00515.x" target="_blank">all that much</a> <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2020-81351-001" target="_blank">in how much they discriminate</a> against racial minorities. Since similar hypocrisy can also be found on the political right, this suggests, at least to me, that both Democrats and Republicans should look in the mirror before casting negative judgments at fellow citizens over their politics. After all, the average citizen has relatively little influence over what happens at the top.”</p>
<p>Two additional studies, reported in the supplemental materials, further supported the main findings. These studies used similar survey designs to test perceptions of harm and moral condemnation. They confirmed that Democrats were more likely to associate Republicans with harm to disadvantaged people and to morally condemn opposing views on race and immigration. These beliefs were again linked to stronger negative reactions toward counter-partisan individuals.</p>
<p>“The consistency of the pattern surprised me,” Nair said. “Not just greater political hostility among Democrats in the present day, but also how important of a factor that concern for harm to disadvantaged people has become in how Democrats view Republicans.”</p>
<p>While the findings offer a compelling explanation for asymmetric partisan dislike, the study has some limitations. First, all data were collected in the United States during a specific period, shaped by recent political events such as the presidency of Donald Trump and the protests following the death of George Floyd. These events may have heightened moral concern about racial injustice among Democrats, making the results time-sensitive.</p>
<p>“Our findings shouldn’t be taken to mean that Democrats are inherently more prejudicial against Republicans than Republicans are against Democrats,” Nair explained. “Our findings are from a snapshot in time, and in the future, we may have periods where Republicans display greater hostility against Democrats or the two sides are fairly symmetric in their hostility.”</p>
<p>The researchers also focused primarily on interpersonal attitudes and behaviors, such as hiring decisions and online interactions. It’s possible that other forms of political hostility may show different patterns. Future studies could explore whether similar moralization patterns exist in non-partisan contexts or among other social groups beyond political parties.</p>
<p>Looking forward, Nair wants “to examine potential interventions that can reduce political hostility. I also want to do more work examining how the actual and perceived social and political views of applicants influence who businesses are likely to hire.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000495" target="_blank">Asymmetric Polarization: The Perception That Republicans Pose Harm to Disadvantaged Groups Drives Democrats’ Greater Dislike of Republicans in Social Contexts</a>,” was authored by Krishnan Nair, Rajen A. Anderson, Trevor Spelman, Mohsen Mosleh, and Maryam Kouchaki.</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/psilocybin-therapy-shows-similar-benefits-for-patients-with-and-without-recent-antidepressant-use/" 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;">Psilocybin therapy shows similar benefits for patients with and without recent antidepressant use</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 11th 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 <em><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07067437251328316" target="_blank">The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry</a></em> suggests that individuals with treatment-resistant depression may benefit equally from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy whether or not they recently discontinued antidepressant medications. The study found no significant differences in depression, anxiety, or suicidality outcomes between participants who tapered off antidepressants before treatment and those who were not on antidepressants at all.</p>
<p>Psilocybin, a compound found in certain “magic” mushrooms, is increasingly being studied as a treatment for depression when combined with psychological support. The researchers behind this study sought to clarify whether stopping antidepressants before starting psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy influences how well the treatment works. This question matters because many psilocybin trials require participants to taper off their medications, which can cause withdrawal symptoms and may even worsen depression. But it’s still not clear whether such tapering is necessary.</p>
<p>“The exact influence of tapering off antidepressant medications on the efficacy of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy is currently unclear. Previous research has shown that participants unmedicated in terms of antidepressants before psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy had a greater therapeutic response than those who had to taper off before treatment,” said lead author Noah Chisamore, a PhD student at the University of Toronto.</p>
<p>“However, tapering off antidepressants can be challenging, as it can lead to side effects and worsening depression symptoms—especially in a treatment-resistant depression population we work with. It is important to examine and weigh the adverse effects of tapering medications against a potentially increased therapeutic effect of psilocybin.”</p>
<p><a href="https://psychiatry.utoronto.ca/faculty/joshua-rosenblat" target="_blank">Joshua D. Rosenblat</a>, an associate professor at the University of Toronto and senior author of the study, added: “We are working on optimizing protocols for psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy and want to know about any predictors of response (or non-response). Medication tapering before trials is one factor we were quite interested in to see if this had a negative impact on outcomes.”</p>
<p>The research team used data from a clinical trial conducted at Braxia Health, a Canadian clinic specializing in mood disorders. The trial was originally designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy in adults with treatment-resistant depression. For this specific analysis, the researchers looked only at participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder who received at least one 25-milligram dose of psilocybin and completed follow-up assessments within two months. They excluded individuals with bipolar disorder to avoid confounding effects from mood-stabilizing medications.</p>
<p>The participants were divided into two groups: one group had not been taking antidepressants at the time they joined the study, while the other group had recently discontinued their antidepressants under medical supervision. A total of 26 participants were included—9 in the unmedicated group and 17 in the group that tapered off medications before receiving psilocybin.</p>
<p>Each participant received a single oral dose of 25 milligrams of synthetic psilocybin, provided by the Usona Institute. The dosing session was supported by a team of licensed therapists trained in a specific psychedelic therapy approach. Before the dosing day, participants had one preparatory therapy session to establish rapport and discuss expectations. Following the dosing session, they completed two integration therapy sessions to reflect on their experiences and apply insights to their daily lives.</p>
<p>Participants were assessed for depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts using several well-known clinical and self-report scales. Depression was measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and the Quick Inventory for Depression Symptomatology. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale. Suicidal thoughts were measured using a specific question from the depression rating scale. To capture the intensity of the psychedelic experience itself, the study used the Mystical Experience Questionnaire, a widely used tool in psychedelic research.</p>
<p>Both groups showed substantial improvements in depression and anxiety scores over the two-month follow-up period. Statistical analyses revealed that the improvements were not significantly different between the groups. For example, average depression scores dropped by about 10 to 12 points on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale in both groups, moving participants from moderate to mild levels of depression. Self-reported depression and anxiety also declined over time, and again, these changes were similar regardless of whether someone had recently taken antidepressants.</p>
<p>“The results in general surprised us a bit, as we were expecting that the unmedicated participants would have a greater antidepressant response,” Chisamore told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“I thought the unmedicated group of patients would have done better,” Rosenblat said.</p>
<p>Participants in both groups reported comparable psychedelic experiences, as measured by the Mystical Experience Questionnaire. While the unmedicated group had slightly higher average scores, the difference was not statistically significant. This suggests that the intensity of the psilocybin experience was not diminished by recent antidepressant use.</p>
<p>Importantly, no serious adverse effects were reported during the study. Mild to moderate side effects—such as nausea, anxiety during the session, or headaches—were transient. There were no significant increases in suicidal thinking in either group, and a slight trend toward decreased suicidality was observed, though this was not statistically meaningful.</p>
<p>These findings challenge earlier research suggesting that recent antidepressant use might blunt the therapeutic or psychedelic effects of psilocybin. One earlier analysis, conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial comparing psilocybin to the antidepressant escitalopram, found that individuals who had tapered off serotonergic medications showed weaker antidepressant responses to psilocybin compared to those who were unmedicated. However, that study focused exclusively on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and was conducted in a different clinical context with different inclusion criteria.</p>
<p>In contrast, the present study included participants who had taken a wider range of antidepressants and allowed for individualized tapering under supervision. That might explain why the discontinued group responded just as well as the unmedicated group. The results also suggest that downregulation of serotonin receptors from previous antidepressant use may not be the only factor influencing how psilocybin affects the brain and mood.</p>
<p>“My takeaway is that while psilocybin and other psychedelics are a very promising and exciting treatment for depression, we are still working to optimize and improve psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy. There are a lot of expectations surrounding psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy research, and so I think it is important to recognize just how many factors are at play for its antidepressant effects.”</p>
<p>As with all research, the study comes with limitations. The sample size was small, especially in the unmedicated group, which limits the statistical power to detect subtle differences. Because the analysis was based on a post-hoc comparison within a trial that was not originally designed to answer this specific question, the findings should be viewed as exploratory.</p>
<p>“The study itself was a waitlist-controlled trial, so it lacked a placebo control group,” Chisamore noted.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study looked only at outcomes up to two months after the first psilocybin session. While this was done to control for differences in how many sessions participants received, it limits our understanding of the long-term benefits or potential risks of treatment.</p>
<p>Future studies with larger, more balanced samples are needed to confirm whether antidepressant tapering is necessary for psilocybin-assisted therapy to be effective. Trials specifically designed to compare different tapering schedules or include participants on stable doses of antidepressants could provide more definitive guidance for clinical practice. Additionally, more research is needed to understand whether certain types of antidepressants or durations of use influence psilocybin’s effectiveness.</p>
<p>“I think it would be very interesting to directly compare participants who are medicated and unmedicated with antidepressants in a small pilot study,” Chisamore said. “For me personally, I will continue to look at medication tapering in psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for depression using data from other studies for my PhD thesis.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437251328316" target="_blank">Comparing Antidepressant Effects of Psilocybin-Assisted Psychotherapy in Individuals That Were Unmedicated at Initial Screening Versus Individuals Discontinuing Medications for Study Participation</a>,” was authored by Noah Chisamore, Erica S. Kaczmarek, Zoe Doyle, Danica E. Johnson, Geneva Weiglein, Shakila Meshkat, Ryan M. Brudner, Marc G. Blainey, Jeremy Riva-Cambrin, Roger S. McIntyre, and Joshua D. Rosenblat.</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/perceived-social-breakdown-fuels-desire-for-authoritarian-leaders-new-psychology-study-shows/" 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;">Perceived social breakdown fuels desire for authoritarian leaders, new psychology study shows</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, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>When people perceive society as falling apart, they may become more receptive to authoritarian leaders—those who promise order, control, and certainty. That’s the conclusion of a new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000483" target="_blank">Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</a></em>, which provides the first causal evidence linking the perception of societal breakdown, or “anomie,” to support for authoritarianism. According to the researchers, this link is explained by a sequential process: anomie leads people to feel politically powerless, which then creates political uncertainty—ultimately increasing the appeal of authoritarian rule.</p>
<p>The study aimed to address several unresolved questions in the existing literature on political psychology. While many prior studies had shown that people who perceive society as chaotic are more likely to support authoritarianism, the evidence had been correlational. It was unclear whether anomie truly caused increased support for authoritarianism or whether other psychological factors were responsible. It was also unclear how anomie exerted its influence—whether through feelings of powerlessness, uncertainty, or both.</p>
<p>Anomie is the perception that a society’s norms, values, and leadership are breaking down. People experiencing anomie often feel that social order is disintegrating, moral standards are unclear, and institutions are ineffective or illegitimate. This sense of societal instability can create feelings of alienation and disconnection.</p>
<p>To investigate these questions, the researchers began by reviewing prior theories and debates. Sociologists and psychologists have long suggested that anomie, defined as the perception that society’s moral fabric and leadership structures are disintegrating, can lead individuals to seek strong, controlling authorities. Some have argued that this happens because people feel politically ineffective; others have emphasized the role of confusion and unpredictability in politics. The new study sought to test whether both of these processes work together—and whether one leads to the other.</p>
<p>The researchers proposed a sequential model. According to their hypothesis, anomie leads to a perceived lack of political control. This repeated feeling of powerlessness then causes political uncertainty—a sense that politics no longer makes sense or is too chaotic to understand. People then turn to authoritarianism, which promises clarity, order, and strong leadership. To test this model, the researchers conducted a multi-part investigation combining large-scale survey data and controlled experiments.</p>
<p>In their first study, the researchers analyzed data from the 2006 German General Social Survey, which included responses from a representative sample of 1,504 adults. Participants answered questions measuring perceived anomie, feelings of political control, political uncertainty, and support for authoritarianism. The study included demographic controls for age, gender, education, income, and political orientation.</p>
<p>The survey data supported the researchers’ proposed model. People who perceived higher levels of anomie also reported lower levels of political control and greater political uncertainty. In turn, these feelings were associated with stronger support for authoritarian values. A statistical analysis confirmed a small but significant indirect pathway from anomie to authoritarianism that passed through political powerlessness and uncertainty. Notably, there was no significant direct link between anomie and authoritarianism once the mediators were taken into account—suggesting that these psychological states explain the relationship.</p>
<p>However, as the survey data were correlational, the researchers could not make definitive claims about causality. To address this, they conducted three preregistered experiments with a combined sample of 846 participants from the United States. Each experiment focused on testing a specific link in the proposed causal chain.</p>
<p>In the first experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read one of three vignettes describing a possible future United States. In the high-anomie condition, the text described a society with eroding moral values, ineffective leaders, and declining social cohesion. In the low-anomie condition, society was portrayed as cooperative, cohesive, and governed by competent leaders. A third group read a neutral vignette about architecture. Afterward, participants completed measures of political control and support for authoritarianism.</p>
<p>Participants exposed to the high-anomie condition reported significantly greater feelings of political powerlessness and stronger support for authoritarianism. These results provided causal evidence that perceptions of societal breakdown can trigger both outcomes.</p>
<p>The second experiment tested the next step in the sequence. Here, participants were randomly assigned to read vignettes designed to evoke either a high or low sense of political control. Those in the high-control condition imagined a society in which ordinary people had influence over government actions; those in the low-control condition were asked to imagine having no influence. Results showed that those in the low-control group experienced significantly more political uncertainty, lending support to the idea that lack of control leads to a confused, unstable view of the political landscape.</p>
<p>The third experiment focused on the final link—testing whether political uncertainty would increase support for authoritarianism. Participants read vignettes designed to induce high or low political uncertainty, then completed the authoritarianism scale. As expected, participants in the high-uncertainty group were more likely to express support for a “strong leader” who might bypass democratic principles.</p>
<p>Together, these three experiments supported the proposed sequential model: anomie causes people to feel politically powerless, which increases uncertainty, which then heightens the appeal of authoritarianism. Alternative models, including parallel mediation and reverse causality, were tested but did not fit the data as well.</p>
<p>The study has some limitations. All the data came from Western countries, raising questions about whether the findings apply globally. In addition, while the experiments show that one pathway from anomie to authoritarianism runs through political control and uncertainty, other routes may exist. People’s backgrounds, values, and exposure to political messaging likely play roles as well.</p>
<p>Future research could explore whether economic stress, media exposure, or group-based identity threats initiate similar pathways. Researchers might also investigate how democratic resilience can be cultivated in societies experiencing high levels of anomie. The findings also invite questions about how political leaders themselves might use uncertainty or perceived breakdowns to foster support.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000483" target="_blank">When Lack of Control Leads to Uncertainty: Explaining the Effect of Anomie on Support for Authoritarianism</a>,” was authored by Jasper Neerdaels, Ali Teymoori, Christian Tröster, and Niels Van Quaquebeke.</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/what-drives-vulnerable-narcissism-clues-may-lie-in-childhood-attachment/" 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;">What drives vulnerable narcissism? Clues may lie in childhood attachment</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, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Narcissism has become the armchair diagnosis of the decade. Social media is awash with people flinging the label around. Everyone’s ex seems to be a narcissist, some of our parents are under suspicion, and that office villain? They definitely tick the box, too.</p>
<p>The accuracy of these rampant diagnoses warrants scepticism. But the reality is narcissists do exist. At its extreme, narcissism is a rare mental health diagnosis, known as <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556001/">narcissistic personality disorder</a>. But narcissism also describes a cluster of personality traits, which we all display to varying degrees.</p>
<p>For those of us who have been in close quarters with someone high in narcissistic traits, we rarely walk away unscathed. And we may be left with lingering questions. For example, what made them this way?</p>
<p>In a recent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113255">meta-analysis</a>, my colleagues and I pulled together studies examining the link between narcissism and adult attachment styles. Our findings offer an important clue – especially when it comes to the potential roots of vulnerable narcissism.</p>
<h2>Types of narcissism</h2>
<p>There are two main types of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x">narcissism</a>.</p>
<p>Grandiose narcissism is what typically comes to mind. It is characterised by an overtly grandiose, aggressive and dominant interpersonal style. In contrast, vulnerable narcissism is marked by introversion, hypersensitivity to criticism, and a defensive, insecure grandiosity that masks fragile self-esteem.</p>
<p>Antagonistic traits such as entitlement, manipulation, and a lack of empathy lie at the core of both narcissism types. This helps to explain the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000298">interpersonal difficulties</a> linked to each.</p>
<p>Vulnerable narcissism, in particular, has been linked to a range of harmful behaviours in romantic relationships. Individuals high in this trait are more likely to engage in <a href="https://www.respectvictoria.vic.gov.au/news/red-flags-what-love-bombing-and-why-it-bad">love bombing</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.101985">ghosting and breadcrumbing</a>.</p>
<p>They also tend to report <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1707272">lower relationship satisfaction</a>, hold more permissive attitudes towards <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001126">infidelity</a> and perpetrate <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231196115">intimate partner violence</a> at higher rates.</p>
<h2>Secure versus insecure attachment</h2>
<p>Researchers have turned to <a href="https://theconversation.com/attachment-theory-what-people-get-wrong-about-pop-psychologys-latest-trend-for-explaining-relationships-195034">attachment styles</a> to help explain how individuals high in narcissism behave in romantic relationships.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118938119.ch2">Attachment theory</a> proposes that early experiences with primary caregivers shape our beliefs about ourselves and others. These beliefs are thought to persist into adulthood and influence how we experience and navigate adult relationships.</p>
<p>If we felt safe, loved and supported as children, we are more likely to have a positive view of our self and others. This is the hallmark of secure attachment, which lays the foundation for healthy, stable relationships in adulthood.</p>
<p>But when early relationships are marked by neglect, inconsistency or abuse, they can give rise to insecure attachment styles. <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-33075-001">Adult attachment models</a> generally identify three types of insecure attachment.</p>
<p>Preoccupied attachment develops from a negative view of the self and a positive view of others. Individuals with this style often feel unworthy of love and seek constant reassurance in relationships, fearing rejection and abandonment.</p>
<p>Dismissive attachment is rooted in a positive view of the self but a negative view of others. These individuals tend to prioritise independence over intimacy. As a result, they often struggle to form deep connections.</p>
<p>Fearful attachment involves negative views of both the self and others. Those with this style typically crave connection while at the same time fearing it, leading to push-pull dynamics in relationships.</p>
<h2>An interesting pattern</h2>
<p>In our meta-analysis, we combined the results of 33 previous studies comprising more than 10,000 participants to examine how narcissism relates to each of the four adult attachment styles. Overall, narcissism was linked to each of the three insecure attachment styles.</p>
<p>But when we looked at the two types of narcissism separately, an interesting pattern emerged. Vulnerable narcissism was consistently linked to insecure attachment styles – with associations of moderate strength for preoccupied and fearful attachment styles.</p>
<p>In contrast, grandiose narcissism showed no such link.</p>
<p>Does this mean insecure attachment causes vulnerable narcissism? Not necessarily. The studies we reviewed were “correlational”, which means they looked at connections, not causes. So we can’t say attachment styles cause vulnerable narcissism. To answer that, we’d need longitudinal research tracking people over time.</p>
<p>Still, our findings suggest that insecure attachment – particularly preoccupied and fearful attachment styles – may be an important risk factor in the development of vulnerable narcissism.</p>
<p>Of course, not everyone with an insecure attachment style has high levels of vulnerable narcissism. However, for some, vulnerable narcissism may emerge as a defensive coping strategy that arises when early attachments were marked by inconsistency, neglect or abuse.</p>
<h2>Healing childhood wounds</h2>
<p>Attachment styles tend to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_03">fairly consistent throughout a person’s life</a>, however change is possible. Attachment-focused therapies, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/im-a-failure-how-schema-therapy-tackles-the-deep-rooted-beliefs-that-affect-our-mental-health-250789">schema therapy</a> and <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/therapy-types/emotionally-focused-therapy">emotionally focussed therapy</a>, can help individuals heal attachment wounds and build more secure relationship patterns. These approaches may be especially helpful for those high in vulnerable narcissism.</p>
<p>At the same time, it is important that families have access to free and timely mental health care, so that children are supported to process and heal from trauma before it shapes their adult relationships, and the way they parent the next generation.</p>
<p>But prevention is better than cure.</p>
<p>Supporting parents and caregivers to build secure attachments with the their children and equipping them with the tools to parent effectively is essential. This is especially urgent given disturbingly <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.51873">high rates of child maltreatment in Australia</a>, including emotional abuse, physical abuse and neglect – all of which have been <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.51873">linked to the development of vulnerable narcissism</a>.</p>
<p>We don’t need to look too far to see the cost of turning a blind eye.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/257468/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/what-makes-somebody-a-narcissist-mounting-evidence-suggests-links-to-insecure-attachment-styles-257468">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/peoples-dissatisfaction-with-their-height-predicts-jealousy-and-competitiveness-new-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;">People’s dissatisfaction with their height predicts jealousy and competitiveness, new 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 10th 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 <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-90581-001" target="_blank">Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences</a></em> sheds light on the relationship between height dissatisfaction and intrasexual competition—rivalry among individuals of the same sex for status, resources, or romantic partners. The study suggests that psychological perceptions of one’s own height—not just actual stature—can play an important role in shaping social behaviors such as envy, jealousy, and competitiveness, especially among men. </p>
<p>Taller individuals are often perceived as more dominant, attractive, and competent, and tend to receive more positive treatment in romantic and professional contexts. While these advantages are typically greater for men, the desire to meet cultural height ideals affects both sexes. Previous research has shown that shorter men are more likely to exaggerate their height, express greater jealousy, and feel less dominant in male-to-male interactions. But the psychological impact of being dissatisfied with one’s height has not been thoroughly explored until now.</p>
<p>To address this gap, researchers examined both the physical and psychological dimensions of height and how they relate to different forms of intrasexual competition. They were particularly interested in how height dissatisfaction might motivate individuals to compete more aggressively or feel more threatened by same-sex peers.</p>
<p>The study recruited 302 heterosexual adults in the United States through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 72 years, with an average age of about 37. Around 63% of the participants were men, and roughly three-quarters identified as White. Participants completed a series of questionnaires measuring their actual height, ideal height, and level of height dissatisfaction. They also answered questions assessing their tendencies toward intrasexual envy, jealousy, and general competitiveness with same-sex individuals.</p>
<p>To measure intrasexual competition, the researchers used a 12-item scale with three components: envy (such as resenting attractive peers), jealousy (such as disliking ambitious peers), and competitiveness (such as a desire to outperform others of the same sex). Participants rated how strongly they agreed with each statement on a 7-point scale. Height dissatisfaction was assessed using two questions: one asking whether they wished to be taller and another asking whether they were satisfied with their height.</p>
<p>As expected, both men and women tended to wish they were taller than they actually were. On average, men reported higher levels of competitiveness than envy or jealousy, while women reported more envy than the other two traits. Between sexes, women were more envious than men, but men were generally taller and desired even greater height than women did.</p>
<p>When examining correlations, the researchers found that people who were shorter or less satisfied with their height tended to be more envious, more jealous, and more competitive toward same-sex peers. These effects were especially strong for men. Shorter men were more likely to report heightened levels of intrasexual envy, jealousy, and competition. For women, physical height was not as strongly related to competitiveness, but the psychological desire to be taller was.</p>
<p>In other words, for men, being short was associated with feeling disadvantaged in social rivalries. For women, it was not their actual height but their dissatisfaction with it that predicted their competitive attitudes. Across both sexes, the wish to be taller was one of the strongest predictors of feeling envious, jealous, or competitive toward others of the same gender.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that certain combinations of traits predicted heightened competitiveness. For example, people who were both short and unhappy with their height, or those who had a significant gap between their current and ideal height, were more likely to report feeling jealous or competitive. This suggests that both physical stature and how people feel about their stature interact to influence social behaviors.</p>
<p>Interestingly, one of the items used to measure height dissatisfaction—“I am satisfied with my height”—did not strongly predict competitiveness. The desire to be taller, however, consistently did. This implies that the motivation to increase one’s stature, even if impossible in reality, may be a more influential factor in social behavior than simply accepting one’s current height.</p>
<p>There are a few caveats to consider. The sample was mostly drawn from a Western, educated, and internet-savvy population, which may not reflect global attitudes toward height. The research was also cross-sectional, meaning it could not determine cause and effect. It’s unclear whether dissatisfaction with height leads to more competitiveness or whether highly competitive individuals become more concerned with their height. </p>
<p>The authors suggest that future research could benefit from more balanced and nuanced measures of height dissatisfaction. Including items that explore both ends of the height spectrum could offer a more complete picture, especially in populations where being too tall is also considered undesirable. Further research might also examine whether cultural norms influence height-related dissatisfaction and whether people engage in compensatory behaviors—such as building muscle, wearing heels, or seeking surgical interventions—because of it.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ebs0000376" target="_blank">Intrasexual Envy, Jealousy, and Competitiveness Are Associated With Height and Height Dissatisfaction</a>,” was authored by Daniel Talbot and Peter K. Jonason.</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/white-americans-do-not-feel-threatened-by-demographic-change-new-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;">White Americans do not feel threatened by demographic change, new 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 10th 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.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/validating-whites-reactions-to-the-racial-shift/CE8F724DCC4646481368E68BD1392197" target="_blank">Journal of Experimental Political Science</a></em> casts doubt on a widely accepted idea in political psychology: that White Americans respond with a sense of threat when told they will no longer be the majority in the United States. In contrast to many earlier studies, this large-scale experiment found that learning about demographic change had little impact on White Americans’ policy preferences, feelings toward racial groups, or willingness to take political or personal action.</p>
<p>For the past decade, researchers have explored the idea that messages about the United States becoming a majority-minority country can spark feelings of status threat among White Americans. These studies often show that when White participants read about declining White population share, they become more supportive of conservative policies, more negative toward racial minorities, and more likely to endorse ethnocentric attitudes. The theory is that these reactions reflect anxiety over perceived loss of dominance in areas such as politics, culture, and society.</p>
<p>But the new study led by <a href="https://www.amengelhardt.com/" target="_blank">Andrew Engelhardt</a> and colleagues <a href="https://www.huffmannicole.com/" target="_blank">Nicole Huffman</a> and Veronica Oelerichat Stony Brook University suggests that these effects may not be as consistent or universal as previously thought. The researchers tested whether the context of the message matters, and whether White Americans react differently depending on what kind of status is portrayed as declining.</p>
<p>“This paper came out of a graduate seminar I taught on race and ethnic politics that Nicole and Veronica took. Through the semester we kept wondering about how white Americans think about demographic change,” said Engelhardt, an assistant professor of political science.</p>
<p>“Some things we read found evidence that demographic shifts historically led to more positive outgroup views, in contrast to existing evidence today that demographic change stimulates negative judgments for some. Similarly, our readings took us to different environments where demographic change may or may not occur, and whether advantaged individuals may or may not feel their status threatened. So this topic really came out of us wanting to make sense of what seemed to be some disparate evidence coupled with some open questions on present research designs.”</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers recruited 2,100 non-Hispanic White Americans in July 2024 using quotas based on U.S. Census demographics. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four short articles. Three described racial change in different domains: the overall population (a common version used in past studies), political influence (projected changes in the racial makeup of the electorate), or cultural representation (diversity in media and entertainment). The fourth article, used as a control, discussed geographic mobility and did not mention race.</p>
<p>After reading their assigned article, participants completed a series of questionnaires measuring their perceptions and beliefs. These included their sense that White Americans were losing influence, their feelings of being symbolically or realistically threatened by other groups, their preferences for policies both related and unrelated to race, and their attitudes toward racial and political groups. They also indicated how likely they were to take political or personal actions that either supported or opposed racial diversity and minority rights.</p>
<p>The results confirmed that the different articles worked as intended: each one shaped how participants thought about White people’s place in the population, electorate, or media landscape. For example, those who read about cultural change were more likely to believe that White people would be a minority in television and film. However, the more important question was whether these changes in perception would influence feelings of threat or political behavior.</p>
<p>The researchers did find that across all three treatments—whether participants read about population change, political change, or cultural change—White Americans became more likely to believe their group’s social status was declining. This basic sense of “status change” did increase. </p>
<p>But none of the treatments increased feelings of status threat. Measures of symbolic threat (such as believing American values were being undermined), realistic threat (such as believing jobs were being taken by other groups), and concerns about national identity showed no meaningful change. In other words, even when White Americans recognized a shift in their group’s position, they didn’t necessarily feel endangered or attacked.</p>
<p>“Perhaps the most surprising result was the lack of results on most outcomes,” Engelhardt told PsyPost. “We had expected reminders of demographic change would alter whites’ attitudes, given this appears broadly in published work. But not finding this here surprised us.”</p>
<p>Moreover, the study found no evidence that the information made participants more conservative. Across all conditions, participants’ views on policies—both racial and non-racial—did not become more conservative. Attitudes toward groups such as Black Americans, Latinos, or the Black Lives Matter movement also remained unchanged. </p>
<p>There was one exception: the article about political change modestly increased the likelihood that participants would consider political actions opposing immigration or diversity. But this effect was small and not found in other areas like personal behavior or cultural change.</p>
<p>Importantly, the researchers also looked at whether responses differed by political affiliation or ideology. Previous work suggested that conservatives react more negatively to demographic change, while liberals might respond positively. But in this study, no consistent differences emerged between liberals and conservatives. The demographic shift message did not reliably provoke polarization based on party or ideology, even when participants were exposed to specific threats to political or cultural dominance.</p>
<p>These findings run counter to much of the earlier research in this area. While the researchers cannot entirely rule out the possibility that their sample was different or that previous studies overstated their effects, they designed the study to address these concerns. Their sample size was large enough to detect even small effects, and their measures replicated those used in earlier experiments. They also included newer forms of the racial shift message to better reflect different types of perceived status loss.</p>
<p>One possible explanation is that Americans may already be aware of the country’s changing demographics, and so messages about this shift no longer feel surprising or threatening. The authors suggest that attitudes about race and status may have become more stable and less sensitive to new information, particularly after years of heightened public discourse around race, diversity, and identity. If beliefs about demographic change are already well-formed, reading another article about population projections may not do much to change them.</p>
<p>Another possibility is that status threat operates more like a personality trait than a situational reaction. In this view, people who already feel threatened by social change may not need to be reminded of demographic shifts to express those views. They may have internalized those beliefs long ago. If that’s the case, status threat may be less about responding to new information and more about long-standing psychological or ideological orientations.</p>
<p>“There are three things I think useful from the results,” Engelhardt told PsyPost. “The first thing is that most white Americans’ sense of whether or not their group is threatened by demographic change is pretty well developed. Day to day exposure to news reports on a diversifying country or increasing diversity on TV news programs is unlikely to cause them to reevaluate their position as white Americans. This sense seems baked in, potentially given the salience of demographic change in the last few election cycles.”</p>
<p>“Second, whites do not seem to think about demographic change as unique to a context in which it is occurring. Some of our respondents learned about growing racial diversity as captured in Census reports, others about this in terms of the U.S. electorate, and still others in terms of TV and film casts and programming. Reactions to this information were quite similar across conditions. Demographic change appears to be demographic change, no matter where one puts it.”</p>
<p>“Last, whites’ politics does not affect how they respond to this information,” Engelhardt continued. “We might think white Republicans and white Democrats would react differently to this information because their political preferences relate to demographic change in different ways. But we find no evidence this is the case.”</p>
<p>The study has some limitations. It focused only on non-Hispanic White Americans, so the findings may not apply to other groups. It also used short, text-based treatments, which might differ from real-world political messaging delivered through more emotional or sustained channels. And while the null findings are informative, they do not prove that status threat responses never happen—just that they may not be as consistent or widespread as previously claimed.</p>
<p>“One important limitation is that our design is a one-off exposure to information,” Engelhardt noted. “We cannot know how repeated exposure to these trends would alter opinions. Nor does our study incorporate explanations about whether these trends are good or bad, as we might experience in political rhetoric about the same.”</p>
<p>Even so, the results call into question a major assumption in political psychology: that reminders of declining White dominance automatically generate conservative backlash. The researchers encourage others in the field to reconsider how and when status threat matters. They call for more precise theories about what triggers these feelings, and for attention to the ways that individual predispositions, political environments, and institutional contexts shape responses to social change.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2025.2" target="_blank">Validating Whites’ Reactions to the ‘Racial Shift,’</a>” was published March 14, 2025.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/imagery-based-rim-psychotherapy-triggers-psychedelic-like-experiences-and-brain-activity/" 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;">Imagery-based RIM psychotherapy might trigger psychedelic-like brain activity</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, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A brief, imagery-based psychotherapy known as Regenerating Images in Memory (RIM) appears to reduce anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms after a single session, while triggering altered states of consciousness and distinct shifts in brain activity. These findings come from a new exploratory study published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1539079"><em>Frontiers in Psychology</em></a>, which tested RIM in a group of nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>RIM is a verbal psychotherapy designed to help individuals reprocess distressing memories by engaging bodily sensations and spontaneous mental imagery. The goal is to transform painful experiences into more empowered and integrated memories, which can then guide healthier emotional and behavioral responses. RIM sessions are typically divided into three stages: the “dip” phase focuses attention inward through bodily awareness; the “see” phase involves visualizing and altering difficult memories; and the “do” phase supports integration and action planning.</p>
<p>To explore how RIM might bring about such rapid psychological change, researchers turned to <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/two-minds/home" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Two Minds Theory</a>, which posits that behavior is primarily guided by fast, unconscious processes rather than conscious thought. RIM is thought to work by activating the Intuitive Mind—an automatic, emotion-driven mental system—and then reintegrating experiences into the Narrative Mind, which handles verbal thought and self-reflection.</p>
<p>The current study aimed to detect whether RIM facilitates a shift in brain activity from the frontal lobes (associated with conscious control) to the temporal lobes (associated with emotion and intuitive awareness), and back again—reflecting the proposed back-and-forth between the Narrative and Intuitive Minds.</p>
<p>“I am a psychotherapy researcher by training, and have always been interested in what treatments are most helpful to people in distress. Knowing how to help someone depends on understanding not just what options are available, but also why or how those options work. That’s what we were trying to understand about the Regenerating Images in Memory (RIM) approach in the current study,” said study author Paul F. Cook, a professor at the University of Colorado College of Nursing</p>
<p>The research took place at the University of Colorado College of Nursing between 2022 and 2024. A total of 30 undergraduate nursing students were recruited from a mental health course and volunteered to participate in a single RIM session lasting between one and two hours. These students were not required to have a diagnosed mental health condition, although many had prior experiences with trauma and were actively engaged in mental health treatment.</p>
<p>Each session was conducted by <a href="https://www.riminstitute.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Deborah Sandella</a>, the originator of the RIM method. Participants wore a five-lead EEG headband to monitor brain activity in real time. The researchers focused on activity in the frontal and temporal lobes during each of the three RIM stages. Participants also completed several validated questionnaires before and after the session, assessing depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, and motivation. After the session, participants rated their satisfaction and completed a scale measuring altered states of consciousness, commonly used in psychedelic research.</p>
<p>This was not a randomized trial, and there was no control group. Instead, the study was designed to explore potential mechanisms behind RIM’s effects.</p>
<p>The researchers found that students reported improvements in four of five mental health outcomes after just one RIM session. On average, they experienced large reductions in depression, anxiety, and perceived stress, along with increased motivation for managing stress. The only measure that did not improve was self-esteem.</p>
<p>These symptom changes were unusually large for a single-session intervention. Compared to traditional psychotherapy, which often requires multiple weeks to show similar improvements, RIM’s effects appeared both rapid and pronounced.</p>
<p>Participants also described strong subjective effects that mirrored reports from people undergoing psychedelic therapy. On a standardized mystical experiences scale, at least a quarter of the participants endorsed the highest possible ratings across multiple domains, including a sense of timelessness, unity, deep meaning, and ineffability—the feeling that an experience cannot be captured in words. The ineffability subscale, in particular, has previously been linked to therapeutic outcomes in psychedelic studies.</p>
<p>One student, who had prior experience with psychedelics, reported that her RIM session was even more impactful than previous drug-induced experiences. Many participants described their sessions as emotionally intense, personally transformative, and difficult to articulate.</p>
<p>“I was very surprised by the strength of people’s subjective experiences,” Cook told PsyPost. “As described in the article, we added a survey partway through the study that was taken from psychedelic research. The research setting wasn’t all that conducive to mystical experiences: Participants were sitting at my desk in a university building, wearing a 5-lead EEG device around their head, while I sat in the corner taking notes. Yet participants in our study reported experiences that were similar in intensity to psychedelic studies! It’s important to note that our participants didn’t take any drug. Instead, it was their own mind producing the experience.”</p>
<p>These reported experiences aligned with the EEG findings. As sessions progressed, participants showed a marked shift in brain activity away from the frontal lobes and toward the temporal lobes. This shift was particularly strong during the middle “see” phase of RIM, when participants engaged in vivid mental imagery and emotional processing. In that phase, faster-frequency brain waves (linked to alertness and insight) decreased in the frontal lobes and increased in the temporal lobes, consistent with a shift from analytical to intuitive processing.</p>
<p>During the final “do” phase, frontal activity partially returned, suggesting re-engagement of the Narrative Mind to integrate the newly processed memories. The co-activation of frontal and temporal lobes during this phase echoes patterns seen in psychedelic research, where synchronized brain activity across different regions has been tied to therapeutic breakthroughs.</p>
<p>“Changing your behavior or feelings is not something that you can do just by exerting your reason or willpower,” Cook said. “Our study showed that the RIM approach helped people to overcome difficult past experiences in a way that relies on imagination, creativity, and inherent strengths or resources. We collected EEG brainwave data during RIM, and found that the prefrontal cortex areas that are usually assumed to provide ‘executive functioning’ were in a state of sleepiness or meditation, while other parts of the brain were actively engaged. It was during that exact part of the procedure that the most creative imagery and intuitive problem-solving occurred.”</p>
<p>Although the results are promising, the study has important limitations. Most notably, it did not include a control group, so it cannot establish whether RIM itself caused the improvements. Pre-post comparisons can be influenced by a range of factors, such as placebo effects, participant expectations, or natural mood fluctuations.</p>
<p>Additionally, all RIM sessions were conducted by the method’s originator, which may have amplified the effects due to facilitator expertise. Participants were also predominantly young adults from a single academic setting, limiting the generalizability of the findings.</p>
<p>“This study wasn’t designed to prove that RIM is an effective form of mental health treatment,” Cook noted. “People in our study frequently reported traumatic experiences, but they weren’t required to have any specific mental health condition in order to participate. We compared pre- versus post-treatment scores on several measures and found that people reported less anxiety and depression after RIM, but there could be other explanations for that change. Our goal with those surveys was just to confirm that people found RIM to be helpful, as they have in other studies. If our participants didn’t find RIM to be beneficial, then it wouldn’t have made sense to interpret the EEG readings at all.”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study provides initial evidence that RIM may work through mechanisms different from those in conventional talk therapy. The observed brain activity patterns and subjective reports suggest that RIM engages emotional and intuitive systems more directly, perhaps resembling the effects of psychedelic therapy—without the use of drugs.</p>
<p>“Now that we do have some understanding of how RIM works, we want to conduct a larger-scale randomized controlled trial in order to conclusively demonstrate that it is a beneficial treatment,” Cook explained. “In that study we plan to recruit firefighters who have had traumatic experiences in the line of duty, use a structured interview to confirm that they meet criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and then randomly assign them to receive either RIM or usual care for trauma. Our hypothesis is that RIM will have stronger effects than the best-available current treatment options, which have limited benefits for many people with PTSD.”</p>
<p>“I’m also currently working with some students to analyze transcripts collected during the RIM procedure, to see if we can identify significant events that occurred during the RIM session and then match those up with the EEG readings made at that specific time. The hypothesis is that there might be some marker for creativity or insight that we could observe via brain activity.”</p>
<p>“I have learned a lot in working with my co-author Dr. Deb Sandella, who is the original developer of RIM and provided all of the RIM sessions for this study,” Cook added. “Her clinical expertise is a big part of what made our participants’ experiences so positive.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1539079" target="_blank">How is a psychotherapeutic process like a psychedelic drug? Neurocognitive evidence for a novel mechanism of action with Regenerating Images in Memory</a>,” was authored by Paul F. Cook, Laurra M. Aagaard, Lisa Krug Avery, Nichole Long, Allen Alford, and Deborah Sandella.</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>