<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/religious-attendance-may-not-boost-mental-health-long-term-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;">Religious attendance may not boost mental health, long-term 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 19th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of data from the British Household Panel Survey revealed that the relationship between religious-service attendance and mental health is unclear. While previous studies have often reported a positive association between religious attendance and better mental health, the results of this study found mostly no such association. In the few cases where an association was observed, an increase in religious attendance was followed by somewhat worse mental health symptoms. The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251325449"><em>Psychological Science</em></a>.</p>
<p>Religious-service attendance refers to how often individuals participate in organized religious gatherings, such as church, mosque, synagogue, or temple services. It is one of the most commonly studied indicators of religiosity in psychological and health research. Studies have found that regular attendance is associated with better mental health outcomes, including lower rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. This relationship is partly attributed to increased social support, as religious communities can offer a strong sense of belonging and emotional connection.</p>
<p>Attending services may also promote positive coping strategies, such as hope, forgiveness, and meaning-making during difficult times. Additionally, religious involvement is often linked to healthier lifestyles, which can indirectly support mental well-being. However, the benefits may depend on personal belief and cultural context—for some individuals, religious environments can be stressful or stigmatizing. The effect is generally stronger when attendance is voluntary and personally meaningful, rather than socially pressured.</p>
<p>Study author Gabriele Prati aimed to investigate both within-person and between-person processes in the relationship between religious-service attendance and mental health. Specifically, she examined how changes in an individual’s attendance related to changes in their mental health over time (within-person effects), as well as how people who attend religious services more or less frequently differ from one another in terms of mental health (between-person effects).</p>
<p>She analyzed data from the Understanding Society—British Household Panel Survey, a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of British households. At the time of analysis, the dataset included responses from 18 annual survey waves conducted between 1991 and 2009. The final sample included 29,298 individuals. At the beginning of the study, the average age of participants was 44 years, and 53% were female.</p>
<p>The study focused on participants’ self-reported mental health symptoms and frequency of religious-service attendance. Attendance was assessed during 10 of the 18 survey waves with the question: “How often, if at all, do you attend religious services or meetings?” Response options included: once a week or more; less often but at least once a month; less often but at least once a year; never or practically never; and only at weddings, funerals, etc. Mental health symptoms were measured using the General Health Questionnaire, while life satisfaction was assessed with the question: “How dissatisfied or satisfied are you with your life overall?”</p>
<p>Results showed that religious-service attendance at one time point was generally not associated with mental health outcomes at a later time point. Even when participants reported higher-than-usual religious attendance, they did not tend to experience improvements in mental health. In several instances, greater religious attendance was followed by worse mental health symptoms at the next survey. Conversely, in three time points, an increase in loss of confidence was followed by increased religious attendance.</p>
<p>“The results suggest that there is a need to question the assumption that religious-service attendance provides mental health benefits,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study offers new insight into the links between religious-service attendance and mental health. However, it is important to note that the findings are based on a British sample, and results may differ in other cultural or religious contexts.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251325449">Does Religious-Service Attendance Increase Mental Health? A Random Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis Across 18 Years,</a>” was authored by Gabriele Prati.</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/menstrual-cycle-hormone-levels-influence-womens-attention-to-female-faces-brain-imaging-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;">Menstrual cycle hormone levels influence women’s attention to female faces, brain imaging 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 19th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new brain imaging study has found that women’s attention and cognitive control can be influenced by hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle. Specifically, during the mid-luteal phase—when progesterone levels are high—women showed enhanced accuracy and brain activation when completing tasks involving female faces, but not male faces. The findings, published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.114842" target="_blank">Physiology & Behavior</a>, suggest that natural variations in ovarian hormones may help modulate cognitive flexibility depending on the social context.</p>
<p>The research was motivated by growing evidence that sex hormones, especially progesterone and estradiol, influence how the brain manages cognitive control. While many studies have shown how these hormones affect general cognitive functions like memory or attention, fewer have explored how they modulate attention in socially meaningful contexts. The researchers were particularly interested in whether women’s hormone levels would affect how they respond to faces of other women versus men, and whether these differences would be reflected in brain activity patterns in key control regions like the inferior frontal gyrus.</p>
<p>To explore these questions, the researchers recruited 53 naturally cycling women, aged around 21, who were not using hormonal birth control and had regular menstrual cycles. The participants were divided into two groups depending on their cycle phase: 28 were in the late follicular phase, when progesterone is relatively low, and 25 were in the mid-luteal phase, when progesterone is elevated. Saliva samples confirmed hormone levels, and each participant completed a face–gender Stroop task while undergoing a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan.</p>
<p>The Stroop task used in the experiment was designed to test how well participants could focus their attention when faced with conflicting information. They were shown images of neutral male and female faces with gender labels superimposed on them. Sometimes the label matched the face’s gender (congruent trials), and sometimes it did not (incongruent trials). Participants had to quickly and accurately identify the actual gender of the face while ignoring the misleading label.</p>
<p>Each participant completed multiple runs of this task during the scan. At the same time, resting-state brain data were also collected to examine the participants’ baseline brain network organization and activity, particularly in the executive control network, which includes the inferior frontal gyrus and other regions responsible for attention and cognitive control.</p>
<p>At the behavioral level, women in the mid-luteal phase—who had higher progesterone levels—were significantly more accurate at identifying female faces during the congruent trials compared to those in the late follicular phase. No such difference was observed when participants categorized male faces. Moreover, as progesterone levels increased, participants showed longer reaction times when identifying female faces, suggesting they were allocating more cognitive resources to those trials. In contrast, there was no such relationship for male face trials.</p>
<p>On the neural level, this enhanced attention to female faces during the mid-luteal phase was reflected in stronger activation of the inferior frontal gyrus, especially during the incongruent trials where participants had to suppress the misleading gender label. The brain region’s activation also correlated with progesterone levels—but not with estradiol levels—reinforcing the idea that progesterone plays a more prominent role in this effect.</p>
<p>Resting-state scans provided further support for the influence of progesterone on cognitive control networks. Participants in the mid-luteal phase had greater “betweenness centrality” in the left inferior frontal gyrus, meaning this brain region played a more central role in facilitating information flow across the network when the brain was at rest. Progesterone levels were positively correlated with this network property, indicating that even in a resting state, hormone levels shape the brain’s readiness for cognitive control.</p>
<p>Additional analyses confirmed that progesterone influenced attention through its effects on brain activation. A mediation analysis showed that higher progesterone levels led to increased activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus, which in turn was associated with longer reaction times on trials with female faces. These longer reaction times are interpreted not as signs of delay, but as evidence of increased cognitive engagement and effortful processing.</p>
<p>Interestingly, these hormone-linked differences were specific to the social context. The face–gender Stroop task engaged both cognitive and social systems, and the results suggest that during the mid-luteal phase, women may prioritize attention toward female social cues—potentially as a reflection of underlying motivations for social support. This interpretation aligns with theories from evolutionary psychology that propose women may show a greater interest in same-gender cooperation during periods of heightened progesterone, such as in preparation for potential caregiving roles.</p>
<p>Using multivariate pattern analysis of the brain scans, the researchers further found that the inferior frontal gyrus could better distinguish between congruent and incongruent trials involving female faces during the mid-luteal phase. This suggests that the brain’s ability to differentiate between high and low control demands was heightened for socially relevant female stimuli when progesterone was elevated.</p>
<p>While the findings provide novel insights into how natural hormonal shifts influence attention and brain function in a socially specific way, the authors acknowledged several limitations. One is the between-subjects design: each participant was tested in only one menstrual phase. While hormone tracking was used to validate the cycle phase, hormone levels can vary considerably even within the same person across cycles. Future studies could use a within-subject design, testing the same individuals at different times in their cycle to strengthen causal claims.</p>
<p>Another limitation is the use of self-report and calendar-based methods to estimate ovulation. Though hormone assays confirmed differences in progesterone levels, more precise methods like ovulation kits or continuous temperature tracking could enhance reliability. The researchers also noted that while they discussed the findings in light of theories about social motivation and same-gender cooperation, the experimental task did not directly test cooperative behavior. More research is needed to link hormonal influences on attention with actual prosocial or affiliative behavior.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.114842" target="_blank">Ovarian hormone effects on cognitive flexibility in social contexts: Evidence from resting-state and task-based fMRI</a>,” ws authored by Jia-Xi Wang, Lulu Fu, Qin Lei, and Jin-Ying Zhuang.</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/republican-women-and-democratic-men-often-break-with-party-lines-on-gun-policy/" 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;">Republican women and Democratic men often break with party lines on gun policy</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 19th 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://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X251324132" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American Politics Research</a></em> sheds light on how Americans’ views on gun policy are shaped not just by their gender or political party, but by the intersection of these identities. While it’s well known that women tend to support stricter gun control measures more than men, and Democrats more than Republicans, the study found that these patterns become more complicated when gender and party affiliation interact. In particular, Republican women and Democratic men often hold positions that differ from their party’s mainstream.</p>
<p>The researchers, political scientists <a href="https://michaelhansenpolitics.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michael A. Hansen</a> and Kathleen Dolan, conducted the study to better understand how opinions on gun control and gun rights are influenced by both gender and party identification. For years, political scientists have studied the “gender gap” in public opinion—how women and men differ in their political preferences. But as the U.S. becomes more politically polarized, the researchers questioned whether this simple framework still captures the full picture. They asked: What happens when someone’s gender identity and party affiliation pull them in opposite directions?</p>
<p>“My co-author Kathy Dolan and I were motivated by a desire to move beyond the traditional ‘gender gap’ framing in public opinion research, particularly on gun policy,” explained Hansen, an associate professor at the University of Turku and co-author of <em><a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003503583/european-union-jonathan-olsen-michael-hansen" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The European Union: Politics and Policies</a></em>.</p>
<p>“With increasing partisan polarization, we wanted to explore how gender and party might interact to shape attitudes, especially in ways that conventional approaches might overlook. Guns are a salient and polarizing issue in U.S. politics, making them an ideal case for investigating cross-pressures between social identities.”</p>
<p>To explore this question, Hansen and Dolan analyzed data from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study, a national survey that included responses from about 50,000 Americans. The survey asked participants to share their opinions on a range of gun policy proposals. These included three policies typically associated with gun control—such as banning assault weapons, improving background checks for young buyers, and funding efforts to remove firearms from individuals deemed dangerous—and three proposals that would expand gun rights, including allowing teachers to carry firearms, making concealed carry permits easier to obtain, and protecting gun owners’ privacy.</p>
<p>The researchers focused on these six key policy items and examined support for each based on the respondent’s gender and political affiliation. They used statistical models to analyze the data, taking into account additional factors such as age, race, income, education, and political ideology. Crucially, they also tested for interaction effects—cases where the influence of gender might differ depending on party affiliation, and vice versa.</p>
<p>The analysis confirmed that women were more supportive of gun control measures than men, and Democrats more supportive than Republicans. However, once the researchers dug deeper into the data, they uncovered more complex patterns. Among Democrats, both women and men showed strong support for gun control measures, with only modest differences between the two. The average gender gap among Democrats was around five percentage points. But among Republicans, the gender gap was much wider—averaging about 12 percentage points. Republican women were significantly more supportive of gun control than Republican men and less likely to back gun rights expansion.</p>
<p>“While the patterns aligned with our expectations, it was helpful to see the size of the differences clearly,” Hansen told PsyPost. “For example, a notable share of Republican women supported banning assault weapons, though support among Democratic women was considerably higher. Similarly, Democratic men were much more supportive of gun control than Republican men. These results reinforce the importance of examining variation within gender and party groups rather than assuming uniform views.”</p>
<p>This larger gender gap among Republicans suggests that Republican women face cross-pressures: they may align with their party on many issues, but their gender identity leads them to view gun control in a more favorable light than their male counterparts. On the flip side, Democratic men showed slightly less enthusiasm for gun control than Democratic women, but the gap was smaller, indicating less internal conflict between gender and party identity.</p>
<p>The researchers also looked at partisan differences among women and among men. Here too, they found notable variation. Among women, both Republicans and Democrats tended to support some gun control measures, but Democratic women expressed higher levels of support across the board. Interestingly, 59 percent of Republican women supported banning assault rifles—a proposal often associated with Democratic platforms.</p>
<p>But the difference between Democratic and Republican women on this issue was about 31 percentage points. On gun rights issues, the gap between the two groups of women was also substantial. For instance, 61 percent of Republican women supported allowing teachers to carry guns in schools, compared to just 26 percent of Democratic women.</p>
<p>Among men, the partisan divide was even starker. Republican men were the least supportive of gun control and the most supportive of expanding gun rights. On many issues, the gap between Republican and Democratic men was larger than the gap among women. For example, while 77 percent of Democratic men supported banning assault weapons, only 35 percent of Republican men agreed—a 42-point difference. These findings suggest that Democratic men, like Republican women, may also experience cross-pressures, though in the opposite direction.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that gender and partisanship shape opinions in ways that are not uniform or isolated,” Hansen said. “While women tend to support gun control and Republicans tend to support gun rights, we find larger gender gaps among Republicans and larger partisan gaps among men. This suggests that Republican women and Democratic men often experience conflicting pressures from their gender and party identities. These cross-pressures produce more nuanced patterns of opinion and challenge the idea that party or gender groups are politically uniform.”</p>
<p>The study also points to broader implications for how advocacy groups and political leaders might communicate with the public. For example, gun control advocates may find opportunities to engage Republican women, who, while more conservative than Democratic women, show notable support for certain gun control measures. At the same time, the study suggests that Democratic men may require different messaging strategies, as they may be less uniformly supportive of gun reform than Democratic women.</p>
<p>Like all research, the study has some limitations. The researchers used self-reported survey data, which may not always reflect actual behavior or deep-seated beliefs. People may respond differently when filling out a survey than they would when voting or taking action. Additionally, the study focused on a specific point in time—the months surrounding the 2022 midterm elections—which may influence how people felt about gun issues in the wake of recent mass shootings or legislative debates.</p>
<p>“As with most survey research, our study captures self-reported attitudes at one point in time,” Hansen noted. “While we use high-quality data from the Cooperative Election Study, we cannot account for how views may shift in response to future events.”</p>
<p>Future research could build on these findings by exploring how identity-based cross-pressures affect other policy areas, such as climate change, abortion, or policing. Researchers might also investigate whether these identity tensions influence not just policy preferences, but political participation, such as voting, protesting, or donating to candidates. As American politics grows more polarized, understanding how different aspects of identity push people in different directions will be vital to understanding how public opinion forms and evolves.</p>
<p>“This study is part of a broader research agenda that investigates the increasingly central role of partisanship in shaping public attitudes, even on issues traditionally viewed through the lens of gender,” Hansen said. “Our future goal is continuing to better understand how gender and partisanship intersect, often in conflicting ways, to influence opinion and behavior in contemporary politics.”</p>
<p>“This study reinforces the importance of not treating groups as politically monolithic. Even on highly polarized issues like gun policy, there is meaningful variation within party and gender groups. That nuance has important implications for public debate and policymaking.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X251324132" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cross-Cutting Identities in American Politics: Gender, Party, and Attitudes on Gun Reform</a>,” was published February 27, 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/study-links-psychedelic-use-in-illegal-settings-to-increased-psychotic-and-manic-symptoms/" 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 links psychedelic use in illegal settings to increased psychotic and manic symptoms</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 18th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new longitudinal study has found that people who use psychedelics in illegal contexts may experience an increase in psychotic and manic symptoms. These effects were not seen in people who used psychedelics in legally permitted settings. The study also found that individuals with a personal history of schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder were especially likely to report worsening manic symptoms after psychedelic use. The findings were published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725000716" target="_blank">Psychological Medicine</a></em>.</p>
<p>Clinical trials have shown that psychedelics, when paired with therapy and administered under strict protocols, can help treat depression, anxiety, and other mental health conditions. But these trials usually exclude participants with a personal or family history of psychotic disorders or bipolar I disorder, due to concerns that psychedelics could worsen symptoms in these populations. As the use of psychedelics becomes more widespread, particularly in settings outside medical supervision, the risks for vulnerable groups are not well understood.</p>
<p>“We know very little about the risk of psychotic or manic episodes following naturalistic psychedelic use, particularly for individuals typically excluded from participation in clinical trials. That’s why it’s so important to investigate this further,” said study author Otto Simonsson, a postdoctoral researcher at Karolinska Institute’s Department of Clinical Neuroscience.</p>
<p>To investigate this issue, researchers used a longitudinal design and surveyed more than 21,000 people in the United States between the ages of 18 and 50. The study began in 2023 and continued through 2024. Participants were recruited online and asked to complete a baseline survey and a follow-up survey about two months later. Of the original sample, over 12,000 participants completed the follow-up. During that time, about 500 participants reported using psychedelics.</p>
<p>Participants answered a range of questions about their use of substances, mental health history, and recent psychological symptoms. Those who used psychedelics during the study period reported how often they used them, which specific substances were taken, and the context in which they were used. The researchers distinguished between psychedelic use that occurred in illegal settings versus use in locations where these substances were decriminalized or permitted. Participants who used psychedelics also completed additional surveys about the quality of their most intense experience during the two-month window, including whether they had psychologically difficult experiences or felt they gained insight during the trip.</p>
<p>Mental health symptoms were measured at both time points. Participants completed questionnaires assessing psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusional thoughts, as well as symptoms of mania, such as elevated mood, racing thoughts, and increased activity. The study also collected detailed information on participants’ psychiatric history, including whether they had been diagnosed with conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder, or had family members with these diagnoses.</p>
<p>The results showed that psychedelic use was associated with an increase in both psychotic and manic symptoms over the study period. However, this association was only observed among people who used psychedelics in illegal contexts. Those who used psychedelics in decriminalized or legal settings did not show similar increases. Nearly all the people in the sample who reported psychedelic use—especially those with a history of schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder—had used them in illegal contexts.</p>
<p>The increase in psychotic symptoms appeared to be stronger among people who used psychedelics more frequently and among those who reported more psychologically difficult experiences during their trips. For example, feelings of fear, confusion, or paranoia during the experience were linked to more psychotic symptoms later on. In contrast, the increase in manic symptoms was most pronounced among people with a personal history of schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder and among those who reported experiencing deep insights during their psychedelic trips.</p>
<p>The researchers also found some indication that other psychiatric histories may increase sensitivity to psychedelics. For instance, people with schizotypal personality disorder who used psychedelics reported greater increases in manic symptoms. These findings suggest that genetic or psychological factors related to certain disorders might heighten the risk of adverse outcomes following psychedelic use.</p>
<p>One possible reason why illegal contexts were associated with worse outcomes is that these settings may be less safe or predictable. Participants who used psychedelics in illegal environments were more likely to report negative mindsets prior to the experience or lack of psychological support during it. Stressful surroundings or uncertainty about the content and dosage of the drug could also contribute to challenging experiences. These factors may amplify the effects of the drug in ways that increase vulnerability to psychotic or manic episodes.</p>
<p>“The relationship between naturalistic psychedelic use and psychotic or manic symptoms is intricate and likely influenced by factors such as legal context, frequency of use, the acute psychedelic experience, and psychiatric history,” Simonsson told PsyPost.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the study did not find an association between psychedelic use and worsening psychotic symptoms among people with a personal history of schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder. This finding contrasts with earlier concerns that psychedelic use in these populations could trigger psychosis. However, the number of participants in the study with these specific diagnoses was small—only four people with schizophrenia and 22 with bipolar I disorder reported using psychedelics during the study period—so conclusions should be made cautiously.</p>
<p>The study’s design allowed the researchers to examine symptom changes over time, which strengthens the interpretation of the results. However, the authors caution that the study has several limitations. The sample was not randomly selected and included a high number of people likely to use psychedelics, which may not reflect the general population. The study also relied entirely on self-report measures, which could be affected by inaccurate recall or biased reporting. In addition, since the study was observational, it cannot determine whether psychedelic use directly caused the changes in symptoms.</p>
<p>The study also raises questions about how to identify individuals who may be more vulnerable to negative effects. Future research may explore genetic markers or other biological indicators that could help predict who is at greater risk. The authors suggest that future studies should include clinician assessments of symptoms and aim for more consistent measurement tools across studies. They also note that increases in symptoms like elevated mood or unusual perceptions are not necessarily harmful in all cases, and further work is needed to clarify the clinical significance of these changes.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725000716" target="_blank">Longitudinal associations of naturalistic psychedelic use with psychotic and manic symptoms</a>,” was authored by Otto Simonsson, Simon B. Goldberg, Walter Osika, Cecilia U. D. Stenfors, Sankalp Chaturvedi, Caroline M. Swords, Jayanth Narayanan, and Peter S. Hendricks.</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/personality-stays-mostly-the-same-after-moving-up-in-social-class-new-study-suggests/" 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;">Personality stays mostly the same after moving up in social class, new study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 18th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study has found that young adults who become the first in their family to attend university tend to show a modest reduction in risk-taking over time. However, attending university does not appear to meaningfully alter other core personality traits, such as extraversion, conscientiousness, or emotional stability. The findings were published in the journal <em><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506251326333" target="_blank">Social Psychological and Personality Science</a></em>.</p>
<p>The researchers were interested in whether personality changes often seen during early adulthood might be shaped by social class transitions. Past studies have shown that personality traits, though relatively stable, do shift during the young adult years—people tend to become more conscientious, more emotionally stable, and more agreeable. </p>
<p>But the reasons behind these shifts are not fully understood. One idea is that changes come from adapting to new life roles, such as entering the workforce, starting a relationship, or, in this case, going to university. The researchers behind the new study, <a href="https://www.anatoliabatruch.com/" target="_blank">Anatolia Batruch</a> and <a href="https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/staff/m-a-vanscheppingen" target="_blank">Manon A. van Scheppingen</a>, wanted to understand whether entering a new social class environment through education might shape who people become.</p>
<p>“Manon and I were both psychologists doing our postdoc in a sociology lab,” explained Batruch, who is now an SNSF Ambizione Researcher at the LIVES Centre at the University of Lausanne. “I was examining the psychological effect of social class and she worked on personality change and life events. I thought it would be interesting to combine our expertise to test a common assumption in my field which is that psychological effects of social class are the product of a socialization process and to do so under stringent conditions, since personality traits are famously stable.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers used data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, a nationally representative longitudinal study. They focused on a group of 4,776 individuals who were followed from adolescence into their thirties. Among them, a key comparison was made between two groups of young adults whose parents did not attend university. One group—the “upward mobility” group—pursued higher education, while the other did not. By comparing these two groups, the researchers could isolate the effects of university attendance while holding constant important background characteristics.</p>
<p>The researchers examined changes across three broad domains: the Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability), locus of control (a measure of how much people believe they can influence events in their lives), and risk-taking propensity. Each of these traits has been linked to important life outcomes like health, job success, and well-being.</p>
<p>To ensure a fair comparison, the researchers used a statistical method called propensity score matching. This technique allowed them to create two groups that were closely matched on a variety of factors, including family background, age, and initial personality levels measured around age 17. By controlling for these factors, the study could more reliably identify whether any personality changes were associated with the transition to higher education.</p>
<p>The results showed that both groups—those who attended university and those who didn’t—experienced similar personality development over time. Increases in conscientiousness were especially evident in both groups, which is consistent with other research showing that people tend to become more responsible and organized as they enter adulthood. However, there were no significant differences in how the two groups changed over time on traits like extraversion, openness, or emotional stability.</p>
<p>“We were struck by how little personality changed overall. Given that there is a relationship between social class and personality, what happens when we change social class? Maybe changes occur only after longer exposure or through subtler mechanisms than we anticipated.”</p>
<p>One area where a difference did emerge was in risk-taking behavior. Young adults who pursued higher education showed a small but consistent decline in their willingness to take risks over time, compared to their peers who did not attend university. This difference grew gradually and became statistically significant about ten years after the transition. When compared to individuals whose parents had also gone to university (the “stable high” group), the pattern held: those with a university background tended to become more risk-averse as they aged, regardless of whether they were first-generation students or not.</p>
<p>These findings suggest that university attendance may influence certain behavioral tendencies, such as risk-taking, more than it does broader personality traits. One possible explanation is that university environments emphasize planning, caution, and long-term thinking—qualities that might lead students to take fewer risks. It’s also possible that the process of navigating unfamiliar academic and social challenges causes first-generation students to become more cautious over time.</p>
<p>“Even though being the first in one’s family to attend university can feel destabilizing, it does not appear to shift core personality traits. In other words, educational mobility may reshape opportunities and perspectives without fundamentally changing who you are.”</p>
<p>The researchers also found that students who were more risk-averse at age 17 were more likely to pursue higher education in the first place. This suggests that some of the observed differences may reflect who chooses to go to university, not just what happens to them after they get there. But even after controlling for these pre-existing differences, the pattern of decreasing risk-taking held up, pointing to a likely influence of the university environment itself.</p>
<p>The researchers found no evidence that other personality traits predicted university attendance after matching the groups. Traits like openness, extraversion, and emotional stability did not appear to significantly shape whether someone became a first-generation university student. This goes against some expectations that personality might steer people toward upward mobility and supports the idea that broader structural or contextual factors may play a more prominent role.</p>
<p>Despite its strengths, the study has some limitations. The data came from Germany, a country with a relatively accessible higher education system compared to others, such as the United States. Results may look different in countries where social class barriers to university are higher. </p>
<p>Additionally, the study could not distinguish between different types of universities or academic programs, which may vary greatly in their cultural norms and social pressures.<br>
Our study couldn’t distinguish between different types of universities or fields of study, which vary widely in culture and prestige. Maybe change occur only in very elite environments.”</p>
<p>Looking ahead, the researchers hope to investigate the timing and pathways of social class-related personality changes in more detail. Future work could explore whether changes happen after university, once people enter new workplaces, social circles, or start families. Understanding when and how social environments shape personality can offer valuable insight into human development and inequality.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251326333" target="_blank">Social Class and Personality: The Effects of Educational Mobility on Personality Trait Change</a>,” was published online on March 31, 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>
<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>