<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/dementia-tactile-decline-may-signal-early-cognitive-impairment/" 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;">Dementia: Tactile decline may signal early cognitive impairment</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 21st 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new scientific review published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109048" target="_blank">Biological Psychology</a></em> highlights the potential role of touch-related sensory decline as an early warning sign for cognitive deterioration. The findings suggest that age-related impairments in tactile perception — including sensitivity to pressure, vibration, and object recognition — may predict cognitive challenges and even the progression toward dementia. The review outlines how changes in the brain’s sensory processing areas, especially the hippocampus, are tightly linked to both declining touch perception and memory, attention, and executive functioning.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted this review to better understand how age-related sensory decline, particularly in the tactile system, could be a harbinger of cognitive impairment. As global populations continue to live longer, mild cognitive impairment is becoming more common, affecting roughly one in six older adults. </p>
<p>In many cases, this condition progresses to dementia. Identifying early markers of decline can help delay or prevent more serious outcomes. Since most people experience some level of tactile deterioration as they age, the authors wanted to explore whether this decline could provide an early and accessible signal of future cognitive problems.</p>
<p>To explore this question, the research team examined previous studies that analyzed tactile deterioration across the aging brain. They reviewed evidence from human studies as well as animal models, especially in rodents, which allowed researchers to isolate and manipulate tactile input through experimental methods. </p>
<p>Across this body of literature, the authors looked for connections between loss of tactile function, brain changes, and cognitive outcomes. They paid special attention to the hippocampus and its links to tactile input, spatial memory, and executive function. The review also included structural imaging studies and behavioral assessments, giving a comprehensive overview of how sensory decline and cognitive decline might unfold together.</p>
<p>The review begins by outlining the gradual decline of the tactile system with age. As early as age 20, touch sensitivity begins to decrease, and by age 60, these changes can be clinically detected. Mechanoreceptors in the skin, particularly Meissner’s and Pacinian corpuscles that detect fine touch and vibration, begin to disappear. The nerves that transmit tactile information lose some of their insulating material, which slows signal transmission. </p>
<p>These changes affect not just the skin but also the spinal cord and brain, particularly the primary somatosensory cortex, which becomes thinner with age and shows reduced inhibition. This results in poorer touch discrimination, difficulty in manipulating objects, reduced fine motor control, and problems with balance.</p>
<p>The researchers then connected these sensory changes to cognitive decline, particularly in the context of mild cognitive impairment. This condition is defined as a decline in mental functioning that goes beyond normal aging but does not yet interfere significantly with daily activities. It is often a precursor to dementia. Studies show that mild cognitive impairment is more common with increasing age, affecting over one-quarter of people aged 80 or older. Importantly, over a third of these individuals eventually develop dementia. Understanding what triggers this progression is key to prevention.</p>
<p>According to the review, one of the earliest areas of the brain to show changes in mild cognitive impairment is the hippocampus, a region essential for memory, learning, and executive functioning. The hippocampus receives sensory input from the somatosensory system via the entorhinal cortex. Tactile input helps the hippocampus integrate information and support cognitive flexibility and decision-making. </p>
<p>When this input is diminished due to aging or sensory deprivation, hippocampal function may suffer. For instance, studies in rodents show that depriving animals of tactile input through whisker removal reduces hippocampal activity, impairs spatial memory, and disrupts synaptic communication in memory-related regions.</p>
<p>In one type of experiment, researchers permanently removed the whiskers of rodents, which serve as their primary tactile system. These animals showed significantly less brain activity in the hippocampus, reduced formation of new neurons, and problems with navigation and object recognition. In contrast, stimulating the whiskers increased dopamine levels in the hippocampus and improved memory performance. These findings mirror what has been observed in human studies, where reduced tactile stimulation can lead to poorer cognitive outcomes, while tactile engagement can improve memory and attention.</p>
<p>The review also highlights proprioception — the sense of body position and movement — and stereognosis — the ability to recognize objects through touch — as key components of the tactile system that are affected by aging. Both are critical for daily functioning and are also linked to cognitive performance. When these abilities decline, individuals may experience increased risk of falls, reduced independence, and fewer opportunities for cognitive engagement. This drop in activity and stimulation can, in turn, accelerate cognitive deterioration.</p>
<p>One of the more compelling findings discussed in the review is the link between tactile impairments and changes in the neurochemistry of the brain. Sensory stimulation boosts levels of acetylcholine, a chemical that plays a major role in attention and memory. It also promotes the release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2), both of which help support the growth and survival of neurons. Tactile deprivation, by contrast, lowers these factors, potentially triggering cell death and weakening memory circuits in the hippocampus.</p>
<p>The authors propose that this body of evidence supports the idea that tactile deterioration may be more than just a sign of aging — it could be an early marker of cognitive risk. If so, touch-based assessments could become a valuable tool in detecting people who may benefit from early intervention. This is especially important because many traditional cognitive screening tools may miss early signs, or may not be accessible to all populations.</p>
<p>The review suggests several directions for future research. One recommendation is to develop standardized methods for measuring tactile function, including proprioception and stereognosis, in older adults. These assessments could be added to routine cognitive screenings. Another area for exploration is whether tactile-based interventions — such as textured objects, massage therapy, or sensory-rich environments — can help protect or even restore cognitive function. </p>
<p>The authors also encourage more research into how different sensory systems interact and contribute to overall cognitive health, including studies that combine touch, sound, and visual stimulation to promote brain plasticity.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109048" target="_blank">The role of tactile sense as an early indicator of cognitive decline in aging</a>,” was authored by Nereida Ibarra-Castaneda, Adriana Gonzalez-De-la-Cerda, and Oscar Gonzalez-Perez.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/adults-beliefs-about-children-and-race-shift-when-a-childs-race-is-specified-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;">Adults’ beliefs about children and race shift when a child’s race is specified, 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 21st 2025, 09:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251321545" target="_blank">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</a></em> shows that adults’ beliefs about how children perceive and engage with race are influenced by whether the child’s race is explicitly mentioned. When a child’s race was specified as either Black or White, adults were more likely to believe that child noticed racial differences and developed race-related understandings earlier. Black children, in particular, were consistently viewed as developing these capacities earlier than White children or children whose race was not mentioned.</p>
<p>The study was designed to better understand how race influences adults’ assumptions about childhood development in the context of a racially diverse society. Many adults in the United States adopt a “color-evasive” stance when thinking about children, assuming that young people don’t notice race and don’t need to discuss it. The researchers aimed to examine whether naming a child’s race disrupts this default assumption and prompts more nuanced thinking about how children perceive race—and when adults believe it’s appropriate to talk with them about it.</p>
<p>The research team conducted five pre-registered studies. Across these studies, more than 5,000 participants were recruited through online platforms such as TurkPrime, Prolific, and Connect. All participants were adults living in the United States, fluent in English, and completed a series of measures designed to assess their beliefs about when children begin to develop race-related capacities and how color-evasive they perceive children to be. Some studies also included an experimental intervention and open-ended questions to assess how participants would talk to children about race.</p>
<p>Participants were randomly assigned to one of several conditions in which they were asked about either “children” in general or children specified as Black or White. In some studies, participants were shown a brief educational paragraph explaining that children notice and think about racial differences at an early age. The researchers used sliding scales to measure the ages at which participants believed children first show racial preferences, categorize people by race, or associate race with social status. They also asked when it was appropriate to begin discussing race with children, and in one study, had participants respond to a hypothetical question from a child about why most U.S. presidents have been White men.</p>
<p>The findings revealed two consistent patterns. First, adults believed that “children” (when the race was unspecified) were more color-evasive—that is, less likely to notice or think about racial differences—than children identified as Black or White. This suggests that generic language like “children” may prompt race-neutral thinking, in which adults don’t consider children’s lived experiences in a racialized society. </p>
<p>Second, when race was specified, especially when the child was Black, adults believed that children began to understand race at younger ages. On average, Black children were seen as developing race-related capacities about seven months earlier than White children or unspecified children.</p>
<p>These perceptions had consequences. The earlier adults believed a child developed race-related capacities, the younger the age they reported being willing to talk to that child about race. In other words, the assumption that Black children understand race earlier led adults to say they would talk to them about racism at younger ages. This belief did not appear to apply as strongly to White children or to children in general. Additionally, when adults believed that children were more color-evasive, they were less likely to say they would talk to them about race at a young age.</p>
<p>One study included a brief intervention to test whether these beliefs could be shifted. Participants who read a short paragraph explaining that children are naturally aware of race subsequently reported lower beliefs in color-evasiveness across all child groups and said they would be willing to start conversations about race at earlier ages. This suggests that targeted information can change adult beliefs and potentially support more proactive conversations about race with children.</p>
<p>In an exploratory part of the research, participants were asked how they would respond to a child who asked why nearly all U.S. presidents have been White men. Their answers were coded for whether they addressed racism directly or minimized it. Adults were more likely to minimize racism in their responses when the question came from a White child, compared to when it came from a Black child or a child with no specified race. </p>
<p>The more participants believed children understood race, the more they addressed racism directly. Conversely, the more color-evasive they believed children were, the less likely they were to acknowledge racism in their responses.</p>
<p>Notably, adults tended to view the generic category of “children” as White and race-neutral. This aligns with previous research showing that dominant social categories (like “Americans” or “humans”) are often unconsciously imagined as White unless otherwise specified. This mental default may contribute to a lack of engagement with racial issues in conversations with children when their race is not mentioned.</p>
<p>The study also included exploratory analyses comparing responses from White participants and participants of color. White participants tended to believe that children—regardless of racial identity—developed race-related capacities earlier than did participants of color. White participants also reported being more willing to talk about race at younger ages. The authors suggest this might reflect increased awareness or performative intentions in response to recent national conversations about racism, but they emphasize the need for further research to understand these differences more fully.</p>
<p>All five studies in the research were preregistered, meaning the researchers publicly documented their hypotheses, study designs, and planned analyses <em>before </em>collecting data. Preregistration is an important practice in psychological science because it helps prevent questionable research practices, such as selectively reporting results or modifying hypotheses after seeing the data. By committing in advance to specific methods and analyses, researchers increase the transparency and credibility of their findings.</p>
<p>But the researchers acknowledge some limitations. While the sample sizes were large, the participant pool was predominantly White, which may have influenced the results. The study also focused on only two racial groups—Black and White children—limiting the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Preliminary data from an exploratory study that included Asian, Latino, Indigenous, and biracial children suggested similar trends, but more research is needed to draw firm conclusions.</p>
<p>Future studies could explore how adults think about race in relation to other marginalized or mixed-race groups, how beliefs vary across different social and educational settings, and whether these beliefs change over time. Researchers are also interested in whether adults’ assumptions about children’s race-related understanding influence actual parenting, teaching, or policymaking practices.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251321545" target="_blank">U.S. Adults Believe That “Children” Are Color-Evasive and “Black Children” Process Race Early</a>,” was authored by Leigh S. Wilton, Jess Sullivan, and Evan P. Apfelbaum.</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/anxiety-and-anger-may-explain-how-parenting-styles-shape-life-satisfaction/" 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;">Anxiety and anger may explain how parenting styles shape life satisfaction</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 21st 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of Italian young adults found that anger and anxiety may help explain the relationship between parental bonding and life satisfaction. The results suggested that parental overprotection might lead to higher anxiety, which, in turn, reduces life satisfaction. Similarly, better parental care could lead to greater anger control, which may enhance life satisfaction. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2025.2473735"><em>Journal of Psychology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Parental bonding refers to the emotional connection and relationship that develops between a parent and their child, especially in early life. It involves feelings of warmth, closeness, and commitment to the child’s well-being. Strong parental bonding is essential for a child’s healthy emotional, social, and cognitive development. It fosters a sense of security and trust, forming the foundation for future relationships.</p>
<p>Factors that influence bonding include the parent’s mental health, sensitivity to the child’s needs, and the quality of early caregiving. Disrupted bonding—such as through neglect or inconsistency—can contribute to attachment difficulties and behavioral problems. Parental bonding is not fixed and can strengthen over time through positive interactions and responsive parenting.</p>
<p>Study author Martina Smorti and her colleagues aimed to investigate the psychological processes linking parental bonding—specifically, the emotional connection with both mother and father—and life satisfaction. They focused on two dimensions of parental bonding: care and overprotection, and hypothesized that anger and anxiety might mediate the relationships between these dimensions and life satisfaction.</p>
<p>The study included 369 Italian adults, with an average age of 22 years; 242 were women. About 72% had a college degree, 12% held a master’s degree, and 60% reported living with their family. Additionally, 69% reported that they were not currently employed.</p>
<p>Participants completed self-report assessments of parental bonding (the Parental Bonding Instrument), anger expression and control (the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory–2), anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory), and life satisfaction (the Satisfaction with Life Scale).</p>
<p>The results showed that participants who perceived higher levels of maternal or paternal care tended to exhibit better anger control and express anger less frequently. They also reported lower anxiety and greater life satisfaction. In contrast, participants who reported higher levels of parental overprotection—by either parent—tended to report higher anxiety, more frequent expression of anger, and lower life satisfaction. Greater anger control was associated with lower maternal overprotection but was not linked to paternal overprotection.</p>
<p>The researchers tested statistical models to determine whether anger and anxiety mediated the relationship between parental bonding and life satisfaction. The analyses suggested that anxiety may mediate the relationship between parental overprotection and life satisfaction—meaning that overprotective parenting might increase anxiety, which is then associated with lower life satisfaction. Similarly, anger control appeared to mediate the relationship between parental care and life satisfaction. Negative expressions of anger also seemed to mediate the link between maternal overprotection and life satisfaction.</p>
<p>“These findings demonstrated that maternal and paternal bonding might play a role in the life satisfaction of young adults through different underlying psycho-emotional mechanisms,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the psychological factors underlying the links between parental bonding and life satisfaction. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any definitive causal inferences to be derived from the results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2025.2473735">Exploring the Links Between Parental Bonding and Life Satisfaction: Anxiety and Anger as Underlying Mechanisms,</a>” was authored by Martina Smorti, Cansu Alsancak-Akbulut, Francesca Pozza, and Carmen Berrocal Montiel.</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/psychopathic-individuals-recognize-unfairness-but-are-less-likely-to-punish-it/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Psychopathic individuals recognize unfairness but are less likely to punish it</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 21st 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Individuals who score higher on psychopathic personality traits are less likely to punish others for unfair or norm-violating behavior—especially when doing so comes at a personal cost—according to new research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104588" target="_blank">Journal of Research in Personality</a></em>. The findings suggest that a lack of social punishment among these individuals is driven more by self-interest than by a failure to recognize injustice.</p>
<p>Psychopathic traits are personality characteristics that include a lack of empathy, callousness, manipulativeness, impulsivity, and disregard for rules or others’ rights. While commonly associated with criminal behavior, these traits exist on a spectrum in the general population. People who score high on psychopathic traits may not break laws, but they often show less concern for social norms and the well-being of others. This study was designed to explore how these traits influence a person’s willingness to punish norm violations—both as a direct victim and as an uninvolved observer.</p>
<p>Previous research has shown that people often go out of their way to punish those who violate social norms, even when they were not personally affected and even when doing so costs them something. This type of behavior, known as social punishment, helps uphold cooperation in society. But the link between psychopathic traits and this kind of punishment behavior has been unclear, with some studies finding that people with higher psychopathic traits are more punitive and others showing the opposite.</p>
<p>To better understand this relationship, a team of researchers led by Zhuo Yang and colleagues conducted two complementary studies. The first was a large-scale online survey using hypothetical scenarios. The second was a lab-based experiment using real economic games where participants had to choose whether or not to punish norm violators with their own money.</p>
<p>In the first study, over 13,800 adults in China completed a survey as part of a project measuring legal knowledge and moral attitudes. Participants read short descriptions of unfair or unethical scenarios—some where punishing the violator could carry personal risk, and others where punishment came at no personal cost. Participants then rated how likely they would be to take action to punish the wrongdoer, either as the person directly affected or as a third-party observer.</p>
<p>Participants also completed a widely used self-report scale that measures psychopathic traits. The results showed a clear pattern: people with higher psychopathic traits were consistently less likely to say they would punish the wrongdoer, whether they were the victim or a bystander. This held true both when there was a potential cost to punishment and when there wasn’t. The effect was stronger when participants were observers, suggesting that those with high psychopathic traits were particularly unwilling to intervene on behalf of others.</p>
<p>In the second study, the researchers tested whether these patterns would hold up in a more controlled environment using real stakes. Ninety-three university students participated in economic games in which they could spend money to punish a player who had behaved unfairly in a resource-sharing task. In some rounds, punishing the wrongdoer came at a cost to the participant, while in others it did not.</p>
<p>The researchers found that psychopathic traits predicted punishment behavior only when punishment was costly. In these situations, participants with higher psychopathic traits were less likely to punish the wrongdoer and, when they did, they imposed smaller penalties. However, when punishment was free, people high in psychopathic traits punished as often and as harshly as others.</p>
<p>This pattern suggests that individuals high in psychopathic traits are not incapable of recognizing unfairness or unwilling to enforce norms—but they are much less likely to do so when it involves a personal sacrifice. Their lower rates of punishment appear to stem from egoistic motives rather than a lack of moral reasoning.</p>
<p>To explore why this might be the case, the researchers also measured participants’ sensitivity to justice. This included how much they cared about being treated fairly themselves (self-oriented justice sensitivity) and how much they cared about fairness for others (other-oriented sensitivity). The analysis showed that people with higher psychopathic traits were more sensitive to unfairness directed at themselves, but this did not make them more likely to punish norm violators. In fact, self-oriented justice sensitivity helped explain why they were less likely to punish when doing so came at a personal cost. It appears their concern for fairness is self-focused and does not extend to broader moral enforcement.</p>
<p>Importantly, the researchers did not find that individuals with higher psychopathic traits had weaker beliefs in fairness or were less able to recognize unfairness. This supports the idea that these individuals can understand moral rules, but are less motivated to act on them when it doesn’t benefit them directly.</p>
<p>These findings provide new insight into how psychopathic traits shape behavior in everyday moral decision-making. While these traits are associated with lower cooperation and less concern for others, they don’t appear to impair basic moral understanding. Instead, they seem to shift the motivational balance away from prosocial actions and toward self-preservation.</p>
<p>As with all research, the study has some limitations. The lab experiment involved a relatively small and mostly female university sample, which may not be representative of the broader population. In contrast, the online survey had a large and diverse sample, but relied on hypothetical scenarios that may not reflect real-world behavior. The difference in methods may explain some inconsistencies between the two studies—for example, the finding that psychopathic traits predicted punishment under both cost and no-cost conditions in the survey, but only under cost conditions in the lab.</p>
<p>Future research could build on these findings by including more balanced samples, using real-life scenarios, and incorporating neuroscience methods to better understand the brain mechanisms involved. It may also be valuable to examine how these dynamics play out in groups with higher levels of psychopathy, such as incarcerated individuals.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104588" target="_blank">Psychopathic traits predict reduced social punishment: Evidence from a large-sample survey and an experimental study</a>,” was authored by Zhuo Yang, Ruiming Guo, Wei Li, Wenchao Meng, Yijing Shi, An Li, Morris Hoffman, and Qun Yang.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/the-neuroscience-of-why-we-cry-happy-tears/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">The neuroscience of why we cry happy tears</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 20th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Tears are usually seen as a sign of sadness or pain, but it’s not uncommon for people to cry during life’s most joyful moments: weddings, births, reunions, sporting triumphs, or even just an unexpected act of kindness.</p>
<p>These “happy tears” seem contradictory, but they offer a fascinating window into how the human brain handles intense emotion.</p>
<p>Crying is a complex biological response to emotional overload – and it doesn’t discriminate between good and bad feelings. Whether triggered by grief or elation, tears are often the result of our brain attempting to process more than it can manage in the moment.</p>
<p>Both positive and negative emotions activate the <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/limbic-system">limbic system</a>, the part of the brain involved in processing feelings and memory. Within this system, the <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/the-role-of-the-amygdala-in-human-behavior-and-emotion-7499223">amygdala</a> – an almond-shaped cluster of neurons – acts as an emotional alarm bell, detecting arousal and signalling the body to respond.</p>
<p>When highly stimulated, the amygdala activates other brain areas including the hypothalamus, which controls involuntary physical functions like heartbeat, breathing and tear production.</p>
<p>Another key structure is the <a href="https://practicalpie.com/anterior-cingulate-cortex/">anterior cingulate cortex</a>, which plays a role in emotion regulation, decision-making and empathy. It helps coordinate the brain’s response to emotional conflict, such as experiencing joy and sadness at the same time. These overlapping pathways explain why a sudden surge of happiness can still produce a reaction typically associated with distress.</p>
<p>Scientists believe happy crying is a form of emotional homeostasis: a way of bringing us back to equilibrium after an emotional high. Crying activates the parasympathetic nervous system, which slows the heart rate and relaxes the body after the adrenaline spike of intense feeling. In other words, tears help us calm down.</p>
<p>This idea of “resetting” isn’t unique to happiness. Crying in response to stress or trauma serves a similar purpose. What’s striking about happy crying is how it illustrates the body’s effort to balance opposing forces: relief after fear, gratitude after hardship, pride after struggle.</p>
<h2>Happy tears</h2>
<p>So-called “happy” tears are rarely just that. Often they emerge from a blend of emotions. For example, a parent watching their child graduate may be proud, nostalgic, and a little melancholic all at once. A long-awaited reunion might stir joy and the pain of absence. Psychologists refer to this as a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7351468/pdf/nihms-1597474.pdf">dual-valence response </a>– an emotional state that contains both positive and negative elements.</p>
<p>These emotional blends engage memory systems as well, particularly the hippocampus, which processes and retrieves personal history. That’s why a joyful moment can unexpectedly bring a lump to the throat – it activates memories of previous loss, struggle or longing.</p>
<p>Interestingly, humans are the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323883089_Why_Only_Humans_Shed_Emotional_Tears_Evolutionary_and_Cultural_Perspectives">only animals known to shed emotional tears</a>. While many mammals produce reflex tears to lubricate the eye, only humans cry in response to emotion. This probably evolved as a form of non-verbal communication, especially in early social groups.</p>
<p>Tears signal vulnerability, authenticity and emotional depth. Crying during joyful moments demonstrates to others that something profoundly meaningful has occurred.</p>
<p>In this way, happy crying can strengthen social bonds, invite empathy and create shared moments of catharsis. Research has even shown that people are more likely to offer help to someone who is crying, regardless of whether the tears are <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4882350/">sad or joyful</a>.</p>
<p>So why do we cry when we’re happy? Because happiness is not a simple emotion. It is often tangled with memory, relief, awe and the sheer weight of meaning. Tears are the brain’s way of processing this complexity, of marking a moment that matters, even when it’s joyful. Far from being a contradiction, happy tears remind us that emotional life is rich, messy and above all deeply human.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/256482/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/why-do-we-cry-happy-tears-the-science-behind-this-emotional-paradox-256482">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/scientists-shed-light-on-how-forgiveness-does-and-doesnt-reshape-memories/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Scientists shed light on how forgiveness does and doesn’t reshape memories</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 20th 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://psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-18923-001?doi=1" target="_blank">Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</a></em> provides insight into how forgiveness affects memory. The researchers found that forgiving someone who has wronged you does not blur or alter the details of the event in memory. Instead, it changes how you feel about it. People who have forgiven a past offense still remember what happened with the same clarity, but their emotional response when recalling the event is less intense and less negative.</p>
<p>The researchers were interested in understanding what actually changes in the mind when someone forgives a wrongdoing. While many theories suggest that forgiveness helps repair relationships by altering how we feel about a transgression, there has been debate over whether these changes stem from emotional shifts or from changes in memory itself. In other words, does forgiveness help us feel better because we no longer remember the incident clearly, or do we simply feel differently about what we still clearly recall?</p>
<p>To answer this question, the researchers set out to compare two competing explanations. One, called the “episodic fading” account, suggests that when we forgive someone, we stop thinking about the transgression as much. As a result, the memory becomes less vivid and detailed over time. This weakening of the memory, the theory proposes, reduces the emotional charge of the experience. The other theory, the “emotional fading” account, argues that forgiveness doesn’t affect the accuracy or detail of the memory at all. Instead, it allows people to reframe the event emotionally, changing how they feel about it without losing any factual content.</p>
<p>“What got me inspired to study forgiveness was knowing that victims of terrible crimes in the context of the armed conflict in Colombia forgave the perpetrators of various transgressions, such as forced displacement, homicides, massacres, and other atrocities,” said study author <a href="https://gabrielafernandezmiranda.github.io/" target="_blank">Gabriela Fernández-Miranda</a>, a Ph.D. candidate in <a href="https://www.imclab.org/" target="_blank">the Imagination and Modal Cognition Lab</a> at Duke University.</p>
<p>“How is it that they are able to forgive such terrible offenses, when for me and others around me, forgiving less severe wrongs is often difficult? This led me to try to understand how our memories and emotions change when we forgive, and the cognitive mechanisms behind these changes”</p>
<p>The research team conducted four separate studies involving nearly 1,500 participants. In each study, participants were asked to recall real-life instances in which they were wronged, either by someone they later forgave or did not forgive. After describing these events, participants rated various aspects of their memory—how detailed and vivid it was, how they felt about the event when it happened, and how they felt when recalling it during the study.</p>
<p>In the first two studies, participants completed a standardized questionnaire that measured both the episodic qualities of their memory (such as vividness, sensory detail, and spatial arrangement) and its emotional characteristics (such as emotional intensity and positivity or negativity of the memory). </p>
<p>Across both studies, participants who had forgiven the person who wronged them consistently reported less emotional distress when remembering the event. They described their current feelings about the memory as less negative and intense. However, there was no significant difference between forgiven and unforgiven memories in terms of their clarity or detail. The events were remembered just as vividly, whether or not the perpetrator had been forgiven.</p>
<p>These results were consistent across multiple measures and held even after accounting for the perceived moral wrongness of the act. In other words, the reduced emotional intensity of forgiven memories was not because the wrongdoing seemed less serious in retrospect. Instead, the emotional transformation appeared to occur during the act of remembering itself—people still thought the wrongdoing was wrong, but they no longer felt as angry or hurt when recalling it.</p>
<p>“Some theoretical perspectives, which we present as the episodic fading account, argue that not forgiving is related to higher levels of rumination and leads to forgetting forgiven wrongdoings,” Fernández-Miranda told PsyPost. “Intuitively, it makes sense to expect that we ruminate more upon not forgiven wrongdoings than forgiven ones. From the beginning we expected to find that participants were not going to forget wrongdoings, but it was also interesting to find that there are no differences in how often people thought or talked about the wrongdoing, whether forgiven and not, further suggesting that rumination is not the mechanism underlying forgiveness, as the episodic fading account suggests.”</p>
<p>In a third study, the researchers expanded the analysis by asking participants to recall events in which they were not only victims, but also events in which they were the perpetrators. This allowed the team to investigate whether being forgiven by someone else also changed how the event was remembered. The results were largely similar. Whether someone had forgiven or been forgiven, the emotional tone of the memory during recall was more neutral and less intense if forgiveness had occurred. But again, the memory itself—the details, clarity, and content—remained unchanged.</p>
<p>A fourth and final study focused on how forgiveness-related emotional shifts influenced people’s attitudes toward the wrongdoer. Participants who forgave their offender reported lower desires for revenge and avoidance, and higher feelings of goodwill. These forgiving attitudes were strongly associated with how participants felt about the memory when recalling it, not how they remembered feeling at the time the event occurred. The researchers also found that the intensity and negativity of the emotions experienced during recall were linked to lower levels of benevolence and greater desire for revenge.</p>
<p>This study strengthens the idea that forgiveness does not involve forgetting or diminishing the facts of a hurtful event. Instead, it appears to be a psychological process that transforms our emotional reaction to those memories. When people say they “forgive but don’t forget,” this research suggests they are being quite literal: the memory remains, but the emotional pain fades.</p>
<p>One interesting and consistent finding across the studies was that participants rated forgiven wrongdoings as slightly less morally wrong than those they had not forgiven. Although all remembered events were considered morally problematic, people seemed to reevaluate their judgments slightly after forgiveness. This could reflect a kind of emotional compromise—perhaps softening moral evaluations helps facilitate reconciliation.</p>
<p>“Forgiving is not about forgetting a wrongdoing; we remember forgiven and not forgiven wrongs equally well,” Fernández-Miranda explained. “Our main finding is that our memories of forgiven wrongdoings, relative to not forgiven ones, change in their emotional characteristics, such that recalling the episodic memory of the specific wrong does not elicit the same emotional responses in the present as it did in the past. However, the wrongdoing is still remembered! That is what we call the emotional fading account of the relationship between memory and forgiveness.”</p>
<p>While the findings offer strong support for the emotional fading theory, the authors acknowledge some limitations. All data were collected from online participants in Western countries, which may limit how broadly the results can be applied. The studies also relied on retrospective self-reports rather than tracking forgiveness and memory over time. The researchers suggest that future work should include more diverse populations and use longitudinal designs to better understand how forgiveness unfolds.</p>
<p>“The major limitation of the studies presented in this paper has to do with the limited range of transgressions from online samples, who are located mostly in the United States,” Fernández-Miranda noted. “The most common wrongdoings are fights between friends or coworkers, and infidelity. However, we need to see if these results replicate for more severe transgressions.”</p>
<p>“My long-term goals involve conducting research to understand how we remember memories of wrongdoings, including a broader range of transgressions, with diverse samples, and in more naturalistic settings,” she added. “To that end, we have been carrying out studies in the United States and in Colombia using both lab-based methods and methods outside of the lab. While in the United States we work with students and community members in Durham, North Carolina, in Colombia we work with victims of political violence who have experienced severe transgressions such as forced displacement, homicides, threats, torture, sexual violence, etc. Part of the research is conducted outside the lab in naturalistic settings. This has presented us with several theoretical, methodological, and ethical challenges. I am very excited about our findings and about sharing all we have learned by conducting cognitive research in the field!”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001787" target="_blank">The Emotional Impact of Forgiveness on Autobiographical Memories of Past Wrongdoings</a>,” was authored by Gabriela Fernández-Miranda, Matthew Stanley, Samuel Murray, Leonard Faul, and Felipe De Brigard.</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/epistemic-mistrust-and-dogmatism-predict-preference-for-authoritarian-looking-leaders/" 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;">Epistemic mistrust and dogmatism predict preference for authoritarian-looking leaders</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jun 20th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2024.11" target="_blank">Politics and the Life Sciences</a></em> sheds light on how the way people come to trust or mistrust information can influence their political views and the kinds of leaders they find appealing. Although a person’s general trust in communicated knowledge—what psychologists call “epistemic trust”—does not directly predict whom they would vote for, it is linked to political ideology and dogmatic thinking, which are themselves related to preferences for authoritarian-looking leaders.</p>
<p>“In recent years, we’ve seen a troubling decline in trust toward major institutions like political leaders, the media, and science. This loss of trust has serious consequences, as shown during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people’s political beliefs often influenced whether they followed scientific advice,” said study author <a href="https://sites.google.com/view/marianavonmohr" target="_blank">Mariana von Mohr</a>, a researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London, and at <a href="https://www.politics-of-feelings.com/" target="_blank">the Centre for the Politics of Feelings</a>.</p>
<p>“We were interested in how people’s ability to trust information from others—something called epistemic trust, which develops early in life—might shape the kind of political leaders they prefer. Specifically, we wanted to understand whether lower epistemic trust makes people more resistant to different viewpoints and more drawn to strong, dominant leaders who offer certainty and clear-cut answers.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers recruited 1,096 participants, with roughly equal numbers from the United Kingdom and the United States. The participants were selected to be representative of their national populations in terms of age, sex, and ethnicity. They completed several online tasks and questionnaires.</p>
<p>One of the primary tools in the study was the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire. This measure captures three different ways people relate to communicated information: epistemic trust (the belief that others provide useful, relevant, and reliable knowledge), epistemic mistrust (a default suspicion toward information from others), and epistemic credulity (an overly accepting stance, regardless of source reliability). These traits are thought to stem from early social experiences, such as attachment relationships with caregivers.</p>
<p>The questionnaire includes statements that reflect these three stances toward information. For example, a person with high epistemic trust might agree with the statement, “I usually ask people for advice when I have a personal problem,” showing a willingness to rely on others for guidance. Someone with high epistemic mistrust might relate more to, “I’d prefer to find things out for myself on the internet rather than asking people for information,” reflecting a tendency to avoid relying on others. Meanwhile, a person high in epistemic credulity might endorse, “I am often considered naïve because I believe almost anything that people tell me,” suggesting a lack of discrimination in evaluating information sources.</p>
<p>To assess political preferences in a more behavior-based way, participants completed a leader choice task. On each trial, they saw a pair of computer-generated, gender-neutral faces that varied in perceived dominance and trustworthiness. These facial traits were chosen because they are thought to trigger deep-rooted social evaluations. Participants were asked which person they would prefer to vote for, allowing the researchers to measure each individual’s likelihood of choosing leaders with more authoritarian features (dominant and less trustworthy faces).</p>
<p>The researchers then analyzed the data using two statistical approaches. The first was a structural equation model, which allowed them to test a theory about how different psychological traits might be linked. The second was a network analysis, which explored the relationships between all the measured variables without imposing any assumed structure.</p>
<p>The results of both analyses showed that epistemic trust did not directly predict preferences for authoritarian-looking leaders. However, people who scored higher on epistemic trust tended to be more politically liberal and less dogmatic in their thinking. In contrast, people who were more epistemically mistrustful or credulous tended to be more dogmatic. Dogmatism, in turn, was associated with more conservative ideology and a greater preference for authoritarian-looking leaders.</p>
<p>In other words, epistemic trust influenced political choices indirectly, through its connection to political ideology and dogmatic thinking. The findings support the idea that our willingness or unwillingness to accept communicated knowledge—shaped early in life—can influence the cognitive styles and belief systems we carry into adulthood, including how rigid or flexible we are in our thinking and how we relate to political leaders.</p>
<p>One of the most striking findings from the network analysis was that epistemic trust, political ideology, and leader choice were not directly connected to one another except through their shared relationship with dogmatism. Dogmatism appeared as a central node in the network, acting as a bridge between trust-related traits and political behavior. This suggests that rigid or closed-minded thinking may be a key mechanism linking developmental dispositions, such as epistemic mistrust, to political preferences.</p>
<p>“Our research shows that when people struggle to trust the knowledge and intentions of others, they tend to become more dogmatic, holding tightly to their beliefs even when faced with evidence that challenges them,” von Mohr told PsyPost. “This kind of thinking can make strong, uncompromising political leaders more appealing.”</p>
<p>“It’s important for people to realize that their ability to trust others affects how open they are to different perspectives, which in turn shapes their political choices. Creating early social environments that encourage trust and openness to new information may help people stay more flexible in their thinking and make more thoughtful political decisions.”</p>
<p>The researchers also found some differences between the U.K. and U.S. samples. In the U.S., epistemic mistrust and credulity were linked more strongly to political trust, and political trust was positively associated with political ideology—meaning that liberals were more likely to trust politicians. In the U.K., by contrast, political trust was lower among liberals, likely reflecting dissatisfaction with the conservative government in power at the time. These differences underscore how national political context can shape the expression of more general psychological traits.</p>
<p>But the study, like all research, includes some caveats.</p>
<p>“One important limitation is that our study is based on correlations, meaning we can’t say for sure that one thing causes another,” von Mohr noted. “We found links between low trust, dogmatic thinking, and support for certain political leaders, but we can’t prove the direction of these relationships. That said, we looked at them in an order that makes sense based on what we know from psychology: epistemic trust tends to form early in life, while dogmatism and political beliefs usually develop later. So although we can’t make strong claims about cause and effect, our interpretation fits with how these traits are generally understood to unfold over time.”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into the psychological roots of political behavior. It suggests that developmental factors that shape our general trust in communicated knowledge are related to the way we think about politics, how dogmatic or open we are in our beliefs, and even the kinds of leaders we are drawn to. In particular, it highlights dogmatism as a potential pathway through which early dispositions may lead to political preferences, including a tendency to support authoritarian leaders.</p>
<p>“One important takeaway is that epistemic trust, while shaped early in life, isn’t set in stone,” von Mohr added. “People can become more open to others’ perspectives over time, especially if they’re in environments that support respectful dialogue and critical thinking. This is especially relevant today, when mistrust and political polarisation seem to be growing. We hope our study encourages further work on how to rebuild trust in ways that support more open-minded and engaged communities.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2024.11" target="_blank">A leader I can(not) trust: Understanding the path from epistemic trust to political leader choices via dogmatism</a>,” was authored by Mariana von Mohr, Kobi Hackenburg, Michal Tanzer, Aikaterini Fotopoulou, Chloe Campbell, and Manos Tsakiris.</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/gut-bacteria-may-play-a-causal-role-in-obsessive-compulsive-disorder-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;">Gut bacteria may play a causal role in obsessive-compulsive disorder, 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 20th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A Mendelian randomization analysis of genome-wide association study (GWAS) data investigated the potential causal links between gut microbiota composition and symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The results suggest that Proteobacteria in the gut may serve as a protective factor against the disorder, while Bacillales microorganisms may increase risk. Other families of microorganisms were also identified as contributing to OCD. The paper was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.02.099"><em>Journal of Affective Disorders</em></a>.</p>
<p>Obsessive-compulsive disorder, or OCD, is a mental health condition in which a person experiences unwanted, intrusive thoughts called obsessions. These obsessions cause intense anxiety or discomfort. To reduce this distress, the person feels compelled to perform repetitive behaviors or mental rituals, known as compulsions.</p>
<p>Common obsessions include fears of contamination, harm, or making mistakes, while common compulsions include excessive cleaning, checking, or counting. People with OCD are usually aware that their thoughts and actions are irrational but feel unable to stop them. The disorder can consume significant time and interfere with daily life, relationships, and work. OCD often begins in childhood or adolescence and can become chronic if left untreated.</p>
<p>Study author Mingjie He and her colleagues aimed to explore whether gut microbiota composition might play a causal role in OCD symptoms. Gut microbiota refers to the vast community of trillions of microorganisms living in the human gut. These microbes help with digestion by breaking down molecules into nutrients the body can absorb.</p>
<p>More recently, scientists have discovered a bidirectional pathway known as the microbiota-gut-brain axis, through which these microorganisms can influence brain processes—and be influenced by them. Studies of this axis have shown that gut microbiota composition is linked to various psychological characteristics. In some cases, symptoms of psychological disorders have even been transferred from humans to healthy rodents through fecal microbiota transplantation.</p>
<p>To examine this potential relationship, the researchers used Mendelian randomization, a method that leverages genetic variation to infer causal relationships between an exposure (gut microbiota) and an outcome (OCD). The approach mimics a randomized controlled trial by relying on the random assortment of genes at conception, which helps reduce confounding and reverse causality that can affect observational studies.</p>
<p>The researchers drew on genetic and microbiome data from 18,340 individuals of primarily European ancestry. Their analysis revealed that, at the phylum level, Proteobacteria appeared to be a protective factor against OCD. At the order level, Bacillales were identified as a risk factor. At the family level, Ruminococcaceae also appeared to offer protection. At the genus level, Bilophila was associated with reduced risk, while the Eubacterium ruminantium group and Lachnospiraceae UCG001 were linked to increased risk. A reverse analysis found no evidence that OCD influences gut microbiota composition.</p>
<p>“Our analysis suggested that specific gut microbiota might have a causal relationship with OCD, revealing potential intervention strategies for the prevention and treatment of this disorder,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on how gut microbiota composition may influence OCD symptoms. However, it is important to note that gut microbiota is shaped by many factors, including diet, lifestyle, and environment. Moreover, since the data used in this study came exclusively from individuals of European ancestry, the findings may not generalize to other ethnic or cultural groups.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.02.099">Causal link between gut microbiota and obsessive-compulsive disorder: A two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis</a>,” was authored by Mingjie He, Hongyang Zhang, Zheng Luo, Xinhao Duan, Feng Zhao, Peng Su, Zhijun Zeng, Lixiao Zhou, Chengzhi Chen, and Jingfu Qiu.</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>