<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/people-with-depression-face-significantly-greater-social-and-health-related-challenges/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">People with depression face significantly greater social and health-related challenges</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 5th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study has found that individuals with depression tend to have substantially higher health-related social needs compared to their non-depressed peers. They also exhibited higher frailty index scores. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119410"><em>Journal of Affective Disorders</em></a>.</p>
<p data-start="416" data-end="1044">Health-related social needs refer to non-medical factors that significantly influence health outcomes, such as access to food, housing, transportation, utilities, and social support. These needs fall under the broader concept of social determinants of health. When unmet, health-related social needs can contribute to chronic disease, hospitalizations, and poor overall health.</p>
<p data-start="416" data-end="1044">Healthcare providers and systems are increasingly screening for these needs to address barriers to care and improve health equity. Addressing them often requires collaboration among medical professionals, community organizations, and social services.</p>
<p data-start="1046" data-end="1412">Another important indicator of vulnerability to adverse health outcomes is the frailty index. Frailty is a condition marked by diminished physiological capacity and an increased susceptibility to harmful outcomes such as frequent falls, fractures, disability, impaired mobility, feelings of isolation, confusion, and an elevated risk of both dementia and depression.</p>
<p data-start="1414" data-end="1647">Study author Ruoyu Gou and his colleagues hypothesized that individuals with high levels of health-related social needs are at an increased risk of depression. They also hypothesized that this relationship may be mediated by frailty.</p>
<p data-start="1649" data-end="2037">The authors analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a large, ongoing survey designed to collect nationally representative data on the U.S. population. This analysis included non-institutionalized U.S. adults from ten survey cycles conducted between 2003 and 2023. Data from 22,024 participants were included, with an average age of approximately 46 years.</p>
<p data-start="2039" data-end="2590">The researchers assessed health-related social needs across eight specific components: employment status, household income relative to the poverty line, food security, education level, healthcare access, health insurance coverage, housing status, and marital status. Depression symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and frailty was measured using a frailty index based on 36 items related to the accumulation of health deficits. This index incorporated self-reported health status, vital signs, and laboratory tests.</p>
<p data-start="2592" data-end="2978">Results showed that individuals with depression had higher health-related social needs than their non-depressed peers. More specifically, the odds of depression were 1.5 to 2 times higher in participants with moderate levels of unmet social needs compared to those with no unmet needs. The odds were nearly 9 to 12 times higher among individuals with the greatest number of unmet needs.</p>
<p data-start="2980" data-end="3293">Depressed individuals also had higher frailty index scores compared to non-depressed participants. Further statistical analysis revealed that frailty accounted for approximately 45% of the association between health-related social needs and depression, indicating that frailty partially mediated the relationship.</p>
<p>“Over a period of 20 years in the United States, HRSN [health-related social needs] levels have been associated with an increased risk of depression. This may occur through the induction of frailty in participants,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between health-related social needs and depression. However, it should be noted that the design of this study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119410">Association of Health Related Social Needs (HRSN) with depression in NHANES (2003− 2023): mediating effects of frailty,</a>” was authored by Ruoyu Gou, Hongting Cao, Danni Dou, Zhengyang Huo, and Guanghua Li.</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/stress-disrupts-gut-and-brain-barriers-by-reducing-key-microbial-metabolites-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;">Stress disrupts gut and brain barriers by reducing key microbial metabolites, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 5th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study reports that a single, brief exposure to stress is associated with a rapid reduction of beneficial compounds produced by gut bacteria. The research, published in the journal <em><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266635462500050X" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health</a></em>, also found that these same compounds, when tested in a laboratory setting, appear to protect the cellular barriers of both the gut and the brain from damage. The findings offer new insight into the immediate biological responses to stress, highlighting a potential mechanism through which even short-term stressors might influence our physiology.</p>
<p>Scientists are increasingly interested in the gut-brain axis, the complex network of communication between the gastrointestinal system and the brain. This system includes not only nerves and hormones, but also immune signals and microbial products. One of the key components in this system is a group of substances called short-chain fatty acids, which are produced when gut bacteria digest dietary fiber.</p>
<p>These fatty acids—mainly butyrate, acetate, and propionate—can influence gut health, inflammation, brain function, and even mood. While much attention has been paid to how stress affects the body over time, less is known about how the gut and brain respond to short bursts of stress. The current study set out to examine whether acute stress changes short-chain fatty acid production, and how those changes might influence the function of protective barriers in the body.</p>
<p>“We have long been interested in the impact of stress on signalling in the gut-brain axis. This is a two-way street in that while gut microbes can tune the host stress response, stress exposures can also change the composition and function of the gut microbiota. Much less is known in this context about how acute stress, the building blocks of chronic stress, modify the gut. Essentially, we wanted to know what was going on in the stressed gut,” explained study author Gerard Clarke, a professor of neurobehavioral science at the University College Cork and co-author of <em><a href="https://shop.elsevier.com/books/microbiota-brain-axis/foster/978-0-12-814800-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Microbiota Brain Axis: A Neuroscience Primer</a></em>.</p>
<p>To explore this, the researchers exposed mice to a 15-minute period of restraint stress. They used both conventional mice, germ-free mice raised without any gut microbes, and germ-free mice that had been re-colonized with gut bacteria. After the stress exposure, the team measured the levels of various short-chain fatty acids and other related compounds in the animals’ lower intestines. The researchers also tested the effects of these compounds on cellular models that mimic the gut and blood-brain barriers, which are crucial in preventing harmful substances from entering sensitive tissues.</p>
<p>In the animals exposed to stress, levels of butyrate and acetate dropped significantly in the lower intestinal contents, especially in conventional and colonized germ-free mice. These changes appeared quickly, within 45 minutes of the stress exposure. The researchers also found that stress reduced levels of dietary sugar breakdown products and other microbial metabolites. These findings suggest that acute stress disrupts the fermentation processes that gut bacteria use to produce beneficial compounds, which could have downstream effects on host health.</p>
<p>“One of the intriguing findings here is that the consequences of an acute stress exposure is visible in the gut very quickly as alterations in microbial metabolites,” Clarke told PsyPost. “These results build on earlier work from our lab to potentially explain how an acute psychosocial stressor can impact intestinal permeability.”</p>
<p>To understand whether these stress-induced reductions had functional consequences, the researchers turned to laboratory cell models. They applied varying concentrations of butyrate, acetate, and propionate to layers of gut and brain cells grown in the lab. The goal was to see whether these compounds could protect against barrier disruption triggered by lipopolysaccharide, a bacterial molecule known to increase permeability and inflammation.</p>
<p>The results showed that certain concentrations of butyrate and acetate helped maintain barrier function, both in intestinal and brain cell models. For example, pretreatment with butyrate at 1 and 10 millimoles significantly prevented gut barrier damage, while acetate at 10 millimoles also had protective effects. Some concentrations of acetate, however, appeared to worsen permeability, indicating that its effects may vary depending on dose and context.</p>
<p>The protective effects were linked to changes in tight junction proteins, which help hold the barrier cells together. One of these proteins, ZO-1, was reduced by the bacterial challenge, but this reduction was partially reversed by treatment with the short-chain fatty acids. Microscopy showed that butyrate and propionate increased both the abundance and structural complexity of ZO-1 proteins at the junctions between cells, forming wavy “ruffles” that may represent a more active or flexible barrier. In contrast, acetate did not increase ruffling but still helped restore overall protein levels.</p>
<p>The researchers also looked at how these fatty acids influenced the activity of receptors known to respond to them. Specifically, butyrate increased the expression of FFAR2 and FFAR3, two receptors involved in immune and barrier regulation. These receptors are believed to play a role in maintaining the health of the gut lining, and mice lacking them show higher permeability and more inflammation. The current results suggest that short-chain fatty acids may help stabilize the gut barrier partly by activating these protective signaling pathways.</p>
<p>In addition to looking at how fatty acids protect barrier function, the researchers also tried to understand why stress reduces their levels in the first place. By analyzing the breakdown products of dietary sugars in the intestines, they found that stress reduced the availability of key substrates that bacteria use to make short-chain fatty acids.</p>
<p>The data also suggested that stress might shift microbial activity toward producing other compounds, such as polyols, or increase host absorption of fatty acids before they accumulate in the lower intestine. Some changes in microbial energy metabolism were also observed, depending on whether the animals had gut microbes or not. These findings point to a broad disturbance in the gut environment after stress, which could influence both microbial activity and the availability of beneficial compounds to the host.</p>
<p>“Our gut microbes are like little factories, with production lines pumping out microbial metabolites,” Clarke said. “One of the key messages is that the experience of stress can also be felt by our gut microbes and one of the consequences of this is alterations in the production of these microbial metabolites, in this case a reduction in short-chain fatty acids. Our results using <em>in vitro</em> models show that these microbial metabolites, like butyrate, are important to maintain gut and blood-brain barrier function.”</p>
<p>The findings offer new insight into how even short-term stress can alter gut-brain signaling, but the researchers acknowledge some limitations. The experiments used cell culture models to test barrier integrity, which cannot fully capture the complexity of living organisms.</p>
<p>“We used <em>in vitro</em> studies to understand if short-chain fatty acids could be effectors of intestinal permeability alterations in the gut and the brain, but these are a very simple approximations of what is happening at these sites in the whole organism within the context of microbiota-gut-brain axis signalling,” Clarke explained. “We <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-025-00749-z" target="_blank" rel="noopener">have recently noted</a> that more sophisticated options like human induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) offer a more innovative model to advance these studies in the future.”</p>
<p>The researchers emphasized that understanding how acute stress affects microbial metabolites like short-chain fatty acids may help explain how the gut-brain axis contributes to stress-related health problems. Since these metabolites are influenced by diet and microbial composition, they could become targets for new therapies aimed at supporting gut and brain barrier function during stress. For example, interventions that boost butyrate production or mimic its protective effects might help buffer against stress-induced damage.</p>
<p>“We still need to understand what happens in the stressed gut when these acute stress exposures are experienced repeatedly and chronically, and if adaptive or maladaptive consequences emerge that will be important for stress-related disorders,” Clarke said.</p>
<p>“This is all down to the great work of a really talented postdoctoral researcher, Dr. Cristina Rosell-Cardona,” he added. “Cristina is now <a href="https://www.ucc.ie/en/inspire/#about-the-programme" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an INSPIRE fellow</a> at APC Microbiome Ireland and is going on to look at the impact of microbial metabolites in depression, a stress-related disorder with alterations in microbiota-gut-brain axis signalling.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2025.100992" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Acute stress-induced alterations in short-chain fatty acids: Implications for the intestinal and blood brain barriers</a>,” was authored by Cristina Rosell-Cardona, Sarah-Jane Leigh, Emily Knox, Emanuela Tirelli, Joshua M. Lyte, Michael S. Goodson, Nancy Kelley-Loughnane, Maria R. Aburto, John F. Cryan, and Gerard Clarke.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-research-reveals-hidden-biases-in-ais-moral-advice/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New research reveals hidden biases in AI’s moral advice</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 5th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>As artificial intelligence tools become more integrated into everyday life, a new study suggests that people should think twice before trusting these systems to offer moral guidance. Researchers have found that large language models—tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Llama—consistently favor inaction over action in moral dilemmas and tend to answer “no” more often than “yes,” even when the situation is logically identical. The findings were published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412015122" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a></em>.</p>
<p>Large language models, or LLMs, are advanced artificial intelligence systems trained to generate human-like text. They are used in a variety of applications, including chatbots, writing assistants, and research tools. These systems learn patterns in language by analyzing massive amounts of text from the internet, books, and other sources.</p>
<p>Once trained, they can respond to user prompts in ways that sound natural and knowledgeable. As people increasingly rely on these tools for moral guidance—asking, for example, whether they should confront a friend or blow the whistle on wrongdoing—researchers wanted to examine how consistent and reasonable these decisions really are.</p>
<p>“People increasingly rely on large language models to advise on or even make moral decisions, and some researchers have even proposed using them in psychology experiments to simulate human responses. Therefore, we wanted to understand how moral decision making and advice giving of large language models compare to that of humans,” said study author Maximilian Maier of University College London.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a series of four experiments comparing the responses of large language models to those of human participants when faced with moral dilemmas and collective action problems. The goal was to see whether the models reasoned about morality in the same ways that people do, and whether their responses were affected by the way questions were worded or structured.</p>
<p>In the first study, the researchers compared responses from four widely used language models—GPT-4-turbo, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5, and Llama 3.1-Instruct—to those of 285 participants recruited from a U.S. representative sample. Each person and model was given a set of 13 moral dilemmas and 9 collective action problems.</p>
<p>The dilemmas included realistic scenarios adapted from past research and history, such as whether to allow medically assisted suicide or to blow the whistle on unethical practices. The collective action problems involved conflicts between self-interest and group benefit, like deciding whether to conserve water during a drought or donate to those in greater need.</p>
<p>The results showed that in moral dilemmas, the language models strongly preferred inaction. They were more likely than humans to endorse doing nothing—even when taking action might help more people. This was true regardless of whether the action involved breaking a moral rule or not. For example, when the models were asked whether to legalize a practice that would benefit public health but involve a controversial decision, they were more likely to recommend maintaining the status quo.</p>
<p>The models also showed a bias toward answering “no,” even when the situation was logically equivalent to one where “yes” was the better answer. This “yes–no” bias meant that simply rephrasing a question could flip the model’s recommendation. Human participants did not show this same pattern. While people’s responses were somewhat influenced by how questions were worded, the models’ decisions were far more sensitive to minor differences in phrasing.</p>
<p>The models were also more altruistic than humans when it came to the collective action problems. When asked about situations involving cooperation or sacrifice for the greater good, the language models more frequently endorsed altruistic responses, like donating money or helping a competitor. While this might seem like a positive trait, the researchers caution that this behavior may not reflect deep moral reasoning. Instead, it could be the result of fine-tuning these models to avoid harm and promote helpfulness—values embedded during training by their developers.</p>
<p>To further investigate the omission and yes–no biases, the researchers conducted a second study with 474 new participants. In this experiment, the team rewrote the dilemmas in subtle ways to test whether the models would give consistent answers across logically equivalent versions. They found that the language models continued to show both biases, while human responses remained relatively stable.</p>
<p>The third study extended these findings to everyday moral situations by using real-life dilemmas adapted from the Reddit forum “Am I the Asshole?” These stories involved more relatable scenarios, such as helping a roommate or choosing between spending time with a partner or friends. Even in these more naturalistic contexts, the language models still showed strong omission and yes–no biases. Again, human participants did not.</p>
<p>These findings raise important questions about the role of language models in moral decision-making. While they may give advice that sounds thoughtful or empathetic, their responses can be inconsistent and shaped by irrelevant features of a question. In moral philosophy, consistency and logical coherence are essential for sound reasoning. The models’ sensitivity to surface-level details, like whether a question is framed as “yes” or “no,” suggests that they may lack this kind of reliable reasoning.</p>
<p>The researchers note that omission bias is common in humans too. People often prefer inaction over action, especially in morally complex or uncertain situations. But in the models, this bias was amplified. Unlike people, the models also exhibited a systematic yes–no bias that does not appear in human responses. These patterns were observed across different models, prompting methods, and types of moral dilemmas.</p>
<p>“Do not uncritically rely on advice from large language models,” Maier told PsyPost. “Even though models are good at giving answers that superficially appear compelling (for instance, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-86510-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">another study</a> shows that people rate the advice of large language models as slightly more moral, trustworthy, thoughtful, and correct than that of an expert ethicist), this does not mean that their advice is actually more sound. Our study shows that their advice is subject to several potentially problematic biases and inconsistencies.”</p>
<p>In the final study, the researchers explored where these biases might come from. They compared different versions of the Llama 3.1 model: one that was pretrained but not fine-tuned, one that was fine-tuned for general chatbot use, and another version called Centaur that was fine-tuned using data from psychology experiments. The fine-tuned chatbot version showed strong omission and yes–no biases, while the pretrained version and Centaur did not. This suggests that the process of aligning language models with expected chatbot behavior may actually introduce or amplify these biases.</p>
<p>“Paradoxically, we find that efforts to align the model for chatbot applications based on what the company and its users considered good behavior for a chatbot induced the biases documented in our paper,” Maier explained. “Overall, we conclude that simply using people’s judgments of how positive or negative they evaluate the responses of LLMs (a common method for aligning language models with human preferences) is insufficient to detect and avoid problematic biases. Instead, we need to use methods from cognitive psychology and other disciplines to systematically test for inconsistent responses.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some caveats to consider. The studies focused on how models respond to dilemmas. But it remains unclear how much influence these biased responses actually have on human decision-making.</p>
<p>“This research only showed biases in the advice LLMs give, but did not examine how human users react to the advice,” Maier said. “It is still an open question to what extent the biases in LLMs’ advice giving documented here actually sway people’s judgements in practice. This is something we are interested in studying in future work.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412015122" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Large language models show amplified cognitive biases in moral decision-making</a>,” was authored by Vanessa Cheung, Maximilian Maier, and Falk Lieder.</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/7-subtle-signs-you-are-being-love-bombed-and-how-to-slow-things-down-before-you-get-hurt/" 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;">7 subtle signs you are being love bombed—and how to slow things down before you get hurt</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 4th 2025, 16:51</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Love and attention from a new romantic partner usually feel wonderful. But what if that whirlwind romance that’s sweeping you off your feet has a darker motive? This is often the case with love bombing – a manipulation tactic where someone showers you with excessive affection, gifts, and praise to gain control or influence. It can be hard to spot because in the moment it just feels like intense romance.</p>
<p>To help you tell genuine love from a sneaky red flag, here are seven subtle signs someone might be love bombing you, and how to recognize them early on. Each sign might seem flattering at first, but together they paint a picture that’s “too good to be true.” Pay attention to your gut feelings as you read – if any of these scenarios sound familiar, it may be time to slow down and take a closer look.</p>
<h2>1. The relationship is moving <em>extremely</em> fast</h2>
<p>A love bomber often tries to rush the natural pace of a new relationship. For example, they might start talking about commitment or future plans way too soon – calling you their <em>“soulmate”</em> or fantasizing about marriage within the first few dates.</p>
<p>While it can feel flattering to have someone so excited about you, it’s also overwhelming when someone you barely know is pushing for instant intimacy and forever promises. Psychologists note that this “fast-forward” romance is a control tactic: by accelerating emotional closeness, the love bomber hopes to bypass your normal dating boundaries and defenses. Healthy relationships take time to build.</p>
<p>So if your new partner is rushing to “lock things down” almost as soon as you meet, consider it a red flag rather than a fairy tale. Take a step back and set the pace to one that feels comfortable for you. A genuine partner will understand and respect your need to move slowly, whereas a love bomber will likely resist or keep pushing.</p>
<h2>2. The compliments never stop – but feel oddly impersonal</h2>
<p>Everyone enjoys a sincere compliment, but a love bomber’s flattery can feel like a nonstop sugar rush. They praise you constantly – yet something about their compliments feels <em>generic</em> or over-the-top. You might hear things like, <em>“You’re the most incredible person I’ve ever met,”</em> or <em>“You’re perfect; no one else compares to you,”</em> very early on.</p>
<p>These grand statements sound romantic, but notice if they lack specifics. Do they truly know you well enough to say you’re <em>“perfect”</em>? Often, love bombing compliments could apply to anyone; they’re designed to make you feel special quickly, without the person actually understanding you.</p>
<p>As one clinical psychologist points out, excessive praise that doesn’t feel personal is a warning sign – it’s meant to win your trust fast, not celebrate the real you. Ask yourself if the person ever mentions the little things about you: your unique quirks, values, or the things you’ve shared.</p>
<p>Real affection notices the details, while love bombing relies on a flattering <em>“script.”</em> If the compliments feel hollow or make you suspicious, pay attention. It’s okay to enjoy kind words, but keep an eye on whether their words match reality.</p>
<h2>3. You feel overwhelmed instead of flattered</h2>
<p>In a normal new romance, excitement and butterflies are expected – but you shouldn’t feel anxious or exhausted by affection. With love bombing, the constant attention can start to feel like too much. Maybe they text and call you all day, plan elaborate dates back-to-back, send big bouquets to your work, and expect you to be available 24/7.</p>
<p>At first it’s exciting, but very quickly you might find yourself thinking, <em>“This is all moving so fast – I’m stressed out.”</em> Feeling uneasy, off-balance, or overwhelmed by how someone is treating you is actually a key sign something’s not right.</p>
<p>One minute you’re swooning from the romance, and the next you’re drained trying to keep up with their intensity. Love bombing is <em>meant</em> to overwhelm – it’s like being swept up in a tidal wave of affection that keeps you from finding your footing.</p>
<p>A healthy relationship, in contrast, will leave you feeling secure and calm, not dizzy. So, if your gut is telling you “this is a bit much, a bit too soon,” trust that feeling. Slow things down and take space if you need it.</p>
<p>A caring partner will give you breathing room, whereas a love bomber might guilt you for it (which is another sign, coming up next). Remember: you should be able to enjoy romance, not feel like you’re <em>drowning</em> in it.</p>
<h2>4. They mirror everything about you</h2>
<p>Does this new person seem almost <em>uncannily</em> perfect for you – like a mirror image of your interests and dreams? Love bombers often mimic your likes, values, and habits to create the illusion that you’ve met your <em>“perfect match.”</em> This manipulation tactic, known as mirroring, might show up as them agreeing with all your opinions, claiming to love all the same hobbies, and even adopting your mannerisms or slang.</p>
<p>For example, you mention in passing that you love hiking, and suddenly they’re an “avid” hiker too; or you tell them your future goal is to live abroad, and now they insist they’ve <em>always</em> wanted the same. According to psychologists, mirroring is used intentionally to get closer to you and convince you of compatibility. Of course, it’s normal for couples to share interests.</p>
<p>The difference here is that a love bomber is <em>studying</em> you and then carefully reflecting back exactly what they think you want to hear. It can feel flattering (“Wow, we have so much in common!”), but if it’s a little too perfect, be cautious.</p>
<p>Try to notice if they ever express their own differing opinions or if they’re just echoing yours. Healthy partners can have individual interests and respectful disagreements. A love bomber, on the other hand, will often hide their true self behind a mask of <em>“me too!”</em> to fast-track your trust. Don’t be afraid to ask yourself: <em>“Who are they when I’m not around?”</em> If you sense that their agreeableness is more performance than authenticity, that’s a red flag.</p>
<h2>5. They want you all to themselves (and try to isolate you)</h2>
<p>Early on, it might just sound romantic: <em>“I can’t get enough of you – I want you all to myself!”</em> or they joke that they’re “jealous of your friends” because they miss you when you’re apart.</p>
<p>At first, constant togetherness can feel like passionate devotion. But watch out if your new partner increasingly pulls you away from your friends, family, or other activities. Love bombers often isolate their targets under the guise of <em>connection</em>.</p>
<p>What starts as “I just love being with you so much” can shift into subtle criticism of your other relationships: they might question why you spend time with others, get pouty when you go out without them, or insist that <em>“no one understands you like I do.”</em> The Cleveland Clinic notes that cutting you off from your support system is a common tactic in emotionally abusive dynamics.</p>
<p>It might not be outright forbidding you to see people (though that can happen too); often it’s sneaky, like guilt-tripping you about girls’ night, showing up uninvited so you’re never alone with others, or acting moody when you pay attention to someone else. The key here is that over time, your world starts shrinking to just the two of you, on their terms.</p>
<p>If you notice you’re drifting from friends or canceling plans to avoid upsetting your partner, take a hard look at why. True love will expand your life and encourage your other friendships, not require you to abandon them. Don’t let “us against the world” turn into just <em>you</em> left cut off and dependent on the love bomber.</p>
<h2>6. They make you feel guilty for needing space</h2>
<p>In any healthy relationship, both people should have lives outside the couple – whether it’s work, hobbies, or just alone time to recharge. If every time you try to take a little space, your partner reacts poorly, it’s a big warning sign.</p>
<p>A love bomber will push back on your boundaries: perhaps you tell them you’re busy one weekend or simply need a quiet night to yourself, and they respond with hurt feelings, sulking, or even anger. They might say things like, <em>“I guess I just care about you more than you care about me,”</em> or accuse you of not being as invested. Instead of respecting your “no” or your need for time, they make you feel like you’re doing something wrong.</p>
<p>According to experts, a classic feature of love bombing is that your “no” isn’t accepted – it might be met with guilt trips, arguments, or emotional outbursts. For instance, if you try to slow the relationship down to a pace you’re comfortable with, a love bomber might turn it around on you as a lack of commitment on your part, rather than listening to your concern.</p>
<p>You should never have to apologize for setting healthy boundaries. Feeling afraid to disappoint them or walking on eggshells about saying you need space is not normal this early on (or ever). In contrast, a caring partner will encourage your independence and be fine when you take time for yourself. If someone consistently makes you feel guilty or selfish for living your own life, that’s emotional manipulation. Don’t ignore it.</p>
<h2>7. Their affection flips to irritation or criticism without warning</h2>
<p>One of the most confusing signs of love bombing is how quickly the warmth can turn cold once they think they “have” you. In the beginning, a love bomber puts you on a pedestal – you can do no wrong and they adore everything about you. B</p>
<p>ut inevitably, nobody can live up to that perfect image forever. The moment you upset them or don’t meet an expectation, suddenly that overflowing affection disappears.</p>
<p>They might become distant, withdraw affection, or start criticizing you harshly for small things. It’s a jarring whiplash: <em>Yesterday you said I was amazing, today you’re annoyed with everything I do.</em></p>
<p>This rollercoaster of idealization and devaluation is intentional. As one relationship guide describes, at first you’re “everything they’ve ever dreamed of,” but if you assert yourself or disappoint them in any way, the adoration turns cold or critical fast. You may find yourself scrambling to get back in their good graces, blaming yourself for the sudden change.</p>
<p>That’s exactly how the love bomber maintains control – you start chasing the high of their earlier sweetness, trying to “fix” whatever you supposedly did wrong. It’s a form of emotional manipulation that keeps you off-balance. Remember, healthy love doesn’t put you through a dizzying guessing game.</p>
<p>If someone’s treatment of you fluctuates wildly – one day passionate, the next day punishing – recognize this pattern. Consistency and respect are hallmarks of real love. Emotional ups and downs that leave you anxious are a major red flag that should not be ignored. You deserve steady, reliable care, not a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde act.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Spotting and Responding to Love Bombing:</strong> The earlier you notice these subtle signs, the better. If you suspect you’re being love bombed, trust your intuition. As experts often advise, if something feels “off” or too overwhelming in a new relationship, pay attention to that feeling. Here are a few steps you can take:</p>
<ul>
<li>Pump the brakes: Slow down the relationship tempo. Create a bit of distance and see how they handle it. Taking time apart or delaying big commitments can reveal whether their intentions are respectful or controlling. A genuine partner might be a little disappointed but will understand. A love bomber might panic, pressure you more, or throw a tantrum – which tells you a lot.</li>
<li>Set clear boundaries: Be upfront about your need for personal space, time with others, or a slower pace. For example, you can say, <em>“I enjoy being with you, but I also need my Sunday afternoons to myself,”</em> or <em>“Let’s hold off on planning a big trip until we’ve known each other longer.”</em> Then watch their reaction. If they respect your boundaries, great – if they get angry or try to make you feel guilty, that’s a sign of trouble. Healthy love will honor your “no.”</li>
<li>Stay connected to friends and family: Don’t cancel plans or hide what’s going on in your relationship. The people who know and care about you can offer perspective if something doesn’t feel right. If multiple friends express concern that this new romance is overwhelming you, take that seriously. A love bomber wants to isolate you; resisting that by keeping your support network close will make it easier to see any red flags.</li>
<li>Seek an outside opinion: Sometimes it’s hard to trust your own judgment when you’re caught in a whirlwind. Consider talking to a therapist or counselor if you’re unsure. A mental health professional or a support hotline can help you understand if the behavior you’re experiencing is normal or not. You’re not “crazy” for feeling uneasy – manipulation can be very confusing, so getting an objective take can be grounding.</li>
<li>Remember you deserve respect: No matter how intoxicating the attention might feel at first, love bombing is not real love. Real love grows over time, respects your independence, and makes you feel safe. You should never feel afraid to set boundaries or worried that love will be “taken away” if you don’t constantly please someone. You have the right to feel comfortable and valued in a relationship. If the red flags pile up, it may be best to step back or end things before deeper harm is done.</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p>When someone is love bombing you, the warning signs can be easy to miss because they often masquerade as romance. But <em>love</em> shouldn’t leave you feeling anxious, guilty, or isolated. Trust yourself.</p>
<p>If you notice these subtle signs early on – the whirlwind pace, the overdone flattery, the nagging discomfort in your gut – take them seriously. It’s okay to slow down or walk away from a relationship that doesn’t feel healthy.</p>
<p>Real love will wait and will respect you; manipulation won’t. By spotting love bombing patterns early, you can protect your heart and ensure that any love you embrace is genuine, mutual, and built on solid ground.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Cleveland Clinic –</strong> <a href="https://health.clevelandclinic.org/love-bombing"><em>What Is Love Bombing? 7 Signs To Look For</em></a> (June 12, 2025)</li>
<li><strong>Psychology Today –</strong> Roxy Zarrabi, Psy.D., <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindful-dating/202404/10-ways-to-spot-a-love-bomber"><em>10 Ways to Identify a Love Bomber</em></a> (April 17, 2024)</li>
<li><strong>Calm Blog –</strong> <a href="https://www.calm.com/blog/what-is-love-bombing"><em>What is love bombing? Plus, 7 signs it’s happening to you</em></a> (Jun 12, 2025)</li>
<li><strong>Verywell Mind –</strong> Barbara Field, <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-love-bombing-5223611"><em>The Dangers of Love Bombing</em></a> (May 02, 2024)</li>
</ul></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/a-simple-breathing-exercise-enhances-emotional-control-new-research-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;">A simple breathing exercise enhances emotional control, new research suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 4th 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 journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251329856" target="_blank">Psychological Reports</a></em> indicates that just three minutes of slow, controlled breathing can improve a person’s ability to manage their emotional responses to negative situations. Following a brief breathing exercise, participants in the study reported feeling less negative and less agitated when viewing unpleasant images. They also felt more capable of using mental strategies to intentionally change their emotional state, suggesting this simple technique can provide an immediate boost to emotional self-regulation.</p>
<p>Researchers have long understood that the ability to manage our emotions is a key component of mental well-being and coping with life’s challenges. When this ability is diminished, it is associated with a range of mental health issues, including depression and anxiety. A complex, bidirectional relationship exists between stress and our capacity for emotional control. High levels of stress can impair our ability to regulate our feelings, and, conversely, poor emotional regulation can make us feel more stressed. </p>
<p>This impairment happens through a specific biological pathway. When we experience stress, the body’s central stress response system, known as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, becomes activated and releases stress hormones like cortisol. These hormones can interfere with the brain’s higher-order thinking regions, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive functions like self-control and decision-making. This process effectively weakens the “top-down” control our thinking brain has over our more automatic emotional centers, making it harder to stay calm and rational.</p>
<p>Given this connection, the researchers reasoned that if they could find a way to quiet the body’s stress response, it might free up the mental resources needed for effective emotional regulation. One promising method for doing this is slow-paced breathing. Deliberate, slow breathing has been shown to activate the parasympathetic nervous system, the part of our nervous system responsible for the “rest and digest” response that calms the body down. It achieves this by increasing the activity of the vagus nerve, a major nerve that helps regulate heart rate and other internal functions. </p>
<p>The scientists behind this study sought to bridge a few gaps in existing research. While many studies have explored mindfulness, they often involve long-term training or simply ask participants to focus on their breath without deliberately slowing it. This study wanted to see if a single, very short session of intentionally slow breathing could have an immediate effect. </p>
<p>Additionally, previous research often measured how breathing changed a person’s baseline emotional state, but did not test if it improved their ability to actively use a specific mental strategy, such as cognitive reappraisal—the technique of changing how you think about a situation to alter how you feel about it. Finally, the researchers wanted to test emotional flexibility by not only asking participants to reduce their negative feelings but also to intensify them, a less-studied aspect of emotional control.</p>
<p>To investigate these questions, the research team conducted an experiment with 13 undergraduate students from a college in New England, with an average age of about 21 years. The study used a “within-subjects” design, which means that every participant took part in both the experimental condition and the control condition, allowing for a direct comparison of their performance under each circumstance. The two sessions were held online via video conference and were separated by one to two weeks. </p>
<p>The order in which participants completed the conditions was mixed to prevent any ordering effects. In both sessions, participants engaged in a cognitive reappraisal task. They were shown a series of emotionally negative pictures (such as images of accidents or violence) and some neutral pictures. Before each image appeared, they received an audio instruction to either “enhance,” “suppress,” or “maintain” their emotional reaction. </p>
<p>For the “enhance” instruction, they were asked to use cognitive reappraisal to make their emotional response stronger, perhaps by imagining themselves or a loved one in the situation. For the “suppress” instruction, they were to use reappraisal to lessen their emotional response, for example, by thinking of the situation as fake or by focusing on a non-emotional detail. For “maintain,” they were told to simply view the image and let their feelings unfold naturally.</p>
<p>The key difference between the two sessions was the manipulation. In the control condition, participants moved directly to the picture task after a short break. In the slow-paced breathing condition, before starting the task, they were guided through a three-minute “box breathing” exercise. An on-screen animation instructed them to inhale for four seconds, hold their breath for three seconds, exhale for four seconds, and hold for another three seconds, repeating this cycle for the full three minutes. </p>
<p>After viewing each picture, participants provided several ratings. Using a tool called the Self Assessment Manikin, which uses simple figures to depict feelings, they rated the picture’s valence (how pleasant or unpleasant it made them feel on a 9-point scale) and its arousal (how calm or excited it made them feel on a 9-point scale). They also rated their own performance on a 4-point scale, indicating how successful they felt they were at following the instruction to enhance, suppress, or maintain their emotion.</p>
<p>The breathing exercise had a direct effect on the participants’ emotional state. When instructed to simply “maintain” their reaction to negative images, participants in the slow-paced breathing condition rated the pictures as less negative and felt calmer (less aroused) compared to their ratings in the control condition. This shows that the breathing exercise on its own served as an emotional buffer, toning down the immediate impact of the unpleasant stimuli.</p>
<p>Even more interesting were the findings related to the active use of cognitive reappraisal. The most striking result came from the self-reported success ratings. In the control condition, without the breathing exercise, participants reported that they were significantly less successful at suppressing their negative emotions compared to enhancing or maintaining them. They felt they struggled to mentally distance themselves and reduce their feelings. </p>
<p>However, in the slow-paced breathing condition, this struggle disappeared. Participants reported feeling equally successful at all three tasks: enhancing, maintaining, and suppressing their emotions. When directly comparing the two conditions, participants rated themselves as more successful at suppressing their emotional response to negative images after having completed the breathing exercise. This suggests that the breathing exercise subjectively improved their sense of control and their confidence in their ability to manage their feelings.</p>
<p>The study also found that the breathing exercise helped individuals who are naturally more avoidant of negative situations. For participants who scored higher on a measure of the Behavioral Inhibition System, which reflects a tendency to avoid aversive stimuli, a notable pattern emerged. In the control condition, these individuals found it difficult to follow the “enhance” instruction—they struggled to voluntarily increase their negative feelings. </p>
<p>After the slow-paced breathing exercise, this was no longer the case; they became just as capable of enhancing their emotional experience as other participants. This finding hints that the calming effect of the breathing may provide a sense of safety that allows individuals to approach and engage with uncomfortable emotions in a more controlled way.</p>
<p>The authors of the study acknowledge some limitations. As a pilot study, the sample size of 13 participants was small, and the findings will need to be replicated with larger, more diverse groups. </p>
<p>A primary limitation was a potential “floor effect.” The breathing exercise was so effective at lowering negative feelings and arousal at baseline that it left little room for further reduction. In the breathing condition, the emotional ratings for the “maintain” instruction were already almost as low as the ratings for the “suppress” instruction in the control condition. This makes it difficult to determine how much additional benefit the cognitive reappraisal strategy provided on top of the breathing itself. </p>
<p>Future research could address this by using more intensely negative stimuli. Future studies should also incorporate direct physiological measurements, such as heart rate variability, to confirm that the observed emotional benefits are indeed linked to increased activity in the body’s calming parasympathetic nervous system. It would also be valuable to compare the effectiveness of different breathing techniques and paces to optimize the intervention. </p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251329856" target="_blank">Acute Effects of Slow-Paced Breathing on Emotion Regulation: A Pilot Study</a>,” was authored by Laura B. F. Kurdziel, Leah McDevitt, and Christina Hardway.</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/despite-political-tensions-belief-in-an-impending-u-s-civil-war-remains-low/" 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;">Despite political tensions, belief in an impending U.S. civil war remains low</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 4th 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 most Americans do not expect a civil war to occur in the near future, and even fewer believe such a conflict is necessary. Among those who do foresee participating in such violence, many say they could be persuaded not to take part if encouraged by family, friends, or trusted leaders. These findings come from a large, nationally representative survey conducted in mid-2024 and published in the journal <em><a href="https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-025-00594-w" target="_blank">Injury Epidemiology</a></em>.</p>
<p>The study is part of an ongoing project led by Garen J. Wintemute at the University of California, Davis, which has tracked public attitudes about political violence in the United States since 2022. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40621-024-00521-5" target="_blank">Previous waves</a> of the survey showed that belief in the likelihood or need for civil war had declined between 2022 and 2023. With political polarization increasing and the 2024 elections approaching, researchers expected to see a rise in these beliefs. But the latest data suggest that public sentiment on this issue has remained relatively stable.</p>
<p>To explore these trends, researchers collected responses from over 8,000 U.S. adults who had completed earlier waves of the survey in 2022 and 2023. Participants were members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a widely used online survey panel recruited through address-based sampling to reflect the U.S. population. The 2024 survey was conducted between May 23 and June 14, shortly before and after the announcement of Donald Trump’s felony convictions, allowing researchers to examine whether this high-profile legal development influenced public views.</p>
<p>Participants were asked whether they agreed with statements such as “In the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States” and “The United States needs a civil war to set things right.” Only 6.5% of respondents strongly or very strongly agreed that civil war was likely in the near future, and just 3.6% agreed that such a conflict was needed. These percentages were almost identical to those recorded in the 2023 survey.</p>
<p>The survey also asked respondents how they would behave if a large-scale conflict did occur. Nearly half said they would remain in the U.S. but not participate, and 12.4% said they would be likely to leave the country. A large majority—84.2%—said it was unlikely they would take part in combat. Only 3.7% considered it very or extremely likely that they would do so, and a similar share said they would be likely to kill a combatant.</p>
<p>Among this small group of people who expected to engage in violence, researchers found a notable willingness to reconsider. Nearly 45% said they would no longer view combat as likely if urged by family members. Between 23% and 31% said they might change their minds if encouraged by friends, religious leaders, elected officials, or the media. These findings point to possible opportunities for preventing political violence by influencing those at risk through personal relationships and trusted voices.</p>
<p>To better understand who held these beliefs, the researchers examined several demographic and ideological factors. Individuals who identified as “strong Republicans,” those who identified as “MAGA Republicans,” and those who described their political views as “extreme conservative” consistently showed higher levels of these beliefs compared to their counterparts. </p>
<p>For these groups, the prevalence of expecting a civil war, believing a war was necessary, and predicting they would serve as a combatant was notably higher than the national average. For instance, among Republicans who identify with the MAGA movement, 10.2% strongly or very strongly agreed that a civil war is coming, and 7.8% believed a war is needed—rates that are roughly double and triple, respectively, the figures for non-MAGA, non-Republicans (5.5% and 2.4%).</p>
<p>The researchers also explored how these views were associated with more fundamental belief systems, specifically authoritarianism and racist beliefs. Participants were asked to respond to statements designed to measure support for authoritarian principles, such as the idea that the country needs a strong leader who can break the rules. They were also asked about their agreement with a series of racist statements. </p>
<p>The analysis showed a strong association: respondents who expressed strong agreement with either authoritarian or racist beliefs were also significantly more likely to expect a civil war, to believe a civil war was needed, and to see themselves as likely combatants in such a conflict.</p>
<p>However, the most pronounced and dramatic differences were found among the small sliver of respondents who expressed strong approval of specific extremist right-wing organizations and social movements. The survey explicitly asked participants about their approval of groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters, as well as movements such as QAnon.</p>
<p>Among the individuals who strongly approved of these groups and movements, the belief in an impending and necessary civil war was not a fringe opinion but a majority view. The study reported that more than half of these respondents (55.7%) expected a civil war in the next few years. This stands in stark contrast to the 6.5% found in the general population. Similarly, a majority of this group (50.8%) believed that the United States needs a civil war to set things right, a belief held by only 3.6% of the overall sample.</p>
<p>Most strikingly, the willingness to personally engage in violence was exceptionally high in this subgroup. A staggering 39% of those who approved of these extremist movements thought it was very or extremely likely that they would participate as a combatant in a civil war. This figure is more than ten times higher than the 3.7% likelihood reported by the average respondent. These findings illustrate that while belief in and willingness to fight in a civil war are rare across the nation as a whole, these attitudes are highly concentrated within specific, ideologically-defined subsets of the population.</p>
<p>Firearm ownership was also associated with greater support for political violence, particularly among those who owned assault-style rifles, had purchased firearms recently, or carried them in public frequently. However, differences between firearm owners and non-owners were generally modest.</p>
<p>People who said they were willing to damage property, threaten others, or commit acts of violence for political purposes were more likely to believe civil war was coming and to expect to participate. The same was true for those who thought it likely they would use a firearm in politically motivated violence.</p>
<p>Despite these risk factors, the overall picture painted by the study was one of limited support for large-scale political conflict. Most Americans did not see civil war as likely or necessary, and very few expected to take part. Even among those who did, a significant portion showed openness to change, especially if their loved ones or trusted figures spoke out against violence.</p>
<p>These results suggest that prevention strategies could focus on encouraging people to express their opposition to political violence, especially within families and communities. Public messages from elected officials, religious leaders, and respected media sources might also have an impact. The researchers argue that such efforts could help weaken the link between political polarization and violent behavior, even if it is difficult to change the underlying beliefs that contribute to division.</p>
<p>There are a few caveats to consider. The study captures views from only one point in time and is based on self-reported attitudes, which may not always predict real-world behavior. While the sample was designed to represent the general population, differences between those who responded and those who did not could affect the results. </p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-025-00594-w" target="_blank">Public opinion on civil war in the USA as of mid-2024: findings from a nationally representative survey</a>,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Yueju Li, Mona A. Wright, Andrew Crawford, and Elizabeth A. Tomsich.</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>