<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/new-research-reveals-emotional-control-deficits-in-generalized-anxiety-disorder/" 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 emotional control deficits in generalized anxiety disorder</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 7th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of individuals with generalized anxiety disorder in China found that they exhibit unusual patterns of affective inhibition and perform worse on tasks requiring affective shifting, compared to healthy individuals. These findings suggest that people with generalized anxiety disorder may have poorer emotion recognition abilities. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1506239"><em>Frontiers in Psychiatry</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Generalized anxiety disorder, or GAD, is a mental health condition characterized by excessive and uncontrollable worry about everyday events and activities. People with GAD often expect that important events will turn out badly and worry excessively about health, work, family, or finances—even when there is little or no reason to do so. This chronic worry is difficult to control and typically persists for at least six months.</p>
<p>Common physical symptoms include restlessness, fatigue, muscle tension, irritability, and sleep disturbances. GAD can impair concentration and interfere with daily functioning and relationships. It belongs to a group of mental health conditions known as anxiety disorders. Estimates suggest that about 5.6% of people in China suffer from anxiety disorders, with 1.3% specifically affected by GAD.</p>
<p>Study author Yuqi Shen and her colleagues aimed to compare affective control abilities in individuals with GAD and healthy participants. They hypothesized that difficulties in processing emotional information might play a role in the disorder. More specifically, they expected that affective inhibition and affective shifting would be linked to self-reported mental health symptoms.</p>
<p>The study included 50 individuals diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and 50 healthy control participants. In each group, 14 participants were female. The average age in the GAD group was 47 years, compared to 50 years in the healthy control group.</p>
<p>Participants completed standardized assessments of anxiety (the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 and the Hamilton Anxiety Scale), depression (the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), affective inhibition (using the Affective Flanker Task), and affective shifting (using the Affective Flexibility Task).</p>
<p>Affective inhibition refers to the ability to suppress or ignore emotionally distracting information in order to stay focused on relevant tasks or goals. Affective flexibility, or shifting, refers to the ability to switch attention and responses between different emotional stimuli or tasks (such as identifying emotions versus counting people).</p>
<p>The results showed that individuals with GAD exhibited atypical patterns of affective inhibition. More specifically, they showed reduced proactive control—the ability to prepare and maintain focus on a task—and enhanced reactive control, which reflects a heightened response to conflicting or distracting emotional stimuli.</p>
<p>In other words, people with GAD had more difficulty staying focused on emotionally relevant information and were more reactive to emotional distractions. They also had greater difficulty shifting attention between different task demands, particularly when those tasks involved emotional content.</p>
<p>“In sum, we found evidence that patients with GAD exhibit deficits in cognitive control within affective contexts compared to healthy adults. By measuring participants in two subcomponents of affective control (affective inhibition and affective shifting), we discovered that GAD patients show poorer emotion recognition abilities and impaired affective shifting functions,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the specificities of affective functioning in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any definitive cause-and-effect conclusions to be derived from the results.</p>
<p>The paper “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1506239">Generalized anxiety disorder patients’ cognitive control in affective contexts</a>” was authored by Yuqi Shen, Shasha Zhu, Shiqi Liao, Yuqing Zhao, Zihan Lin, Ke Jiang, Wenjing Yan, and Xinhua Shen.</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/people-with-higher-cognitive-ability-have-weaker-moral-foundations-new-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">People with higher cognitive ability have weaker moral foundations, new study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 7th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People with higher cognitive ability tend to endorse moral values less strongly across the board, according to new research published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101930" target="_blank">Intelligence</a></em>. The pattern held across two independent studies and did not differ by gender. These findings challenge popular assumptions that smarter people hold stronger or more “enlightened” moral values.</p>
<p>While it’s often assumed that smarter people are more ethical or morally developed, past research has produced conflicting results. Some studies have linked higher intelligence to greater support for liberal values like compassion and fairness, while others have found that smarter individuals are less likely to endorse moral principles rooted in loyalty, tradition, or purity. In short, the relationship between intelligence and moral values was unclear. The present study aimed to clarify that relationship by using an improved measure of moral foundations and a well-established test of cognitive ability.</p>
<p>The study focused on a theory known as Moral Foundations Theory, which proposes that people’s moral judgments are guided by a set of six intuitive “foundations.” These include two “individualizing” foundations—<em>care </em>and <em>equality</em>—that focus on protecting individuals from harm and promoting fairness. </p>
<p>The other four—<em>proportionality</em>, <em>loyalty</em>, <em>authority</em>, and <em>purity</em>—are called “binding” foundations because they support social cohesion, hierarchy, and shared values. People differ in how strongly they endorse each of these foundations. For example, liberals tend to score higher on individualizing foundations, while conservatives score higher on all six, especially the binding ones. The theory suggests these differences reflect deep-seated moral intuitions rather than deliberate reasoning.</p>
<p>To test whether intelligence is linked to these moral intuitions, the researchers conducted two studies. In the first, they recruited 802 participants from the United Kingdom through an online platform. Participants first completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2, a revised version of a standard tool for measuring the six moral foundations. About two weeks later, 463 of these participants completed a set of cognitive tests measuring verbal reasoning, numerical pattern recognition, and abstract reasoning. These tests assessed both specific abilities and general intelligence.</p>
<p>The second study involved a new and larger group of 857 adults, also from the United Kingdom. Unlike the first study, this group completed both the moral and cognitive tests in the same session. The second study was preregistered, meaning the researchers publicly stated their hypotheses in advance to reduce bias. The same materials and procedures were used as in the first study, ensuring consistency.</p>
<p>In both studies, the researchers used statistical models to examine the relationship between intelligence and moral foundations. They tested four competing hypotheses. One predicted no relationship at all. Another proposed that intelligence would strengthen all moral foundations. A third suggested that smarter people would favor individualizing foundations but reject binding ones. The final hypothesis, called the Morality Suppression Model, predicted that intelligence would be negatively related to all moral foundations.</p>
<p>The results supported the Morality Suppression Model. In both studies, higher intelligence was linked to weaker endorsement of every moral foundation. People with higher scores on verbal, numerical, and abstract reasoning tests rated care, equality, proportionality, loyalty, authority, and purity as less important to their moral identity.</p>
<p>The associations were modest in size but statistically significant, and the patterns were nearly identical in both samples. In addition, a specific link was found between verbal intelligence and lower endorsement of the purity foundation, which includes beliefs about bodily sanctity and traditional moral boundaries.</p>
<p>The researchers also checked whether these relationships differed between men and women. While average scores on moral foundations did differ by gender, the connections between intelligence and moral values did not. The same pattern of negative associations held for both sexes.</p>
<p>These findings add weight to the idea that higher cognitive ability may weaken people’s reliance on intuitive moral judgments. People with stronger reasoning skills might be less likely to accept moral values at face value and more inclined to question or reinterpret them. This fits with previous research suggesting that analytic thinking can override gut-level moral reactions. However, it runs counter to the belief that intelligent people are more morally developed or compassionate. Instead, the results suggest that smart people may be more detached from moral intuitions altogether.</p>
<p>One possible explanation is that analytic thinking, which is associated with higher cognitive ability, tends to reduce emotional engagement with moral issues. Moral intuitions often depend on quick, emotional reactions to right and wrong, while analytical thinking involves deliberate, emotion-neutral reasoning. If intelligence promotes more of the latter, it could dampen the strength of moral convictions across all domains, not just those associated with political conservatism.</p>
<p>The researchers also offered a more speculative idea. They noted that verbal intelligence was especially linked to lower endorsement of purity values, which include beliefs about bodily sanctity and moral cleanliness. People high in verbal ability may be more likely to use language and reasoning to challenge or reinterpret these traditional values, seeing them as outdated or unnecessary. This could reflect a broader pattern in which smart people use their reasoning skills to downplay moral norms that constrain behavior.</p>
<p>Although the findings were consistent across two large samples, the study has some limitations. First, the data cannot determine whether intelligence causes weaker moral foundations (or vice versa). For example, it’s possible that people who reject strong moral intuitions are drawn to intellectual pursuits that reward abstract thinking. </p>
<p>Second, all moral values were measured using self-report questionnaires. Including other methods, such as behavioral tasks or peer reports, could strengthen future studies. Third, the study focused on a Western, English-speaking population. More research is needed to see whether the same patterns hold in other cultural settings.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101930" target="_blank">Higher cognitive ability linked to weaker moral foundations in UK adults</a>,” was authored by Michael Zakharin and Timothy C. Bates.</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/positive-attitudes-toward-ai-linked-to-more-prone-to-problematic-social-media-use/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Positive attitudes toward AI linked to more prone to problematic social media use</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 7th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who have a more favorable view of artificial intelligence tend to spend more time on social media and may be more likely to show signs of problematic use, according to new research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2025.100613" target="_blank">Addictive Behaviors Reports</a></em>. </p>
<p>The new study was designed to explore a question that, until now, had been largely overlooked in the field of behavioral research. While many factors have been identified as risk factors for problematic social media use—including personality traits, emotional regulation difficulties, and prior mental health issues—no research had yet explored whether a person’s attitude toward artificial intelligence might also be linked to unhealthy social media habits. </p>
<p>The researchers suspected there might be a connection, since social media platforms are deeply intertwined with AI systems that drive personalized recommendations, targeted advertising, and content curation.</p>
<p>“For several years, I have been interested in understanding how AI shapes societies and individuals. We also recently came up with a framework called IMPACT to provide a theoretical framework to understand this. IMPACT stand for the Interplay of Modality, Person, Area, Country/Culture and Transparency variables, all of relevance to understand what kind of view people form regarding AI technologies,” said study author <a href="https://christianmontag.de/" target="_blank">Christian Montag</a>, a distinguished professor of cognitive and brain sciences at the Institute of Collaborative Innovation at University of Macau.</p>
<p>Artificial intelligence plays a behind-the-scenes role in nearly every major social media platform. Algorithms learn from users’ behavior and preferences in order to maximize engagement, often by showing content that is likely to capture attention or stir emotion. These AI-powered systems are designed to increase time spent on the platform, which can benefit advertisers and the companies themselves. But they may also contribute to addictive behaviors by making it harder for users to disengage.</p>
<p>Drawing from established models in psychology, the researchers proposed that attitudes toward AI might influence how people interact with social media platforms. In this case, people who trust AI and believe in its benefits might be more inclined to embrace AI-powered platforms like social media—and potentially use them to excess.</p>
<p>To investigate these ideas, the researchers analyzed survey data from over 1,000 adults living in Germany. The participants were recruited through an online panel and represented a wide range of ages and education levels. After excluding incomplete or inconsistent responses and removing extreme outliers (such as those who reported using social media for more than 16 hours per day), the final sample included 1,048 people, with roughly equal numbers of men and women.</p>
<p>Participants completed a variety of self-report questionnaires. Attitudes toward artificial intelligence were measured using both multi-item scales and single-item ratings. These included questions such as “I trust artificial intelligence” and “Artificial intelligence will benefit humankind” to assess positive views, and “I fear artificial intelligence” or “Artificial intelligence will destroy humankind” to capture negative perceptions.</p>
<p>To assess social media behavior, participants were asked whether they used platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, or WhatsApp, and how much time they spent on them each day, both for personal and work purposes. Those who reported using social media also completed a measure called the Social Networking Sites–Addiction Test, which includes questions about preoccupation with social media, difficulty cutting back, and using social media to escape from problems.</p>
<p>Overall, 956 participants said they used social media. Within this group, the researchers found that people who had more positive attitudes toward AI also tended to spend more time on social media and reported more problematic usage patterns. This relationship held for both men and women, but it was stronger among men. In contrast, negative attitudes toward AI showed only weak or inconsistent links to social media use, suggesting that it is the enthusiastic embrace of AI—not fear or skepticism—that is more closely associated with excessive use.</p>
<p>“It is interesting to see that the effect is driven by the male sample,” Montag told PsyPost. “On second thought, this is not such a surprise, because in several samples we saw that males reported higher positive AI attitudes than females (on average). So, we must take into account gender for research questions, such as the present one.”</p>
<p>“Further I would have expected that negative AI attitudes would have played a larger role in our work. At least for males we observed that fearing AI went also along with more problematic social media use, but this effect was mild at best (such a link might be explained via negative affect and escapism tendencies). I would not be surprised if such a link becomes more visible in future studies. Let’s keep in mind that AI attitudes might be volatile and change (the same of course is also true for problematic social media use).”</p>
<p>To better understand how these variables were related, the researchers conducted a mediation analysis. This type of analysis can help clarify whether one factor (in this case, time spent on social media) helps explain the connection between two others (positive AI attitudes and problematic use). </p>
<p>The results suggested that people with positive attitudes toward AI tended to spend more time on social media, and that this increased usage was associated with higher scores on the addiction measure. In other words, time spent on social media partly accounted for the link between AI attitudes and problematic behavior.</p>
<p>“I personally believe that it is important to have a certain degree of positive attitude towards benevolent AI technologies,” Montag said. “AI will profoundly change our personal and business lives, so we should better prepare ourselves for active use of this technology. This said, our work shows that positive attitudes towards AI, which are known to be of relevance to predict AI technology use, might come with costs. This might be in form of over-reliance on such technology, or in our case overusing social media (where AI plays an important role in personalizing content). At least we saw this to be true for male study participants.”</p>
<p>Importantly, the researchers emphasized that their data cannot establish cause and effect. Because the study was cross-sectional—that is, based on a single snapshot in time—it is not possible to say whether positive attitudes toward AI lead to excessive social media use, or whether people who already use social media heavily are more likely to hold favorable views of AI. It’s also possible that a third factor, such as general interest in technology, could underlie both tendencies.</p>
<p>The study’s sample, while diverse in age and gender, skewed older on average, with a mean age of 45. This may limit the generalizability of the findings, especially to younger users, who are often more active on social media and may have different relationships with technology. Future research could benefit from focusing on younger populations or tracking individuals over time to see how their attitudes and behaviors change.</p>
<p>“In sum, our work is exploratory and should be seen as stimulating discussions. For sure, it does not deliver final insights,” Montag said.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the findings raise important questions about how people relate to artificial intelligence and how that relationship might influence their behavior. The authors suggest that positive attitudes toward AI are often seen as a good thing—encouraging people to adopt helpful tools and new innovations. But this same openness to AI might also make some individuals more vulnerable to overuse, especially when the technology is embedded in products designed to maximize engagement.</p>
<p>The researchers also point out that people may not always be aware of the role AI plays in their online lives. Unlike using an obvious AI system, such as a chatbot or virtual assistant, browsing a social media feed may not feel like interacting with AI. Yet behind the scenes, algorithms are constantly shaping what users see and how they engage. This invisible influence could contribute to compulsive use without users realizing how much the technology is guiding their behavior.</p>
<p>The authors see their findings as a starting point for further exploration. They suggest that researchers should look into whether positive attitudes toward AI are also linked to other types of problematic online behavior, such as excessive gaming, online shopping, or gambling—especially on platforms that make heavy use of AI. They also advocate for studies that examine whether people’s awareness of AI systems influences how those systems affect them.</p>
<p>“In a broader sense, we want to map out the positive and negative sides of AI technology use,” Montag explained. “I think it is important that we use AI in the future to lead more productive and happier lives (we investigated also AI-well-being in this context recently), but we need to be aware of potential dark sides of AI use.”</p>
<p>“We are happy if people are interested in our work and if they would like to support us by filling out a survey. Here we do a study on primary emotional traits and AI attitudes. Participants also get as a ‘thank you’ insights into their personality traits: <a href="https://affective-neuroscience-personality-scales.jimdosite.com/take-the-test/" target="_blank">https://affective-neuroscience-personality-scales.jimdosite.com/take-the-test/</a>).”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2025.100613" target="_blank">The darker side of positive AI attitudes: Investigating associations with (problematic) social media use</a>,” was authored by Christian Montag and Jon D. Elhai.</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-study-finds-link-between-sexism-and-denial-of-male-victimhood-in-relationships/" 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 study finds link between sexism and denial of male victimhood in relationships</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 6th 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 Psychology of Men & Masculinities has found that people are more likely to believe myths that minimize or dismiss male victims of intimate partner violence when they also endorse sexist beliefs about men. These beliefs—both hostile and seemingly positive, yet patronizing attitudes toward men—were the strongest predictors of myth acceptance. The study also found that individuals who justified traditional gender roles and those with histories of perpetrating partner violence were more likely to endorse such myths.</p>
<p>While intimate partner violence is commonly portrayed as a problem that overwhelmingly affects women, a growing body of evidence shows that men can also be victims. Yet male victims are often met with skepticism, ridicule, or disbelief. Myths about male victimization—such as the belief that men cannot be abused or that abuse from a woman is not serious—can prevent men from recognizing their experiences as abuse and make it harder for them to seek help. To better understand these misconceptions and the attitudes that underlie them, the researchers developed a new tool: the Intimate Partner Violence Myths Toward Male Victims (IPVMM) Scale.</p>
<p>The study recruited 514 participants—247 men and 266 women—through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. All were U.S. residents and ranged in age, with an average of about 38 years old. Participants were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires, including the new IPVMM scale, which measured beliefs about male victims of partner violence. </p>
<p>The scale included 18 items, some adapted from earlier research on domestic violence myths toward women and others newly written to address specific misconceptions about men. These included statements such as “Men are rarely ever victims of domestic violence,” and “If a man is a victim of domestic abuse, he obviously cannot control his own partner.”</p>
<p>In addition to the IPVMM, participants completed measures of sexism toward both men and women, support for traditional gender hierarchies, and self-reported experiences with either victimization or perpetration of partner violence. These tools included the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, which measures hostile and benevolent sexism toward women, and a similar scale measuring sexism toward men. Hostile sexism includes overtly negative beliefs, like the idea that men are inherently violent or incapable of emotional depth. Benevolent sexism includes statements that seem positive but reinforce stereotypes, such as the belief that men must be strong protectors or providers.</p>
<p>The results showed that endorsement of sexism toward men was the strongest predictor of belief in myths about male victims. Specifically, those who endorsed both hostile and benevolent sexism were much more likely to agree with statements that downplayed or dismissed male victimization. Support for traditional gender roles and systems that justify gender inequality also predicted higher scores on the IPVMM. Interestingly, participants who admitted to perpetrating partner violence were also more likely to endorse these myths, while those who had been victims of such violence were less likely to believe them.</p>
<p>The study’s statistical analyses revealed that the new IPVMM scale had strong internal reliability and was best understood as measuring a single overall construct—belief in myths that deny or minimize male victimization. Endorsement of these myths did not significantly differ between men and women in this sample, which the authors note is somewhat surprising. </p>
<p>Previous research has shown that men tend to score higher than women on scales measuring sexism and victim-blaming attitudes, but in this case, both genders endorsed myths at similar levels. The authors suggest that this could reflect changing social attitudes or that participants may have responded in socially desirable ways to avoid seeming biased.</p>
<p>On average, participants were slightly more likely than not to endorse the myths, scoring above the midpoint of the seven-point scale. This suggests that even in a sample recruited from a general population, rather than a clinical or legal setting, these beliefs are relatively widespread. Notably, these scores were significantly higher than scores on similar scales that measure myths about female victims of domestic violence, pointing to a persistent bias in how male and female victimization is perceived.</p>
<p>The researchers also explored whether individuals’ own experiences with abuse—either as victims or perpetrators—influenced their beliefs. They found that those who had perpetrated partner violence were more likely to believe myths about male victims, although the connection was weaker than that observed with sexist attitudes. </p>
<p>Interestingly, being a victim of partner violence did not significantly predict belief in myths. This challenges assumptions based on social learning theory, which would suggest that personal experience should shape attitudes about abuse. One possibility is that perpetrators may rationalize or minimize their actions by endorsing myths, while victims may still struggle to recognize themselves as such due to internalized gender norms.</p>
<p>Although this study breaks new ground by validating a tool to measure attitudes about male victimization, it has several limitations. The sample, while reasonably large and diverse in age and gender, was mostly White and recruited through an online platform that may not be fully representative of the broader population. There is also the possibility that some participants responded in ways they thought were socially acceptable rather than fully truthful. The cross-sectional design of the study means the researchers could not assess how these attitudes develop or change over time, or whether interventions might shift them.</p>
<p>The authors suggest that future research should continue exploring the IPVMM scale’s reliability in more diverse and representative populations. It would also be valuable to examine how different professional groups—such as police officers, healthcare workers, and domestic violence counselors—respond to male victimization and whether they too endorse these myths. The role of generational differences and cultural background may also be important to investigate. Additionally, exploring these myths in same-sex relationships or among transgender and nonbinary individuals would help broaden understanding of how gendered beliefs shape perceptions of abuse.</p>
<p>The study, “Intimate Partner Violence Myths Toward Male Victims: Exploring Gender, Sexism, and Participant Perpetration and Victimization,” was authored by Brenda Russell, Jennifer M. Cox, and and Haylie Stewart.</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/viral-ai-images-highlight-how-trump-engages-in-victimcould-scholar-argues/" 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;">Viral AI-images highlight how Trump engages in “victimcould,” scholar argues</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 6th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new paper published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494251345268" target="_blank">European Journal of Cultural Studies</a></em> introduces a provocative concept for understanding how far-right movements justify violence, oppression, and exclusion—not by claiming harm already done, but by invoking hypothetical injuries that could happen. The paper, authored by Kathryn Claire Higgins of Goldsmiths, University of London, names this strategic move “victimcould,” and uses Donald Trump’s political trajectory as a case study.</p>
<p>Higgins argues that Trump has not just weathered criminal charges and political scandal—he has repurposed them into proof of his own victimhood. But this isn’t traditional victimhood based on real or present injuries. Instead, Trump positions himself as perpetually on the brink of harm, casting himself as a target of state overreach and moral persecution. </p>
<p>This, Higgins claims, is victimcould in action: a rhetorical strategy that moves public attention away from current injustices and redirects it toward imagined futures. In doing so, far-right figures can appear vulnerable while simultaneously reinforcing policies that harm those who are actually marginalized.</p>
<p>The motivation behind Higgins’ paper is to shed light on how modern far-right political movements, especially in the United States, have found cultural legitimacy through emotional narratives. These stories often sidestep present realities and instead rely on speculative storytelling. Higgins believes that a critical gap in scholarship remains around how far-right actors manufacture hypothetical futures that feel just real enough to shape political action today.</p>
<p>This is where “victimcould” comes in. Unlike conventional victimhood, which is rooted in visible harm or past trauma, victimcould is based on the mere possibility of future injury. It functions in two ways. First, it is a “representational achievement”—a media-based performance that encourages people to imagine a victimized future self or group. Second, it acts as a “justificatory logic”—a reasoning process that makes it seem morally acceptable to enact aggressive or harmful policies in the present because of what might happen otherwise.</p>
<p>To illustrate this idea, Higgins turns to a notable moment in American media culture: the viral spread of AI-generated images depicting Donald Trump’s hypothetical arrest. These images, created and shared online in March 2023—months before Trump was actually indicted—showed a dramatic scene of Trump being tackled and handcuffed by police officers. Although clearly labeled as fake and satirical, the images gained massive attention and became an unlikely flashpoint in the battle over Trump’s public image.</p>
<p>For people who oppose Trump, the AI-generated images of his imagined arrest offered a kind of emotional release—a fantasy that he might finally be held accountable for his actions. But for his supporters, the same images were seen as a warning: a glimpse of what a politically motivated government could do to someone who challenges the system. Trump himself leaned into this interpretation. Just a few days later, he shared another AI image that showed him kneeling in prayer, styled to make him look like a martyr—someone being unfairly persecuted.</p>
<p>According to Higgins, these images, and the public conversation around them, are clear examples of what she calls “victimcould.” This term describes how imagined future harms—things that haven’t happened but could—are used to build emotionally powerful stories in the present. These stories allow political figures like Trump to present themselves as victims, even when they haven’t actually been harmed. In doing so, they borrow the emotional and cultural weight of real experiences of victimization, but remove them from the historical and political realities that give those experiences meaning.</p>
<p>This strategy affects how power is understood and represented. Higgins points out that in the U.S., the criminal justice system has long disproportionately punished people who are poor or belong to racial minority groups, while offering protection and leniency to wealthy, white men. When Trump and his supporters claim he is being victimized by the legal system, they flip this reality on its head. They draw on the imagery and emotional language of racial justice movements like Black Lives Matter, but twist it to suggest that it’s people like Trump who are truly being oppressed—ignoring the deep inequalities those movements are trying to bring to light.</p>
<p>Higgins argues that this amounts to a larger cultural reversal. Systems that actually cause harm are presented as necessary for safety. People in positions of great power are portrayed as under attack. Privileged individuals are painted as the ones who are suffering. Far-right policies—such as harsh immigration rules, anti-trans laws, or cuts to public services—are framed not as acts of control or exclusion, but as necessary responses to looming threats. This type of messaging is hard to argue against because it’s based on imagined futures, not current facts. If the harm is always just about to happen, there’s no way to prove that it won’t.</p>
<p>Higgins emphasizes that victimcould thrives in a media ecosystem flooded with emotionally charged content and speculative storytelling. Generative AI, deepfakes, and viral social media posts all provide new tools for dramatizing imaginary futures. But the deeper issue, she says, is not the technology itself—it’s the cultural willingness to treat possibility as reality when it serves a political agenda.</p>
<p>This imaginative strategy also bypasses traditional fact-checking or debate. When narratives are based on what “could” happen, they are harder to challenge with evidence. This is part of their power: victimcould evades scrutiny by moving the stakes of the argument into an always-pending future. It doesn’t ask people to believe in a lie; it asks them to feel threatened by a possibility.</p>
<p>There are important limitations to Higgins’ argument, which she acknowledges. Her analysis focuses on symbolic and cultural representations, not on empirical studies of public opinion or media effects. The paper is also primarily theoretical, with Trump’s case serving as an illustrative rather than exhaustive example. Future research could explore how victimcould functions in other far-right movements, or how different audiences interpret and respond to these types of narratives. Investigating the role of media literacy, trust, and identity in the reception of hypothetical injuries would also be valuable.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494251345268" target="_blank">From victimhood to victimcould: Hypothetical injury and the ‘criminalization’ of Donald Trump</a>,” was published July 2, 2025.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Forwarded by:<br />
Michael Reeder LCPC<br />
Baltimore, MD</strong></p>
<p><strong>This information is taken from free public RSS feeds published by each organization for the purpose of public distribution. Readers are linked back to the article content on each organization's website. This email is an unaffiliated unofficial redistribution of this freely provided content from the publishers. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><s><small><a href="#" style="color:#ffffff;"><a href='https://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/565/DY9DKf'>unsubscribe from this feed</a></a></small></s></p>