<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/common-antidepressants-and-anti-anxiety-drugs-tied-to-major-shifts-in-gut-microbiome-composition/" 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;">Common antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs tied to major shifts in gut microbiome composition</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 18th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People with anxiety or depression show distinct patterns in their gut bacteria, and commonly prescribed psychiatric medications may shift the gut microbiome even more than the disorders themselves. That’s according to a new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02857-2" target="_blank">Molecular Psychiatry</a></em>, which analyzed fecal samples from hundreds of individuals and found specific microbial signatures linked to both mental health diagnoses and the use of antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications.</p>
<p>The trillions of microbes that inhabit the intestine—often called the gut microbiota—help break down food, guide immune activity, and generate chemicals that influence the brain. Over the past decade scientists have linked unusual microbial patterns to a range of mental health problems, raising hopes that diet, probiotics, or other microbe‑directed therapies could complement traditional care. </p>
<p>Yet many previous projects were small, drew volunteers who were not taking medication, or came from countries where treatment routines differ from those in the United States. The new research set out to fill those gaps by analyzing gut organisms in a broad American cohort that included many people who already used pharmaceuticals for mood or anxiety symptoms.</p>
<p>“Past work, including ours, has linked microbes in the gut to anxiety and depression. We wanted to test whether the use of specific medications had the same or different effects on the microbiome, and whether the effects were similar or different in the two conditions,” said study author <a href="https://knightlab.ucsd.edu/" target="_blank">Rob Knight</a>, a professor at UC San Diego and director of the Center for Microbiome Innovation.</p>
<p>Participants came from two Oklahoma‑based projects: the Tulsa 1000 study and the Neurocomputational Mechanisms of Affiliation and Personality initiative. Together they provided 666 stool samples—502 from adults diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, or both, and 164 from healthy comparison volunteers. Diagnosis was confirmed in structured clinical interviews, and symptom intensity was recorded with standard questionnaires for anxiety and depression. </p>
<p>The scientists also logged every drug each person was using and grouped those medicines with the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system, paying special attention to antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and to anti‑anxiety drugs like benzodiazepines.</p>
<p>Each stool sample underwent two layers of genetic analysis. First, the team amplified and sequenced a short genetic marker that acts like a barcode for bacteria, giving a precise but affordable snapshot of which species were present. A subset of samples then went through whole‑genome sequencing, a deeper method that captures longer stretches of genetic material and can spot less common organisms. After quality filtering, each participant contributed the best‑sequenced sample to the final data set, ensuring that no one skewed the results by providing multiple specimens of different quality.</p>
<p>The researchers examined microbial diversity in several ways. <em>Alpha diversity</em>, a measure of how many species live in one person’s gut, did not differ between healthy volunteers and those with anxiety, depression, or both. <em>Beta diversity</em>, which asks how different one person’s total community is from another’s, told a richer story. In statistical models that considered all participants together, antidepressant use produced the strongest separation between microbial communities, exceeding the effect linked to a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. </p>
<p>Anti‑anxiety medicines, biological sex, and study cohort also showed measurable associations with beta diversity. When the scientists looked only at people who were not taking psychotropic drugs, sex emerged as the lone significant factor, suggesting that pharmaceuticals were indeed a prime driver of the broader community shifts.</p>
<p>“We were surprised that medications have a larger effect on the composition of the gut microbiome than the conditions that they are used to treat,” Knight told PsyPost.</p>
<p>Pinpointing individual organisms, the team compared people with anxiety alone, depression alone, both conditions, and healthy controls—but only among volunteers who were not using mood‑altering medicines. Forty‑four bacterial types were more common in anxiety, while fifty tended to be higher in healthy controls. A calculated ratio between anxiety- and control-associated microbes was elevated in participants with anxiety, in those with depression, and especially in those who carried both diagnoses. </p>
<p>The same pattern held for women and showed a weaker trend in men. When that ratio was plotted against anxiety severity scores, higher microbial values tracked with more intense worry, although the correlation was modest.</p>
<p>A similar hunt for depression‑linked organisms identified forty‑seven bacteria enriched in depressed participants and sixty‑four enriched in controls. A ratio based on those organisms rose in every diagnostic group compared with healthy volunteers. Again the signal was clearer in women than in men, and the ratio edged upward alongside depression severity on the Patient Health Questionnaire.</p>
<p>Medication exerted its own signatures. Comparing people who used anti‑anxiety drugs with unmedicated peers who had anxiety revealed 88 bacterial types tied to the drugs and 77 tied to no medication. Contrasting antidepressant users with unmedicated depressed participants spotlighted 102 drug‑associated organisms and seventy‑three linked to no medication. </p>
<p>When the scientists built ratios from those bacterial sets, the numbers distinguished not only drug users from non‑users but also separated volunteers who took both antidepressants and anti‑anxiety drugs from those on either class alone.</p>
<p>To explore whether such microbial fingerprints could aid diagnosis, the team trained a random‑forest machine‑learning model on the bacterial data. Across repeated cross‑validation runs the model consistently identified anxiety, depression, or both with accuracy well above chance, especially when it relied on the organisms flagged in the earlier statistical screens. Performance was strongest in women, echoing the sex differences seen in the diversity analyses. A separate classifier that tried to detect medication use also beat chance, though with lower precision than the diagnosis model.</p>
<p>For added confirmation, the researchers tested their depression‑related bacterial ratio in an independent data set from the American Gut Project, selecting more than eight thousand stool samples from adults under fifty‑six. Volunteers who reported a clinician‑diagnosed depression showed higher ratios than those who did not, mirroring the Tulsa findings and hinting that the microbial signal generalizes to other American populations.</p>
<p>“We were also surprised by how reliable the signatures of medication use were, suggesting that they might be developed into a test that could check for medication adherence through the effects on the microbiome,” Knight explained.</p>
<p>The project highlights several intertwined themes. First, prescriptions meant to treat mood and anxiety symptoms appear to shape the gut ecosystem at least as much as the psychiatric conditions themselves. Second, despite that pharmaceutical influence, certain bacteria still line up with anxiety, depression, or combined symptoms, and their relative abundance drifts upward as self‑reported distress intensifies. Finally, microbial profiles alone carry enough information to allow an algorithm to flag who is likely living with a mood or anxiety disorder, raising the prospect of stool‑based screening tools down the road.</p>
<p>“Specific microbes are associated with anxiety and depression, suggesting that addressing these conditions may involve different strategies to target these different microbes as part of the overall therapeutic strategy,” Knight said. “Medications that target anxiety and depression affect many gut microbes including these, although future studies are needed to determine how much of therapeutic effectiveness comes from these effects on microbes rather than effects on the human body and brain directly.”</p>
<p>Yet the study also carries caveats. It tracked associations rather than assigning treatments or manipulating microbes, so it cannot reveal which changes come first—the microbial shifts, the mental‑health symptoms, or the remedies. Dosage information was not dissected, and smaller sample sizes in the deeper whole‑genome sequencing limited some comparisons. The healthy control group also contained fewer men than women, which might have exaggerated sex differences. Future projects will need larger, balanced cohorts, repeated sampling over time, and experiments that intervene in diet, microbial composition, or medication schedules to tease apart cause and effect.</p>
<p>The investigators plan to probe those questions by coupling longitudinal human follow‑ups with animal studies that transfer specific bacteria into germ‑free mice. If particular microbes can blunt anxious or depressed behavior in animals, that will strengthen the case that they contribute to mental‑health resilience rather than merely reflecting it. Clinical trials could then test whether targeted probiotics, fiber‑rich diets that foster beneficial species, or even tailored antibiotic courses improve mood or enhance the response to standard drugs.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02857-2" target="_blank">Medication use is associated with distinct microbial features in anxiety and depression</a>,” was authored by Amanda Hazel Dilmore, Rayus Kuplicki, Daniel McDonald, Megha Kumar, Mehrbod Estaki, Nicholas Youngblut, Alexander Tyakht, Gail Ackermann, Colette Blach, Siamak MahmoudianDehkordi, Boadie W. Dunlop, Sudeepa Bhattacharyya, Salvador Guinjoan, Pooja Mandaviya, Ruth E. Ley, Rima Kaddaruh-Dauok, Martin P. Paulus, and Rob Knight on behalf of Alzheimer Gut Microbiome Project Consortium.</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-psychology-study-inner-reasons-for-seeking-romance-are-a-top-predictor-of-finding-it/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New psychology study: Inner reasons for seeking romance are a top predictor of finding it</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 18th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who pursue romantic relationships because they genuinely want connection and intimacy—not because of pressure or insecurity—are more likely to end up in a relationship, according to new research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251331699" target="_blank">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</a></em>. The study introduced a new scale to measure people’s reasons for seeking romance and found that motivations based on personal interest and values predicted a greater likelihood of partnering six months later.</p>
<p>Romantic relationships are often seen as a near-universal life goal, with many theories assuming that most people naturally desire love, sex, and companionship. But not everyone is drawn to dating for the same reasons—or even at all. Some people feel pressure from family or society, while others may avoid dating entirely because they value independence or feel ambivalent about romance. The researchers behind this new study wanted to capture this wide range of motivations in a single, organized framework.</p>
<p>To do this, they turned to self-determination theory, a well-established model in psychology that describes different kinds of motivation. According to the theory, motivations fall on a spectrum from external and pressured to internal and freely chosen. For example, someone might pursue a relationship to meet others’ expectations, to avoid feeling lonely or inadequate, or because they genuinely enjoy romantic connection. The theory also includes amotivation—when people feel no particular drive or see no reason to pursue a relationship at all.</p>
<p>The study was led by <a href="https://www.macdonaldlab.ca/" target="_blank">Geoff MacDonald</a>, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, who became interested in this topic through his research on both singlehood and romantic relationships.</p>
<p>“Relationship researchers tend to approach people’s reasons for dating from the perspective that people just enjoy relationships, for example, because of evolutionary drives,” he explained. “In singlehood research, people talk more about the social structures and pressures that incentivize partnering (e.g., tax breaks for married people), as well as the people who aren’t interested in romantic relationships at all. I felt like both perspectives had good points, and wanted to integrate them into one model.” </p>
<p>“Self-Determination Theory was useful because it focuses on a variety of reasons people pursue goals including intrinsic (because it’s enjoyable), identified (because it is an important life goal), introjected (to feel better about myself), extrinsic (to please others), and amotivation (not interested in the goal). And I think most people know that there is some mix of these at play when they are thinking about dating. We used this model to develop a scale so that people could tell us how much each of these motives influenced their desire to be in a relationship, and we were able to use that information to predict who was more likely to actually be partnered six months later.”</p>
<p>The new measure is called the Autonomous Motivation for Romantic Pursuit Scale (AMRPS), a 24-item questionnaire that assesses six types of relationship motivation: intrinsic, identified, positive introjected, negative introjected, external, and amotivation. These range from highly autonomous to more controlled, as well as no motivation at all.</p>
<p><em>Intrinsic motivation</em> involves seeking a relationship because it is genuinely enjoyable or emotionally fulfilling—people with this motivation value the experience itself. <em>Identified motivation</em> reflects a sense that being in a relationship aligns with one’s personal values or life goals, such as wanting to build a family or grow with a partner. <em>Positive introjected motivation</em> involves pursuing a relationship to boost one’s self-esteem or feel proud of being partnered. </p>
<p>In contrast, <em>negative introjected motivation</em> is driven by a desire to avoid negative feelings like shame, guilt, or a sense of failure for being single. <em>External motivation</em> comes from outside pressure, such as wanting to meet others’ expectations or avoid social stigma. Lastly, <em>amotivation</em> reflects a lack of any clear reason or drive to pursue a relationship—people with this mindset may feel uncertain, disinterested, or disconnected from the idea of partnering. </p>
<p>In the first part of the study, the researchers tested how these six types of motivation relate to existing psychological traits and relationship preferences. They surveyed two large samples of single adults—over 1,200 people in total—who were not currently in relationships. Participants completed the AMRPS and other questionnaires measuring things like attachment style, social goals, fear of being single, communal strength, and desire for romantic involvement.</p>
<p>People who scored high on intrinsic and identified motivations—those who valued relationships for personal meaning or enjoyment—tended to have a more secure attachment style, stronger social goals, and greater interest in committed relationships. Those who scored high on introjected and external motivations were more likely to fear being single or have anxious attachment patterns. Amotivation, meanwhile, was associated with avoidant attachment and less interest in serious romantic involvement.</p>
<p>These patterns helped validate the scale and showed that the AMRPS can distinguish between different reasons people might (or might not) want a partner. For example, people high in fear of being single were especially likely to report negative introjected and external motivations—suggesting they might seek relationships to avoid feeling inadequate or to satisfy others’ expectations rather than for intrinsic reasons.</p>
<p>To test whether these motivations predicted actual relationship outcomes, MacDonald and his colleagues conducted a second study. They followed more than 3,000 single adults between the ages of 18 and 39 over a six-month period. At the beginning of the study, participants completed the AMRPS and reported on their relationship desires, intentions, and life satisfaction. Six months later, they reported whether they had entered a romantic relationship.</p>
<p>The results showed that people with more autonomous motivations—particularly those who scored high on intrinsic or identified reasons—were significantly more likely to have partnered by the follow-up. In contrast, those who reported high levels of negative introjected motivation (such as not wanting to feel like a failure) were less likely to find a partner.</p>
<p>“The people who both reported that they felt more ready for a relationship and were more likely to be partnered six months later were those who said they were interested in a relationship because they enjoy them and because it was an important life goal,” MacDonald told PsyPost. “We think if you feel that way about relationships, you’re probably in a good place to date. If not, maybe you’re one of the kinds of people who benefit from some time being single.”</p>
<p>“In fact, the people who were more strongly motivated to be in a relationship to avoid feeling bad about themselves were particularly unlikely to be in a relationship six months later. This is consistent with other research suggesting that these are people who get in their own way by being a bit of a tryhard. It’s boring old wisdom, but I think there is something to the idea that you need to get right with yourself first before putting yourself out there. When you get to a place where a relationship seems like it would be enjoyable and meaningful for its own sake, and not so much about validating your ego, that might be a sign that you’re ready.”</p>
<p>These patterns held up even after controlling for age, gender, life satisfaction, and how strongly people said they wanted a relationship. In other words, it wasn’t just that people who wanted a relationship more were more likely to get one—it mattered why they wanted it.</p>
<p>One unexpected finding was that people who scored higher on amotivation were also slightly more likely to have entered a relationship, once other types of motivation were statistically controlled. Amotivated individuals who became partnered also reported higher satisfaction with alternative options outside the relationship, suggesting they may not have viewed the relationship as their primary goal.</p>
<p>“One of our analyses suggested that people who were higher in amotivation (without the goal to be in a relationship) were more likely to be partnered six months later,” MacDonald said. “Without going too much into the nuts and bolts of the analyses, we think this is because there are two kinds of amotivated people when it comes to dating. One kind is low in romantic desire and tends to be relatively happy in singlehood without dating, like aromantic people.” </p>
<p>“Another kind has romantic desire, but is satisfying it with casual relationships. So they are not amotivated for sex and dating, but they are amotivated for being in a committed relationship. One clue here was that people who endorsed being amotivated for relationships tended to be higher in sexual satisfaction, so it does seem like a lot of them are sexually active. But our studies have shown before that sexually satisfied singles, although they say they have less desire for a relationship, are more likely to end up in a relationship down the line. Basically, we think these sexually active amotivated singles catch feelings, and despite themselves end up being partnered.”</p>
<p>The researchers emphasize that the AMRPS is not intended to judge whether someone should or shouldn’t want a relationship. Instead, it provides a structured way to understand the diverse motivations people bring to dating. In doing so, it can help organize future research on romantic behavior and shed light on why some singles feel stuck or ambivalent, while others actively seek connection.</p>
<p>The study also highlights that social pressure to date—whether from parents, friends, or cultural norms—doesn’t appear to make people more likely to find a partner. This challenges the idea that pressure or stigma around being single is an effective motivator for relationship success.</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are some limitations. Most participants were young adults living in Western countries, so the findings may not apply to older adults or people in cultures where family plays a stronger role in relationship decisions.</p>
<p>“We purposely limited our sample in our main study to people under 40, because an important aspect of our research was predicting who got partnered, and that happens more with younger than older adults,” MacDonald noted. “So we’re less sure how our results apply to older adults.”</p>
<p>The study also couldn’t identify exactly why certain motivations lead to better relationship outcomes—whether it’s persistence, confidence, attractiveness, or other factors.</p>
<p>“We would like to know more about how these motivations affect people’s approach to dating,” MacDonald said. “For example, we asked our participants when they were single to tell us in their own words what their dating goals were. We’re finding some interesting links between their motivations for dating and the types of goals they have for dating and relationships. Stay tuned.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251331699" target="_blank">Why Do You Want a Romantic Relationship? Individual Differences in Motives for Romantic Relationship Pursuit</a>,” was authored by Geoff MacDonald, Serena Thapar, William S. Ryan, Joanne M. Chung, Elaine Hoan, and Yoobin Park.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/scientists-demonstrate-that-ais-superhuman-persuasiveness-is-already-a-reality/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Scientists demonstrate that “AI’s superhuman persuasiveness is already a reality”</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 18th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02194-6" target="_blank">Nature Human Behaviour</a></em> finds that ChatGPT, when equipped with basic personal information, can be more persuasive in online debates than human opponents. The results suggest that large language models may be especially effective at shaping opinions when they personalize their messages based on audience characteristics.</p>
<p>Large language models are a type of artificial intelligence designed to generate and understand human-like text. These systems are trained on massive datasets that allow them to mimic human writing, answer questions, and hold conversations. ChatGPT is one of the most well-known examples. </p>
<p>While earlier studies have shown that models like GPT-4 can write persuasively, researchers still didn’t know how effective they could be in personalized one-on-one conversations. This question is increasingly important as AI tools become embedded in chatbots, customer service platforms, political messaging, and social media.</p>
<p>“Debate and persuasion are everywhere online, from political arguments to everyday disagreements about social issues, and it’s increasingly clear that AI is now part of these conversations,” said study author <a href="https://frasalvi.github.io/" target="_blank">Francesco Salvi</a>, an incoming PhD student at Princeton University. “As language models like GPT-4 began to slip seamlessly into public forums and private chats, I became curious about whether machines could actually out-argue real people, and what that might mean for society. In particular, I wanted to understand not just if AI could be persuasive, but how personalization might amplify its influence.” </p>
<p>“The idea that a machine could tailor its arguments to someone’s background and, in some cases, be even more convincing than a human struck me as both fascinating and important. Ultimately, I think these questions sit at the heart of how we’re going to interact with technology in the years ahead.”</p>
<p>The ability to tailor arguments based on such traits is known as personalization or microtargeting. Until recently, this kind of persuasion was costly and time-consuming to produce. But large language models can now potentially generate personalized arguments at scale. That opens the door to new forms of automated influence—and possible manipulation.</p>
<p>To explore these concerns, the researchers designed a preregistered experiment in which 900 people participated in online debates through a custom platform. Each participant was randomly assigned to debate either another human or the GPT-4 version of ChatGPT. Some participants debated an opponent who had access to their basic demographic information—gender, age, ethnicity, education, employment status, and political affiliation—while others debated someone who had no such information. </p>
<p>In total, participants were split into 12 different groups, depending on whether they faced a human or AI, whether personalization was used, and whether the debate topic was something they felt strongly about or not.</p>
<p>The debates followed a fixed format and took place in real-time. First, participants reported their opinions on a topic such as “Should students be required to wear school uniforms?” Then they were randomly assigned to argue either in favor or against the proposition, regardless of their original beliefs. The debates unfolded over four stages: an opening argument, a rebuttal, a counter-response, and a closing statement. After the debate, participants again rated how much they agreed with the original proposition.</p>
<p>Salvi and his colleagues then analyzed whether and how much participants shifted their opinions toward their opponent’s side. The key finding was that GPT-4, when it had access to participants’ personal information, was significantly more persuasive than any other opponent. In 64.4% of the debates where GPT-4 with personalization and a human were not equally persuasive, the AI performed better. Statistically, this translated to an 81% increase in the odds of shifting someone’s opinion compared to the baseline human-human condition.</p>
<p>Interestingly, GPT-4 without access to personal information did not perform significantly better than human opponents. And humans given access to their opponent’s personal data didn’t benefit much either. This suggests that GPT-4 was uniquely good at using personal traits to shape its arguments. </p>
<p>“I was genuinely surprised by just how strong of an effect we found, given how little personal information was collected and despite the extreme simplicity of the prompt instructing the LLM to incorporate such information,” Salvi told PsyPost. “It was also interesting (and a bit counterintuitive) that when we gave the same personal information to human participants, it didn’t make them any more persuasive. Most people simply don’t know how to strategically tailor arguments on the fly, whereas the AI, drawing from massive amounts of data, seemed to do this almost effortlessly.”</p>
<p>When researchers grouped the debate topics into three categories—low, medium, and high opinion strength—they found that GPT-4 with personalization was especially effective for topics where people initially had weaker opinions. For highly polarizing topics, the persuasive effect was weaker and not statistically significant. This lines up with previous research suggesting that people with strong views are harder to sway, regardless of how well-crafted the arguments are.</p>
<p>To better understand how GPT-4 and humans differed in their arguments, the team used a text analysis tool that examines writing for signs of analytical thinking, emotional tone, authenticity, and other linguistic traits. They found that GPT-4 tended to use more logical and formal language, while human participants were more emotional, relied on personal storytelling, and used simpler, more conversational phrasing. Despite this, GPT-4’s arguments were consistently persuasive, especially when personalized.</p>
<p>“One thing I find especially interesting is that when we looked closely at the arguments produced by GPT-4, we didn’t find any linguistic or metalinguistic ‘fingerprints’ showing that personalization changed how the AI sounded,” Salvi said. “In other words, the style and structure of GPT-4’s arguments, which significantly differed from human ones, stayed essentially the same whether or not it had access to personal information.” </p>
<p>“Contrary to what some of us expected, the persuasive advantage doesn’t seem to come from how the AI argued, but from what it chose to argue. For example, in a debate about Universal Basic Income (UBI), GPT-4 tailored its message depending on the participant’s political affiliation, framing UBI as a tool for economic growth and innovation for Republicans and as a way to reduce inequality for Democrats.”</p>
<p>The researchers also explored whether participants could tell whether they were debating a human or an AI. About 75% of people correctly guessed when they were arguing with GPT-4, suggesting that AI-generated arguments still have a recognizable style. Interestingly, those who believed they were debating an AI were more likely to shift their opinions, regardless of the AI’s actual performance. This may reflect a tendency to view AI opponents as less personally threatening or less emotionally invested.</p>
<p>“My main take-home message is that, whether we like it or not, AI’s superhuman persuasiveness is already a reality,” Salvi told PsyPost. “Our study shows that large language models like GPT-4, when given even minimal personal information, can be more persuasive in debates than real people—in our case, about 64% of the time. That’s not a tiny edge; it’s a landslide, especially considering how difficult it usually is to change anyone’s mind online.” </p>
<p>“This can have tremendous implications, ranging from misinformation to election integrity and unfair propaganda. If persuasive AI can be deployed at scale, you can imagine armies of bots microtargeting undecided voters, subtly nudging them with tailored political narratives that feel authentic. Last year, in 2024, people around the world voted in elections in at least 76 countries, marking it as the year with the most voters in history.”</p>
<p>“So far, there hasn’t been evidence that AI played a significant role in those electoral contests. However, that kind of influence is hard to trace, even harder to regulate, and nearly impossible to debunk in real time. We’re potentially entering a world where one-on-one persuasion can be automated, personalized, and almost invisible. At the same time, I also see enormous potential for good.”</p>
<p>While the results are compelling, the researchers caution that the findings should be viewed in light of several limitations. The debates were conducted under time constraints and followed a structured format, which may not fully capture the complexity of real-world conversations. All participants were anonymous and recruited from a research platform, which means the sample may not reflect broader populations. Participants also had to argue in favor of random viewpoints, which could have affected how convincing they were, especially compared to an AI that always sticks to its assigned position with consistency.</p>
<p>“Our debates followed a strict, timed structure (opening, rebuttal, conclusion), like a mini academic debate,” Salvi noted. “While some platforms like Twitter and Reddit give space to debates that unfold with similar principles in a back-and-forth manner, this can still be quite different from how most conversations actually unfold online. So while the AI performed impressively in this controlled format, whether it can hold its ground in the wild chaos of real online discourse is still an open question.”</p>
<p>Even so, the results suggest that large language models like GPT-4 can be surprisingly persuasive in one-on-one interactions, especially when they’re allowed to personalize their messaging. And that personalization doesn’t need to rely on deep psychological profiling. Just a handful of basic facts—like someone’s age, education, or political identity—was enough for GPT-4 to tailor its arguments in ways that made it more convincing than a human.</p>
<p>Future studies could test whether newer AI models are even more persuasive, or whether different styles of writing—more emotional, more personal, or more conversational—could further increase their effectiveness. Researchers could also explore how well these systems perform in more natural conversations, or whether explicitly disclosing that an argument is AI-generated makes people more resistant to being influenced.</p>
<p>“I’m also particularly interested in how we could harness AI’s persuasive capabilities for social good,” Salvi said. “We already have <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adq1814" target="_blank">some proof of concept that LLMs can be effective in reducing conspiracy beliefs</a>, but that only scratches the tip of the iceberg. For example, one area I’m excited about is encouraging healthier and more sustainable behaviors, like shifting dietary choices away from high-emission meat products or promoting physical activity. These are domains where people often want to change but struggle with motivation, and a well-calibrated persuasive AI might offer the right kind of nudge at the right moment. </p>
<p>“I am also interested in looking into how these systems might reduce partisan polarization by helping people engage more constructively across divides or by defusing hostile online exchanges before they escalate. Essentially, given that we now have tools that can generate persuasive messages in a powerful and scalable way, we should focus on deploying them where the incentives are aligned with individual and public good, not manipulation. There’s a real opportunity to turn what could be a threat into something deeply empowering, and that’s the direction I’m most excited to push this research in.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02194-6" target="_blank">On the conversational persuasiveness of GPT-4</a>,” was authored by Francesco Salvi, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Riccardo Gallotti, and Robert West.</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/cannabis-alternative-9r-hhc-may-be-as-potent-as-thc-study-in-mice-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;">Cannabis alternative 9(R)-HHC may be as potent as THC, study in mice suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 17th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251330739" target="_blank">Journal of Psychopharmacology</a></em> shows that a specific type of hexahydrocannabinol, known as 9(R)-HHC, produces behavioral and psychoactive effects in mice that closely resemble those of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol—the main psychoactive component in cannabis. The researchers also found that another form, 9(S)-HHC, produces far weaker effects, suggesting that different types of HHC may have very different effects on users.</p>
<p>Hexahydrocannabinol, or HHC, is a synthetic cannabinoid that has appeared in recent years in hemp-derived products sold online and in stores. It is often marketed as a legal alternative to marijuana, especially in regions where cannabis remains illegal. While tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has been extensively studied and is regulated in many places, far less is known about HHC—including its effects on the brain, its potential for abuse, or its safety in humans.</p>
<p>HHC is not a single compound but a group of related molecules. Two common forms, or epimers, of HHC are 9(R)-HHC and 9(S)-HHC. These epimers are mirror-image versions of each other, meaning they have the same atoms but are arranged differently in space. This subtle difference in structure can lead to very different effects in the body. The goal of the study was to determine whether each of these two forms of HHC produces the same kinds of behavioral effects seen with THC.</p>
<p>To find out, researchers from RTI International and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration conducted a series of behavioral experiments in male mice. One set of experiments used what is known as the cannabinoid tetrad test, a method that measures four classic effects of cannabinoids in rodents: reduced movement, decreased sensitivity to pain, lowered body temperature, and catalepsy, which is a type of rigid immobility. These effects are considered indicators that a compound is activating cannabinoid receptors in the brain.</p>
<p>Another set of experiments tested whether the mice could recognize the effects of the different compounds. In this part of the study, mice were trained to distinguish between injections of THC and injections of a neutral solution. The animals learned to nose-poke in different areas of a test chamber depending on which compound they had received. Once the mice had learned this discrimination, the researchers tested whether they would respond to the HHC compounds as if they were THC. If they did, it would suggest the animals perceived HHC as producing similar psychoactive effects.</p>
<p>In the tetrad tests, both THC and 9(R)-HHC produced strong and consistent effects across all four measures. Mice that received either compound moved less, showed reduced sensitivity to pain, had lower body temperatures, and spent more time in a rigid posture. These results suggest that 9(R)-HHC engages cannabinoid receptors in the brain in a manner similar to THC.</p>
<p>In contrast, 9(S)-HHC produced only two of the four effects. It lowered body temperature and increased immobility, but did not reliably reduce movement or block pain. It also required higher doses to produce any effects at all, indicating it was much less potent than either THC or 9(R)-HHC.</p>
<p>The drug discrimination experiments told a similar story. Mice trained to recognize THC responded to 9(R)-HHC as if it were the same drug, but only at moderate to high doses. This suggests that 9(R)-HHC has similar psychoactive properties and could potentially be misused in the same way as THC. The 9(S)-HHC compound, by contrast, only partially substituted for THC, and only at high doses. Even then, the mice showed decreased motivation and signs of toxicity, including lethargy and significant drops in response rate.</p>
<p>The results suggest that 9(R)-HHC has a high potential to mimic the psychoactive and behavioral effects of THC in humans, while 9(S)-HHC may be less likely to do so—unless taken in large amounts. Notably, the mice given very high doses of 9(R)-HHC sometimes experienced seizures, tremors, and muscle stiffness, and half of the animals exposed to the highest dose died several days after testing. Although the exact cause of death is unknown, the researchers noted that delayed lethality is unusual in cannabinoid studies.</p>
<p>The study also highlights how differences in chemical structure can lead to large differences in how a compound behaves in the brain. While 9(R)-HHC and 9(S)-HHC are nearly identical in terms of their atomic composition, only the 9(R) version showed clear signs of psychoactivity across all tests. This suggests that the ratio of these epimers in consumer HHC products could have a strong impact on how those products affect users. Prior analyses of commercial products have found wide variation in this ratio, ranging from less than one part 9(R)-HHC for every five parts 9(S)-HHC, to more than two parts 9(R) for every one part 9(S).</p>
<p>Although the study was conducted in mice, the findings raise important questions about the use and regulation of HHC products in humans. Since 9(R)-HHC behaves much like THC, it may have similar risks—including the potential for abuse, negative cognitive or psychiatric effects, and physical side effects such as hypothermia and lethargy. The authors note that additional studies are needed to evaluate these risks in humans.</p>
<p>The researchers also point out several limitations. The experiments only included male mice, so it is unknown whether female animals or humans would show the same responses. The study did not assess whether the compounds produce tolerance or withdrawal symptoms with repeated use, although early surveys suggest that HHC products may trigger more withdrawal symptoms than THC. The findings also cannot speak to long-term safety, as only single doses were used.</p>
<p>Future research will need to explore the effects of repeated exposure, possible dependence, sex differences, and other health risks related to HHC use. Studies in humans will also be needed to determine whether the psychoactive effects observed in mice translate to the human experience.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251330739" target="_blank">Cannabimimetic and discriminative stimulus effects of hexahydrocannabinols in mice</a>,” Julie A. Marusich, Cassandra Prioleau, and Luli R. Akinfiresoye.</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/a-single-dose-of-lamotrigine-causes-subtle-changes-in-emotional-memory/" 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 single dose of lamotrigine causes subtle changes in emotional memory</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 17th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A single dose of lamotrigine, a drug often prescribed to prevent depressive episodes in people with bipolar disorder, was found to shift emotional memory in a more positive direction in a group of healthy volunteers. The research, published in <em><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/single-dose-of-lamotrigine-induces-a-positive-memory-bias-in-healthy-volunteers/00B6771FABB863F7D7BC892A4833A62D#article" target="_blank">Psychological Medicine</a></em>, suggests that lamotrigine may influence how people recall self-relevant emotional information, but does not appear to broadly alter emotional processing or mood in the short term.</p>
<p>Lamotrigine is an anticonvulsant medication that has been approved for the long-term maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder, particularly to help prevent future episodes of depression. Unlike many treatments used for bipolar disorder, which are more effective in controlling mania, lamotrigine has shown more consistent results in reducing depressive relapses. Despite its established role in clinical practice, little is known about how lamotrigine affects the psychological processes that might contribute to mood regulation, especially emotional memory and perception.</p>
<p>The motivation behind this new study was to examine how lamotrigine might affect emotional cognition in people without mood disorders. The idea is based on findings from research on antidepressants, which have been shown to shift emotional biases toward the positive end of the spectrum—such as remembering more positive than negative words or facial expressions—sometimes even before changes in mood are noticeable. Since lamotrigine is also used to stabilize mood and prevent depression in bipolar disorder, the researchers wanted to know if it could produce similar effects on emotional information processing.</p>
<p>To explore this question, researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Minho recruited 36 healthy adults aged 18 to 40. None of the participants had a history of psychiatric or neurological illness, and all underwent medical and psychological screening before being included in the study. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single 300 milligram dose of lamotrigine or a placebo. The study was double-blind, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew who received which treatment until after the experiment was completed.</p>
<p>Three hours after taking the dose, participants completed a series of computerized tasks from the Oxford Emotional Test Battery. These tasks are designed to measure how people perceive and remember emotionally charged information, such as facial expressions, emotionally toned words, or emotionally relevant memories. Participants also filled out questionnaires throughout the experiment to track their mood, anxiety, and any physical side effects.</p>
<p>The central finding of the study came from a task that tested how many emotional words participants could recall. In an earlier part of the test battery, participants had been shown a series of personality-related words—some positive, like “kind,” and some negative, like “bossy”—and were asked to imagine someone using these words to describe them. Later, they were asked to recall as many of those words as possible. The participants who received lamotrigine recalled more positive words than negative ones, whereas the placebo group did not show this same bias. This shift in memory recall suggests that lamotrigine may promote a more positive interpretation of self-relevant emotional content, at least temporarily.</p>
<p>This effect is consistent with a growing body of research on how antidepressant medications seem to work. Some studies suggest that improving how people process emotional information—especially information about themselves—is an early step in how these medications help lift mood over time. The theory is that people with depression often focus more on negative information, and reversing that tendency may help change their outlook and reduce symptoms. If lamotrigine also produces a similar positive bias, this could offer insights into why it is helpful in managing depression in bipolar disorder.</p>
<p>Notably, lamotrigine did not produce broader changes across other tasks in the emotional battery. There were no significant effects on how participants recognized facial expressions, categorized emotional words, or shifted attention toward emotional content. The drug also did not affect self-reported mood or anxiety during the course of the experiment. This pattern suggests that the observed effect was specific to emotional memory, rather than a general change in emotional perception or subjective feeling.</p>
<p>Although the study found a statistically significant effect on emotional memory, the researchers acknowledge that the results should be interpreted with caution. The sample size was relatively small, and the positive memory bias was the only significant effect among a larger group of emotional tasks. The researchers did not adjust their statistical analysis to account for testing multiple outcomes, which increases the chance of false positives. In addition, the group that received lamotrigine reported more side effects, even before taking the drug, and showed higher levels of trait anxiety. These imbalances between groups may have influenced the results, although the researchers conducted follow-up analyses to control for them.</p>
<p>Importantly, the study was conducted in healthy participants, not people with bipolar disorder or depression. While using a healthy sample allows researchers to examine the direct effects of a drug without the confounding influence of illness, it also means the findings may not fully translate to clinical populations. Emotional processing in people with mood disorders may be shaped by different mechanisms, and drugs like lamotrigine could work differently in those contexts.</p>
<p>Even so, the study offers an initial look at how lamotrigine might affect emotional cognition, supporting the idea that its antidepressant-like effects could involve a subtle reshaping of memory processes. In particular, the increase in recall of positive self-descriptive words may reflect a short-term cognitive shift that, over time, could help reduce vulnerability to depressive thinking. Previous research in patients with bipolar disorder has found that depressive episodes are often accompanied by a focus on negative self-concepts and difficulty recalling positive personal memories. A drug that helps tip the balance back toward positive emotional content could contribute to more stable mood regulation.</p>
<p>There is also support from animal and human studies suggesting that lamotrigine may have effects on learning and memory. In mice, the drug has been shown to improve memory performance in certain tasks. In clinical settings, children and adults with bipolar disorder have shown improvements in working memory after extended treatment with lamotrigine. The current findings build on this earlier work by suggesting that the drug may also influence emotional aspects of memory, at least in the short term.</p>
<p>Future research will need to explore whether this positive memory bias extends beyond healthy participants and whether it is seen with repeated dosing. It will also be important to determine whether these cognitive shifts are linked to real-world clinical benefits, such as reduced depressive symptoms or fewer relapses in people with bipolar disorder. To answer those questions, larger studies in clinical populations using longer treatment periods and broader cognitive testing will be necessary.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725000777" target="_blank">A single dose of lamotrigine induces a positive memory bias in healthy volunteers</a>,” was authored by Tarek Zghoul, Pilar Artiach Hortelano, Alexander Kaltenboeck, Lucy Wright, Guy M. Goodwin, Liliana P. Capitão, and Catherine J. Harmer.</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/common-pollutant-in-drinking-water-linked-to-brain-damage-and-cognitive-impairment/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Common pollutant in drinking water linked to brain damage and cognitive impairment</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 17th 2025, 13:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research has found that prolonged exposure to low concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—known as PFAS—can disrupt brain function, damage neurons, and impair memory and behavior in mice. The findings, published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.137699" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Hazardous Materials</a></em>, add to growing evidence that these “forever chemicals” may pose significant risks to brain health, even at levels currently found in drinking water and the environment.</p>
<p>PFAS are a large group of synthetic chemicals widely used for their resistance to water, grease, and heat. They are found in countless everyday products, including nonstick cookware, food packaging, waterproof clothing, carpet treatments, and firefighting foam. Because they do not easily break down, PFAS persist in soil, water, air, and living organisms.</p>
<p>Exposure can occur through drinking contaminated water, eating fish or dairy products from affected areas, inhaling dust, or using items treated with PFAS, such as certain cosmetics, dental floss, and cleaning products. Waste sites, chemical plants, and military facilities are major sources of contamination, and biosolids from wastewater treatment—used as fertilizer—can spread PFAS into food systems and surface waters.</p>
<p>Due to their widespread use and persistence, PFAS have been detected in the blood of most people in the United States. While most exposures are relatively low, they can become concentrated and accumulate over time. Some occupational groups, such as firefighters and chemical manufacturing workers, face higher risks. Public health surveys and environmental testing have revealed PFAS contamination in public and private drinking water systems, especially near industrial sites and military bases.</p>
<p>Despite the growing scientific consensus that PFAS can cause harm, efforts to regulate these chemicals have <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-epa-pfas-drinking-water" target="_blank" rel="noopener">faced repeated delays and rollbacks</a>. The Environmental Protection Agency took early steps during the Trump administration to address PFAS pollution, developing an action plan in 2019 that included limiting PFOS and PFOA in drinking water and beginning the process of classifying them as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. These efforts advanced during the Biden administration, which finalized enforceable limits for six PFAS in water and continued research into health risks.</p>
<p>But in 2025, under a new EPA leadership, enforcement of these drinking water standards was postponed until 2031, and other rules are now under review. Grants for PFAS-related research have been cut, and internal scientific capacity has been restricted amid proposed agency-wide budget reductions. These actions have raised concern among scientists and advocates who fear that existing protections could be weakened just as new findings point to more widespread and serious risks.</p>
<p>The latest study on mice, conducted by researchers in China, sought to simulate real-world exposure by administering a PFAS mixture through drinking water over a period of seven weeks. The mixture included 17 different PFAS compounds at concentrations between 0.2 and 20 micrograms per liter—similar to what has been reported in surface water near contamination sites.</p>
<p>After the exposure period, the researchers found that four chemicals—PFPeA, PFHpA, 6:2 FTS, and PFOS—accumulated in the mice’s brains at levels higher than in their blood. These compounds were able to cross the blood-brain barrier and reach concentrations high enough to potentially interfere with brain activity.</p>
<p>To assess brain function, the team recorded electrical signals from the brain using electroencephalography. They observed changes in two key types of brain waves: beta waves, which are linked to attention and memory, were reduced, while gamma waves, associated with higher cognitive processing, increased. These shifts in brainwave patterns became more pronounced at higher exposure levels.</p>
<p>The behavioral effects were also significant. In open field tests, exposed mice showed signs of anxiety and reduced exploration. They traveled shorter distances and avoided the central area of the testing arena. In memory tests, mice took longer to explore new environments and were less able to distinguish between familiar and novel objects. These behaviors suggest deficits in memory, attention, and emotional regulation.</p>
<p>Microscopic analysis of the hippocampus, a brain region involved in memory formation, revealed signs of neuron death and structural damage in the exposed groups. Damage in this area is consistent with the types of memory and behavior impairments observed.</p>
<p>To understand the biological changes behind these outcomes, the researchers conducted chemical and genetic analyses of brain and blood samples. They found that PFAS exposure disrupted several metabolic pathways. Levels of key neurotransmitters and their precursors—including glutamate, aspartate, and tryptophan—were reduced. These molecules are vital for synaptic signaling and emotional regulation. At the same time, inflammatory markers in the brain were elevated, pointing to an immune response that could further disrupt normal brain function.</p>
<p>The study also identified changes in gene expression related to neurotransmitter systems, including those involving acetylcholine, GABA, and oxytocin. One notable finding was increased activity in the oxytocin signaling pathway, which may represent a compensatory response to chemical injury or inflammation. Previous studies have linked disruptions in this system to emotional and cognitive changes in animals and humans.</p>
<p>The results suggest that long-term, low-level exposure to PFAS mixtures can impair brain function through multiple mechanisms: chemical accumulation in brain tissue, interference with neurotransmitter systems, activation of inflammatory pathways, and changes in gene expression. The combination of behavioral, chemical, and genetic findings provides a comprehensive picture of PFAS neurotoxicity under environmentally relevant conditions.</p>
<p>The authors note that while the study was conducted in male mice and may not directly translate to humans, mice are widely used as models in neuroscience and toxicology. The range of PFAS used in the experiment reflects the types commonly found in contaminated water sources, offering insights into what effects humans might experience under similar exposure.</p>
<p>The findings from the new mouse study echo concerns raised by recent human research. A <a href="https://www.psypost.org/prenatal-exposure-to-forever-chemicals-linked-to-autistic-traits-in-children-study-finds/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">separate study published in the same journal</a> earlier this year examined the effects of PFAS exposure during early pregnancy on children’s development. Researchers analyzed blood samples from more than 1,600 pregnant women in Shanghai and found that higher levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were associated with a greater likelihood of autistic traits in their children by age four.</p>
<p>Another compound, PFHxS, showed stronger effects in children who were genetically predisposed to autism. These effects appeared more pronounced in boys than in girls, and some associations were influenced by whether mothers took folic acid before pregnancy.</p>
<p>Taken together, these studies suggest that some PFAS compounds may have harmful effects on the developing brain, especially when exposure occurs during critical periods of growth. While human data remains limited and sometimes inconsistent, both animal and epidemiological research point toward the possibility that PFAS can disrupt neurotransmitters, alter gene expression, and contribute to behavioral changes.</p>
<p>Despite advances in research, regulatory action on PFAS continues to face political and industrial resistance in the United States. In recent months, the EPA has delayed key provisions related to drinking water standards and reporting requirements for PFAS use. Industry groups, including chemical manufacturers, have challenged regulations in court, and new leadership at the agency has requested multiple pauses to reevaluate policies, citing the need for scientific review.</p>
<p>At the same time, budget cuts have hampered the agency’s ability to carry out independent PFAS research. Several university grants aimed at studying PFAS in food systems and agriculture were canceled earlier this year, raising concerns about the agency’s commitment to understanding and managing PFAS exposure.</p>
<p>Researchers involved in the mouse study say their findings add to the growing body of evidence that PFAS exposure is not only widespread but potentially harmful to the brain. They emphasize the need for continued public health protections, environmental monitoring, and scientific investigation.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.137699" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neurotoxic effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) mixture exposure in mice: Accumulations in brain and associated changes of behaviors, metabolome, and transcriptome</a>,” was authored by Qiurong He, Qingkun Yang, Lin Wu, Yuhang He, Ni Zeng, and Zhenglu Wang.</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-links-honor-cultures-to-higher-rates-of-depression-suicidal-thoughts/" 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 links honor cultures to higher rates of depression, suicidal thoughts</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 17th 2025, 12:30</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study finds that people living in U.S. states with stronger honor cultures are more likely to experience depression and suicidal thoughts, particularly non-Hispanic White residents. The findings shed light on how cultural norms related to reputation and self-reliance may play a role in mental health outcomes.</p>
<p>Honor cultures place a strong emphasis on maintaining personal and family reputation, often through strength, self-reliance, and retaliatory responses to threats or insults. These values are especially prominent in many Southern and Western U.S. states, which researchers often refer to as “honor states.” In contrast, “dignity states,” which are more common in the North and Midwest, tend to emphasize inherent self-worth and individual autonomy, with less focus on social reputation.</p>
<p>Previous research has consistently shown that honor states have higher suicide rates, especially among White men. However, studies investigating whether depression—an important risk factor for suicidal thinking—is more common in honor cultures have produced mixed results. Some found a connection between honor and depression, while others did not. This discrepancy led researchers to revisit the question using updated and more comprehensive methods.</p>
<p>The new study, published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221251348586" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology</a></em>, aimed to clarify whether people in honor-oriented environments experience more depression and suicidal ideation than those in dignity-oriented environments. The research team, led by social and cultural psychologist <a href="https://jarrodbock.wixsite.com/machlab" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jesse Bock</a>, conducted two separate studies to examine these links at both the state and individual levels.</p>
<p>“My primary area of research is on suicide and other mental health-related issues in honor cultures. Honor cultures treat as paramount the defense and maintenance of reputation, and, although they are found around the world, they tend to be in southern and western U.S. states,” explained Bock, an assistant professor at the University of Wyoming.</p>
<p>“Much of the work—including my own—that has examined the honor-suicide association has focused on suicide <em>deaths</em> and factors related to these deaths (e.g., firearm accessibility, lack of healthcare access). This work has demonstrated that suicide rates are higher in honor- oriented states compared to dignity-oriented states, particularly among non-Hispanic Whites and among men. Although it is important to understand where and among what demographic of individuals are dying by suicide, very little research had examined mental health factors that commonly precipitate suicide deaths within U.S. honor culture, most notably depression and suicidal ideation.</p>
<p>“With that said, two previous studies did examine the role of depression in explaining the honor-suicide association,” Bock continued. “The first paper on this topic found that honor-oriented states had higher levels of depression and that highly depressed honor-oriented states exhibited higher rates of suicide. The second paper replicated the honorsuicide association, but they found that it was lower rates of anti-depressant prescriptions—not depression rates—that explained said association. Given the importance of understanding mental health issues, these discrepant findings are worthy of investigation. Thus, my team and I aimed to clarify and extend this prior work.”</p>
<p>In the first study, the researchers used publicly available data to examine mental health patterns across all 50 U.S. states. They measured each state’s level of honor orientation using two approaches: a traditional classification dividing states into either honor or dignity categories, and a newer continuous index that scored states on various characteristics associated with honor cultures, such as firearm laws and patriarchal attitudes. They then compared these measures to rates of depression and suicidal ideation using two large national surveys.</p>
<p>Depression was measured in two ways. One was the percentage of adults in each state who had experienced a major depressive episode in the past year, based on symptom reports. The other was the percentage of adults who had ever been diagnosed with depression by a medical professional. The latter measure could also be separated by race, which allowed for more precise comparisons.</p>
<p>The results showed that, after accounting for factors like poverty, education, access to healthcare, and population density, states with higher honor scores also had higher levels of depression. This relationship was strongest when using the continuous honor index and when focusing specifically on non-Hispanic White adults.</p>
<p>“State-level honor culture was not associated with depression rates among U.S. Hispanic adults,” Bock told PsyPost. “Of course, it is important to keep in mind that no culture and/or ethnicity is a monolith, but there is some literature suggesting that honor culture is also prominent among Hispanics. That honor culture was strongly predictive of depression rates among non-Hispanic White adults but not Hispanic adults suggests that the dynamics of honor culture might differentially affect mental health outcomes in these groups.”</p>
<p>The researchers also found that depression appeared to help explain the link between honor and suicidal ideation. In other words, living in a culture that places strong demands on reputation may increase the likelihood of experiencing depression, which in turn may lead to more suicidal thoughts.</p>
<p>To test whether these findings held true at the individual level, the researchers conducted a second study involving over 4,200 adults from California and Louisiana—two states that differ in their levels of honor culture. Participants completed an online survey in which they rated how much they agreed with traditional masculine and feminine honor values. They also reported on their recent experiences with depression and anxiety symptoms, and whether they had seriously considered suicide in the past year.</p>
<p>Even after controlling for a wide range of demographic and personal factors—including income, education, political beliefs, and access to health insurance—individuals who endorsed honor values more strongly were more likely to report symptoms of depression and to say they had thought about suicide. But honor values were not significantly related to anxiety symptoms.</p>
<p>“The finding that most surprised me was that honor endorsement was not associated with anxiety,” Bock said. “Other work in the honor culture literature has found honor endorsement to be associated with outcomes and constructs related to anxiety, such as hypervigilance and intolerance of uncertainty, so we somewhat expected a small association between honor and anxiety. However, the association was non-existent.”</p>
<p>As in the first study, depression appeared to explain the link between honor and suicidal ideation. Those who strongly endorsed honor ideals were more likely to report depressive symptoms, and those symptoms were in turn linked to greater risk of suicidal thinking.</p>
<p>These findings suggest that honor-based norms may play a role in shaping people’s mental health. The researchers propose that in honor cultures, where social value depends on how others perceive you, failing to meet cultural expectations—such as being strong, self-reliant, or loyal—can be a source of distress. At the same time, honor cultures often discourage help-seeking behaviors and may stigmatize mental health struggles, making it harder for individuals to find support when they are suffering.</p>
<p>Earlier studies had already shown that people in honor states are less likely to seek mental health treatment, and that these states often have fewer mental health resources. The current research adds that even when individuals do experience depression, cultural pressures related to honor may make it more difficult for them to acknowledge their distress or get the help they need.</p>
<p>“Collectively, this work shows that honor culture at both the state and individual levels is associated with higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation, two factors strongly related to suicide attempts and suicide deaths,” Bock said. “This work adds to a growing body of research highlighting how the norms and values of honor cultures increase the risk of self-harm.”</p>
<p>While the findings are compelling, the authors acknowledge some limitations. Much of the data is correlational, meaning it cannot prove that honor causes depression or suicidal thoughts.</p>
<p>“Arguably the biggest limitation of the present work is the inability to definitively assign direction of causality in the honor-depression-suicidal ideation associations,” Bock noted. “Across two studies at two levels of analysis, we tested theoretically informed models, but these data are still correlational, so it is important to not draw causal conclusions.</p>
<p>“Another important caveat is that our observed effect sizes were modest, especially among individuals in Study 2. Thus, our finding that honor endorsement predicted higher levels of depression which, in turn, predicted a greater likelihood of suicidal ideation does not mean that all individuals that who endorse honor norms will be depressed and/or ideate, nor does it mean that honor plays a major role in facilitating thoughts of suicide.”</p>
<p>“Our collective results simply provide evidence for a plausible mechanism by which honor culture leads to depression and suicidal ideation, but longitudinal data are needed to clarify and substantiate this mechanism.”</p>
<p>In particular, future studies could track individuals over time to see whether shifts in cultural values or personal identity correspond to changes in mental health. The researchers also recommend incorporating measures of honor fulfillment—whether people feel they are living up to the expectations of honor culture—as this may be especially relevant to understanding who is at risk. Previous work has shown that men who endorse honor norms but feel they have failed to meet them are particularly vulnerable to suicidal thinking.</p>
<p>“My long-term goal with this line of work is to better understand the factors that lead individuals in honor-oriented states and those that endorse honor-related norms to die by suicide,” Bock explained. “It is important to first have a solid understanding of these factors before developing and implementing mental health interventions.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221251348586" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Is Honor Culture Linked With Depression?: Examining the Replicability and Robustness of a Disputed Association at the State and Individual Levels</a>,” was authored by Jarrod E. Bock, Ryan P. Brown, Nicole E. Johns, Kalysha Closson, Michael Cunningham, Stephen Foster, and Anita Raj.</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/infants-show-lower-stress-when-carried-by-mothers-instead-of-being-in-a-stroller-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;">Infants show lower stress when carried by mothers instead of being in a stroller, 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 17th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of infants in the Netherlands found that, after a mock bath, infants’ stress levels decreased more quickly when their mothers carried them in a chest carrier compared to when they were placed in a pram. This effect occurred regardless of whether the mothers were walking in nature or staying indoors. In contrast, mothers experienced lower stress levels when they remained indoors. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102527"><em>Journal of Environmental Psychology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Infants depend heavily on their caregivers to regulate their responses to stress. When distressed or uncomfortable, they communicate their needs through crying, facial expressions, and body movements. Responsive caregivers interpret these cues and offer comfort through actions like holding, rocking, or feeding.</p>
<p>Physical closeness—such as being held or carried—helps lower an infant’s heart rate and cortisol levels. Touch, warmth, and soothing voices from caregivers activate calming systems in the infant’s brain. This process, known as “co-regulation,” occurs when the caregiver’s presence and actions help stabilize the infant’s physiological and emotional state.</p>
<p>Through repeated experiences of sensitive caregiving, infants begin to learn how to manage their emotions. These interactions foster trust and support the development of secure attachment. Over time, infants internalize these soothing experiences and gradually become better at regulating themselves.</p>
<p>Study author Nicole Rheinheimer and her colleagues aimed to explore whether a 30-minute outdoor walk would help infants regulate stress after a mild laboratory stressor, compared to staying indoors. They also examined whether being carried in a chest carrier, as opposed to riding in a pram, made a difference. In addition, they investigated whether walking through nature had distinct effects compared to remaining indoors.</p>
<p>The study involved 101 mother-infant pairs recruited via social media and flyers. Mothers received a 25-euro voucher for participating and a book for their infant. The researchers divided participants into four groups. All groups were instructed to give their infant a “mock bath”—undressing the infant, “washing” them with a dry cloth, weighing them, and dressing them again—for 12 minutes. This procedure was intended to serve as a mild stressor.</p>
<p>Afterward, two groups went for a 30-minute walk through a green city forest. One group carried their infants in chest carriers (group 1), while the other used prams (group 2). The remaining two groups stayed indoors. One group carried their infants (group 3), and the other used prams (group 4).</p>
<p>During the experiment, the researchers collected saliva samples from mothers and infants at several time points to measure cortisol levels—a marker of stress. Mothers also completed mood assessments after the mock bath and again after the walk or indoor rest period. The researchers recorded how long the infants slept during the study as well.</p>
<p>The results showed that infants carried in chest carriers experienced a greater decrease in cortisol levels than those placed in prams, regardless of whether their mothers walked outdoors or stayed indoors. Infants whose mothers carried them while walking outdoors also slept longer than those who stayed indoors in a pram.</p>
<p>Mothers who carried their infants also experienced greater decreases in cortisol compared to those who used prams. However, mothers who remained indoors showed a larger reduction in cortisol levels than those who went for a walk.</p>
<p>“The current study points towards the potential benefits of outdoor walking in a natural green environment and infant carrying for infants’ stress levels and sleep as well as for mothers’ stress levels and vigor. In light of these positive effects, the findings may inspire future research on time spent outdoors during infancy,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the physiological aspects of mother-infant interactions. However, study authors note that the infants did not show an increase in cortisol levels after the “mock bath”, indicating that this procedure did not cause stress, but also that the observed decreases did not represent a recovery from that stressor.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102527">Effects of outdoor walking and infant carrying on behavioral and adrenocortical outcomes in mothers and infants,</a>” was authored by Nicole Rheinheimer, Stefania V. Vacaru, Simone Kühn, and Carolina de Weert.</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>