<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/study-of-292000-children-finds-screen-use-both-predicts-and-follows-emotional-struggles/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Study of 292,000 children finds screen use both predicts and follows emotional struggles</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 30th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study provides the strongest evidence to date that screen use and socioemotional problems in children are linked in both directions. Published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000468" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychological Bulletin</a></em>, the comprehensive meta-analysis of 117 longitudinal studies involving more than 292,000 children found that increased screen use slightly predicted later emotional or behavioral difficulties—and that children with existing socioemotional problems were also slightly more likely to use screens over time.</p>
<p>Much of the earlier research on screen use and child mental health has been cross-sectional. That means it captures a snapshot in time, rather than tracking how behaviors and outcomes change over months or years. Cross-sectional studies are useful for identifying correlations, but they cannot establish which came first—screens or symptoms. Longitudinal studies, by contrast, follow the same children over time, offering stronger clues about directionality.</p>
<p>Even among longitudinal studies, individual results have varied, and many suffered from small sample sizes. To resolve this, the authors of the new meta-analysis aggregated data from 117 studies spanning decades and countries. They used advanced statistical techniques to evaluate whether screen use predicted socioemotional problems later on—and whether socioemotional problems at one point in time predicted greater screen use later.</p>
<p>They also explored how these associations were influenced by screen type, content, and purpose, and whether effects differed for internalizing problems (like anxiety and low self-esteem) versus externalizing ones (like aggression or defiance).</p>
<p>“I’ve got three kids under 7, and screens are everywhere in their lives,” said study author <a href="https://noetel.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michael Noetel</a>, an associate professor at The University of Queensland Brisbane. “My wife and I sometimes disagree about screen rules at home, and I genuinely didn’t know if screens were causing problems—so my team spent 4 years trying to find out (though in a classic husband own-goal, the research said she was mostly right!)”</p>
<p>The researchers searched five major academic databases and conducted extensive citation tracking to identify relevant studies. To qualify, a study had to measure screen use and socioemotional problems at two or more points in time, separated by at least six months, in children under age 10. The review excluded studies conducted during COVID-19 lockdowns due to unusual patterns in screen use and mental health during that period.</p>
<p>After screening more than 23,000 records, 132 longitudinal studies met inclusion criteria. Of those, 117 studies—comprising over 2,284 individual effects and nearly 293,000 participants—were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies used parent- or self-report questionnaires to assess screen use and socioemotional functioning, including well-known instruments like the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.</p>
<p>A technique known as meta-analytic structural equation modeling allowed the researchers to estimate two core paths: from screen use to later socioemotional problems, and from socioemotional problems to later screen use. This method also accounts for the natural stability of each behavior across time, helping isolate the unique contributions of one variable to the other.</p>
<p>The study found statistically significant associations in both directions. On average, more screen time at an earlier time point slightly predicted greater socioemotional problems later (standardized coefficient b = 0.06), and children with more socioemotional difficulties also showed a small tendency to increase their screen use over time (b = 0.06).</p>
<p>These effects were modest, but consistent. They became stronger over longer time intervals—suggesting that the impact of screen use or distress may accumulate over time. For example, when the lag between time points exceeded four years, the effect of screen use on later socioemotional problems more than doubled.</p>
<p>Importantly, not all screen use was equal. Playing video games showed the strongest association with future socioemotional difficulties (b = 0.32). Gaming also appeared to be more strongly predicted by earlier emotional or behavioral issues (b = 0.44) than other types of screen activity, such as passive video watching. The researchers suggest that children might turn to gaming as a way to cope with distress—but that it may also reinforce or exacerbate emotional struggles over time.</p>
<p>“I was genuinely surprised that video games stood out as particularly problematic, especially since I’d just bought my kids a Nintendo Switch (which is now in the cupboard for special occasions),” Noetel told PsyPost. “Games are just incredibly well-designed to keep kids hooked, and maybe little kids aren’t quite ready for that level of engagement.”</p>
<p>Children who exceeded recommended screen time limits also showed stronger effects in both directions. In contrast, no significant associations were found among children who used screens within guideline thresholds. This supports the idea that excessive screen use may displace healthier activities, such as sleep, physical activity, and face-to-face interaction, all of which are important for emotional development.</p>
<p>The nature of socioemotional problems mattered, too. Internalizing issues like anxiety and peer problems were slightly more sensitive to screen use over time. Meanwhile, externalizing problems like inattention or aggression were more strongly predictive of later screen use, especially among boys.</p>
<p>“Screen use and emotional problems are a two-way street: too much screen time can cause anxiety and behaviour problems, but kids who are already struggling also turn to screens to cope,” Noetel said. “Parents should watch for heavy screen use as a possible red flag that their child needs emotional support. Don’t just add screen limits.”</p>
<p>The analysis also uncovered differences across age and gender groups. Overall, older children were more vulnerable to the effects of screen use on socioemotional problems than younger ones. One reason may be that older children have more autonomy over their media choices, and the content they access—including online games and social media—is more likely to include peer comparison and age-inappropriate material.</p>
<p>Girls were more likely to show socioemotional effects from screen use in early and middle childhood, but among older children, boys were more likely to use screens as a coping mechanism and to show screen-related behavioral difficulties. These patterns may reflect gendered differences in coping styles, emotional regulation, or media preferences.</p>
<p>There were also notable racial disparities. Samples with a lower proportion of White children showed stronger effects in both directions. While the causes remain unclear, these disparities may reflect differences in screen access, content exposure, or social supports. The authors note that more studies focused specifically on underrepresented racial and ethnic groups are needed.</p>
<p>While the findings provide some of the clearest longitudinal evidence to date, the researchers caution that the observed relationships were small and cannot rule out confounding variables. Many of the included studies relied on self-reported screen time, which can be inaccurate. Parental stress, family dynamics, or socioeconomic factors may influence both a child’s screen use and their emotional well-being. Some studies had high attrition rates, which may bias the results.</p>
<p>“We can’t completely rule out other factors like parenting style that might influence both screen use and emotional problems—it’s about as close as we can get to causal evidence without randomly cutting screens for thousands of kids,” Noetel said. “Also, most studies relied on parent or kid reports of screen time, which aren’t always accurate.”</p>
<p>The authors recommend future studies use objective screen tracking, consider more diverse populations, and test possible mediators such as parenting style or school engagement. More research is also needed on the effects of newer screen formats like smartphones and social media, which were less represented in earlier studies.</p>
<p>“We need studies that look at specific types of content and games rather than lumping all ‘screen time’ together—educational games might be very different from violent ones,” Noetel explained. “I’d also love to see more research using actual device tracking rather than parent estimates. My team’s working on both of these goals.”</p>
<p>“The key message for parents is that screens aren’t inherently evil, but they’re not neutral either. Like junk food, a little is fine but too much displaces the good stuff kids need—sleep, play, and real connections. If your child is glued to screens, ask why they’re there, not just how long they’ve been on.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2026-24348-001.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Electronic Screen Use and Children’s Socioemotional Problems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies</a>,” was authored by Roberta Pires Vasconcellos, Taren Sanders, Chris Lonsdale, Philip Parker, James Conigrave, Samantha Tang, Borja del Pozo Cruz, Stuart J. H. Biddle, Rachael Taylor, Christine Innes-Hughes, Katariina Salmela-Aro, Diego Vasconcellos, Katrina Wilhite, Ella Tremaine, Bridget Booker, and Michael Noetel.</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/psychologists-simulate-ghosting-and-reveal-why-its-so-damaging/" 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;">Psychologists simulate ghosting—and reveal why it’s so damaging</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 30th 2025, 08:00</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/10.1111/pere.70018" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Personal Relationships</a></em> has found that ghosting—cutting off communication without explanation—can lead to emotional pain on par with being explicitly rejected. But unlike direct rejection, ghosting leaves people clinging to emotional ties and pursuing contact, highlighting how the ambiguous nature of ghosting can prolong distress and impede closure.</p>
<p>The research, led by Amanda L. Szczesniak and colleagues at Wayne State University, aimed to experimentally test the emotional and behavioral impact of ghosting in the early stages of a romantic relationship. While previous studies have explored ghosting using participants’ memories, this study is among the first to simulate ghosting in real-time and compare it directly to explicit rejection and acceptance.</p>
<p>“People often discuss ghosting as a hurtful, distressing way to end a relationship, which inspired us to explore what makes this relationship dissolution experience particularly impactful for the recipient,” explained Amanda Szczesniak, a PhD candidate.</p>
<p>“There is a growing field of informative work examining ghosting. However, this research often relies on retrospective reports. We hoped that by using an experimental rejection paradigm, we could better understand what makes ghosting a unique experience through strengthening our causal inferences and gaining insight into how ghosting feels in the moment.”</p>
<p>To better understand the immediate psychological effects of ghosting, the team created an immersive online dating simulation and measured participants’ real-time emotional responses and behavioral intentions.</p>
<p>Across two studies, participants were guided through a hypothetical dating scenario. Each person imagined meeting someone named Taylor through a dating app, exchanging messages, and going on two successful dates. Participants then sent a message expressing interest in seeing Taylor again and were randomly assigned to receive one of three responses: an enthusiastic reply (acceptance), a message declining further contact (explicit rejection), or no response at all (ghosting).</p>
<p>The researchers then measured participants’ emotions, self-esteem, emotional attachment to the fictional partner, and their intentions to reconnect or monitor the partner’s online presence.</p>
<p>In the first study, 243 college students participated. After the rejection manipulation, those who were ghosted or explicitly rejected both reported increased negative emotions and lower self-esteem compared to participants who were accepted.</p>
<p>However, ghosted participants retained higher emotional attachment to the dating partner than those who were directly rejected. They were also more likely to check the partner’s social media and consider reaching out after 24 hours—behavior that resembled the accepted group more than the rejected one. The ghosted group’s inability to let go of the connection pointed to a unique kind of emotional limbo.</p>
<p>The second study, a preregistered replication with 141 participants, confirmed these findings. Participants once again went through the same dating scenario and were assigned to one of the three outcomes. As in the first study, both ghosted and explicitly rejected participants experienced similar drops in positive emotion and self-esteem, and both felt worse than those who were accepted. However, ghosted participants once again reported significantly more emotional attachment than the explicitly rejected group.</p>
<p>The second experiment expanded on the first by including additional behavioral measures. Participants rated how likely they were to perform actions such as texting or calling the target, checking their dating app profile, or visiting places the target was known to frequent. Those who were ghosted expressed a higher likelihood of monitoring the target’s online activity and a desire to re-engage socially—even if indirectly—similar to those who had been accepted. In contrast, participants who were explicitly rejected were more likely to avoid further contact.</p>
<p>These findings support the idea that ghosting triggers a unique emotional experience: high emotional pain without the closure needed to move on. Although being ghosted did not cause more negative emotion than being directly rejected, it did lead to more lingering attachment and uncertainty. In both studies, ghosted participants were more likely to report they did not know where they stood in the relationship and were unsure if the connection had truly ended.</p>
<p>“Ghosted individuals exhibited similar negative emotions as those who were explicitly rejected,” Szczesniak told PsyPost. “However, being ghosted was also linked to continued emotional attachment to the romantic target, and, in one study, to a similar degree as those who were accepted. Those who were ghosted also reported higher intentions to contact the target as time passed, along with higher monitoring of the target’s social media.”</p>
<p>“Given that past work has shown that continued contact with an ex-partner hinders break-up recovery, especially for those who have low acceptance of the break-up (e.g., Sbarra & Emery, 2005; Mason et al., 2012), ghosted participants are at risk for slower psychological recovery from the dissolution. Altogether, being ghosted appears to be uniquely associated with sustained emotional attachment, continued contact attempts, and social media monitoring of an ex-partner, suggesting why explicit dissolution might be the most efficacious strategy for establishing the finality of a relationship.”</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are caveats to consider.</p>
<p>“One major limitation of this work is the hypothetical nature of the rejection paradigm,” Szczesniak noted. “Participants imagined a relationship developing over time with a simulated partner that they knew was hypothetical. The task aimed to simulate real-life relationship development by providing sequential scenarios and visual aids (e.g., text messages, choosing dates to go on).”</p>
<p>“However, ethical concerns arise if experimental designs deceive participants into believing they are forming an actual romantic connection over time. Hence, the hypothetical nature was necessary for use in an experimental design to infer causality, and complements previous correlational, retrospective studies.”</p>
<p>Despite its limitations, the study offers important insights into the psychology of modern dating. The findings suggest that ghosting is more than just a silent breakup—it is a rejection that leaves people suspended between hope and heartbreak.</p>
<p>The authors hope that future research can move beyond hypothetical simulations to capture real-time experiences of ghosting. One possibility is using smartphone apps to track communication patterns and emotional responses as they unfold. This would allow researchers to determine when people begin to suspect they are being ghosted and how they attempt to cope with that uncertainty.</p>
<p>“The field would benefit from gathering real-time data while ghosting is happening to capture the temporal aspects of ghosting (e.g., at what point do people suspect they are being ghosted? Do individual differences like attachment orientations play a role in how ghosting differs from other break-up strategies?),” Szczesniak explained. “Also, although most people acknowledge ghosting is not an ideal dissolution strategy, it remains common. What specific factors motivate ghosting over other more direct strategies to initiate a break-up?”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.70018" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Give Up the Ghost: Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Ambiguous Rejection</a>,” was authored by Amanda L. Szczesniak, Mary E. Pierce, and Stephanie S. Spielmann.</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/your-brain-sequences-speech-in-a-place-scientists-long-overlooked/" 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;">Your brain sequences speech in a place scientists long overlooked</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 30th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study from the University of California, San Francisco has upended a long-held assumption in neuroscience about how the brain organizes the sounds of speech. For over 150 years, Broca’s area—a region in the frontal lobe—was believed to be the main hub responsible for translating thoughts into the coordinated movements required for speaking. But new research published in <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02250-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nature Human Behaviour</a></em> provides evidence that another area, the middle precentral gyrus, plays a far more central role in this process than previously recognized.</p>
<p>The study found that this region of the brain not only helps sequence speech sounds into coherent utterances but also plays a direct role in orchestrating the motor plans necessary to produce them. The discovery reshapes our understanding of how fluent speech is generated and may lead to better tools for treating speech disorders or developing brain-computer interfaces for people who cannot speak.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted the study to better understand how the brain plans and sequences the movements needed for speech—a process known as speech-motor sequencing. For decades, scientists believed this function was housed primarily in Broca’s area, a region in the frontal lobe historically linked to language production. But clinical observations and new neuroimaging findings have begun to cast doubt on this assumption.</p>
<p>In particular, some patients with damage to Broca’s area retain normal speech abilities, while others with injuries to neighboring areas, including the middle precentral gyrus (mPrCG), show marked speech planning difficulties. This discrepancy prompted the researchers to reexamine the brain mechanisms behind fluent speech.</p>
<p>Lead investigator <a href="https://changlab.ucsf.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Edward Chang</a>, a neurosurgeon and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, has spent years studying how the brain produces spoken language. His interest in the mPrCG was sparked by a case in which a patient developed apraxia of speech—a condition that impairs the ability to coordinate speech movements—after surgery that removed part of this region. The same speech impairment did not occur in other patients whose surgery involved Broca’s area.</p>
<p>Jessie Liu, then a graduate student in Chang’s lab, played a key role in shaping the research. While developing neural interface devices to help people with paralysis communicate, Liu and Chang noticed consistent speech-related activity coming from the mPrCG. These observations led them to suspect that the region might do more than control pitch, as previously thought.</p>
<p>“The field was making a lot of progress in studying articulation, that is the low-level movements that control the vocal tract for speech, so we started to wonder about the neural processes that occurred prior to articulation, which the field knew much less about,” explained Liu, who is now a postdoctoral scholar.</p>
<p>“Generally, that would be called speech planning, and we became particularly interested in a subprocess of that called speech-motor sequencing as there are speech disorders where just that specific process is malfunctioning. Overall, speech-motor sequencing was something that has important implications for both basic and clinical sciences, and that really excited us.”</p>
<p>The researchers hypothesized that the mPrCG could be responsible for ordering the individual speech sounds—syllables and phonemes—into coherent sequences, acting as a bridge between abstract speech planning and motor execution. The study was designed to test this hypothesis directly by recording and stimulating brain activity in people as they produced spoken sequences of varying complexity.</p>
<p>To investigate how the brain sequences the movements required for speech, the researchers recruited 14 English-speaking volunteers who were undergoing surgery for epilepsy. As part of their medical treatment, each patient had been implanted with high-density electrocorticography (ECoG) grids on the surface of their brain. These grids allowed the researchers to record neural activity directly from multiple brain areas while the participants performed speech tasks. All participants had normal speech and motor abilities and no history of speech disorders, making them ideal candidates for studying typical speech production.</p>
<p>Participants were asked to perform a delayed speech repetition task. During each trial, they were shown a sequence of syllables on a screen—such as “ba-ba-ba,” “ba-da-ga,” or more complex combinations like “blaa-draa-gloo”—and after a brief delay of about one second, they were cued to repeat the sequence out loud. This design allowed the researchers to separate the brain activity related to seeing the syllables, holding them in memory, preparing to speak, and finally producing the sounds.</p>
<p>By varying the complexity of the sequences, the researchers could measure how the brain responds to different speech planning demands. Some sequences were simple, using the same syllable repeated three times, while others included three different syllables. Some also included more complex articulatory features, like consonant clusters, which are harder to pronounce.</p>
<p>Using the ECoG recordings, the researchers tracked neural activity across multiple areas of the brain, focusing on how it changed during the four phases of the task: visual encoding, memory delay, preparation to speak, and actual speech production. They found that many brain regions showed brief bursts of activity during one or two of these stages.</p>
<p>But a particular set of electrodes, especially those placed in the middle precentral gyrus (mPrCG), displayed sustained activity that lasted through all four stages of the task. These “sustained” signals suggested that the mPrCG was continuously involved in speech planning from the moment participants saw the syllables until they finished saying them.</p>
<p>The researchers noticed that the mPrCG stood out in several ways. Not only did it contain more sustained electrodes than any other region, but the activity within it also varied in meaningful patterns. Using unsupervised clustering techniques, the team identified four distinct temporal profiles of sustained activity. Some electrodes showed stronger responses during the initial reading of the syllables, while others peaked closer to the moment of speech.</p>
<p>The mPrCG had a relatively even mix of these patterns, suggesting it plays a flexible and ongoing role throughout the speech preparation process. This contrasted with other brain regions, like Broca’s area, which showed less involvement across all task phases.</p>
<p>To test whether the mPrCG was specifically involved in sequencing, the researchers examined whether its activity changed depending on the complexity of the syllable sequences. They found that the region was especially sensitive to “sequence complexity”—whether the syllables were repeated or varied—not just to how difficult they were to pronounce.</p>
<p>In contrast, regions like the ventral precentral gyrus and supramarginal gyrus were more responsive to articulatory complexity, meaning they were activated by sounds that were physically harder to produce. The mPrCG’s response to sequence structure—not just sound difficulty—supported the idea that it helps organize speech sounds into a meaningful order before they are spoken.</p>
<p>The researchers also analyzed whether activity in the mPrCG predicted how quickly a person began to speak. They found that certain electrodes in the mPrCG could reliably forecast the participant’s reaction time—the interval between the go-cue and the start of speech—on a trial-by-trial basis. This finding linked mPrCG activity directly to motor planning, showing that this region does more than just monitor or respond to speech; it helps initiate it. Electrodes that predicted reaction time often overlapped with those that were sensitive to sequence complexity, strengthening the evidence that the mPrCG coordinates the timing and order of speech movements.</p>
<p>“We had hypothesized that the mPrCG was involved in speech-motor sequencing but it was surprising just how robust the activity was,” Liu told PsyPost. “The use of ECoG (electrocorticography) allowed us to have very high spatial and temporal resolution, so we could compare activity across areas at 5 ms resolution. This made it very clear that the mPrCG had strong effects of sequence complexity across the whole task.”</p>
<p>In a key part of the study, the researchers applied electrical stimulation to the mPrCG in five participants during the speech task. This type of stimulation can temporarily disrupt normal brain activity, allowing scientists to see what happens when a specific area is impaired. When the mPrCG was stimulated, participants made speech errors that resembled symptoms of apraxia of speech—a disorder in which people struggle to coordinate their speech despite knowing what they want to say.</p>
<p>These errors were most common when participants tried to say complex sequences. They included stretching out syllables, inserting unintended pauses, mispronouncing sounds, and stuttering. Notably, these errors did not occur during simple sequences or during tasks that involved making mouth movements without speech, suggesting the effects were specific to sequencing and not general motor control.</p>
<p>Importantly, stimulation of Broca’s area did not cause these types of errors, despite its historical association with speech planning. This contrast suggested that Broca’s area might play a more abstract or supervisory role in language, while the mPrCG directly handles the motor sequencing necessary to turn speech plans into coordinated muscle movements.</p>
<p>Together, the results revealed that speech-motor sequencing is not confined to Broca’s area, but instead relies on a distributed network of brain regions. Within this network, the mPrCG plays a central role, serving as a hub where phonological plans are translated into motor instructions for speaking. This challenges long-standing models of speech production and may reshape how neuroscientists understand language in the brain.</p>
<p>“Speech-motor sequencing is a necessary process that allows us to flexibly build words from smaller units like syllables,” Liu explained. “This was thought to occur in a part of the brain called Broca’s area, but this has become controversial, as studies also show that damage to Broca’s area does not result in speech-motor sequencing errors. To test this, we recorded brain activity from Broca’s area and many other parts of the brain that are related to speaking while participants spoke different speech sequences.”</p>
<p>“Instead of Broca’s area or any other area we recorded from, we found that an area called the middle precentral gyrus (mPrCG) had brain activity crucial for speech-motor sequencing. This has important impacts on basic science as we show that the mPrCG should be included in future models of speech production. Additionally, this will help surgeons make more complete maps of important speech areas in a patient’s brain, so that they can carry out necessary surgery while still preserving a patient’s ability to speak fluently.”</p>
<p>While the study provides evidence for the role of the mPrCG in speech-motor sequencing, it has some limitations. The participants were all epilepsy patients undergoing surgery, which means their brains may not represent the general population. Grid placement was based on clinical need, so not all brain regions were sampled evenly.</p>
<p>“Though we recorded from many brain areas, these were all on the surface of the cortex,” Liu noted. “Subcortical regions also play roles in speech production and motor control, so testing those is an important goal for future studies.”</p>
<p>Still, the study opens new avenues for exploring how the brain coordinates complex behaviors like speech. Future research may investigate how the mPrCG interacts with other brain regions involved in language, whether its role extends to other types of sequencing like reading and writing, and how it could be targeted in rehabilitation or assistive technology.</p>
<p>“Our work in this paper is really just the first step concretely showing the role of the mPrCG in sequencing,” Liu told PsyPost. “Ultimately, we want to understand the neural computations and exact mechanisms of the mPrCG in speech-motor sequencing, as well as how this region interacts with the broader network of speech areas. Improved recording techniques, like recording from single neurons, as well as new methods to model these neural populations will be critical for achieving this.”</p>
<p>“This work would not have been possible without the generosity of the patient volunteers who donated their time and effort to this study,” Liu added. “This work was also a strong team effort with my co-first author Lingyun Zhao, PhD.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02250-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Speech sequencing in the human precentral gyrus</a>,” was authored by Jessie R. Liu, Lingyun Zhao, Patrick W. Hullett, and Edward F. Chang.</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/how-psychopathy-connects-alexithymia-to-decisions-that-sacrifice-others/" 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;">How psychopathy connects alexithymia to decisions that sacrifice others</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 29th 2025, 19:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who have difficulty identifying and expressing emotions are more likely to endorse causing harm if it benefits the greater good—especially if they also show traits linked to psychopathy. A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113147" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Personality and Individual Differences</a></em> sheds light on how emotional processing affects moral judgment by examining the interaction between alexithymia and psychopathy.</p>
<p>Alexithymia is a personality trait that affects around 10 percent of the population. It involves difficulties in recognizing and describing one’s emotions, as well as a tendency toward externally focused thinking. Researchers describe it in terms of two dimensions: the cognitive side, which affects how people identify and talk about emotions, and the affective side, which involves how people experience and feel them.</p>
<p>There are two competing theories about what drives this emotional difficulty. The hyper-arousal theory proposes that people with alexithymia are overwhelmed by intense emotional states they cannot regulate. In contrast, the hypo-arousal theory suggests they experience low levels of emotional activation in the first place, making it harder to feel and recognize emotions. Recent evidence, including this study, lends support to the hypo-arousal view.</p>
<p>Psychopathy, by contrast, is marked by a lack of empathy, superficial charm, manipulativeness, and impulsive behavior. Psychopathy exists on a continuum, and many people who score high on psychopathy traits do not meet the clinical threshold for a diagnosis. Researchers often distinguish between two subtypes: primary psychopathy, which involves callousness and low emotional responsiveness, and secondary psychopathy, which is associated with impulsivity, aggression, and emotional instability.</p>
<p>While previous research has shown that people with either alexithymia or psychopathic traits are more likely to make utilitarian moral decisions, little was known about how these traits might work together. Serra Şandor of İstanbul Medeniyet University aimed to investigate whether psychopathy acts as a link between alexithymia and moral decision-making.</p>
<p>Drawing on dual-process theory, which suggests that moral judgments result from an interaction between fast emotional responses and slower, more deliberate reasoning, Şandor hypothesized that people with blunted emotional reactions might rely more on calculated reasoning. This could make them more likely to endorse utilitarian outcomes, especially in high-stakes, emotionally charged scenarios.</p>
<p>In the first part of the study, 238 university students in Turkey completed questionnaires measuring alexithymia and psychopathy. They also responded to 20 moral dilemmas, half of which involved impersonal scenarios like diverting a train, and half involving personal choices like pushing someone off a bridge to stop the train.</p>
<p>As expected, people with higher alexithymia scores were more likely to make utilitarian decisions in personal dilemmas—those that involve directly harming someone. There was no link between alexithymia and decisions in impersonal dilemmas. The same pattern held for psychopathy scores, especially primary psychopathy.</p>
<p>To understand how these traits were related, Şandor used a statistical technique called mediation analysis. The results showed that the relationship between alexithymia and utilitarian choices was fully explained by primary psychopathy. In other words, people who had difficulty recognizing and expressing emotions were more likely to score high on traits like low empathy, and those traits in turn predicted a greater tendency to make utilitarian moral judgments.</p>
<p>To examine the role of emotional arousal, Şandor conducted a second study with 49 participants selected from the original group. These individuals were divided into high- and low-alexithymia groups based on their earlier scores.</p>
<p>Participants viewed emotional images—some positive, some negative, and some neutral—while their physiological responses were measured using a method that tracks changes in skin resistance. They also rated each image in terms of how pleasant or unpleasant it was, and how emotionally arousing it felt.</p>
<p>People in the high-alexithymia group showed less physiological and subjective emotional reactivity to both positive and negative images. This finding supported the hypo-arousal theory: their emotional systems simply didn’t respond as strongly. They also made more utilitarian choices in the moral dilemma scenarios and scored higher on both primary and secondary psychopathy traits.</p>
<p>Interestingly, in this group, lower emotional arousal predicted higher levels of psychopathy—but psychopathy didn’t directly influence moral decisions in the same way it did for the low-alexithymia group. For individuals with better emotional awareness, psychopathy was a stronger predictor of utilitarian decision-making. This suggests that for people with intact emotional processing, psychopathic traits play a bigger role in how they make moral decisions, while for those with alexithymia, it’s the lack of emotional arousal itself that shapes behavior.</p>
<p>The study provides new insights into how different emotional traits interact to influence moral reasoning. Alexithymia appears to increase the likelihood of utilitarian decision-making by reducing emotional arousal and fostering traits associated with psychopathy. However, the route to these decisions differs depending on a person’s emotional responsiveness.</p>
<p>These results lend support to dual-process models of moral decision-making, which posit that emotional reactions typically steer people away from causing harm. When those reactions are weak or absent, people may rely more on abstract reasoning that prioritizes outcomes.</p>
<p>The findings also highlight the importance of distinguishing between personal and impersonal moral dilemmas. Emotional factors seem to matter much more when the harm is direct and personal. This aligns with previous research showing that people with damage to emotion-related brain regions, such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, are also more likely to endorse utilitarian solutions in personal moral dilemmas.</p>
<p>But the new research has some limitations. The sample was composed entirely of university students, which may limit how well the findings apply to the general population. The study also relied on self-report questionnaires to measure personality traits, which can be subject to bias.</p>
<p>The study’s design was also cross-sectional, meaning it captured a snapshot in time. Longitudinal studies could help to clarify whether alexithymia and psychopathy are actually related to changes in moral decision-making over time. Future research could also explore these relationships in clinical populations or use brain imaging techniques to investigate the neural pathways involved.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113147" target="_blank" rel="noopener">From emotional blunting to moral choices: The role of alexithymia in trait psychopathy and utilitarian decision-making</a>,” was published online on March 10, 2025.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/the-psychology-of-belief-explains-americas-ongoing-war-with-darwin/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">The psychology of belief explains America’s ongoing war with Darwin</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 29th 2025, 17:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>One hundred years after a Tennessee teacher named John Scopes started a legal battle over what the state’s schools can teach children, Americans are still divided over evolution.</p>
<p>Scopes was charged with violating Tennessee law <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Scopes-Trial">by teaching evolution</a>, in a highly publicised July 1925 trial that led to national debate over evolution and education. The trial tested whether a law introduced that year really could punish teachers over evolution lessons. It could and did: Scopes was fined US$100 (£74).</p>
<p>But here’s the weird part: while Americans remain deeply divided about whether humans evolved from earlier species, across the Atlantic British people had largely settled this question decades before the Scopes trial.</p>
<p>According to thinktank <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/12/10/biotechnology-research-viewed-with-caution-globally-but-most-support-gene-editing-for-babies-to-treat-disease/">Pew Research Center</a> data from 2020, only 64% of Americans accept that “humans and other living things have evolved over time”. Meanwhile, 73% of Britons are fine with the idea that they share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That nine-percentage-point gap might not sound like much, but it represents millions of people who think Darwin was peddling fake news.</p>
<p>From 1985 to 2010, Americans were in what researchers call a statistical dead heat <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09636625211035919">between acceptance and rejection</a> of evolution – which is academic speak for people couldn’t decide if we were descended from apes or Adam and Eve.</p>
<p>Here’s where things get psychologically fascinating. Research into <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.108.3.480">misinformation and cognitive biases</a> suggests that fundamentalism operates on a principle known as motivated reasoning. This means selectively interpreting evidence to reach predetermined conclusions. And a <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aao2998">2018 review</a> of social and computer science research also found that fake news seems to spread because it confirms what people already want to believe.</p>
<p>Evolution denial may work the same way. Religious fundamentalism is what researchers call <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09636625211035919">“the strongest predictor”</a> for rejection of evolution. <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0101832">A 2019</a> study of 900 participants found that belief in fake news headlines was associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism and reduced analytic thinking.</p>
<p>High personal religiosity, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/25/spirituality-and-religion-us-comparison-to-other-countries/">as seen in the US</a>, reinforced by communities of like-minded believers, can create resistance to evolutionary science. This pattern is pronounced among Southern Baptists – the largest Protestant denomination in the US – where <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/">61% believe the Bible is the literal word of God</a>, compared to 31% of Americans overall. The persistence of this conflict is fuelled by <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631069108001844">organised creationist movements</a> that reinforce religious scepticism.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-uncovers-brain-lesions-increase-religious-fundamentalism/">Brain imaging studies </a>show that people with fundamentalist beliefs seem to have reduced activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – the brain region responsible for cognitive flexibility and analytical thinking. When this area is damaged or less active, people become more prone to accepting claims without sufficient evidence and show increased resistance to changing their beliefs when presented with contradictory information. <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322399121">Studies of brain-injured patients</a> show damage to prefrontal networks that normally help us question information may lead to increased fundamentalist beliefs and reduced scepticism.</p>
<p>Fundamentalist psychology helps explain the US position in international evolution acceptance surveys. In a 2006 study, of over 33,00 people <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1126746">from 34 countries</a>, only Turkey ranked lower than the US, with about 27% accepting evolution compared to America’s 40% at the time. Among the developed nations surveyed, the US consistently ranks near the bottom – a pattern that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/12/10/biotechnology-research-viewed-with-caution-globally-but-most-support-gene-editing-for-babies-to-treat-disease/">persists</a> in more recent international comparisons.</p>
<p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122412438225">Research shows</a> that political polarisation on evolution has historically been much stronger in the US than in Europe or Japan, where the issue rarely becomes a campaign talking point. In the US, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sce.21907?msockid=39f3125423d164f0352a07b422f6652d">anti-evolution bills</a> are still being introduced in <a href="https://www.wvlegislature.gov/bill_status/bills_history.cfm?INPUT=280&year=2024&sessiontype=RS">state legislatures</a>.</p>
<p>In the UK, belief in evolution became accepted among <a href="https://archive.org/details/secularizationof00chad_0">respectable clergymen</a> around 1896, according to church historian Owen Chadwick’s analysis of Victorian christianity. But why did British religious institutions embrace science while American ones declared war?</p>
<p>The answer lies in different approaches to intellectual challenges. British Anglicanism <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/4054567">has a centuries-old tradition</a> of seeking a “via media” – a middle way between extremes – that allowed church leaders to accommodate new ideas without abandoning core beliefs. Historian Peter documented how <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/4054567">British religious leaders</a> actively worked to reconcile science and religion, developing theological frameworks that embraced scientific discoveries as revealing God’s methods rather than contradicting divine authority.</p>
<p>Anglican bishops and scholars tended to treat evolution as God’s method of creation rather than a threat to faith itself. The Church of England’s hierarchical structure meant that when educated clergy accepted evolution, the institutional framework often followed suit. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2024.2342636">A 2024 paper argued that</a> many UK church leaders still view science and religion as complementary rather than conflicting.</p>
<h2>A different approach</h2>
<p>The British experience proves it’s possible to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517735430">reconcile science and faith</a>. But changing American minds requires understanding that evolution acceptance isn’t really about biology — it’s about identity, belonging, and the fundamental question of who gets to define truth. People don’t reject evolution because they’ve carefully studied the evidence. They reject it because it threatens their identity. This creates a context where <a href="https://brill.com/view/journals/rmdc/11/2/article-p275_006.xml">education alone</a> can’t overcome deeply held convictions.</p>
<p><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">Misinformation intervention research</a> suggests that inoculation strategies, such as highlighting the scientific consensus on climate change, work better than debunking individual articles. But evolution education needs to be sensitive. <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118489#">Consensus messaging</a> helps, but only when it doesn’t threaten people’s core identities. For example, framing evolution as a function of “how” life develops, rather than “why it exists, allows for people to maintain religious belief while accepting the scientific evidence for natural selection.</p>
<p>People’s views can change. A review published in 2024, analysed data which followed the same Gen X people in the US over 33 years. It found that, as they grew up, people developed more acceptance of evolution, though typically <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09636625241234815">because of factors such as education and obtaining university degrees</a>. But people who were taught at a private school <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00219266.2024.2419645">seem less likely</a> to become more accepting of evolution as they aged.</p>
<p>As we face new waves of scientific misinformation, the century since the Scopes trial teaches us that evidence alone won’t necessarily change people’s minds. Understanding the psychology of belief might be our best hope for evolving past our own cognitive limitations.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/260709/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-many-americans-still-think-darwin-was-wrong-yet-the-british-dont-260709">original article</a>.</em></p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/sugar-addiction-is-real-according-to-these-scientists/" 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;">Sugar addiction is real, according to these scientists</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Jul 29th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new scientific review argues that sugar addiction is not just a metaphor, but a real and measurable condition that mirrors the brain and behavioral patterns found in drug dependence. Published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70338" target="_blank">Brain and Behavior</a></em>, the paper brings together a wide body of research to show that sugar can hijack the brain’s reward systems, influence emotional and cognitive functions, and drive compulsive consumption patterns in ways that qualify it as a behavioral addiction.</p>
<p>The review was authored by Di Qin of China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University along with colleagues from Changchun University of Technology. The researchers conducted an analysis of neurological, behavioral, and clinical evidence to make the case that sugar meets the criteria of addiction and whether it should be viewed similarly to gambling and gaming disorders—conditions now formally recognized as behavioral addictions by international psychiatric guidelines.</p>
<p>Behavioral addictions are patterns of behavior that, even in the absence of chemical substances, produce cravings, loss of control, withdrawal-like symptoms, and harmful consequences. These behaviors are driven by their ability to stimulate the brain’s reward circuits, much like substances such as nicotine or opioids. The World Health Organization’s latest diagnostic framework, the ICD-11, recognizes behavioral addictions that interfere with a person’s ability to function normally and continue despite negative consequences.</p>
<p>Food addiction, and sugar addiction in particular, fits this profile, the researchers argue. Sugar-rich foods are not only widely available and socially acceptable—they also exert powerful neurochemical effects. When consumed, sugar activates the brain’s dopamine system, which is responsible for producing feelings of pleasure and reward. Over time, repeated activation of this system by high-sugar foods may result in tolerance, meaning that larger quantities of sugar are needed to produce the same pleasurable effect. This creates a feedback loop that promotes overconsumption.</p>
<p>In animal studies, rodents that binge on sugar display behaviors similar to those seen in drug addiction: compulsive seeking, difficulty stopping, and even withdrawal symptoms. The researchers note that rats given sugar show enhanced responses to stimulants like cocaine and amphetamines, suggesting that sugar sensitizes the brain in ways that make it more reactive to other addictive substances. These effects are mediated by the same brain structures that underlie substance use disorders, including the nucleus accumbens, the prefrontal cortex, and the amygdala.</p>
<p>At the sensory level, the body is primed to respond to sweetness. Specialized receptors on the tongue and in the gut detect sugar, sending signals through the nervous system to the brain. Once sugar enters the bloodstream, it rapidly raises blood sugar levels and triggers the release of insulin. These metabolic shifts can lead to fluctuations in energy levels and mood, and in some cases, produce a rebound effect that triggers renewed cravings. Over time, this pattern can disrupt the body’s internal balance and reinforce habitual sugar-seeking behavior.</p>
<p>The review outlines how the brain’s reward pathways, particularly those involving dopamine, become altered by repeated sugar intake. Excessive sugar consumption can also impact other neurotransmitters like serotonin and endorphins, along with hormones involved in hunger and satiety, such as ghrelin and leptin. These changes may increase emotional eating and make it harder for individuals to resist cravings, especially when stressed or anxious.</p>
<p>The researchers note that sugar consumption is often used as a form of emotional regulation. Many people turn to sugary snacks when feeling overwhelmed or upset, relying on the temporary mood lift sugar provides. But this strategy may backfire. High-sugar diets are linked to long-term disturbances in emotional health, including heightened anxiety, reduced ability to handle stress, and even symptoms resembling attention-deficit disorders.</p>
<p>The review also highlights the ways in which sugar consumption affects brain structure and function. Prolonged high-sugar diets have been associated with inflammation in the brain, especially in areas like the hippocampus, which plays a key role in memory and learning. Animal studies suggest that chronic sugar intake can lead to cognitive decline, memory impairment, and increased impulsivity—traits commonly associated with substance dependence.</p>
<p>Children and adolescents may be especially vulnerable. Experiments in mice show that early exposure to high-sugar diets can produce long-term behavioral changes, including hyperactivity, poor impulse control, and reduced learning ability. Similar findings have led some scientists to question whether sugar exposure during critical developmental periods could increase the risk of emotional and cognitive problems later in life.</p>
<p>Sugar addiction may also contribute to physical health problems such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. According to the review, high-sugar diets disrupt the body’s ability to regulate appetite and metabolism, leading to excess weight gain and metabolic disorders. These changes can reinforce the addictive cycle by altering reward processing and impairing the brain’s ability to signal fullness or satiety.</p>
<p>In addition to neurological and metabolic changes, sugar intake also promotes low-grade inflammation throughout the body, which has been implicated in a range of chronic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular conditions. The authors cite evidence linking high consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages with increased inflammatory markers and adverse changes in immune function.</p>
<p>Although sugar addiction has not been formally recognized as a clinical diagnosis, the review calls for more research into how sugar affects the brain and behavior. The authors suggest that future studies should explore the genetic and environmental factors that influence vulnerability to sugar addiction, as well as the effectiveness of behavioral and pharmacological treatments.</p>
<p>Some medications, such as dopamine antagonists and opioid receptor blockers, have shown promise in reducing sugar cravings in animal models. However, their long-term safety and efficacy in humans remain unclear. Non-drug strategies, including cognitive behavioral therapy and public education, may help people develop better awareness of their eating habits and improve self-control. Other experimental interventions, such as brain stimulation and herbal compounds, have shown early signs of benefit but need more rigorous testing.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the authors argue, tackling sugar addiction will require a combination of approaches. These might include reformulating processed foods to reduce sugar content, creating healthier food environments, and providing psychological support for those struggling to change their eating behaviors. Public health campaigns should also work to raise awareness about the addictive potential of sugar and promote healthier alternatives.</p>
<p>However, it is important to recognize that the new review reflects the perspective of its authors. It is not necessarily the consensus view. Other scientists have recently argued against the concept of sugar “addiction.” For example, a 2016 review <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6" target="_blank">published in the <em>European Journal of Nutrition</em></a> challenged the idea that sugar is truly addictive in the way substances like cocaine or heroin are. The authors, who critically examined both animal and human studies, concluded that current evidence does not support classifying sugar as an addictive substance, particularly in humans.</p>
<p>They noted that addiction-like behaviors observed in rodents—such as bingeing, withdrawal-like symptoms, and dopamine changes—only appear when animals are given intermittent access to sugar after periods of fasting. These effects disappear when sugar is freely available, suggesting that the behavior may reflect the stress of restricted feeding rather than any pharmacological property of sugar itself. In contrast to drugs, sugar does not produce the same persistent changes in the brain’s reward system or motivational circuits, and rodents do not continue seeking sugar when it is paired with unpleasant consequences, a hallmark of true addiction.</p>
<p>In humans, the evidence is even weaker, they said. Most studies rely on self-report tools like the Yale Food Addiction Scale, which ask people whether they experience cravings or overeat certain foods. But the authors argue that these behaviors often overlap with conditions like binge eating disorder and are not specific to sugar. Importantly, research has not clearly identified sugar as the addictive component. People typically consume sugar in combination with fat, salt, and other ingredients in highly processed foods, making it difficult to isolate sugar’s unique effects.</p>
<p>The review in the <em>European Journal of Nutrition</em> concluded that while there are strong arguments for reducing sugar consumption and some people may experience intense cravings for sweet foods, calling this “sugar addiction” may be misleading. </p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70338" target="_blank">Sugar Addiction: Neural Mechanisms and Health Implications</a>,” was authored by Di Qin, Jiayu Qi, Fuqiang Shi, Zhihua Guo, and Hongwu Li.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/narcissism-is-associated-with-higher-aggression-in-combat-athletes-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;">Narcissism is associated with higher aggression in combat athletes, 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 29th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2025.2516633" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Deviant Behavior</a></em> has found that narcissistic traits are positively associated with aggressive behaviors among licensed combat sports athletes. The researchers also tested whether demographic factors such as gender, age, sports experience, and athlete ranking influenced this link, but none of them significantly altered the relationship. The results suggest that narcissism plays a consistent role in shaping aggression among combat athletes, regardless of their background.</p>
<p>Narcissism refers to a pattern of thinking and behavior centered around a grandiose self-image, a strong desire for admiration, and a lack of empathy. People high in narcissism often view themselves as superior to others and believe they are entitled to special treatment. The concept originates from Greek mythology, where Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection.</p>
<p>In psychology, narcissism exists on a spectrum. It can manifest in relatively mild forms—such as excessive self-confidence—or, at more extreme levels, align with narcissistic personality disorder. The personality trait has been linked to tendencies such as manipulation, dominance, and sensitivity to criticism. These characteristics can influence social interactions, especially in competitive or high-stakes environments.</p>
<p>Previous research has shown that narcissism can lead to aggressive behavior, especially when a person’s ego is threatened. In sports, particularly combat sports like boxing and Muay Thai, competition is intense and self-presentation is often central to success. The combination of physical confrontation, status-seeking, and public visibility makes combat sports an ideal setting to study how narcissism and aggression may interact.</p>
<p>Lead author Nurettin Göksu Çini, an assistant professor of sports management at Kırıkkale University in Turkey, and co-author Mehmet Ceylan, a research assistant at the same institution, sought to investigate this relationship more closely. They also wanted to know whether the link was stronger or weaker depending on an athlete’s gender, age, experience level, or competitive ranking.</p>
<p>“The idea for this study emerged from the notion that combat sports reflect not only physical abilities but also the psychological tendencies of athletes,” explained Çini. “Sports like boxing, kickboxing, and Muay Thai—which involve direct physical confrontation—create fertile ground to explore how narcissistic traits manifest in behavior.”</p>
<p>“Iconic figures such as Muhammad Ali with his legendary claim ‘I am the greatest,’ Mike Tyson’s self-declaration as ‘the baddest man on the planet,’ Floyd Mayweather’s emphasis on undefeated success, and Conor McGregor’s provocative remarks toward opponents were strong motivators behind this research. These athletes exemplify how narcissism can blend with competitive drive, sometimes resulting in aggressive expressions. Observing such patterns encouraged us to scientifically examine the link between narcissism and aggression in combat athletes.”</p>
<p>The researchers surveyed 239 licensed combat sports athletes in Turkey, including individuals from boxing (106), kickboxing (88), and Muay Thai (45). The participants included both men (167) and women (72), ranging from 14 years old to over 25. Athletes also varied in terms of education, socioeconomic status, and training intensity.</p>
<p>Participants completed two standardized self-report questionnaires: the Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 (a measure of narcissism) and the Brief Aggression Questionnaire, which assesses anger, hostility, verbal aggression, and physical aggression. The researchers also collected demographic information and data about the athletes’ level of experience and competitive ranking.</p>
<p>To analyze the data, the researchers used a statistical tool called the PROCESS macro for SPSS, which allowed them to test whether narcissism predicted aggression and whether this relationship was moderated by other variables. They also conducted standard regression analysis to further assess the relationship between narcissism and aggression.</p>
<p>The main finding was that narcissism predicted aggression among combat athletes. Specifically, higher narcissism scores were associated with higher aggression scores across multiple dimensions, including anger and physical aggression.</p>
<p>“Our findings show that narcissistic personality traits significantly predict aggressive behaviors among combat athletes,” Çini told PsyPost. “This insight is especially relevant for coaches, sports clubs, and policymakers. When properly managed, narcissistic traits may enhance confidence and performance, but if left unchecked, they can foster harmful aggression. The study emphasizes the importance of fostering psychological awareness, emotional regulation, and ethical behavior in sports settings—particularly in high-intensity, physically confrontational disciplines.”</p>
<p>This relationship remained consistent across gender, age groups, athlete rankings (local, regional, national, international), and levels of sports experience. In other words, whether the athlete was male or female, young or old, a novice or experienced competitor, narcissism still predicted a greater tendency toward aggression. The authors also noted that narcissism alone explained about 13 percent of the variation in aggression scores.</p>
<p>Interestingly, while women in the sample reported higher average aggression scores than men, gender itself did not significantly influence the strength of the narcissism-aggression link. Similarly, athletes with more training or higher rankings did not show weaker or stronger associations between the two traits.</p>
<p>“While we anticipated a positive link between narcissism and aggression, it was surprising that this relationship was not moderated by gender, age, athletic level, or years of sports experience,” Çini explained. “Personality-behavior dynamics are often assumed to vary across these factors. However, our data suggest that narcissism exerts a consistent influence on aggression regardless of these demographic variables—highlighting the robustness of this personality trait in competitive contexts.”</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider.</p>
<p>“One key limitation is that our sample included only licensed combat athletes from Turkey, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or sporting contexts,” Çini noted. “Additionally, the study’s cross-sectional design limits our ability to make causal inferences. Self-report measures were used for both narcissism and aggression, which, while reliable, could be complemented in future studies with observational or longitudinal data for a deeper understanding.”</p>
<p>“We aim to explore how personality traits like narcissism interact with other psychological factors—such as anxiety, self-esteem, or moral disengagement—in shaping behavior across different sports. Long term, we hope to design evidence-based intervention programs that support emotional development, ethical decision-making, and healthy competitiveness among athletes. We are also interested in comparative research between individual and team sports to better understand how sport type moderates psychological traits.”</p>
<p>The new study adds to the growing body of research on narcissistic tendencies and aggression. In this specific case, however, narcissism might provide an edge.</p>
<p>“One of the major contributions of this study is its reminder that psychological traits like narcissism are not inherently negative,” Çini said. “When acknowledged and properly directed, such traits can fuel motivation and resilience. However, without guidance, they may lead to harmful aggression. By integrating psychological training alongside physical development, we can better support athletes in becoming not only successful competitors but also emotionally intelligent individuals.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2025.2516633" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Dark Side of Combat Sports: Exploring Narcissism and Aggression</a>,” was published online on June 10, 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>