<table style="border:1px solid #adadad; background-color: #F3F1EC; color: #666666; padding:8px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; line-height:16px; margin-bottom:6px;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:20px;font-weight:bold;">PsyPost – Psychology News</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-twin-study-challenges-assumed-link-between-bullying-and-ocd/" 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 twin study challenges assumed link between bullying and OCD</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 3rd 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A longitudinal study of twins in Sweden found that adolescents who reported being bullied at age 15 were more likely to develop symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) later in life (between ages 18 and 24). However, this association was observed only in dizygotic twins and disappeared in monozygotic twins, suggesting that the link is likely due to shared genetic factors rather than bullying being a direct cause of the disorder. The findings were published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02849-2"><em>Molecular Psychiatry</em></a>.</p>
<p>Obsessive-compulsive disorder is a mental health condition characterized by persistent, unwanted thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors or mental rituals (compulsions) performed to reduce anxiety. Common obsessions include fears of contamination, harming others, or needing things to be symmetrical or feel “just right.”</p>
<p>Compulsions often involve excessive cleaning, checking, counting, or repeating actions. These behaviors can be time-consuming and disruptive, interfering with daily life, relationships, and work. OCD affects about 1–2% of the population and typically begins in adolescence or early adulthood. Treatment usually involves a combination of cognitive-behavioral therapy—particularly exposure and response prevention—and medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).</p>
<p>Study author Josep Pol-Fuster and his colleagues aimed to investigate the longitudinal link between OCD and bullying victimization. Specifically, they sought to determine whether being bullied at an earlier age could lead to the development of OCD.</p>
<p>To explore this question, the researchers linked data from the Swedish National Patient Register (which provides diagnostic information) with data from the Child and Adolescent Twin Study in Sweden, an ongoing project focusing on mental and physical health in all twins born in Sweden from July 1, 1992, onward.</p>
<p>The analysis included data from 16,030 twins born between 1993 and 2006. Of these, 6,863 were complete twin pairs, and 2,304 were incomplete. A total of 139 twins—approximately 0.9% of the sample—were diagnosed with OCD. Among those with OCD, 63% were girls, compared to 55% among those without the diagnosis.</p>
<p>At age 15, participants completed the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire to assess bullying victimization. OCD symptoms were assessed at ages 18 and 24 using the Brief Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory – Revised. In addition, researchers extracted the first recorded OCD diagnoses from the National Patient Register.</p>
<p>The results showed that individuals diagnosed with OCD were more likely to report having been bullied at age 15 compared to their peers without OCD (11% vs. 4%). They were also more likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety disorders (6.5% vs. 0.5%) or depressive disorders (7% vs. 0.7%).</p>
<p>However, when the researchers analyzed the data separately for dizygotic and monozygotic twins, they found that the association between bullying and OCD was present only in dizygotic twins and absent in monozygotic twins. Monozygotic twins develop from a single fertilized egg and share 100% of their genes, while dizygotic twins develop from two separate eggs and share about 50% of their genes—similar to regular siblings. This finding suggests that shared genetic factors likely contribute to both the risk of being bullied and the development of OCD.</p>
<p>Because of this, although bullying victimization and OCD appear to be linked, the relationship is more likely to be driven by genetic confounding than by a direct causal effect of bullying.</p>
<p>“These results suggest that the association between bullying victimization and OCD/OCS [obsessive-compulsive disorder / obsessive-compulsive symptoms] is likely due to genetic confounding and therefore incompatible with a strong causal effect. Other mechanisms, such as evocative gene-environment correlations, are more plausible explanations for the observed associations,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the nature of the link between OCD and bullying victimization. However, it should be noted that bullying victimization was assessed through self-reports leaving room for reporting bias to have affected the results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02849-2">Association between bullying victimization and obsessive compulsive disorder: a population-based, genetically informative study,</a>” was authored by Josep Pol-Fuster, Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, Kayoko Isomura, Anna Sidorchuk, Ralf Kuja-Halkola, Paul Lichtenstein, Brian M. D’Onofrio, Isabell Brikell, Henrik Larsson, Elles de Schipper, Jan C. Beucke, and David Mataix-Cols.</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/romantic-relationships-can-help-men-recognize-sexism-new-research-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;">Romantic relationships can help men recognize sexism, new research finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 3rd 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Men in romantic relationships with women are more likely to recognize sexism when their partner shares a personal experience of discrimination, according to new research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251345111" target="_blank">Social Psychological and Personality Science</a></em>. The study found that men were more likely to empathize with their partner, identify the situation as discriminatory, and express greater overall awareness of sexism and commitment to gender equality when they actively took their partner’s perspective.</p>
<p>The research, led by Emily J. Cross of York University in Canada, sheds light on how romantic relationships might serve as a unique environment for fostering men’s awareness of gender discrimination. While traditional efforts to reduce sexism often fall short, especially when targeting men, this study suggests that hearing directly from a romantic partner about sexism may be a promising avenue for increasing understanding and reducing gender-biased attitudes.</p>
<p>“We were interested in whether romantic relationships could serve as a meaningful context for raising men’s awareness of sexism. Research shows that men, on average, are less likely than women to <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/josi.12083" target="_blank">recognize gender discrimination</a> or understand its impact—perhaps because conversations about sexism can feel accusatory, prompting defensiveness or disengagement,” explained Cross, a senior research associate. </p>
<p>“At the same time, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12116" target="_blank">perspective-taking</a>—imagining how an experience might feel from someone else’s point of view—has been shown to reduce intergroup prejudice and discrimination. We figured romantic relationships might offer a unique opportunity: partners are often attuned to each other’s emotions, and what affects one usually matters to the other.” </p>
<p>“That kind of closeness could give men a powerful reason to better understand what their partner is going through. So we asked: could that intimacy motivate men to take their partner’s perspective—and in doing so, help them recognize sexism not as isolated moments, but as part of a broader pattern of gender-based inequality?”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers conducted two studies with heterosexual men who had been in romantic relationships with women for at least a year. In the first study, 576 participants recruited online were randomly assigned to read a scenario about gender discrimination in the workplace. </p>
<p>The woman in the scenario was described as either the man’s romantic partner, a close friend, or a stranger. All participants read that the woman had learned that a male colleague with similar qualifications was earning 25% more than her. She suspected the pay gap was due to her being a woman and expressed frustration and uncertainty about what to do.</p>
<p>After reading the scenario, participants were asked how much they could put themselves in the woman’s shoes, how sexist they perceived the situation to be, and how aware they were of sexism more generally. They also completed surveys measuring their broader attitudes about gender, including modern sexist beliefs (such as denying that sexism still exists) and protective paternalism (the belief that men should shield and provide for women).</p>
<p>The results showed that men were more likely to engage in perspective-taking when the woman in the scenario was described as their romantic partner. Men in this condition also rated the situation as more sexist compared to those who read about a friend or a stranger. These effects remained even when accounting for participants’ general levels of empathy, relationship quality, and existing sexist beliefs.</p>
<p>However, simply imagining a partner experiencing sexism did not directly lead to broader changes in gender attitudes or increased awareness of discrimination against women in general. But when researchers analyzed indirect pathways, they found that perspective-taking increased the likelihood of perceiving the situation as sexist, which in turn predicted greater general awareness and lower modern sexism scores.</p>
<p>The second study was designed to test whether similar patterns emerged when men recalled real experiences with their partners rather than imagined scenarios. The researchers surveyed 570 men, of whom 432 reported that their romantic partner had previously shared a personal experience of gender discrimination. These included examples like being passed over for a promotion, receiving unwanted sexual attention, or hearing sexist jokes.</p>
<p>Participants were asked to describe the incident and then answer questions about how much they took their partner’s perspective, whether they viewed the situation as discriminatory, and how aware they were of sexism in society. They also answered questions about how often they believed their partner experienced discrimination and whether they had taken actions to support gender equality—such as learning more about women’s issues or confronting sexism when they witnessed it.</p>
<p>As predicted, men who reported greater perspective-taking during their partner’s disclosure were more likely to view the situation as sexist. This recognition was, in turn, associated with greater awareness of how often women—and their partner specifically—experience discrimination. It also predicted higher levels of allyship behaviors, including a stronger commitment to confronting gender bias.</p>
<p>Importantly, these effects held even when controlling for participants’ existing beliefs about gender roles and other factors. This suggests that the relational context itself plays a powerful role in shaping how men respond to discussions about sexism.</p>
<p>“We were struck by how consistent the perspective-taking effect was,” Cross told PsyPost. “These effects emerged regardless of how close men felt to their partner, how satisfied they were in the relationship, or their pre-existing views on gender equality. What really made the difference was the act of taking their partner’s perspective—actively imagining how the situation felt for her when she described an experience of sexism.”</p>
<p>The findings highlight how romantic relationships can create opportunities for men to become more aware of sexism by prompting them to empathize with someone they care deeply about. When men are personally connected to someone affected by discrimination, they may be more open to recognizing it and questioning their own assumptions.</p>
<p>“Men were more likely to recognize sexism when it affected their women romantic partner (vs woman friend or stranger),” Cross said. “This recognition also spilled over to their broader beliefs — men were more aware of gender discrimination in general and were less likely to agree with subtle, everyday beliefs that downplay or dismiss sexism.”</p>
<p>But the study, like all research, includes some caveats.</p>
<p>“Our studies specifically focused on man–woman relationships, so we didn’t test whether the same dynamics would apply in other types of relationships,” Cross noted. “And while perspective-taking can be a powerful tool for building awareness, it’s not enough on its own—lasting progress requires systemic changes and collective efforts to challenge gender inequality.”</p>
<p>The researchers suggest future studies could examine how similar dynamics play out in other close relationships, such as between siblings or parents and children, and whether interventions like high-quality listening training might help men better engage with stories of discrimination. Longitudinal research could also help clarify whether perspective-taking leads to increased awareness over time, or whether more awareness makes men more likely to empathize in the first place.</p>
<p>“We’re interested in exploring how men respond to a broader range of disclosures from women—ranging from subtle forms of sexism to more overt discrimination—and what kinds of partner responses women actually want and find supportive,” Cross said. “We’re also studying how these conversations play out in real time, including what fosters meaningful engagement versus what triggers defensiveness or withdrawal.”</p>
<p>“One key takeaway is that man–woman romantic relationships can provide a powerful context for raising men’s awareness of sexism and gender discrimination,” she added. “When men are willing to listen and genuinely engage with their partner’s experiences, they may begin to see sexism not just as a distant or abstract issue, but as something that affects the women they care about—and recognize it as part of a broader, structural problem that demands attention.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251345111" target="_blank">Leveraging Man−Woman Romantic Relationships to Promote Men’s Awareness of Sexism and Gender Discrimination</a>,” was authored by Emily. J. Cross, Alyssa DeBlaere, and Amy Muise.</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/lower-income-individuals-show-greater-physiological-attunement-in-social-interactions/" 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;">Lower-income individuals show greater physiological attunement in social interactions</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 3rd 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may be more tuned in to others during social encounters, even with strangers from different economic classes. According to a new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251350970" target="_blank">Psychological Science</a></em>, individuals with lower socioeconomic status showed greater physiological attunement to their interaction partners than wealthier individuals did—regardless of the partner’s status. This greater sensitivity was also linked to more visible signs of comfort in those interacting with lower-income individuals. However, despite these dynamics, participants still reported liking people from similar class backgrounds more than those from different ones.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic status refers to a person’s social and economic standing in society. It typically includes a combination of income, education, occupation, and subjective assessments of status within one’s community or the broader society. People from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have more access to resources and often face fewer threats to their social identity or opportunities. In contrast, lower-status individuals may experience more social obstacles, which can lead them to become more sensitive to their surroundings and others’ behavior.</p>
<p>While prior research has explored how class shapes values, perceptions, and behavior, there has been little investigation into what actually happens during interactions between people from different economic backgrounds. The research team wanted to understand whether class shapes how socially attuned people are to one another, especially when they are meeting for the first time. They also wanted to test whether people from different backgrounds behave differently or are perceived differently in conversation, and whether people show more affinity for others who share their socioeconomic background.</p>
<p>“Around the world, growing social class divisions are raising real concerns about social cohesion,” said study author <a href="https://socsc.smu.edu.sg/faculty/profile/6821/Jacinth-TAN" target="_blank">Jacinth J. X. Tan</a>, an assistant professor of psychology at the Singapore Management University, School of Social Sciences and head of the <a href="https://jacinthjxtan.wixsite.com/smushlab" target="_blank">SMU Social Health Lab</a>.</p>
<p>“One common solution proposed by researchers and policymakers is to encourage more social mixing–or interaction between people from different social backgrounds. The hope is that greater mixing can build understanding and bridge divide. In fact, we are seeing greater calls for and efforts toward increasing diversity in higher education settings, workplaces and in communities, to foster greater mixing.”</p>
<p>“However, psychological research over the years has shown that contact between different groups is a double-edged sword: it can bring people together, but it can also highlight differences and create discomfort,” Tan explained. “In fact, recent studies have found that people often engage in fewer cross-class interactions than we might expect (<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspa0000302" target="_blank">Carey et al., 2022</a>). When they do, they tend to feel less connected (<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xge0000258" target="_blank">Côté et al., 2017</a>), and those who see themselves as lower in social class are especially hesitant to interact across class lines (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251316690" target="_blank">Wu et al., 2025</a>).</p>
<p>“That led us to wonder how people might respond if we created a more relaxed, even enjoyable, one-on-one interaction, where people are subtly aware of each other’s social class? Would this foster a more positive experience that may override the natural preference for interacting with people from a similar background?”</p>
<p>To examine these questions, the researchers recruited 264 adults from the San Francisco Bay Area and paired them into 130 same- or different-class dyads—each consisting of two strangers matched by age, gender, and race. Socioeconomic status was determined using a multidimensional index that combined income, education, subjective status, and parents’ education. Participants were then grouped into pairs that were either similar in status or distinctly different (with more than 1.5 standard deviations separating them).</p>
<p>Each pair went through a series of structured tasks in a laboratory setting. These included casual conversations, a cooperative word game, and a public-speaking task judged by a neutral observer. Throughout the interaction, participants’ cardiovascular responses were monitored to assess changes in sympathetic nervous system activity—a signal of emotional and physiological arousal. Specifically, researchers measured “pre-ejection period,” a time-based indicator of heart activity that reflects how strongly the heart is contracting under stress.</p>
<p>Physiological attunement was calculated by looking at how closely one participant’s physiological responses tracked with their partner’s responses over time. Behavioral cues, such as speaking clearly or fidgeting, were also recorded and analyzed by trained coders. After each task, participants completed surveys rating how much they liked their partner and how similar they felt to them.</p>
<p>The most consistent finding across physiological, behavioral, and self-report measures was that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more responsive to their partners. Their physiological responses were more closely linked to those of their partner, suggesting they were paying more attention to how their partner was feeling or reacting. This was true regardless of whether they were paired with someone of similar or different status.</p>
<p>Interestingly, participants in general appeared more relaxed and at ease when paired with a lower-income partner. This was evident in clearer speech and less fidgeting—nonverbal signs of comfort that were observed more often in interactions with low-status individuals.</p>
<p>However, this did not translate into greater social liking. When asked how much they enjoyed the interaction or how similar they felt to their partner, participants consistently rated those from similar class backgrounds more favorably. This preference for similarity, known as homophily, appeared to override the positive experience of being paired with a socially attuned and comforting partner.</p>
<p>“Our main findings revealed an interesting disconnect between automatic (physiologic and behavioral) versus more conscious (self-report) measures,” Tan told PsyPost. “Most of the interactions appeared positive—our video coding of interactions did not detect differences in positivity between cross-class or same-class interactions. </p>
<p>“However, we observed some asymmetries in interpersonal physiologic and behavioural responses based on participants’ social class backgrounds: Lower social class participants were more attentive/attuned to their interaction partners–based on our physiological linkage measure–regardless of the social class of interaction partners. This aligns with the broader research finding that lower social class individuals are generally more vigilant in navigating their social world. </p>
<p>“Participants regardless of social class also appeared more comfortable–based on our coding of nonverbal behaviors–when interacting with partners from lower social class backgrounds,” Tan continued. “Interestingly, at the end of the interaction, participants still reported liking partners in same-class interactions more than in cross-class interactions.”</p>
<p>“These distinct patterns tell us that the underlying nature of interactions is not completely obvious. While interactions appeared generally positive, lower social class individuals (compared to higher social class individuals) were more psychologically invested in the interaction by being more attentive, and this may have helped others feel more comfortable around them. However, these interpersonal processes did not override same-class preferences.” </p>
<p>“It’s likely that a one-time positive interaction is insufficient to increase cross-class liking, so it would be interesting to see if repeated interactions would override same-class preferences over time. It’s also possible that engaging in a novel cross-class interaction is quite effortful–especially for individuals from lower social class backgrounds–and this can undermine the quality and experience of cross-class interactions.”</p>
<p>In terms of conversational dynamics, the researchers expected that individuals from wealthier backgrounds might take more control of the conversation. But the study did not find evidence for this. People from different classes were equally likely to dominate or follow in conversation. The researchers suggest this may have been influenced by the structured nature of the interactions, which gave both participants equal chances to speak.</p>
<p>“As a passive observer blind to the social class of participants (I sat through almost all the dyadic interactions to supervise the study–hidden, of course), it was not always obvious whether participants were similar or different in social class,” Tan said, “even though we paired them to be, until their conversation touched on things like where they went to school, what they did for a living, favourite vacation spot, the best gift they’ve given or received. We did observe, based on our manipulation checks, that participants quite accurately judged the social class of their interaction partners. So it seems that while social class cues are not always visible, they are still detectable through things we talk about.”</p>
<p>The study offers important insights into how class influences the way people connect with each other during first-time meetings. But it also has limitations. Most notably, the sample was drawn entirely from the San Francisco Bay Area, a region with its own unique cultural and economic landscape. This may limit how broadly the findings apply to other populations. The racial composition of the sample also skewed toward majority groups, which made it difficult to study how race and class might interact during these encounters.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the interactions were relatively brief and followed a structured format. While this approach ensured consistency across participants, it may not fully capture the subtleties of real-world conversations that unfold over longer periods or in less formal settings.</p>
<p>“The major caveat/limitation is with the racial representation of our sample, as well as our inability to examine the role of other possible intersecting identities such as gender and race,” Tan noted. “Our study focused on isolating the role of social class by matching participant dyads on age, gender, and race.”</p>
<p>Future research may explore whether repeated interactions, rather than one-time encounters, can shift these patterns. It would also be helpful to examine whether similar results emerge in other regions or among more racially and culturally diverse populations. Understanding how to promote comfort and connection across class lines may play an important role in building more inclusive workplaces, schools, and communities.</p>
<p>“The long-term goal is definitely to examine these patterns in different social settings (e.g., in schools, workplaces), in a different cultural context (e.g., non-Western), so see if the patterns hold or if patterns may vary,” Tan explained. “I am also interested in studying ways to improve the quality of cross-class interactions by reducing the observed social class asymmetries in attention and feelings of comfort during such interactions.”</p>
<p>“For instance, could such asymmetries be reduced in a setting completely free of social class cues or information? Could we reduce asymmetries by encouraging empathic curiosity prior to a cross-class interaction, such as by having people prepare questions that reflect interest in learning about the person and encourage sharing.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251350970" target="_blank">Socioeconomic Status Shapes Dyadic Interactions: Examining Behavioral and Physiologic Responses</a>,” was authored by Jacinth J. X. Tan, Tessa V. West, and Wendy Berry Mendes.</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/rfk-jr-claims-major-vaccine-safety-study-is-fatally-flawed-is-he-right/" 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;">RFK Jr. claims major vaccine safety study is fatally flawed — is he right?</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 2nd 2025, 19:04</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A <a href="https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997">new nationwide study from Denmark</a> found no evidence that aluminum salts in childhood vaccines are linked to autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), asthma, or 47 other chronic conditions. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-time vaccine critic who now heads the United States Department of Health and Human Services, <a href="https://www.trialsitenews.com/p/robertkennedyjr">says the work</a> is riddled with bias and should be retracted. A close look at the research methods and the points he raises shows that some of his concerns touch on real limitations, but the bulk of his critique misreads how large registry studies work and overstates what the data actually show.</p>
<p>The Danish team—led by epidemiologist Niklas Worm Andersson with senior researcher Anders Hviid and colleagues at Statens Serum Institut and the University of Copenhagen—set out to test a question that has lingered for decades: do aluminum-adjuvanted shots given in infancy leave children more prone to autoimmune disease, allergies, or developmental disorders later on?</p>
<p>Aluminum salts have been used since the 1920s to boost immune responses in non-live vaccines, yet animal experiments and small case series have kept worries alive that they might carry long-term risks. Denmark proved a natural laboratory because its vaccination program changed several times between 1997 and 2020, increasing or decreasing the aluminum content of standard shots. That policy churn produced natural variation in exposure that was unrelated to parents’ choices, giving researchers a quasi-experimental setting to probe any health effects.</p>
<p>Using nationwide birth, vaccination, hospital, and prescription registers, the investigators assembled a cohort of 1,224,176 children born between 1997 and 2018 who were alive and living in Denmark at their second birthday. Each child’s total aluminum dose from vaccines received before age two ranged from 0 to 4.5 milligrams.</p>
<p>The researchers then analyzed medical records from each child’s second birthday through age five—extending to age eight in additional analyses—to identify the first diagnosis of any of 50 predefined conditions: 36 autoimmune diseases, nine allergic or atopic disorders, and five neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorders and ADHD. </p>
<p>They used statistical models (Cox models) to estimate how each extra milligram of aluminum from vaccines was associated with the risk of each condition, while adjusting for factors like birth year, season, sex, maternal age, smoking during pregnancy, preterm birth, birthweight, household income, and other variables that might skew the results.</p>
<p>Across all children, each additional milligram of aluminum from vaccines was linked to a hazard ratio of 0.98 for any autoimmune condition, 0.99 for any allergic or atopic disorder, and 0.93 for any neurodevelopmental diagnosis. </p>
<p>In plain terms, there was no sign of increased risk, and for neurodevelopmental outcomes, the rate was slightly lower in children with higher aluminum exposure. Asthma—the most common condition in the study, with more than 28,000 cases—also showed a small decrease in risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.96. The researchers attributed this reduced risk to random variation or residual bias.</p>
<p>Kennedy’s criticism centers on four pillars. First, he argues that the researchers “designed the study not to find harm” by excluding children who died before age two, children with serious early-life illnesses, and about 2.8 percent whose vaccination records indicated unusually high aluminum exposure. </p>
<p>Excluding infants who died young is standard practice in studies like this, since these children often do not complete the vaccination schedule and may not live long enough to receive a diagnosis of a chronic condition. Similarly, children with severe congenital or preexisting conditions—such as immune deficiencies, heart failure, or liver failure—were excluded because these rare disorders can independently affect both vaccine timing and health outcomes, introducing strong confounding.</p>
<p>As for the children with implausibly high aluminum records, the study authors note that these entries were likely data errors—such as duplicate records or coding anomalies—rather than true cases of extreme exposure. Removing these cases reduces the risk of misclassifying exposure levels, which could distort the results more than clarify them.</p>
<p>Second, Kennedy argues that adjusting for the number of general practitioner visits during the first two years “creates collider bias,” suggesting that frequent doctor visits could reflect early symptoms of vaccine injury. But in registry studies, the number of healthcare visits plays a major role in whether a diagnosis gets recorded at all. Children who see doctors more often are more likely to have conditions identified, regardless of cause. If researchers didn’t adjust for this, it could look like certain exposures cause more disease when in fact they just lead to more medical contact—and more opportunities for diagnosis.</p>
<p>Third, he faults the authors for not conducting a simple vaccinated versus unvaccinated comparison. The study’s primary analysis, however, used a more robust dose-response model, treating aluminum exposure as a continuous variable. This design is less susceptible to the profound confounding that exists between vaccinated and completely unvaccinated families, who often differ in many health-seeking behaviors. While the unvaccinated children were used as a reference group in some secondary analyses, focusing the main analysis on variation among vaccinated children minimizes these biases.</p>
<p>Fourth, Kennedy points to a figure buried in the supplement: among children born between 2007 and 2018, the hazard ratio for Asperger syndrome per milligram of aluminum was 1.67. On the surface, that sounds alarming. But the estimate is based on just 51 cases in that subgroup, and the confidence interval—ranging from 1.01 to 2.77—is wide and barely clears the threshold for statistical significance. A small shift in the number of diagnoses would erase the signal entirely.</p>
<p>The pattern didn’t appear in the older birth group, wasn’t present in the full cohort, and disappeared when the researchers extended follow-up to age eight. In large studies that test many outcomes and subgroups, a few results will cross the significance threshold by chance alone. Kennedy’s selective focus on one small subgroup is a classic example of the “multiple comparisons problem,” where running dozens of analyses is expected to produce some chance findings.</p>
<p>Finally, he points to institutional conflicts: three authors work at Statens Serum Institut, which produces some vaccines used in Denmark. The institute is state owned but sells serum products worldwide, so the concern is not trivial. The journal required disclosure, and the affiliations are printed on the paper. Whether those ties invalidate the analysis is a matter of judgment. Independent replication in another setting would help address any lingering doubt.</p>
<p>Taken together, the study has clear limits. It is observational, not randomized. It covers Danish exposure levels, which can be lower than those in the United States, primarily because Denmark only recommends the aluminum-containing Hepatitis B vaccine to at-risk infants, whereas the U.S. recommends it universally starting on the first day of life.</p>
<p>It relies on registry diagnoses. While this may miss the mildest cases managed exclusively by a general practitioner without a specialist referral or prescription, the use of the nationwide prescription registry for conditions like asthma and ADHD captures a vast number of cases that never result in a hospital visit, making the data far more comprehensive than hospital records alone.</p>
<p>The study also cannot probe rare genetic susceptibilities or interactions between aluminum and other environmental toxins. Still, the data set is enormous, the confounder control is thorough, and the natural experiment created by policy shifts offers a strong test of population-level risk. Most of Kennedy’s objections either misinterpret standard epidemiological practice or single out a single noisy subgroup result without weighing the broader picture.</p>
<p>What did the researchers really discover? At the population level in Denmark, where most children received between two and four milligrams of aluminum from vaccines in the first two years of life, there was no detectable rise in autoimmune disease, atopic illness, autism spectrum disorder, or ADHD. The narrow confidence bands around many estimates rule out even modest risk increases. If aluminum adjuvants carried a hazard large enough to explain the dramatic rise in autism diagnoses seen in many countries, it would almost certainly have appeared in a cohort of more than a million children.</p>
<p>Kennedy is right that science needs transparency. Danish privacy rules restrict public release of individual health records, and independent teams will need special approvals to reanalyze the raw data. Yet calls for retraction over alleged “fatal flaws” lack support in the methods or results. The study adds one of the largest pieces of evidence to date that standard infant vaccines, at the aluminum doses commonly given in Denmark, do not raise the risk of the chronic disorders parents most fear.</p>
<p>The Danish study is not the final word on vaccine safety, but it offers one of the most comprehensive tests yet of a widely circulated concern. While no study is perfect, the evidence here strongly suggests that aluminum in early childhood vaccines, at the levels given in Denmark, is not driving a hidden epidemic of chronic illness.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997" target="_blank">Aluminum-Adsorbed Vaccines and Chronic Diseases in Childhood: A Nationwide Cohort Study</a>,” was authored by Niklas Worm Andersson, Ingrid Bech Svalgaard, Stine Skovbo Hoffmann, and Anders Hviid.</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/voice-pitch-influences-who-we-trust-with-money/" 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;">Voice pitch influences who we trust with money</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 2nd 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>When deciding who to trust in financial situations, people tend to favor those with higher-pitched voices—even when there’s a risk of losing money. A new study published in the <em><a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.70000" target="_blank">British Journal of Psychology</a></em> finds that listeners consistently preferred partners with higher-pitched voices when playing economic trust games and were more generous toward those voices, regardless of the specific financial stakes involved.</p>
<p>The research was conducted by Jillian J. M. O’Connor, an assistant professor at the University of Houston-Downtown. O’Connor set out to resolve a puzzling contradiction in earlier studies. Past research has shown mixed results regarding whether higher- or lower-pitched voices are seen as more financially trustworthy. Some studies suggested higher pitch increased trust, while others reported the opposite. O’Connor suspected that the level of financial risk in each scenario might explain these inconsistencies and designed a series of experiments to test this idea directly.</p>
<p>“The sound of our voice can have a big impact on how other people view us, such as whether we are seen as attractive, authoritative, or trustworthy,” O’Connor explained. “I was interested in whether the sound of our voices can also change people’s behavior, particularly when it comes to financial decisions.”</p>
<p>“I’m interested in who we trust with money because we make these types of decisions every day. It might be as small as whether you lend a friend $5, or as significant as whether you are approved for a loan of $500,000. Either way, we frequently make trust-based financial decisions, and I study how these decisions could be led astray by something as simple as the sound of our voice.”</p>
<p>For her study, O’Connor recruited 118 undergraduate students and asked them to evaluate 48 different voices that had been digitally modified to be slightly higher or lower in pitch. These recordings included both male and female speakers who said either simple vowel sounds or the word “hello.” The pitch adjustments were subtle but sufficient to be noticeable and realistic.</p>
<p>Participants engaged in a series of economic trust games where they had to make decisions about giving money to others based only on how those others sounded. In one version of the game, a speaker could choose to split money equally or unequally, representing a relatively low-risk situation. In another, a speaker could return any amount of tripled money they received, making it a higher-risk investment for the listener.</p>
<p>In both types of games, listeners consistently preferred the voices with higher pitch. They were more likely to select those speakers as their financial partners and sent more money to them. This held true for both male and female voices and did not depend on whether the game involved low or high financial risk. These results ran counter to the idea that lower-pitched voices, which often convey dominance or authority, might be seen as safer bets when money is on the line.</p>
<p>Interestingly, when listeners were asked to judge how likely a voice was to take financial risks—such as gambling or investing in the stock market—they perceived lower-pitched voices as more prone to risky behavior.</p>
<p>In a twist, the study also explored what happens when roles are reversed. When listeners imagined themselves as the recipients of money from someone else (the “responder” in the trust game), they were asked how much they would return to that person. Once again, speakers with higher-pitched voices received more generous responses. Listeners tended to return more money to them than to those with lower-pitched voices.</p>
<p>“In one part of this study, participants were asked how much money they would return if they were given varying amounts of money by different speakers,” O’Connor told PsyPost. “Each round of this financial exchange was with a different speaker, and there were no repercussions for choosing not to return any money. In fact, the less money participants returned, the more they would have themselves.”</p>
<p>“As this was the first time such behavior has been experimentally tested in reference to voice pitch, I was quite surprised that listeners returned more money to speakers with higher-pitched rather than lower-pitched voices. We might usually think that how we act with money comes down to personal traits, such as being conscientious, honest, or frugal. In contrast, these results suggest that the other person in the financial exchange is a factor that explains how fair we are in our financial dealings.”</p>
<p>This finding challenges the idea that deeper voices inspire more confidence across the board. In fact, it hints at a more nuanced social logic. While lower-pitched voices might signal power, strength, or dominance, higher-pitched voices may convey warmth or a greater willingness to cooperate—qualities that appear to matter when people are considering reciprocity or selecting cooperative partners.</p>
<p>“We might think that our financial behavior is logical and calculated, but my research in this area shows that our behavior can be swayed by subtle forces, such as voice pitch,” O’Connor explained. “We might not think that how our voices sound could impact our ability to, say, secure a loan, but my work shows that this very factor changes whether we are seen as likely to take financial risks. In essence, my research highlights the subtle influences that can impact who we trust—or don’t trust—with money.”</p>
<p>Despite these insights, the study has limitations. All of the decisions were hypothetical—participants weren’t playing with real money. While earlier work has shown that people behave similarly in imagined and real-money versions of trust games, it’s possible that some responses might differ in higher-stakes situations.</p>
<p>The participant pool also skewed young and female, which could affect generalizability. Most were college students in their late teens or early twenties, and very few were older adults or from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Other research suggests older adults may evaluate trust and risk differently, so future studies should include a more diverse range of ages and experiences.</p>
<p>Still, the results offer a fresh perspective on how subtle vocal cues shape social decisions. While deep voices often dominate leadership roles or signal confidence, when it comes to financial trust, people seem more inclined to place their money with those who sound more cooperative—even if that cooperation comes from a higher pitch.</p>
<p>“The next step in my line of research is to see if the influence of voice pitch on financial behavior is something that listeners are conscious of, or whether it is a gut-level reaction,” O’Connor said. “This is an important next step because these findings suggest that, for example, the sound of a potential borrower’s voice could impact whether they are approved for a loan. If so, then it’s critical to find ways to reduce the impact of superficial cues, like voice pitch, on financial decisions. This starts with first understanding whether this voice-based bias is more reflective or more reflexive.”</p>
<p>“It’s important to note that this study is all about perception,” she added. “We think that people with higher-pitched voices are more trustworthy when it comes to money, but that doesn’t make it so. There is currently no evidence to suggest that a person’s financial behavior is predicted by the sound of their voice.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70000" target="_blank">Higher-pitched voices are perceived as financially trustworthy</a>,” was published June 2, 2025.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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/teens-as-young-as-12-see-onlyfans-as-an-appealing-alternative-to-traditional-work-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;">Teens as young as 12 see OnlyFans as an appealing alternative to traditional work, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 2nd 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://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-025-10389-2" target="_blank">Sexuality & Culture</a></em> has found that many adolescents in Spain, including those as young as 12, are not only aware of OnlyFans but also see it as a viable and even empowering way to make money. In group discussions with over 160 teenagers, researchers discovered that platforms promoting erotic content are influencing how young people—especially girls—view economic opportunity, self-worth, and sexuality. Teens frequently framed content creation as a personal choice or expression of agency, while minimizing the risks.</p>
<p>The research was motivated by growing concerns about how sexualized media and the normalization of erotic self-presentation affect adolescents’ development. As OnlyFans and similar platforms are increasingly promoted on mainstream social media, researchers sought to understand how teens perceive these messages. They were especially interested in whether adolescents internalize gender norms and ideas about intimacy being a product that can be monetized. </p>
<p>“We were increasingly concerned about the impact of hypersexualized digital culture on adolescents, especially the normalization of platforms like OnlyFans across social media,” said study author Kristel Anciones-Anguita, a PhD candidate at the University of Alcalá. “Although these platforms are legally restricted to adults, minors are not only accessing their content but also integrating it into their everyday cultural and career aspirations. We wanted to explore how this exposure affects their psychosocial development, gender perceptions, and views on intimacy and success.”</p>
<p>To explore these issues, the researchers conducted a qualitative study involving 164 high school students aged 12 to 16 from both urban and rural areas in Guadalajara, Spain. All participants took part in focus group discussions as part of a broader sex education program. The researchers used a method called reflexive thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns in how teens described their understanding of OnlyFans, their media consumption habits, and their attitudes toward sexual content. </p>
<p>The researchers found that even young teens have a sophisticated understanding of how OnlyFans works. Many described the platform’s business model in detail, explaining how subscribers pay for exclusive content and how earnings depend on popularity, frequency of posts, and willingness to share more explicit material. Participants often referenced girls’ physical appearance as a key factor in success, suggesting that those who match certain beauty standards are more likely to earn money. Some boys also described the platform as a realistic option for their own futures, though they generally saw it as more lucrative for women.</p>
<p>While some teens expressed discomfort with the sexual content associated with OnlyFans, others framed participation as a rational economic decision, especially for girls who might not pursue traditional education or employment. </p>
<p>Girls in particular recognized the tension between agency and coercion. Some said it was a personal choice, while others pointed out that financial need often makes the decision feel less than voluntary. A few even likened it to prostitution, questioning whether anyone truly chooses to sell intimate content if they are struggling economically. This tension echoed broader concerns in the literature about how the language of empowerment can mask deeper power imbalances.</p>
<p>The promotion of OnlyFans on popular platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter also emerged as a significant influence. Teens reported seeing frequent posts or ads for the platform, often featuring stories of people making thousands of euros per month by sharing sexualized photos or videos. Some students had received direct messages encouraging them to create content or subscribe to accounts. Several girls mentioned being sent unsolicited explicit images alongside invitations to join the platform. </p>
<p>Boys, meanwhile, reported seeing pop-up ads or pirated content in group chats and messaging apps like Telegram or Discord. Many admitted to accessing this content despite OnlyFans’ age restrictions, describing various workarounds to bypass verification systems.</p>
<p>Another important finding was how strongly OnlyFans was associated with financial success. Teens repeatedly cited the platform as an easier and more appealing alternative to traditional work or education. In this environment, sexual self-presentation was often described as a smart or even admirable strategy. </p>
<p>This view mirrors what some scholars call “neoliberal sexual entrepreneurship,” where individuals—particularly young women—are encouraged to brand themselves online and turn their sexuality into a marketable asset. The danger, researchers argue, is that this logic reduces self-worth to how well one can attract attention or generate income from one’s appearance.</p>
<p>“We were struck by how naturally adolescents discussed OnlyFans, demonstrating a clear understanding of its subscription-based model and even sharing techniques to bypass age restrictions,” Anciones-Anguita told PsyPost. “What was most surprising was how some teens framed self-sexualization as a form of personal choice or empowerment, without fully acknowledging the underlying economic and social pressures that influence such decisions.”</p>
<p>The study also highlighted gender disparities in how adolescents experience and interpret this digital culture. Girls were more likely to express concerns about body image, judgment, and safety, while boys often spoke more casually about the platform or focused on its financial potential. </p>
<p>These patterns reinforce long-standing inequalities in how girls and boys are socialized around sex and self-expression. For example, girls were more likely to receive unwanted sexual messages or feel pressure to meet beauty standards, while boys described their role more as consumers than as creators of content.</p>
<p>Despite being aware of these dynamics, many teens still viewed the trade-off between risk and reward as worth it. For example, some participants shrugged off concerns about stolen content, exploitation, or future regret, focusing instead on the immediate financial benefits. </p>
<p>Others expressed admiration for girls who made money through OnlyFans, seeing them as smart or independent. This normalization of sexualized self-presentation—and the lack of critical reflection on its long-term consequences—worried the researchers, who warned that it reflects a broader cultural shift toward viewing intimacy and the body as tools for profit.</p>
<p>These findings are significant because they suggest that current education and regulatory systems are not keeping pace with the rapid changes in how sexual content is created, consumed, and promoted. The authors of the study argue that adolescents need more than just warnings about online safety—they need comprehensive education that addresses the social, economic, and psychological aspects of sexualized digital culture. Schools, they say, should implement programs that teach digital literacy, critical thinking, and respectful communication, with a special focus on how gender and power shape online interactions.</p>
<p>Parents also have a role to play, the researchers said. Open, nonjudgmental conversations about sexuality and media influence can help teens navigate these complex environments. At the same time, governments and tech companies must strengthen policies to prevent the promotion of sexualized content to minors. This could include better age verification tools, restrictions on algorithm-driven exposure to adult content, and increased transparency about how platforms target young users.</p>
<p>“Constant exposure to sexualized content through social media can significantly shape how adolescents view sexuality, empowerment, and economic opportunity,” Anciones-Anguita said. “Many teens — especially boys — perceive OnlyFans as a viable path to financial independence, often overlooking associated risks like exploitation, cyberbullying, and long-term psychological consequences. This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive digital literacy and affective-sexual education.”</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are limitations. The authors caution that the findings may not apply universally. Because the research took place in a specific region of Spain, cultural differences in other areas might lead to different results. Additionally, the group setting of focus groups may have affected how freely some participants—especially girls—felt they could speak. Still, the consistency of responses across different schools and demographics suggests that the themes identified are broadly relevant.</p>
<p>“We plan to expand our research to include cross-cultural and longitudinal studies, examining how digital sexualization influences adolescent development over time,” Anciones-Anguita explained. “We are also interested in developing and evaluating educational programs and public policies that promote healthier digital and sexual behaviors.”</p>
<p>“This study should be seen within the broader context of neoliberal and postfeminist ideologies that commodify intimacy and promote self-exploitation as empowerment,” she added. “For those interested in a deeper exploration of these dynamics, I recommend reading this article I wrote for InGenere: <a href="https://www.ingenere.it/en/articles/illusion-sexual-freedom" target="_blank">https://www.ingenere.it/en/articles/illusion-sexual-freedom</a>. Additionally, I’ll soon be publishing a systematic review on adolescent sexual agency on social media in the journal Sexual Policy and Research. I believe it will offer valuable insights that complement the findings of this current study.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10389-2" target="_blank">Making Money on OnlyFans? A Study on the Promotion of Erotic Content Platforms on Social Media and their Influence on Adolescents</a>,” was authored by Kristel Anciones Anguita and Mirian Checa Romero.</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>