<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-neuroscience-study-links-esketamines-antidepressant-effects-to-rapid-shifts-in-brain-activity/" 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 neuroscience study links esketamine’s antidepressant effects to rapid shifts in brain activity</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 4th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A small observational study has shed new light on how nasal esketamine affects the brain in people undergoing treatment for major depressive disorder. The researchers found that esketamine produced rapid changes in brainwave activity—indicating reduced top-down control and increased cortical excitation—that were closely linked to participants’ subjective experiences of feeling “high,” happier, and less tense. These neurophysiological shifts persisted for over an hour and may help explain the drug’s fast-acting antidepressant effects.</p>
<p>The research was recently published in <em><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278584625001927" target="_blank">Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry</a></em>.</p>
<p>Esketamine is a drug derived from ketamine, an anesthetic that has also shown promise in treating depression. While ketamine consists of two mirror-image molecules (called enantiomers), esketamine contains only the S-enantiomer, which appears to be more potent. </p>
<p>It is typically administered as a nasal spray under the brand name Spravato. Unlike conventional antidepressants that affect serotonin and other monoamines, esketamine primarily influences glutamate, the brain’s main excitatory neurotransmitter. It blocks NMDA receptors on inhibitory interneurons, which can lead to increased excitatory signaling across brain networks.</p>
<p>This shift in the balance between excitation and inhibition is known as cortical disinhibition, and it’s thought to play a role in resetting dysfunctional brain circuits in depression. Esketamine reaches peak levels in the bloodstream within about 20 to 40 minutes of administration, and its effects unfold across multiple timescales—from immediate subjective changes to longer-term mood improvements.</p>
<p>Although esketamine has been shown to quickly reduce depressive symptoms, the precise brain mechanisms underlying these effects are not well understood. Prior research has often focused on intravenous ketamine in healthy participants, and few studies have used high-density electroencephalography (EEG) to track how esketamine influences brain activity over time in real-world clinical settings.</p>
<p>To address these gaps, senior author Tobias Schwippel and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Michigan State University designed a study to examine how esketamine affects brain network activity and subjective experience in people with depression. They were particularly interested in how esketamine influenced both oscillatory brain rhythms (such as alpha, beta, delta, and gamma waves) and a type of background brain activity known as aperiodic signal, which may reflect the brain’s excitation-inhibition balance.</p>
<p>“Esketamine is increasingly used to treat depression. However, information on how brain networks react to this pharmacological intervention remains scarce,” explained Schwippel, who is currently affiliated with University Hospital Frankfurt at Goethe University. “We were especially interested in delineating how the experience of highness or detachment is reflected in change in brain waves (oscillations) which connect distant brain areas and orchestrate cognitive processes. Additionally, we investigated the hypothesis that (es)ketamine increases overall excitability in the brain.”</p>
<p>Eight adults with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder took part in the study during one of their routine esketamine treatment visits. Participants had previously received an average of 25 esketamine sessions. The research team recorded resting-state EEG from 128 scalp electrodes at six time points: once before and five times after nasal esketamine administration (up to 90 minutes later). During each recording, participants were asked to keep their eyes open and sit quietly.</p>
<p>At each time point, participants rated their current mood and drug-related experiences using visual analogue scales. These included feelings such as happiness, tension, and how “high” they felt. They also completed questionnaires assessing depression severity, anxiety, and quality of life. In addition, the researchers administered a side effects checklist to track physical and dissociative symptoms.</p>
<p>The EEG data were processed to separate oscillatory activity into standard frequency bands and to calculate the aperiodic exponent, which reflects how power decreases across frequencies and is thought to index cortical excitability.</p>
<p>Participants reported a noticeable shift in how they felt within minutes of receiving esketamine. Ratings of feeling “high” increased as early as 15 minutes post-administration, peaked at 35 minutes, and remained elevated for over an hour. Happiness also rose significantly at 15 and 35 minutes, while tension decreased at 35 minutes.</p>
<p>These self-reported effects were accompanied by distinct changes in brain activity. Alpha and beta waves—associated with top-down control, attention, and stability—were significantly reduced across wide areas of the scalp. Alpha power declined most strongly in parietal and frontal regions and remained suppressed throughout the 90-minute observation period. Beta power also dropped, particularly in central brain regions.</p>
<p>In contrast, delta and low gamma power increased. Delta waves, which are typically slow and associated with detachment or inward focus, rose in frontal midline regions. Low gamma activity, often linked to local neural excitation and information processing, increased in the left prefrontal cortex.</p>
<p>Aperiodic activity also shifted in a consistent way. The slope of the aperiodic signal became flatter—indicating a move toward increased excitation—starting 15 minutes after administration. This pattern lasted through the entire 90-minute window and was most prominent in frontal and central brain areas.</p>
<p>Importantly, the changes in EEG patterns were significantly related to how participants said they felt. Increased gamma and delta power—and decreased alpha, beta, and aperiodic exponent—were all linked to stronger reports of feeling high. Decreases in beta and increases in gamma also predicted lower tension. Changes in alpha, delta, and gamma activity were associated with increases in happiness.</p>
<p>“Our study shows that nasal esketamine rapidly affects brain activity and behavior in people with depression, with effects lasting up to 90 minutes,” Schwippel told PsyPost. “We observed increases in fast brain waves (gamma) and decreases in slower ones (alpha/beta), suggesting that the brain becomes more locally excitable while reducing the influence of top-down control mechanisms. </p>
<p>“Additionally, changes in background brain activity pointed to a shift in the balance between excitation and inhibition toward greater neural excitability. These brain changes were linked to how each person experienced the drug, supporting the idea that esketamine disrupts overly rigid brain networks, which may help alleviate depressive symptoms.”</p>
<p>Side effects peaked at 50 minutes, with participants reporting some dissociation, but these effects had mostly faded by the end of the 90-minute session.</p>
<p>“Our findings provide real-time evidence in humans that esketamine does more than just alter mood,” Schwippel said. “It rapidly and strongly reshapes brain network dynamics. The changes we observed align with the disinhibition hypothesis, suggesting that esketamine reduces the impact of the brain’s usual filtering and control systems. What’s particularly striking is that besides the observed changes in brain waves, the brain’s background excitability changed in a way that matches theories based on animal studies but had not been clearly shown in people until now.”</p>
<p>While the study provides insight into how esketamine shapes brain activity and subjective experience in people with depression, the findings should be interpreted with caution. The sample size was small, with only eight participants, and there was no placebo or control group. Participants also varied widely in their depression severity and treatment history, which could influence the results.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study offers a unique look at the moment-by-moment neural dynamics of esketamine in a clinical population. The researchers suggest that future work could expand on these findings by including larger samples, examining cross-frequency coupling, and using more advanced analytical tools to explore network connectivity and complexity.</p>
<p>These results also raise the possibility that EEG markers—such as changes in alpha or gamma power, or shifts in the aperiodic exponent—could serve as biomarkers to track or predict individual responses to esketamine. Ultimately, such insights could help refine personalized treatments for depression and enhance our understanding of how brain stimulation and pharmacological interventions work at the network level.</p>
<p>“We want to explore how mental illnesses manifest through changes in the brain’s networks, which connect and coordinate activity across regions,” Schwippel explained. “These networks coordinate brain activity to produce stable patterns of function that underlie our thoughts and feelings. When network dynamics become disrupted, the brain can shift into dysfunctional patterns associated with symptoms of mental disorders. </p>
<p>“Different treatments affect these networks in distinct ways, leading to changes that help the brain move away from dysfunctional patterns or states. By comparing these effects, we aim to identify the mechanisms that support recovery at the network level. This approach opens the door to customizing therapies based on an individual’s unique brain network patterns and symptom profiles. For instance, our lab <a href="https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20230838)" target="_blank">recently conducted a study</a> in which brain stimulation was tailored in real-time to the ongoing brain activity of participants with depression.”</p>
<p>“This study was conducted under the guidance of Flavio Frohlich, PhD, at the Carolina Center for Neurostimulation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and represents the culmination of an undergraduate honors thesis by Verina Guirguis,” Schwippel added. “What makes it particularly special is that it reflects the collaborative effort of an undergraduate research team, highlighting the impact that dedicated students can have in contributing to scientific discoveries.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2025.111438" target="_blank">Esketamine disinhibits brain networks in depression: Evidence from oscillatory and aperiodic activity</a>,” Verina Guirguis, Sanvi Korsapathy, Francesca Pupillo, Robert K. McClure, David Zarzar, Mengsen Zhang, Flavio Frohlich, and Tobias Schwippel.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/a-surprisingly-simple-gaze-based-meditation-helps-strangers-feel-deeply-connected/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">A surprisingly simple gaze-based meditation helps strangers feel deeply connected</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 4th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A brief meditative practice that involves gazing at another person while silently contemplating shared human experiences can increase feelings of closeness and prosocial behavior—even between strangers, according to new research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-025-02588-7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mindfulness</a></em>. The study found that a two-minute exercise known as the “Just-Like-Me” meditation not only boosted perceived warmth and connection but also synchronized participants’ smiles and heart rates, suggesting that subtle forms of emotional alignment may help explain the practice’s interpersonal effects.</p>
<p>The study was led by <a href="http://www.veraludwig.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vera U. Ludwig</a> and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania and other institutions. It was conducted in the context of the <a href="https://neuro.wharton.upenn.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wharton Neuroscience Initiative</a>, where Ludwig previously worked, in collaboration with <a href="https://www.plattlabs.rocks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michael Platt</a>. The team sought to investigate how dyadic meditations—mindfulness practices performed between two people—might enhance social connection, especially during a time of widespread loneliness and isolation.</p>
<p>Research has shown that social isolation can have serious consequences for health and mental well-being, and the COVID-19 pandemic only heightened the need for interventions that foster meaningful interaction. While solitary meditation has been linked to greater compassion and prosocial behavior, dyadic formats may more directly engage the social systems that promote trust, empathy, and cooperation.</p>
<p>The researchers focused on a specific dyadic practice called the “Just-Like-Me” meditation. In this practice, participants silently look into each other’s eyes while contemplating sentences designed to evoke a sense of shared humanity. These prompts included thoughts like “Just like me, this person has felt sadness, loneliness, and pain,” or “Just like me, this person longs for peace, love, and self-expression.”</p>
<p>“I personally experienced the ‘Just-Like-Me’ meditation in a workshop (led by Mironel de Wilde) many years ago,” explained Ludwig, the director of <a href="https://sexual-wellbeing.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Human Sexuality and Well-Being Project</a> at the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. “The intensity of looking into someone’s eyes and contemplating their humanity impressed me deeply. Many people in the room had tears in their eyes. So, I wanted to explore this method as one way to overcome or address loneliness, polarization, and disconnection in our society.”</p>
<p>“Often, people – especially in the business world – view meditation methods like this as somewhat ‘woo-woo’ or unconventional. That is why I wanted to provide solid scientific evidence that they actually work. I hoped this would give people a reason to try them and take these methods seriously.”</p>
<p>“I think it is really needed,” Ludwig continued. “For example, in the United States right now, Democrats hardly speak with Republicans anymore, and vice versa. I have the impression that both sides dehumanize the other side, sometimes almost saying that the other side is not worthy of compassion or understanding at all. People hate on groups of other people based on their religion, immigration status, gender, or other factors.”</p>
<p>“What if we all stopped for a moment and noticed: ‘Just like me’ all these people are humans, going through this world struggling to find their way. They all have feelings, hopes, needs, dreams, wishes; they all have felt lonely, they are often very much doing their best given the circumstances they have been experiencing. I might be naïve, but I believe in the good deep down in (almost) all people, even if their actions can be problematic. Let’s connect, not hate. Talk to each other, instead of assuming. Let’s figure this out together.”</p>
<p>The researchers compared Just-Like-Me meditation to two control conditions: one in which participants simply gazed at each other without any reflective prompts, and, in a second study, a third condition in which participants sat next to one another and practiced solitary breath-focused meditation with their eyes closed.</p>
<p>The first was conducted virtually over Zoom with 55 participants who were paired into 101 dyads. In this study, participants engaged in either the Just-Like-Me meditation or the simple gazing condition, each lasting two minutes.</p>
<p>Before and after each interaction, participants completed self-report questionnaires rating their sense of closeness, perceptions of their partner’s warmth, competence, and attractiveness, and how much of a hypothetical $100 they would share with their partner in a version of the dictator game. Facial expressions were recorded using webcam footage and analyzed with facial recognition software to assess smile synchrony.</p>
<p>In the second study, the researchers conducted an in-person version of the experiment with 98 participants and 238 dyad pairings. This study added the solitary “Eyes Closed” condition as a comparison. It also included heart rate measurements using chest-strap monitors to evaluate physiological synchrony between participants. Ratings of potential for friendship were added in this version, and romantic attraction was assessed only at the end of the session.</p>
<p>Across both studies, the Just-Like-Me meditation and the gazing condition produced consistent and meaningful effects. In both virtual and in-person settings, participants reported feeling closer to their partners after just two minutes. These increases in closeness were typically about one standard deviation, a large effect for such a brief exercise.</p>
<p>Across both studies, participants consistently rated their partners as more attractive following both meditations. Perceptions of warmth also increased, though this effect was limited to the gazing condition in the virtual setting; in person, both meditations led to warmer impressions. In the in-person study, the Just-Like-Me condition also led to higher ratings of the partner’s competence and potential as a friend. When the two meditations were directly compared in this setting, Just-Like-Me outperformed Gazing on measures of closeness and friendship potential.</p>
<p>Participants also showed increased prosocial behavior after engaging in the dyadic meditations. In both studies, participants allocated more hypothetical money to their partner in the dictator game compared to typical baselines found in previous research. In the in-person study, those who completed the Just-Like-Me meditation gave more than those in the solitary Eyes Closed condition, suggesting a link between interpersonal engagement and generosity.</p>
<p>“Potentially, people can experience increased perceptions of attractiveness, which is helpful to be prepared for,” Ludwig said. “It can sometimes feel quite intense to do this exercise with someone. This might be a desirable side effect in dating contexts or romantic partnerships, and it’s usually not overly problematic in other contexts, given this effect is not very strong. I speculate that this happens because we begin to resonate with the other person and perceive their unique ‘beauty,’ so to speak, which increases their perceived attractiveness. The benefits of the exercise likely far outweigh any potential risks.”</p>
<p>Importantly, the researchers also explored the role of synchrony—subtle coordination in behavior and physiology—as a potential mechanism. In the virtual study, smile synchrony between participants predicted greater closeness, warmth, and even romantic attraction for mixed-gender dyads, but not for same-gender dyads. Dyads in the Just-Like-Me condition showed higher levels of smile synchrony than those in the gazing condition, even though they smiled less overall.</p>
<p>In the in-person study, heart rate synchrony was observed among Just-Like-Me participants and was higher than among pseudo-dyads—pairs who completed the same task separately but were not actual partners. However, unlike smile synchrony, heart rate synchrony did not predict perceived closeness or prosocial behavior.</p>
<p>“When I saw that there was actually smiling synchrony and heart rate synchrony emerging between people doing the Just-Like-Me meditation, I was deeply moved,” Ludwig said. “I had predicted that, of course, but to actually see it was sort of mind-blowing. In terms of the heart rate synchrony, I recommend still some degree of caution interpreting it, because our heart rate measure was very coarse (one measurement every 2 seconds). But something seems to be going on. The synchrony was significantly higher than when I randomly paired participants’ data sets with others in the same condition, which is one gold standard for demonstrating synchrony.”</p>
<p>The findings suggest that a brief moment of mindful, compassionate attention directed toward another person can significantly enhance interpersonal connection, and that synchrony—whether in facial expressions or heart rhythms—may help explain these effects. The results align with a growing body of research showing that emotional and physiological alignment between people is associated with increased trust, empathy, and social cohesion.</p>
<p>“Participants were strangers, most of them students at UPenn, who were quite new to meditating in general,” Ludwig noted. “I put them in an ‘impossible’ situation, surprising them by asking them to gaze at a stranger in this way (of course, voluntarily). They were not pre-selected based on being interested in wanting to connect in that way. The in-person version (Study 2) was happening just at the end of the pandemic, when everyone was still anxious about social connection. The fact that it worked even in such a group of people and at that difficult time moves me deeply. I truly believe this study can teach us something very important.”</p>
<p>What might this actually look like in everyday life? The researchers suggest that anyone—from partners to coworkers—could benefit from practicing the Just-Like-Me meditation. One of the most compelling aspects of the practice was its accessibility.</p>
<p>“The Just-Like-Me meditation is a simple method that can help people (even and especially strangers) connect deeply with each other quickly,” Ludwig told PsyPost. “Our data shows that clearly in terms of self-report and even in terms of smiling synchrony and heart rate synchrony. People could try it with their partner, friends, or work colleagues. It could be used in retreat settings, in educational settings, in organizations, or even in the workplace. Simply have two people look at each other silently and contemplate the sentences that we provided in the study. One could adapt the prompts for different audiences or come up with new ones.”</p>
<p>“If direct eye contact is too uncomfortable, it can be enough to sit with each other, looking at the other person’s hair or another area that feels comfortable. The exercise can even be done alone, in one’s imagination or with a photograph (although we didn’t investigate this here, so I can’t make scientific claims on this yet). Sit down, close your eyes, and think of someone specific while contemplating one of the sentences.”</p>
<p>“Alternatively, look at a photo of the individual,” Ludwig explained. “You could start with someone you already know a bit and like (as people do in ‘loving kindness meditation’). And then make it harder by thinking of someone you truly do not like or have problems with; it could for example be someone with opposing political views, a different group in society that you mistrust, or a person in your life who you are envious of.</p>
<p>“It doesn’t mean forgiving everything the other person has done or accepting everything about them. But it does mean opening oneself to shared humanity and perhaps, if that doesn’t seem too strongly put, even a state of unconditional love. This could then open up new avenues for mutual understanding and problem solving.”</p>
<p>“As mentioned, I learned this method from Mironel de Wilde, who learned it from other non-violent communication teachers. I haven’t been able to figure out where exactly it came from, but there are a few books that mention a method similar to it, such as by Dass and Bush. Also the Dalai Lama has mentioned similar ideas, as presented in this study.”</p>
<p>Still, there were some limitations. The positive outcomes were measured immediately after the interaction, and it remains unclear how long these effects last. The dictator game involved hypothetical money, which may not perfectly reflect real-world behavior. Future studies could benefit from longer sessions, different social contexts, or the use of real incentives.</p>
<p>The authors acknowledge that dyadic meditations may not be comfortable or appropriate for every setting. While some participants reported feeling more connected, others described the exercise as awkward or emotionally intense. Mixed-gender pairs occasionally reported increased romantic feelings, which might not be welcome in every context, such as the workplace. Participants must be fully informed and allowed to opt out if they feel uncomfortable.</p>
<p>“Potentially there can be increased attractiveness perceptions, which is good to prepare oneself for,” Ludwig said. “It can just be very intense to do this exercise with someone. This might be a desirable side effect in a romantic partnership, however, and not overly problematic in other contexts given this effect is not very strong. I speculate that it’s just that we start to resonate with the other person, perceive their unique “beauty” so to speak, and that increases the perceived attractiveness. Moreover, the benefits likely outweigh the risks very much.”</p>
<p>Despite these caveats, the study points to a simple and accessible method for enhancing human connection. The Just-Like-Me meditation requires no special equipment, can be completed in just two minutes, and is effective both in-person and over video. The researchers suggest that it could be used in a wide range of settings. In particular, the lead author is interested in applying the exercise in romantic relationships, to foster intimacy, or in community settings to reduce gang-related violence and political polarization.</p>
<p>“I’m currently focusing on the study of sexual well-being,” Ludwig said. “Therefore, one direction I’m particularly interested in is applying this exercise in romantic partnerships to explore whether it can strengthen relationships or even enhance physical intimacy.”</p>
<p>“I’ve also been in conversation with someone from the law enforcement community, David Berez, who suggested applying this method in restorative justice settings, supporting people who have committed a crime in connecting with their victims in a new way, or possibly even vice versa. While this could be emotionally complex and challenging, I believe it has the potential to be deeply impactful. Similarly, I wonder if it could help young people involved in gang-related violence see one another in a different light. With so many tragic shootings amongst youth occurring in Philadelphia, I wish there were a way for youth to access something like this. I hope that other researchers or community workers might take this idea further and bring it into the world.”</p>
<p>“Finally, I would love to explore the use of this method to foster connection across political divides in the United States,” Ludwig said. “It makes me sad to see how polarized our society has become, and I believe this division is hindering our ability to address the real challenges we face. I understand that many people feel deep anger and resistance to engaging with those on the “other side,” and those emotions are valid. Still, I think it’s worth trying – even a little – to open up space for genuine dialogue. We can disagree on issues and still connect on a human level.”</p>
<p>“I hope that people give this meditation method a real try! It could be alone, with one’s partner, with friends or in organizations or educational settings! Even if it seems awkward at first, pushing through resistance may pay off in beautiful ways. It’s ok to laugh and giggle when starting out. Just keep at it and observe the effects.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-025-02588-7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Synchronous Smiles and Hearts: Dyadic Meditations Enhance Closeness and Prosocial Behavior in Virtual and In‑Person Settings</a>,” was authored by Vera U. Ludwig, Lana Prieur, Scott M. Rennie, Andrew Beswerchij, Devora Weintraub, Blaire Berry, Jenny Wey, Katelyn Candido, and Michael L. Platt. Mironel de Wilde served as an advisor on the meditation method.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-research-reveals-why-people-stay-in-situationships/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New psychology research reveals why people stay in situationships</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 4th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10402-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sexuality & Culture</a></em> explores the emotional and psychological reasons why young adults maintain “situationships”—romantic relationships that lack clear commitment or labels. Although previous research has shown that situationships are generally less satisfying than traditional relationships, the new findings suggest that some individuals still derive enough meaning, hope, and emotional connection from them to stay.</p>
<p>Situationships have become increasingly common, particularly among emerging adults navigating a shifting dating landscape shaped by social media, dating apps, and evolving relationship norms. The term was <a href="https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a42298548/situationship-how-to-get-over-it/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">first popularized in 2017</a> by a writer at Cosmopolitan magazine and refers to relationships that fall somewhere between casual hookups and committed partnerships.</p>
<p>People in situationships often engage in emotional intimacy, spend time together, and are sometimes sexually involved, but the relationship lacks clarity about where it is going—or whether it is even going anywhere at all.</p>
<p>Despite their growing popularity, situationships often leave participants feeling uncertain or emotionally vulnerable. Previous studies suggest they tend to offer lower relationship quality and rarely evolve into more established romantic commitments. This raises an important question: If situationships are generally unsatisfying, why do so many people choose to remain in them?</p>
<p>To answer this, a team of researchers led by Mickey Langlais conducted a mixed-methods study that combined qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey. Their goal was to identify the motivations for staying in a situationship and determine whether those motivations were linked to higher satisfaction or commitment.</p>
<p>“My research team and I have been studying situationships for the past three years,” explained Langlais, an assistant professor in the Department if Human Sciences and Design in Robbins College of Health and Human Sciences at Baylor University. “Last year, we published a study that <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-024-10210-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defined and described situationships</a>. During this study, we noticed that the quality of situationships (i.e., relationship satisfaction and commitment) were lower than other types of relationships. We were curious why individuals would be motivated to be in relationships (i.e., situationships) that were low quality.”</p>
<p>The study began with in-depth interviews of 10 participants who were either currently in or had recently been in a situationship. These individuals, aged 18 to 30, were asked to describe their relationship, explain what led them into it, and reflect on what kept them involved.</p>
<p>Through a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts, researchers identified seven recurring themes: exclusivity, investment, emotional needs being met, communication about the future, effort, prioritization, and trust. These themes represented the key emotional factors that participants cited as influencing their decisions to maintain their situationships.</p>
<p>For example, some participants believed they were exclusive with their partner even though the topic had never been explicitly discussed. Others described investing significant time and emotional energy, sometimes in the hope that the situationship would eventually become an official relationship.</p>
<p>Many expressed that their emotional needs were being fulfilled—even if inconsistently—which made it hard to walk away. Communication about the future, or the avoidance of it, was also a critical factor. In some cases, the lack of future planning kept the relationship ambiguous but allowed participants to keep hope alive.</p>
<p>To expand on these findings, the researchers then designed an online survey based on the themes identified in the interviews. They recruited 89 college students, who collectively reported on 109 situationship experiences. The survey measured relationship quality using two metrics: satisfaction and commitment. It also included items assessing the seven key themes from the interviews. Participants rated the extent to which these themes applied to their own situationship, using a 1-to-7 scale.</p>
<p>The quantitative results largely confirmed what the interviews had suggested. Emotional investment, communication about the future, and prioritizing the relationship were significantly linked to both greater satisfaction and stronger feelings of commitment. In other words, the more participants felt invested, hopeful about the future, and valued by their partner, the more likely they were to feel good about staying in the situationship—even if the relationship had no clear label.</p>
<p>Interestingly, some variables, such as partner effort, were not as strongly linked to relationship satisfaction or commitment as one might expect. But emotional needs being met—whether through affection, attention, or feeling understood—stood out as a powerful predictor. Communication about the future, even if vague, also appeared to help reduce anxiety and bolster the sense that the relationship had potential.</p>
<p>“We were expecting that some participants would be sexually motivated to maintain a situationship or because they had fears of committing towards the future,” Langlais told PsyPost. “Instead, our data suggests that many people form situationships as a potential gateway to a traditional relationship, sort of like relationship purgatory – a place where people wait to see if they are ready and want to transition to an official relationship. It is still possible that individuals fear commitment or have other motivations for maintaining a situationship, so we advocate for more studies to explore this relationship type.”</p>
<p>The study draws on two well-known psychological theories to help explain these findings: social exchange theory and the investment model. Social exchange theory suggests that people stay in relationships when they perceive the rewards to outweigh the costs. In the case of situationships, even if the relationship lacks formal structure, individuals may still feel that they are getting enough emotional or physical benefit to justify staying. The investment model adds another layer, suggesting that commitment is shaped not just by satisfaction, but also by how much someone has invested and whether they see better alternatives elsewhere.</p>
<p>In this context, individuals may stay in situationships because they’ve invested time, energy, and emotion—and because they’re unsure whether a better or more committed partner is actually available. For some, the situationship may represent a safer or more comfortable option than risking rejection in a new relationship or enduring the loneliness of being single. This could explain why people continue to engage in what is, on the surface, a relationship format associated with more ambiguity and lower satisfaction.</p>
<p>“The results of this study suggest that many individuals hope that situationships evolve into established romantic relationships, which explains their interest in forming and maintaining a situationship,” Langlais explained. “Additionally, those in situationships are more satisfied when they communicate about the future and if their partner prioritizes the situationship above other relationships.”</p>
<p>Although the findings help clarify why situationships persist despite their downsides, the study has some limitations. The data were cross-sectional, meaning the researchers could not assess how situationships or participants’ perceptions changed over time. It’s also possible that people who volunteered for the study had particularly memorable or emotionally charged experiences with situationships, which may have shaped the findings.</p>
<p>The participants were mostly female and college-aged, which means the results may not generalize to older adults or more diverse populations. “This fall, we are conducting a follow-up study focusing exclusively on males to see if we find similar patterns for forming and maintaining situationships,” Langlais noted.</p>
<p>Despite these caveats, the study offers important insights for individuals, couples, and mental health professionals. For people currently in a situationship, understanding these underlying dynamics may help them decide whether to stay, communicate more effectively, or seek something different. For counselors or therapists working with young adults, the results suggest that it’s not just the absence of commitment that matters, but how emotionally invested someone feels, whether they believe the relationship is going somewhere, and whether their needs are being met.</p>
<p>“I want to commend my co-authors for their hard work with this project,” Langlais said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-025-10402-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Are Situationships situational?: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Motivations for Being in a Situationship</a>,” was authored by M. R. Langlais, P. Guzman, L. Toohey, A. Podberesky, and A. Lee.</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/study-reveals-distinct-music-habits-among-young-adults-with-adhd-symptoms/" 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 reveals distinct music habits among young adults with ADHD symptoms</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, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1508181" target="_blank">Frontiers in Psychology</a></em> reveals that young adults who screen positive for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) tend to listen to background music more frequently than their neurotypical peers during both cognitively demanding and less demanding activities. These individuals also show a stronger preference for stimulating music, regardless of the activity.</p>
<p>ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition marked by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, or impulsivity. It often begins in childhood and persists into adulthood in a significant proportion of cases. Adults with ADHD, especially those with the inattentive presentation, may struggle with sustained attention, task management, and organization.</p>
<p>The disorder is also commonly associated with emotional challenges such as anxiety or depression. While stimulant medication can help regulate brain arousal and improve performance, researchers have also explored alternative strategies to support individuals with attentional difficulties, including environmental adjustments like background music.</p>
<p>In the new study, doctoral candidates Kelly-Ann Lachance and Pénélope Pelland-Goulet, along with clinical neuropsychologist and full professor <a href="https://www.musec.ca/en/frlaboratoire-musecenmusec-laboratory-english/" target="_blank">Nathalie Gosselin</a> at the University of Montreal, sought to understand how young adults use music in daily life and whether those with ADHD symptoms differ from neurotypical individuals in their listening habits.</p>
<p>“We were interested in how young adults with and without ADHD use background music during daily activities, especially those requiring more cognitive effort, since prior lab studies rarely examine real-world listening habits,” the researchers explained. “Given that individuals with ADHD often struggle with attention, we wanted to understand whether they listen to music differently in everyday contexts. This interest was sparked years ago when a parent of a teenager with attention difficulties once asked Dr. Gosselin if letting their child study with music was a good idea—an unanswered question that stayed with her ever since.”</p>
<p>The research team conducted an online survey with 434 participants between the ages of 17 and 30. Participants answered questions about their music listening habits, musical preferences, and the perceived effects of background music on emotional and cognitive functioning. The survey also included a standardized screening tool for ADHD symptoms. Based on the responses, participants were divided into two groups: those who screened positive for ADHD and those who did not.</p>
<p>The researchers found that most young adults listen to background music during both cognitively demanding tasks—such as studying, problem-solving, and reading—and less demanding ones like cleaning, cooking, and exercising. However, individuals in the ADHD-screened group reported more frequent use of background music while studying and exercising compared to the neurotypical group. They also listened more frequently to music during low-effort activities overall.</p>
<p>“Interestingly, distinct differences emerged between groups,” the researchers told PsyPost. “ADHD-screened participants not only listened to music more often during study tasks but also preferred stimulating music across both more and less cognitively demanding activities.”</p>
<p>“In contrast, neurotypical participants tended to favor relaxing music during cognitively demanding activities and more stimulating music during less demanding ones. This pattern highlights a clear difference in how music is used and perceived—not just casually, but as a strategy to meet stimulation needs. It was interesting to see that these self-regulatory uses of music are already present in everyday life.”</p>
<p>These findings align with existing psychological theories. One of them, the Moderate Brain Arousal model, suggests that individuals with ADHD often experience lower baseline levels of brain arousal. They may use external stimulation—such as music—to help reach an optimal arousal state that supports task engagement.</p>
<p>Stimulating music, by activating the brain’s reward system and releasing dopamine, could help compensate for this baseline deficit and reduce tendencies toward mind-wandering or distraction during tasks like studying. In contrast, neurotypical individuals may seek less stimulation and favor music that is more calming or predictable when engaging in complex work.</p>
<p>The researchers also investigated whether participants believed that background music improved their concentration or mood during cognitive tasks. Using a set of 27 statements, they conducted a factor analysis and identified two distinct dimensions of subjective experience: one related to cognitive functioning and the other to emotional functioning. Most participants reported that music helped with both, citing enhanced concentration and improved mood.</p>
<p>Contrary to expectations, there were no significant differences between groups in how they rated the emotional or cognitive benefits of background music. This suggests that despite listening more often to music in daily life, ADHD-screened individuals do not necessarily perceive stronger effects.</p>
<p>“Our findings suggest that young adults with ADHD symptoms tend to listen to background music more frequently during activities that demand concentration, and they usually prefer more stimulating music, regardless of the activity type (e.g., more and less cognitively demanding),” the researchers said. “Many participants—both young adults with ADHD symptoms and neurotypical—also reported that music helped them stay focused and improved their mood. This suggests that background music might be a way for some people to manage their attention and emotions in everyday life.”</p>
<p>The researchers took care to account for potential confounding factors in their analysis. They controlled for variables such as musical training and mood symptoms and found that group differences in listening habits remained significant. For instance, even after adjusting for emotional distress, participants with ADHD symptoms still reported higher music use while exercising or doing simple tasks. This pattern suggests that the behavior is not solely driven by emotional coping but may also be related to attentional strategies or arousal regulation.</p>
<p>But there are still some limitations to consider. One key limitation was the reliance on self-report data, which may be subject to recall bias or social desirability effects. In addition, the ADHD status of participants was determined through a screening questionnaire rather than a clinical diagnosis. This method may have included individuals with subclinical symptoms.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study adds to a growing body of evidence that music plays a meaningful role in how people manage attention and emotion in daily life. For individuals with attentional challenges, music may serve as a flexible and self-directed tool to help regulate arousal, reduce boredom, and support performance.</p>
<p>Future research could build on these findings by using laboratory experiments or examining how different types of music affect cognitive performance and emotional state in individuals with ADHD. Longitudinal studies might also explore how music habits evolve over time or interact with other coping strategies.</p>
<p>“In the short term, we have just launched a new survey targeting a younger population (ages 12 to 17) to explore their background music listening habits during daily activities,” the researchers said. “In English: https://ls.sondages.umontreal.ca/229667. In French: https://ls.sondages.umontreal.ca/978117.”</p>
<p>“As for long-term goals, a key next step would be to examine how specific musical characteristics—such as tempo, lyrics, or familiarity—influence attention and emotional regulation in real time. Future research should be interested in developing personalized music-based strategies that could help individuals with attentional difficulties in academic or work settings.”</p>
<p>“Our findings reflect what many people may already sense intuitively: music is not just background noise—it plays a role in how we manage our attention, mood, and motivation,” the researchers added. “Understanding these everyday habits could help guide more individualized and practical approaches to supporting mental health and focus, especially in people with ADHD symptoms.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1508181" target="_blank">Listening habits and subjective effects of background music in young adults with and without ADHD</a>,” was authored by Kelly-Ann Lachance Pénélope Pelland-Goulet, and Nathalie Gosselin.</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/cognitive-fixation-from-google-searches-hurts-a-teams-ability-to-innovate/" 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;">Cognitive fixation from Google searches hurts a team’s ability to innovate</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, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>When it comes to brainstorming, internet access might be more of a double-edged sword than a creative superpower. A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01732-x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memory & Cognition</a></em> suggests that while using Google can help individuals come up with more ideas for alternative uses of everyday objects, it can actually hinder creativity at the group level. The findings reveal a surprising cost of internet use: groups of people working independently without online assistance tended to produce a more diverse and novel set of ideas than groups with internet access.</p>
<p>The research was prompted by growing interest in how digital tools influence cognition, particularly creative thinking. Previous studies have explored the effects of the internet on memory, attention, and metacognition. Some researchers, such as Mercedes T. Oliva, Benjamin C. Storm, have even found that online search can help individuals come up with ideas they might not have thought of on their own.</p>
<p>But exposure to examples—especially ones retrieved via search engines—can also make people conform to a narrower range of responses. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “fixation,” limits the range of ideas that emerge, especially when people are working in groups and drawing from the same pool of online content.</p>
<p>“I had a student who was interested in the topic and was asking me a lot of questions I couldn’t answer,” said study author Danny Oppenheimer, a professor of decision sciences and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University and author of <em><a href="https://amzn.to/3UMnQAY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychology: The Comic Book Introduction</a></em>.</p>
<p>“When we started the project, right in the middle of COVID, nobody really knew what using the internet was doing to our creative thinking. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.618" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Oliva and Storm’s data</a> hadn’t come out yet. When they published their data, we had already been thinking about creativity for a while, and we realized that while it spoke to the question of individual creativity, it didn’t explore collective creativity, so we wanted to keep working on the project to follow up on what happened to groups.”</p>
<p>To investigate this issue, the research team conducted a large experiment with 256 undergraduate students. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: some were allowed to use Google during a classic brainstorming task known as the alternative uses task, while others were instructed to stay offline.</p>
<p>Each participant had three minutes to list as many nonstandard uses as they could for either a shield or an umbrella. These two objects were chosen because they varied in how helpful Google would likely be for generating suggestions. For instance, Google searches for umbrellas tended to produce many results, while searches for shields offered only a couple of standard ideas.</p>
<p>Importantly, the researchers ran the study in person and monitored participants’ internet use to ensure compliance. The students typed their answers into a text box during the allotted time. After the task, researchers categorized the responses based on whether they were conceptually distinct. This allowed the team to analyze how many unique ideas were generated across different conditions.</p>
<p>At the individual level, results showed that internet access only boosted idea generation when Google offered many suggestions. For instance, participants brainstorming uses for umbrellas came up with significantly more ideas if they had internet access. But for shields—where online search offered little help—there was no difference in idea fluency between the groups. These results replicated findings from an earlier study by Oliva and Storm, though the current study improved upon the design by removing the five-idea cap used in that earlier research.</p>
<p>However, the picture changed when researchers aggregated individuals into “nominal groups”—a technique often used in brainstorming studies to assess collective output by combining the responses of individuals who worked separately. When looking at group-level creativity, the researchers found that larger nominal groups without internet access consistently outperformed those with access. This was true even when Google provided helpful suggestions.</p>
<p>The reason for this pattern appears to be that Google users tended to converge on the same ideas. For example, multiple participants in the Google condition not only listed the same uses for umbrellas but often listed them in the same order. In contrast, participants without internet access generated a wider range of distinct and often unusual ideas. As group size increased, the benefits of this idea diversity outweighed the individual boost provided by Google. The group without Google ended up producing more unique uses overall.</p>
<p>To further probe these findings, the team also analyzed the frequency of unique versus common responses. In the umbrella condition, non-Google users were responsible for a greater share of one-of-a-kind ideas. Even when internet access led to more ideas per person, those ideas were often clustered around the same common examples, reducing the group’s overall creative diversity.</p>
<p>The study also explored other ways of measuring creativity, beyond just counting ideas. Independent coders rated each idea on how novel, effective, and creative it seemed. Across most comparisons, groups without internet access generated more highly rated ideas, particularly when creativity was defined as a combination of novelty and usefulness. While the ratings varied slightly depending on who did the coding and which threshold was used, the broader pattern held: larger groups without Google access typically produced higher-quality ideas.</p>
<p>To test the robustness of these findings, the researchers reanalyzed data from the original Oliva and Storm study. Even though that earlier study limited each participant to five ideas, the current team applied the same nominal group technique and found a consistent pattern: as group size increased, the advantage of offline brainstorming grew stronger. In fact, across all 20 analyses they conducted with these archival data, groups without Google access generated more distinct ideas than those with access.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most striking result came from an analysis of the “best” ideas—those rated a perfect 5 out of 5 on creativity. Of the 20 top-rated ideas in the Oliva and Storm dataset, 95% came from participants who had not used Google. This suggests that the internet may help people generate good ideas quickly, but it may also prevent the truly exceptional ones from emerging.</p>
<p>The authors argue that these results align with past research on cognitive fixation. When people are shown examples, even unintentionally, their thinking becomes constrained, making it harder to break out of conventional patterns. The internet functions much like a giant set of examples, guiding users toward solutions that others have already thought of. This can be helpful for routine problems—but it may be counterproductive for creative tasks that require original thinking.</p>
<p>The study highlights a potential “tragedy of the commons” for creativity. While individuals may benefit from using Google during idea generation, collective innovation may suffer if everyone relies on the same digital tools. This has implications for workplaces, classrooms, and any setting where brainstorming and creative collaboration are encouraged.</p>
<p>“Using the internet is a great way to help come up with ideas – especially if you’re thinking about topics that lots of other people have thought about and so there’s a large record of ideas on the internet to sample from,” Oppenheimer told PsyPost. “But the internet will help you think of ideas that other people have already thought of, and will guide you to think in ways that are similar to other internet users.”</p>
<p>“This means that if everybody is using the internet, everybody comes up with the same ideas. The collective comes up with fewer ideas even as individuals within that collective come up with more ideas. When brainstorming on teams, it may be better to avoid using the internet, at least for early rounds of brainstorming.”</p>
<p>Still, the researchers caution that their findings have limitations. The participants were all university students, which may limit how broadly the results apply. Only a small set of objects were tested, and the coding of ideas into categories introduced some subjectivity. In addition, the study used a short three-minute time limit, which may not reflect how people use the internet in real-world creative work.</p>
<p>“There are many ways that a person could use the internet,” Oppenheimer said. “The ways that people seem to use naturally right now yield the effects we find, but that doesn’t mean that there might not be other ways that people could be trained to use the internet that might facilitate collective decision making. We don’t know what those might be, but digital technology (especially AI) is advancing so rapidly, and the way people use such technology is evolving so quickly that these results could look very different in a decade or two.”</p>
<p>Even so, the consistent pattern across different samples, coders, and measures suggests that the effect is real and worth paying attention to. The new findings also align closely with <a href="https://www.psypost.org/humans-still-beat-ai-at-one-key-creative-task-new-study-finds/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the results of a recent experiment</a> led by Min Tang and colleagues, which compared how different forms of collaboration affect creative thinking.</p>
<p>In both studies, the use of internet tools—whether through search engines like Google or generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT—tended to produce more homogenous and less novel ideas than collaboration with other people. Tang’s research showed that pairs of humans consistently generated more original and clever ideas than individuals working with AI or using Google.</p>
<p>Looking ahead, Oppenheimer said that he and his colleagues are now “exploring how we can help people be more effective users of the internet and LLMs. Hopefully, this is just the first step in a series of studies that ultimately helps us be more effective rather than just pointing out where we are currently ineffective.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01732-x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Thinking outside the box means thinking outside the search engine</a>,” was authored by Daniel M. Oppenheimer and Mark T. Patterson.</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>