<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/psychedelic-experiences-may-offer-a-lasting-boost-in-perceived-life-meaning/" 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;">Psychedelic experiences may offer a lasting boost in perceived life meaning</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 11th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of data from three studies on psychedelic use indicates that participants’ sense of meaning in life tends to increase following a psychedelic experience. Specifically, the “presence of meaning” tends to rise, while the “search for meaning” tends to decline slightly. The findings were published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1580663"><em>Frontiers in Psychology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Psychedelics are substances that alter perception, mood, and cognition by interacting with serotonin receptors in the brain, particularly the 5-HT2A receptor. Common psychedelics include psilocybin, LSD, mescaline, and DMT. These substances can produce profound shifts in consciousness, such as visual hallucinations, ego dissolution, and altered perceptions of time. Many users describe experiences involving emotional release, spiritual insight, or an increased sense of connectedness.</p>
<p>Psychedelics are being studied for their therapeutic potential in treating mental health conditions such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and addiction. Research suggests they may help “reset” maladaptive brain activity and enhance emotional flexibility. However, they can also induce distressing reactions—such as paranoia, anxiety, or confusion—especially in uncontrolled environments. Both mindset and setting strongly influence the nature of a psychedelic experience. While psychedelics are generally not considered addictive, they exert powerful psychological effects and should be used with caution.</p>
<p>Study author William Roseby and his colleagues set out to examine the extent to which psychedelics influence one’s sense of meaning in life. This concept refers to the feeling that one’s existence has purpose, coherence, and significance, often derived from personal values, relationships, long-term goals, or a connection to something larger than oneself.</p>
<p>The studies included in the analysis assessed meaning in life using the Meaning in Life Questionnaire, alongside additional measures of mental wellbeing (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale), depression (Beck Depression Inventory), mystical experiences (Mystical Experience Questionnaire), ego dissolution (Ego-Dissolution Inventory), and emotional breakthroughs (Emotional Breakthrough Inventory).</p>
<p>The three studies were as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>An online prospective study in which individuals planning to attend psychedelic retreats completed questionnaires before and after their experience. The retreats involved one to three ceremonies using substances such as psilocybin or ayahuasca. Data were collected two weeks before the retreat and up to six months afterward. While 886 people initially enrolled, only 141 completed the final follow-up, reflecting high attrition.</li>
<li>A laboratory study known as Insight, which involved 28 healthy, psychedelic-naive participants undergoing two psilocybin sessions separated by one month. The first session involved a 1 mg placebo dose, while the second involved a 25 mg active dose. Participants were blinded to which dose they received. Assessments were conducted two weeks after each session.</li>
<li>A randomized controlled trial called Psilodep, which compared psilocybin with escitalopram, a widely used antidepressant, in individuals with treatment-resistant depression. Thirty participants received psilocybin, and 29 received escitalopram. Both groups received psychological support throughout the study.</li>
</ul>
<p>Across all three studies, participants reported significant increases in the presence of meaning in life following a psychedelic experience. In contrast, the search for meaning showed only a modest reduction. This suggests that people tended to feel that their lives had more meaning after their experience, without necessarily losing the desire to continue exploring that meaning.</p>
<p>Increases in the presence of meaning were also moderately correlated with improvements in mental wellbeing and reductions in depressive symptoms. In particular, mystical experiences, ego dissolution, and emotional breakthroughs were linked to greater increases in perceived meaning.</p>
<p>“The convergence of evidence from multiple studies shows that psychedelic use has a robust and long-lasting positive effect on meaning in life. We explore potential mechanisms of psychedelic-induced meaning enhancement and highlight the possible influences of psychosocial context on outcomes,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the consequences of the use of psychedelics in controlled and guided settings. However, it should be noted that the first study had a huge attrition rate, leaving open the possibility that participants with less positive outcomes dropped out of the study and were thus not included in the analysis. Additionally, all the outcome data was based on self-reports leaving room for reporting bias to have affected the results.</p>
<p>The paper “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1580663">Enhanced meaning in life following psychedelic use: converging evidence from controlled and naturalistic studies</a>” was authored by William Roseby, Hannes Kettner, Leor Roseman, Meg J. Spriggs, Taylor Lyons, Joe Peill, Bruna Giribaldi, David Erritzoe, David J. Nutt, and Robin L. Carhart-Harris.</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/inflammation-levels-may-shape-how-cannabis-affects-anxiety-and-sleep/" 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;">Inflammation levels may shape how cannabis affects anxiety and sleep</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 11th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1549311" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience</a></em> suggests that baseline levels of inflammation may influence how cannabis affects mood and sleep in people with anxiety. Researchers found that cannabis products higher in cannabidiol (CBD) tended to produce more consistent improvements in negative mood and sleep quality, while the benefits of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-dominant products varied depending on participants’ inflammatory status.</p>
<p>Anxiety affects nearly one in three adults in the United States and often overlaps with other issues, such as poor sleep. Many individuals with anxiety experience insomnia or disrupted rest, which can in turn worsen mental health. Treatments for these conditions are often addressed separately, even though they frequently occur together.</p>
<p>Emerging evidence indicates that inflammation—a process in which the immune system releases chemical messengers called cytokines—may be a shared biological factor contributing to both anxiety and sleep problems. Higher cytokine levels have been linked to worse mood and poorer sleep quality in prior studies.</p>
<p>Cannabinoids like THC and CBD, found in the cannabis plant, are known to have anti-inflammatory effects in laboratory settings. Surveys also suggest that many medical cannabis users turn to the drug to help with anxiety and sleep issues. However, scientific findings on cannabis for these purposes remain mixed, and little is known about whether a person’s level of inflammation might influence the outcome.</p>
<p>The researchers sought to investigate whether four weeks of cannabis use would affect inflammatory markers in the blood, and whether baseline inflammation might change how cannabis influences mood and sleep quality. They also wanted to compare products with different cannabinoid profiles: THC-dominant, CBD-dominant, and those containing equal parts THC and CBD.</p>
<p>“Reducing anxiety and improving sleep are two of the most commonly reported reasons why people report using cannabis. And while it makes sense that anxiety and sleep might be linked (who hasn’t tossed and turned at night when they have a lot on their mind?), both are also rooted in inflammation,” said study author Jonathon K. Lisano, a postdoctoral research associate in the <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/center/cuchange/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CUChange lab</a> at the University of Colorado Boulder.</p>
<p>“Higher levels of inflammation, which is generally not great, have been linked to both higher levels of anxiety and worsened sleep quality. With cannabis, particularly CBD, being able to impact inflammation we wanted to see if there was a relationship between cannabis use, inflammation, anxiety, and sleep.”</p>
<p>The study included 171 adults with at least mild anxiety. Of these, 147 were assigned to use one of three types of cannabis—THC + CBD (12% each), THC-dominant (24% THC, very low CBD), or CBD-dominant (24% CBD, very low THC)—while 24 participants served as a non-use control group. Participants in the cannabis groups purchased their assigned products from a dispensary and used them as much or as little as they wished over the four-week period.</p>
<p>All participants completed questionnaires assessing depression, anxiety, stress, and sleep quality at the start of the study and after four weeks. Blood samples were collected at both time points to measure concentrations of six pro-inflammatory cytokines, which were combined into a single inflammation score. The researchers examined whether cannabis use changed cytokine levels and whether starting levels of inflammation influenced the effects of cannabis on mood and sleep.</p>
<p>Cannabis use did not significantly alter cytokine levels over the four-week period, regardless of the product type. “I was surprised to see that despite there being a decent amount of pre-clinical data on the anti-inflammatory effects of cannabis, we did not observe any changes in inflammation over the 4 weeks of this study,” Lisano told PsyPost. “This could be due to those pre-clinical studies using much higher doses of CBD and THC than is obtainable for the average individual using cannabis.”</p>
<p>However, initial inflammation levels played a notable role in shaping outcomes for mood and sleep. Participants using CBD-dominant or THC + CBD products experienced consistent improvements in overall negative mood scores—covering depression, anxiety, and stress—across all levels of baseline inflammation. These improvements were driven mainly by reductions in depression and anxiety, while stress levels showed little change.</p>
<p>In contrast, those using THC-dominant cannabis saw mood improvements only if their baseline inflammation was in the average range, with little or no benefit for participants with low or high inflammation. The non-use control group also showed some mood improvement, but it was less consistent and did not appear tied to changes in specific mood components.</p>
<p>Sleep quality showed a similar pattern. Cannabis users with average or high baseline inflammation tended to report better sleep after four weeks, particularly if they used CBD-rich products. For participants with low inflammation, improvements were smaller and less consistent. Those who did not use cannabis reported no meaningful changes in sleep quality regardless of their inflammation level.</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that CBD’s more consistent effects could be linked to its stronger anti-inflammatory actions compared to THC. Laboratory studies indicate that CBD may reduce the release of inflammatory cytokines by influencing pathways in immune cells, potentially stabilizing mood and sleep regulation across different inflammatory states.</p>
<p>“I think my big takeaways from these results are twofold,” Lisano explained. “1. Inflammation does appear to impact how cannabis affects our sleep and anxiety over time (which is the first time this has been reported). 2. Products containing higher amounts of CBD appeared to produce the most consistent reductions in anxiety and improvements in sleep quality. Products containing high amounts of THC had varied results, especially when it came to sleep.”</p>
<p>The study’s design had strengths, including a naturalistic approach that reflected real-world cannabis use and verification of product adherence through blood tests. However, the absence of a placebo control means some of the reported benefits could reflect participants’ expectations rather than purely pharmacological effects. Federal restrictions in the United States make placebo-controlled studies with legal-market cannabis challenging.</p>
<p>The results are also limited to smoked or vaporized cannabis flower and may not apply to edibles, tinctures, or concentrates. Additionally, the study only covered a four-week period, so it is unclear whether the effects would persist, diminish, or change with longer-term use.</p>
<p>“I think the big thing people need to keep in mind is that these results are preliminary; one study is not the end-all be-all when it comes to the impact of cannabis on sleep and anxiety,” Lisano noted. “While we report that sleep quality got better over the 4 weeks, this is based on the participant’s subjective experience. Just because we feel like we are sleeping better doesn’t mean we actually got better sleep. There still needs to be more research using more objective data (i.e., sleep studies looking at sleep cycles and brain wave activity).”</p>
<p>The authors note that future studies should examine how dose, frequency, and method of cannabis use interact with inflammation to influence mood and sleep. Longer-term research could also determine whether these benefits hold for individuals with more severe, clinically diagnosed anxiety disorders.</p>
<p>“I’m hoping we can start to look at a few different things,” Lisano said. “It would be great to look at more objective data regarding sleep quality to assess if people are actually getting better quantifiable sleep versus just feeling like they are sleeping better. It would also be great to see what other aspects of health, like exercise, diet, etc., influence the effects of cannabis on things like anxiety, sleep, and pain.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2025.1549311" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Inflammatory state moderates response to cannabis on negative affect and sleep quality in individuals with anxiety</a>,” was authored by Jonathon K. Lisano, Carillon J. Skrzynski, Gregory Giordano, Angela D. Bryan, and L. Cinnamon Bidwell.</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/assimilation-induced-dehumanization-psychology-research-uncovers-a-dark-side-effect-of-ai/" 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;">Assimilation-induced dehumanization: Psychology research uncovers a dark side effect of AI</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 11th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A series of experiments published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1441" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Consumer Psychology</a></em> indicates that when people interact with autonomous agents—such as robots or virtual assistants—that display strong emotional intelligence, they tend to see those machines as more humanlike. But this shift comes with an unintended consequence: people may also begin to see other humans as less human, leading to a higher likelihood of mistreating them.</p>
<p>Autonomous agents have moved beyond purely functional roles. Virtual assistants can chat naturally, social robots can comfort patients, and large language models can engage in humanlike dialogue. These advances have been accompanied by a growing effort to give machines emotional intelligence—the ability to detect and respond to human emotions.</p>
<p>While this shift can make AI interactions more engaging and satisfying, the researchers wanted to explore a less obvious question: what happens to our perceptions of other people when we interact with emotionally capable machines?</p>
<p>Psychological research has long shown that the way we attribute mental capacities—such as the ability to think, plan, and feel—to others affects how we treat them. Emotional capacity, in particular, is seen as central to being human. The team theorized that when people encounter AI with humanlike emotional abilities, they may mentally group it closer to humans. Because AI is still generally perceived as having less of a mind than people, this mental “assimilation” could drag down humanness ratings of actual humans, leading to subtle forms of dehumanization.</p>
<p>The researchers called this phenomenon assimilation-induced dehumanization. They also wanted to know whether this effect could be mitigated, for example, if AI’s abilities were so extreme that people clearly saw them as nonhuman, or if the AI displayed only cognitive skills without emotional understanding.</p>
<p>“With recent technological advancements, we’ve been fascinated by how humanlike AI technologies have become—not just in what they can do, but in how they’re presented and how they interact with people,” explained study author <a href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/management/people/academic-staff/hye-young-kim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hye-young Kim</a>, an assistant professor of at the London School of Economics and Political Science.</p>
<p>What’s interesting is that people respond to even subtle humanlike cues in AI, often treating them much like they would other humans. This led us to ask: while AI’s humanlike qualities clearly make machines seem more human, could they also make real people seem more like machines? Our research was driven by the idea that the more human we perceive AI to be, the more it may quietly reshape our understanding of what it means to be human.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted five main experiments, supplemented with additional studies, involving both embodied AI (like humanoid robots) and disembodied systems (like customer service chatbots). Participants were exposed to AI agents with either high or low socio-emotional capabilities, then asked to evaluate the humanness of the AI and of real people. The researchers also measured behavior toward humans.</p>
<p>The first study aimed to establish a basic link between perceiving socio-emotional ability in a robot and the willingness to mistreat human employees. For this experiment, 195 online participants were divided into two groups. One group watched a video of a humanoid robot, named Atlas, dancing energetically to music—a hedonic and expressive activity. The other group watched the same robot performing parkour—a more mechanical and utilitarian task.</p>
<p>Afterward, all participants read three scenarios describing potentially negative changes to employee welfare, such as replacing workers’ hot meals with meal-replacement shakes, housing them in tiny “micro-capsule” rooms, and making them wear tracking devices to monitor their every move.</p>
<p>The researchers found that participants who watched the dancing robot perceived it as having more of a “mind” than those who watched the parkour robot. These same participants were also significantly more supportive of the harsh and dehumanizing workplace practices, like replacing meals and using invasive tracking.</p>
<p>The second study was designed to get at the psychological mechanism behind the effect, testing the concepts of assimilation and contrast. The experiment involved 451 participants and again used the dancing and parkour robot videos to represent high and low socio-emotional capabilities.</p>
<p>However, a second factor was added: the robot’s capabilities were described as either moderate (similar to what was used in the first study) or extreme. In the extreme condition, the robot was said to have superhuman abilities like infrared, UV, and X-ray vision. After this exposure, participants completed a scale measuring their level of dehumanization, which assesses the extent to which people are seen as cold and mechanical or unsophisticated and animal-like.</p>
<p>The second study shed light on the boundary conditions of assimilation-induced dehumanization. When the robot’s capabilities were moderate and comparable to a human’s, the initial finding was replicated: seeing the emotional, dancing robot led to greater dehumanization of people.</p>
<p>However, when the robot had extreme, superhuman abilities, the effect reversed. In that case, seeing the dancing robot made participants perceive people as more human. This suggests that when a machine is clearly in a different category from humans, we contrast ourselves against it, reinforcing our own humanity. But when the line is blurry, assimilation occurs.</p>
<p>The third study sought to pinpoint whether it was socio-emotional skills, specifically, or any advanced human-like skill that caused the effect. A group of 651 participants was divided into three conditions. They read about a fictitious artificial intelligence service. One group read about “EmpathicMind,” a virtual therapy program that could respond to subtle emotions. A second group read about “InsightMind,” a medical diagnosis program with powerful cognitive abilities to analyze complex data. A control group read about a simple survey analysis program. All participants then completed the same dehumanization scale from the previous study.</p>
<p>Results from the third study confirmed that socio-emotional capability is the key ingredient. Only the “EmpathicMind” artificial intelligence, the one with emotional skills, led to increased dehumanization among participants. The highly intelligent “InsightMind” program, which had advanced cognitive but not emotional skills, produced no more dehumanization than the control condition. This demonstrates that it is the perception of a capacity to feel, not just to think, that triggers the assimilation process.</p>
<p>The fourth study was constructed to directly measure the entire proposed chain of events and test it with a consequential choice. The 280 participants first read a fictitious article that framed artificial intelligence as either having remarkable emotional capabilities or having significant limitations in that area. They then used a slider scale to rate the “humanness” of both artificial intelligence agents and a typical person.</p>
<p>For the final part of the study, they were told they could win a $25 gift card and were asked to choose between one for Amazon or one for Costco. Before they chose, they read a real news article detailing Amazon’s allegedly dehumanizing working conditions. The researchers predicted that people who dehumanized workers would be less bothered by this information and more likely to choose the Amazon gift card.</p>
<p>The fourth study provided direct evidence for the full psychological process. Participants exposed to the emotionally capable artificial intelligence rated the technology as more human-like, and critically, they rated actual people as less human-like. This shift in perception had a real-world consequence: they were significantly more likely to choose the Amazon gift card, suggesting they were less troubled by the reports of poor employee treatment.</p>
<p>A final study aimed to demonstrate the effect within a specific company setting. A total of 331 participants read about a company’s new conversational virtual assistant for customer service. For one group, the assistant was described as having high socio-emotional skills, able to adapt its tone to a customer’s emotional needs. For the other group, its abilities were described as purely functional. Participants then rated the humanness of both the virtual assistant and a human customer service operator. As a behavioral measure, they were told they would receive a $0.25 bonus and were given the option to donate it to a fundraising campaign to support the mental health of the company’s human customer service agents.</p>
<p>The fifth study replicated these findings in a direct consumer context. Participants who read about the emotionally intelligent virtual assistant perceived it as more human, which in turn led them to rate the human operator as less human. This translated directly into behavior: they were less likely to donate their bonus payment to a fund supporting the mental health of those same human employees.</p>
<p>“The more we perceive social and emotional capabilities in AI, the more likely we are to see real people as machine-like—less deserving of care and respect,” Kim told PsyPost. “As consumers increasingly interact with AI in customer-facing roles, we should be mindful that this AI-induced dehumanization can make us more prone to mistreating employees or frontline workers without even realizing it.”</p>
<p>However, “this research does not suggest that AI itself is inherently harmful to the quality of our social experiences,” she added. “The issue arises when people unconsciously judge and compare humans and AI agents using the same standard of ‘humanness.’ While intentionally making AI appear more humanlike may help consumers feel more comfortable adopting and using it, we should be mindful of the unintended negative consequences that may follow.”</p>
<p>The authors identify several avenues for future research to clarify and extend their findings on assimilation-induced dehumanization. One priority is to examine how the physical appearance of autonomous agents interacts with their perceived socio-emotional capabilities. The studies here focused on agents with limited humanlike embodiment, which likely minimized identity-threat effects.</p>
<p>Another suggested direction is to explore self-perception. The current work measured changes in perceptions of others, but it remains unclear whether interacting with emotionally capable AI would cause individuals to apply the same dehumanizing shift to themselves. One possibility is that people might accept less humane treatment in workplaces where AI is present, especially if the AI appears to match human socio-emotional abilities. Alternatively, they might engage in self-affirmation strategies, reinforcing their own humanness even if they dehumanize others.</p>
<p>“Going forward, we’re interested in exploring how AI might influence not only how people treat others, but also how we see ourselves—and how that, in turn, shapes our values, preferences, and choices,” Kim explained. “Understanding how these effects unfold over time would be especially important as AI becomes increasingly embedded in our daily lives. Ultimately, we aim to shed light on the responsible design and deployment of AI technologies so they can enhance, rather than erode, our social relationships and human values.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1441" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AI-induced dehumanization</a>,” was authored by Hye-young Kim and Ann L. McGill.</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/dementia-rates-vary-sharply-across-u-s-regions/" 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;">Dementia rates vary sharply across U.S. regions</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 10th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of older U.S. veterans found that dementia incidence was lowest in the Mid-Atlantic region (11.2 cases per 1,000 person-years) and highest in the Southeast (14.0 cases per 1,000 person-years). The paper was published in <a href="http://www.doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.1536"><em>JAMA Neurology</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Dementia is a broad term for a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking, and social abilities severely enough to interfere with daily life. It is most commonly caused by Alzheimer’s disease, but other types include vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, and frontotemporal dementia. Dementia is progressive, meaning symptoms worsen over time.</p>
<p>Early signs can include forgetfulness, difficulty finding words, and trouble with problem-solving or planning. As the condition advances, individuals may struggle to recognize familiar people, perform routine tasks, or regulate emotions. Although aging is the greatest risk factor, dementia is not a normal part of aging. Genetics, cardiovascular health, head injuries, and lifestyle factors also contribute to risk. Research suggests that maintaining physical activity, cognitive engagement, and a healthy diet may help reduce the likelihood of developing dementia.</p>
<p>Study author Christina S. Dintica and colleagues sought to investigate whether dementia incidence varies across U.S. regions. They focused on older veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States.</p>
<p>The analysis included 1,268,599 veterans aged 65 years or older who received care at VHA medical centers between October 1999 and September 2021. This group represented a randomly selected sample of about 5% of older veterans who used VHA services during those years. The average age was 73.9 years, and 2% were women.</p>
<p>To be included, participants had to have known zip code information so that researchers could determine their geographic location. Those without a zip code were excluded. Dementia diagnoses were identified using medical records.</p>
<p>Based on their zip codes, participants were classified into one of 10 U.S. regions, each composed of 4 to 7 states: Southeast (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi); Southwest (Arizona, California, Hawai‘i, and Nevada); South Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida); South (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas); Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming); Northwest (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington); Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York); Midwest (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska); Mid-Atlantic (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and New Jersey); and Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin).</p>
<p>The lowest dementia incidence was observed in the Mid-Atlantic (11.2 per 1,000 person-years) and the highest in the Southeast (14.0 per 1,000 person-years). Compared with the Mid-Atlantic, dementia risk was 25% higher in the Southeast, 23% higher in both the Northwest and Rocky Mountains, 18% higher in the South, and 12% higher in the Midwest and South Atlantic. In the remaining regions, rates were less than 10% higher than in the Mid-Atlantic.</p>
<p>“Among older adults in the VHA, dementia incidence varied significantly across US regions, independent of key covariates. These findings highlight the need for targeted health care planning, public health interventions, and policy development,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the regional variation in dementia incidence rates. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. While the study reported differences between geographical regions, the specific factors underlying these regional variations remain unknown.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="http://www.doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.1536">Regional Differences in Dementia Incidence Among US Veterans,</a>” was authored by Christina S. Dintica, Amber L. Bahorik, Feng Xia, John Boscardin, and Kristine Yaffe.</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/intellectual-humility-is-linked-to-less-political-and-religious-polarization-across-the-board/" 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;">Intellectual humility is linked to less political and religious polarization across the board</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 10th 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/10.1080/17439760.2024.2394447" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Journal of Positive Psychology</a></em> indicates that people who score higher in intellectual humility tend to show less political and religious polarization — regardless of whether they are Republican, Democrat, Christian, or atheist. This link held across different measures, including both self-reported attitudes and behavioral indicators of hostility toward ideological outgroups, and often remained significant even after accounting for the strength of a person’s beliefs.</p>
<p>Intellectual humility refers to the recognition that one’s knowledge and understanding are limited. It involves a willingness to revise one’s views when presented with new evidence, the ability to separate personal identity from beliefs, and a respect for the perspectives of others. While it does not require abandoning one’s convictions, it emphasizes openness, curiosity, and a readiness to acknowledge that one could be wrong. Past research has tied intellectual humility to less ideological rigidity, more tolerance for opposing views, and a greater willingness to engage constructively with people who hold different beliefs.</p>
<p>In the United States, political and religious divisions are deeply intertwined, with each often reinforcing the other. Political polarization — particularly the “affective” kind, which combines disagreement with active dislike of the other side — has reached historically high levels. Religious polarization, though less studied, is also significant, contributing to mistrust and prejudice.</p>
<p>Because intellectual humility aligns closely with interventions shown to reduce polarization — such as promoting accurate perceptions of the outgroup and encouraging respectful intergroup contact — the researchers wanted to know whether its effects would be consistent across both political and religious divides. They also sought to determine whether these patterns held regardless of the specific group identities involved.</p>
<p>“Previous studies found that intellectual humility was related to less political and religious polarization, but these two forms of polarization were assessed independently in relation to intellectual humility,” said study author <a href="https://shaunambowes.wixsite.com/website" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shauna Bowes</a>, an incoming assistant professor of psychology at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.</p>
<p>“Political and religious polarization are often deeply intertwined. Moreover, if intellectual humility is powerful for understanding less polarization, then it should be related to less polarization across belief domains and identities. Thus, I simultaneously examined religious and political polarization in relation to intellectual humility.”</p>
<p>The researchers recruited participants through an online panel, first screening 1,000 people to identify those who identified as either Christian or atheist and as either Republican or Democrat. This yielded a final sample of 473 adults, predominantly White and evenly split between men and women, with 44% identifying as Republican and 56% as Democrat. Most participants were Christian (76%), with the remainder identifying as atheist.</p>
<p>Participants completed several measures. Intellectual humility was assessed using the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale, which captures four dimensions: independence of intellect and ego, openness to revising one’s viewpoint, respect for others’ viewpoints, and lack of intellectual overconfidence.</p>
<p>Polarization was measured in two ways. First, participants rated their attitudes toward their political and religious outgroups on items related to social contact, favorability, emotional warmth, and prejudice. Second, in a behavioral task, participants were asked to assign tangram puzzles of varying difficulty to an outgroup member, with the opportunity to make the task either easier or harder for the other person, and reported their motives for doing so.</p>
<p>The study also included measures of variables that often predict polarization, such as intolerance of uncertainty, distress intolerance, moralization of political beliefs, and the degree to which participants’ political and religious beliefs were central to their identity. Belief strength — how strongly participants held and felt certain about their political or religious views — was included as a control variable in some analyses.</p>
<p>Across the board, higher intellectual humility was linked to lower levels of political and religious polarization. This was true for both self-reported attitudes and the behavioral measure of hostility toward outgroups. The relationships tended to be consistent across different dimensions of intellectual humility, although openness to revising one’s viewpoint was generally the weakest predictor, especially in the behavioral task.</p>
<p>“It was interesting to see that the results did not vary across methods of assessment,” Bowes told PsyPost. “That is, we used self-report and experimental measures of polarization. Intellectual humility was related to less polarization for the self-report measures and the experimental measures of polarization. These findings provide additional support for the robustness of the relationship, as it is not solely driven by shared method variance (i.e., that everything is self-reported).”</p>
<p>When the researchers compared political and religious domains directly, they found almost no differences in how strongly intellectual humility related to polarization. In other words, the quality of being intellectually humble seemed to work similarly in both contexts.</p>
<p>The relationships also held across group identities. Republicans and Democrats showed similar patterns, as did Christians and atheists. Notably, this symmetry between Christians and atheists is striking given the lack of middle ground between their worldviews, suggesting that intellectual humility may reduce animosity even across deeply opposed existential positions.</p>
<p>Most of these effects remained significant even after controlling for belief strength. This suggests that the link between intellectual humility and reduced polarization is not simply a byproduct of holding weaker convictions. On average, intellectual humility explained an additional 3% to 5% of the variance in polarization beyond what could be accounted for by belief strength alone.</p>
<p>However, the study found little evidence that intellectual humility buffered against other traits and tendencies known to increase polarization, such as intolerance of uncertainty or distress intolerance. The few protective effects observed were linked to the ability to separate one’s ego from one’s beliefs, which appeared to weaken the connection between strong identity-based beliefs and polarization.</p>
<p>“Across belief domains and identities, intellectual humility is related to less polarization,” Bowes explained. “As such, intellectual humility may help people be less prone to polarization across the board. That said, intellectual humility likely contributes to less polarization in concert with other processes, such as a low need for closure, as intellectual humility did not invariably statistically protect against variables that predict more polarization.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations to consider. The study focused only on two political identities (Republican and Democrat) and two religious identities (Christian and atheist), leaving out many other important identity groups. Political and religious identities also overlapped considerably in the sample — for example, most Republicans identified as Christian — which limited the ability to explore combinations such as Republican atheists or Democratic Christians in depth.</p>
<p>“We can only draw conclusions about intellectual humility and polarization in the context of (1) Republicans and Democrats and (2) Christians and atheists,” Bowes noted. “Additional research is needed to clarify the generalizability of our results when examining other political, religious, and irreligious identities.”</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that future work should investigate intellectual humility in other political and religious groups, examine more diverse irreligious identities, and explore how interventions might foster intellectual humility over time. They also highlight the need to determine whether increasing intellectual humility can causally reduce polarization, rather than simply being associated with it.</p>
<p>“I would be eager to conduct more causal and applied research,” Bowes said. “Regarding causal research, it will be important to establish that intellectual humility precedes less polarization and causes less polarization. Regarding applied research, which is linked with causal research, I would be excited to look at whether increasing or cultivating intellectual humility reduces polarization.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2024.2394447" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How intellectual humility relates to political and religious polarization</a>,” was authored by Shauna M. Bowes and Arber Tasimi.</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/physically-active-individuals-tend-to-have-slightly-better-cognitive-abilities-on-average/" 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;">Physically active individuals tend to have slightly better cognitive abilities on average</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 10th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A meta-analysis of studies exploring the relationship between physical activity and cognitive performance found a small positive association between the two. The strongest effects were observed for moderate-to-vigorous outdoor physical activity. The paper was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000478"><em>Psychological Bulletin</em></a>.</p>
<p>Research indicates that physical activity can benefit cognitive performance across the lifespan. Regular exercise improves blood flow to the brain, supporting the delivery of oxygen and nutrients essential for brain function. It also stimulates the release of neurotrophic factors such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which promote neuronal growth and connectivity. Both aerobic and resistance training have been linked to improvements in memory, attention, and executive functioning.</p>
<p>In children, physical activity tends to be associated with better academic achievement and concentration. Among adults, it may help slow age-related cognitive decline and reduce the risk of neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease. Acute bouts of exercise can temporarily enhance mood and mental clarity. These cognitive benefits are thought to result from a combination of biological and psychological mechanisms. Exercise can also reduce stress and improve sleep, both of which support cognitive functioning.</p>
<p>Lead author Myrto F. Mavilidi and colleagues aimed to integrate findings from existing studies on the link between physical activity and cognition, while also examining how this relationship might depend on contextual factors such as the physical and social environment, delivery mode (e.g., face-to-face, remote, virtual reality), delivery style, and life domain. They also distinguished between the effects of single, acute bouts of activity and regular, long-term physical activity.</p>
<p>The researchers searched ERIC (ProQuest), APA PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus for studies presenting original data on physical activity interventions. They focused on experimental designs involving random assignment or randomized crossover designs, with cognitive outcomes including executive functioning, memory, attention, or intelligence.</p>
<p>They examined exercise intensity, duration, type, and cognitive demand (for example, repetitive motor exercises versus complex sports or skill-based activities). They also considered participant age, adherence to the intervention, study design, and any special participant characteristics.</p>
<p>The initial search yielded 16,515 records. After screening, 239 studies met inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. These studies were published between 1989 and 2023, involved a total of 48,625 participants, and covered a mean age range from 4 to 85 years.</p>
<p>Results showed that regular physical activity had a small positive effect on cognition. Studies examining single bouts of physical activity also found small positive effects. These effects did not appear to vary substantially by physical or social environment, or by life domain in which the activity took place.</p>
<p>For acute exercise studies, light, moderate, and moderate-to-vigorous intensity activities all produced small positive effects, whereas vigorous or near-maximal activity showed negligible effects. Regarding activity type, the largest effects in chronic interventions were observed for holistic movement practices and martial arts, followed by motor–cognitive activities such as sports games—both of which tend to be more cognitively demanding. Outdoor activities also tended to yield stronger effects.</p>
<p>“The current review found that several facets of the physical activity context, including physical and social environment, domain, and delivery mode do not moderate the effects of physical activity on cognition individually. Instead, the outdoor physical environment seems to amplify the beneficial effect of physical activity of specific doses and features. Our findings show promise that providing people of all ages with opportunities to be active in natural outdoor environments can be conducive to enhanced cognitive functioning,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the effects of physical activity on cognition. However, study authors note that results were substantially influenced by individual studies reporting much stronger results compared to other studies. They note that effects would be much smaller if only 6 studies with strong results were removed from the dataset.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000478">How Physical Activity Context Relates to Cognition Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,</a>” was authored by Myrto F. Mavilidi, Spyridoula Vazou, David R. Lubans, Katie Robinson, Andrew J. Woods, Valentin Benzing, Sofia Anzeneder, Katherine B. Owen, Celia Álvarez-Bueno, Levi Wade, Jade Burley, George Thomas, Anthony D. Okely, and Caterina Pesce.</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>