<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/women-face-backlash-when-expressing-anger-about-gender-inequality/" 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;">Women face backlash when expressing anger about gender inequality</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 12th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2025.2529850"><em>The Journal of Social Psychology</em></a> indicates that women who express anger about gender inequality tend to be judged more harshly and receive less public support for their causes compared to those who express no anger. The research also suggests that when women frame their anger as motivated by concern for others in their community, the negative effects on public support are partially reduced.</p>
<p>The research builds on longstanding findings that women tend to be penalized for expressing anger. This reaction appears to stem from widely held expectations that women should be warm, nurturing, and communal—traits that are often seen as incompatible with overt displays of anger. While anger can be a powerful motivator for social change, women’s use of this emotion in political or activist contexts may conflict with societal gender norms, undermining their perceived legitimacy and influence.</p>
<p>Previous studies have demonstrated that women who break from traditional gender roles, such as those who act assertively or express negative emotions, are often evaluated more negatively. But until now, little empirical work has examined how these dynamics play out when women express anger specifically about gender inequality—a topic where anger might be both appropriate and necessary for driving collective action.</p>
<p>The new research aimed to address that gap. The researchers wanted to know whether women who express anger about gender-based injustice are viewed less favorably and whether this response makes people less likely to join them in advocating for change. They also explored whether anger that aligns more closely with communal norms—such as concern for other women and girls—would reduce this backlash.</p>
<p>“We wanted to contribute a piece of the puzzle to achieving gender equality,” said study author Helena Radke, a senior lecturer in psychology at James Cook University. “Collective action like protesting and signing petitions is an effective route through which gender equality can be achieved but we also noticed that people seemed reluctant to engage in collective action when women expressed anger about gender inequality despite this being a perfectly understandable response. So we conducted this research to find out whether this was the case.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted two separate studies involving a total of 481 participants. In both studies, participants were exposed to a fictional newspaper article about a woman named Sarah Wilson, a political candidate running for office. The article consistently described gender inequality as one of Sarah’s core campaign issues, but the way she discussed it varied. Depending on the condition, Sarah either expressed:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Group-based anger</strong>, where she was simply angry about gender inequality.</li>
<li><strong>Communal anger</strong>, where she expressed anger specifically on behalf of other women and girls in her community.</li>
<li><strong>No anger</strong>, where she discussed gender inequality without expressing emotion.</li>
</ul>
<p>Participants then evaluated the candidate along several dimensions: perceived warmth, competence, whether she seemed like a “complainer,” and their own willingness to support her campaign or engage in collective action for gender equality alongside her.</p>
<p>Study 1 also examined whether participant gender affected their evaluations, while Study 2 introduced an additional manipulation—some participants were told that Sarah was a Black woman, while others were told she was White.</p>
<p>Across both studies, the results indicated that expressing group-based anger tends to harm women’s public image and reduce support for their causes. Participants consistently rated the angry candidate as less warm, more of a complainer, and were less inclined to vote for her or take collective action with her. This trend was particularly evident when comparing group-based anger to the no-anger condition.</p>
<p>“People are less willing to engage in collective action for gender equality with a woman who expresses anger about gender inequality,” Radke told PsyPost. “This might undermine progress towards gender equality because we know that collective action is an effective route through which social equality can be achieved.”</p>
<p>Importantly, communal anger—when the candidate expressed anger on behalf of others—partially mitigated these effects. In the first study, participants responded more favorably to communal anger than to general anger. They perceived the candidate as warmer and were more likely to support her campaign and join her in collective action. However, these differences were less clear in the second study, possibly due to variations in the participant pool, which included a more diverse sample in terms of gender, race, and sexual orientation.</p>
<p>But the researchers caution against interpreting their findings as advice for women to change how they express themselves.</p>
<p>“The findings were partially attenuated when participants were exposed to a woman who expressed anger about gender inequality for communal reasons (e.g., on behalf of women and girls in their community),” Radke said. “This does not mean we should encourage women to be more communal. Instead these findings indicate that we should tackle the narrow expectations of what it means to be a woman to make progress towards gender equality.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, perceptions of the candidate’s competence remained stable across all conditions. Whether she expressed anger or not did not appear to affect how capable participants thought she was. This suggests that negative reactions to female anger may be driven more by perceptions of likability and emotional demeanor than by judgments of ability.</p>
<p>Participant gender also influenced responses. In the first study, women consistently rated the candidate more positively than men and were more willing to take action with or on behalf of her. This pattern fits with previous findings suggesting that women are more likely to engage in collective efforts toward gender equality, possibly because such actions directly benefit them, while men may feel that these efforts challenge their group’s higher societal status.</p>
<p>The second study found that the candidate’s race did not significantly alter the relationship between anger expression and participant reactions. However, participants did perceive the Black candidate as warmer and were more willing to support her campaign than the White candidate, regardless of emotional expression. This finding may reflect an effort by participants—especially White ones—to avoid appearing prejudiced, or it may stem from broader cultural narratives about authenticity and intersectional advocacy. But the researchers caution that these interpretations remain speculative and warrant further investigation.</p>
<p>While the studies provide evidence that women’s anger about gender inequality tends to carry social costs, there are limitations to consider. The samples, while adequately powered for detecting small-to-medium effects, could be expanded to improve generalizability. Strengthening the experimental materials—for example, by incorporating video or audio instead of just text—might also offer a more realistic portrayal of anger and enhance the manipulation’s impact.</p>
<p>The study focused exclusively on women. Future research might examine whether men face similar consequences for expressing anger about gender inequality, though prior findings suggest they tend to be judged more favorably when showing anger. This may reflect broader beliefs that men are more authoritative and less self-interested when addressing these topics.</p>
<p>The researchers also note that communal anger, while somewhat more acceptable, still resulted in participants viewing the candidate as more of a complainer than when she expressed no anger at all. This suggests that even when women frame their anger in socially acceptable ways, they may not fully escape gendered backlash.</p>
<p>Going forward, Radke said that she and her colleagues would “love to develop an intervention to reduce the derogation of women who express anger experience and hopefully encourage greater collective action for gender equality.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2025.2529850" target="_blank">Women are derogated for expressing group-based anger which undermines collective action for gender equality</a>,” was authored by Helena R. M. Radke and Amy Hanson.</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/autopsies-revealed-mysterious-blue-colored-brains-now-scientists-know-what-caused-it/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Autopsies revealed mysterious blue-colored brains — now scientists know what caused it</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 12th 2025, 07:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An unusual blue-green discoloration of internal organs observed during an autopsy led forensic researchers in Germany to investigate whether certain substances administered before death might be responsible for the phenomenon. Their findings, published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00903-7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology</a></em>, suggest that dyes like methylene blue and toluidine blue, as well as medications or consumer products containing warning colors, tend to produce distinct discoloration patterns in the body. These color changes may offer clues about medical interventions or substance exposure prior to death.</p>
<p>The study emerged from an autopsy of a 72-year-old man, where the forensic team noticed that some organs began to darken into a striking blue-green hue shortly after exposure to air. This prompted a systematic review of similar cases, both in their own institutional records and in the existing literature, to determine the cause and possible diagnostic relevance of such unusual color changes.</p>
<p>Forensic pathologists are trained to identify and interpret a wide range of tissue abnormalities. Changes in the color of organs during autopsy are often linked to common causes such as decomposition or bleeding. But in some rare cases, the source of discoloration is not immediately clear. The case that initiated this study involved a rapid and unexpected shift in organ color, specifically in the brain and heart, prompting questions about whether a chemical or pharmaceutical compound might have caused the effect.</p>
<p>The researchers noted that subtle findings—like organ color shifts—can be easy to miss or misinterpret, particularly if they are rare or not well documented. In this case, the absence of obvious decomposition, combined with the pattern of discoloration and the rapid intensification of the color during the procedure, pointed to a more specific etiology.</p>
<p>To explore potential causes, the team reviewed a database of over 15,000 autopsy records from their institution, looking for keywords such as “blue-green,” “turquoise,” and “greenish” in descriptions of organ appearances. This search returned eleven relevant cases, including the initial index case.</p>
<p>The researchers examined the full autopsy reports for each case and, when possible, reviewed the patients’ hospital records. They also conducted a targeted literature review to identify reports of similar discolorations linked to known drugs or toxic substances.</p>
<p>Out of the eleven cases, nine involved deaths that occurred in a hospital setting. Medical records were available for most of these patients, allowing the researchers to reconstruct the medical interventions and medications given before death. In six of the hospital cases, methylene blue had been administered intravenously. In two others, toluidine blue had been used. In the remaining cases, the discoloration was likely due to the ingestion of substances containing food-grade dyes or other pigments.</p>
<p>Methylene blue is a synthetic dye that has been used in medicine for over a century. It is commonly employed as a diagnostic stain during surgeries to visualize structures like the urinary tract or gastrointestinal lining. Clinically, it is also used as an antidote for conditions such as methemoglobinemia, where it helps restore the blood’s ability to carry oxygen. In intensive care settings, methylene blue may be given to treat circulatory shock that does not respond to other medications, as it can help improve blood pressure by affecting blood vessel tone.</p>
<p>Toluidine blue, another synthetic dye, is primarily used in medical imaging and tissue staining. It selectively binds to acidic cellular components like DNA and RNA, making it useful for identifying abnormal or precancerous cells during endoscopic examinations or biopsies. Although less commonly used than methylene blue, toluidine blue has similar staining properties and is occasionally employed when methylene blue is unavailable.</p>
<p>Across the cases reviewed, a consistent pattern emerged: discoloration tended to affect specific organs depending on the substance involved and the route of exposure. When methylene blue had been administered intravenously, the discoloration was most often seen in the brain and heart. In contrast, oral ingestion of dyes or dyed substances was more likely to produce localized staining in the gastrointestinal tract or urinary bladder.</p>
<p>In the original case, the 72-year-old man had received toluidine blue both orally and intravenously during treatment for a perforated duodenal ulcer and subsequent septic shock. After death, the autopsy revealed a rapidly darkening blue-green tint in the brain, heart, and mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal tract.</p>
<p>In another case, a 30-year-old man with severe COVID-19 and necrotizing pancreatitis had received methylene blue as part of his treatment for circulatory shock. Upon autopsy, his brain and heart exhibited the same dark blue-green tint shortly after being exposed to air.</p>
<p>A similar discoloration pattern was seen in other cases where methylene blue had been used, reinforcing the idea that this dye, or its oxidized form, is responsible for the color change. The researchers explained that methylene blue circulates in a reduced form within the body but oxidizes upon contact with atmospheric oxygen after death, intensifying the blue-green appearance during autopsy.</p>
<p>In addition to medically administered dyes, the team also identified two cases in which the discoloration could be traced to the ingestion of Rohypnol®, a drug that includes a blue dye to deter misuse. In both cases, the individuals had consumed large quantities of the drug in apparent suicide attempts, and blue-green staining was found in the stomach lining and intestinal tract.</p>
<p>Another case involved a woman who had ingested a cleaning product containing Brilliant Blue FCF (a synthetic dye used in food and industrial products). In her case, the urinary bladder lining exhibited the same striking coloration, likely due to excretion of the dye through the kidneys.</p>
<p>These findings align with a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12024-020-00316-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2020 case report</a>, also published in <em>Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology</em>, which described a similar discoloration of the brain and heart in a 63-year-old woman who had been treated with methylene blue for septic shock. That report noted a greenish-blue hue in the affected organs, which intensified upon air exposure, consistent with the oxidation of the compound. The authors of that report highlighted the importance of distinguishing such findings from other causes of discoloration, such as decomposition or toxic gas exposure.</p>
<p>The current study builds on those observations by identifying a larger set of similar cases, offering a clearer understanding of the substances that tend to produce these effects and the specific tissues they affect.</p>
<p>While the researchers were able to associate discoloration patterns with specific xenobiotics, their conclusions were based primarily on visual observations and review of medical records. Due to the retrospective nature of the study, tissue samples were not always available for histological or toxicological confirmation of methylene blue or toluidine blue residues.</p>
<p>In conventional histology, the dyes often degrade or are no longer visible, limiting the ability to confirm their presence postmortem. More sophisticated testing could provide chemical verification, but such analyses were beyond the scope of this review.</p>
<p>The study also highlights the rarity of systemic toluidine blue administration, which may explain why its effects have not been previously documented in forensic contexts. As this dye is sometimes used as a substitute for methylene blue during shortages, awareness of its potential for postmortem discoloration may become more important in the future.</p>
<p>Going forward, the authors suggest that forensic teams should consider the possibility of xenobiotic exposure when encountering unexplained blue-green discolorations during autopsy. Integrating clinical history, medication records, and targeted toxicology testing can help avoid unnecessary speculation or misdiagnosis.</p>
<p>The new study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00903-7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fifty shades of green and blue: autopsy findings after administration of xenobiotics</a>,” was authored by J. Baumgarten, I. Greb, F. Holz, C. Nieß, S. Petzel-Witt & Christoph G. Birngruber</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/lonely-individuals-tend-to-view-themselves-as-a-burden-to-others/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Lonely individuals tend to view themselves as a burden to others</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 12th 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/10.1111/psyp.70105" target="_blank">Psychophysiology</a></em> sheds light on how people experiencing loneliness tend to view their own contributions to relationships more negatively, particularly with family. The findings suggest that a person’s resting heart function — specifically high-frequency heart rate variability — might slightly buffer these self-critical perceptions, indicating a potential physiological mechanism that supports social resilience.</p>
<p>Loneliness is often misunderstood as simply being alone. In reality, it refers to the subjective feeling that one’s social relationships are lacking in quality or quantity. A person can be surrounded by others and still feel lonely if those interactions do not feel meaningful. In contrast, social isolation is an objective state defined by having few social contacts, which may or may not be distressing.</p>
<p>Loneliness acts as a psychological alarm, signaling a perceived loss or threat to social connection. This feeling tends to ramp up attention to social cues, especially those signaling rejection or conflict. For some, this heightened sensitivity may help guide reconnection efforts. For others, however, it can spiral into withdrawal and further alienation.</p>
<p>Although loneliness has been consistently linked to poor mental and physical health, not everyone responds to it in the same way. Some people seem to navigate loneliness without falling into persistent patterns of distress. The researchers behind this study were interested in understanding what might explain this variability — particularly how people perceive their own social behavior.</p>
<p>“Loneliness and social support are often looked at in terms of what a person receives from others, but we were curious whether, when people feel lonely, they also see themselves as giving less to their relationships. Could a negative perception of your own ability to engage in close relationships contribute to developing prolonged loneliness?” said Emily Kent, a teaching fellow in the social sciences at the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>Rather than focus on how lonely individuals judge others, this study explored how they judge themselves — especially their own tendency to be supportive or to cause strain in their close relationships. The researchers also investigated whether a biological marker of emotional flexibility, known as high-frequency heart rate variability, helps moderate these perceptions.</p>
<p>High-frequency heart rate variability refers to the variation in time between heartbeats that is regulated by the parasympathetic branch of the nervous system. This system helps the body relax and maintain internal balance. Greater variability in this measure tends to indicate a stronger ability to adapt emotionally and socially. In past research, individuals with higher resting variability have shown better emotion regulation, stronger social skills, and greater resilience to stress.</p>
<p>The researchers analyzed data from 824 participants in the Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) study, a long-running project tracking health and psychological outcomes in American adults. Participants had completed assessments of loneliness, and they also rated how much support or strain they believed they contributed to their relationships with friends and family. These assessments asked how often they felt they were helpful or burdensome to others.</p>
<p>Importantly, each participant also underwent a psychophysiological evaluation during which their resting heart rate variability was recorded using electrocardiography. The researchers focused on high-frequency heart rate variability, considered a specific measure of parasympathetic nervous system activity.</p>
<p>“With this study, we were excited to explore the idea that loneliness might not just change how people feel about others, but also how they see what they offer socially,” Kent told PsyPost. “The MIDUS dataset gave us the opportunity to test that idea in a large, real-world sample and explore whether individual differences in physiological flexibility (HF‑HRV) might help buffer those effects.”</p>
<p>The analysis indicated that individuals who reported greater feelings of loneliness also tended to see themselves as offering less support and causing more strain in both friend and family relationships.</p>
<p>“One thing that was really striking was how consistent the relationship between loneliness and negative self-perception was across different types of relationships,” Kent said. “It became clear that, whether it’s friends or family, loneliness was strongly linked to feeling like you give less support and contribute more strain.”</p>
<p>But the researchers were especially interested in whether heart rate variability might play a role in how people interpret their own behavior. They found tentative evidence that this physiological trait slightly influenced the link between loneliness and perceived strain in family relationships. Among those with lower resting heart rate variability, the connection between loneliness and feeling like a burden to family was stronger. In contrast, people with higher resting variability showed a weaker link between loneliness and these self-critical perceptions.</p>
<p>This buffering effect did not appear in evaluations of friendships or in perceptions of how much support the individual believed they provided, suggesting that the influence of heart function may be specific to certain types of self-evaluations or relationships.</p>
<p>“We were somewhat surprised to find that resting HF-HRV (our measure of physiological flexibility) only moderated this effect in family relationships and not friendships,” Kent remarked. “That suggests there may be more nuance in how these relationship types function and how sensitive they are to our internal regulation processes.”</p>
<p>The findings suggest that loneliness not only affects how people view others, but also how they view themselves — especially in the context of their relationships. The small but meaningful role of heart rate variability points to a potential physiological factor that influences how loneliness is processed.</p>
<p>“Loneliness isn’t just about what support or strain you get from other people – it’s also about how you see yourself and your confidence in your ability to connect,” Kent told PsyPost. “If you feel lonely, you might be more likely to see yourself as burdensome or believe you have little to offer friends and family. Whether or not this lines up with reality, that kind of persistent negative self-view can increase feelings of disconnection. Lonely people may withdraw not just because others are pulling away, but because they feel incapable of contributing, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of further isolation.” </p>
<p>“Our study found that people with greater physiological flexibility (reflected in better regulation of their body’s stress response) were less likely to hold these negative views of themselves when thinking about family relationships. Strategies like self-compassion, cognitive reframing, and emotion regulation practices that support physiological regulation may help people recognize these thought patterns and break the cycle.”</p>
<p>While the study adds to the growing understanding of how loneliness affects self-perception, it is not without limitations. One key issue is that the data are cross-sectional, meaning all measurements were taken at a single point in time. This makes it impossible to say whether loneliness causes changes in self-perception or whether negative self-perceptions drive loneliness.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study relies on self-report measures. Although these perceptions may not reflect objective reality, they still tend to shape behavior — especially in the social realm. Someone who feels they are a burden may avoid contact with others, regardless of whether others actually view them that way.</p>
<p>The physiological effects observed were also modest and specific to family relationships. The researchers caution against overinterpreting the heart rate variability findings without replication. They emphasize the need for future studies that track individuals over time to determine whether heart function helps predict long-term outcomes in social health and loneliness recovery.</p>
<p>There are also open questions about how cultural factors and age-related changes might influence the findings. The MIDUS sample consisted largely of middle-aged and older adults. It’s unclear whether younger individuals — or those embedded in different cultural norms about family support — would show the same patterns.</p>
<p>“Our long-term goal is to better understand the factors, including individual differences like self-perception, that contribute to variability in how people respond to loneliness,” Kent explained. “We hope to take a longitudinal approach and follow individuals over time to see how these self-views develop and change, and whether they predict who is more resilient to isolation or better able to reconnect socially.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.70105" target="_blank">Loneliness Is Associated With Decreased Support and Increased Strain Given in Social Relationships</a>,” was authored by Emily M Kent, Anita Restrepo, Kelly E. Faig, Sabina Raja, Stephanie J. Dimitroff, Karen E. Smith, and Greg J. Norman.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/the-science-backed-case-for-doing-nothing-why-your-brain-needs-time-to-drift/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">The science-backed case for doing nothing: why your brain needs time to drift</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, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><div class="theconversation-article-body">
<p>Every day, we’re faced with constant opportunities for stimulation. With 24/7 access to news feeds, emails and social media, many of us find ourselves scrolling endlessly, chasing our next hit of dopamine. But these habits are fuelling our stress – and our brains are begging for a break.</p>
<p>What our brains really need is some much needed time off from concentrating. By not consciously focusing on anything and allowing the mind to drift, this can reduce stress and improve cognitive sharpness.</p>
<p>This can often be easier said than done. But attention restoration theory (Art) can help you learn to give your brain space to drift. While this might sound like a fancy name for doing nothing, the theory is supported by neuroscience.</p>
<p>Attention restoration theory was first put forward by psychologists <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-98477-000">Rachel and Stephen Kaplan</a> in 1989. They theorised that spending time in nature can help to restore focus and attention.</p>
<p>They proposed there are two distinct types of attention: directed attention and undirected attention. Directed attention refers to deliberate concentration – such as studying, navigating through a busy place or posting on social media. Basically, it’s any activity where our brain’s attention is being directed at a specific task.</p>
<p>Undirected attention is when we’re not consciously trying to focus on anything – instead allowing things to gently capture our attention without trying. Think listening to chirping birds or watching leaves gently rustling in the breeze. In these instances, your attention naturally drifts without having to force your focus.</p>
<p>Without time for undirected attention, it’s thought that we experience <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2">“attentional fatigue”</a>. This can make it increasingly difficult to focus and concentrate, while distractions become more likely to grab our attention.</p>
<p>In the past, we encountered many situations in our daily lives that we might classify as “boring”. Moments such as waiting for the bus or standing in the supermarket queue. But these dull moments also gave our minds a chance to switch off.</p>
<p>Now, our smartphones give us the opportunity for constant entertainment. Being able to constantly expose ourselves to intense, gripping stimuli offers <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916518774400">little mental space</a> for our overworked brains to recover.</p>
<p>But attention restoration theory shows us how important it is to create space for moments that allow our brains to “reset”.</p>
<h2>Restoring attention</h2>
<p>The origins of Kaplan and Kaplan’s theory can actually be traced back to the 19th century. American psychologist William James was the first to formulate the concept of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0272494495900012?via%3Dihub">“voluntary attention”</a> – attention that requires effort. James’ ideas were published against the backdrop of the broader cultural movement of Romanticism, which <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1016/0191-6599%2890%2990175-E">lauded nature</a>.</p>
<p>Romantic ideas about the restorative power of nature have since been backed by research – with numerous studies showing links between time in nature and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126932">lower stress levels</a>, <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02057/full">better attention</a>, improvements in <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-019-02125-9">mental health</a>, mood and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-021-09631-8">better cognitive function</a>.</p>
<p>The restorative benefits of nature are backed by neuroscience, too. Neuroimaging has shown that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01720-6">activity in the amygdala</a> – the part of the brain associated with stress and anxiety – was reduced when people were exposed to natural environments. But when exposed to urban environments, this activity was not reduced.</p>
<p>Numerous studies have also since backed up Kaplan and Kaplan’s theory that time in nature can help to restore attention and wellbeing. One <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2018.1505571">systematic review</a> of 42 studies found an association with exposure to natural environments and improvements in several aspects of cognitive performance – including attention.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial">randomised controlled trial</a> using neuroimaging of the brain found signs of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-78508-x">lower stress levels</a> in adults who took a 40-minute walk in a natural environment, compared to participants who walked in an urban environment. The authors concluded that the nature walk facilitated attention restoration.</p>
<p>Research has even shown that as little as ten minutes of undirected attention can result in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519882775">measurable uptick</a> in performance on cognitive tests, as well as a reduction in attentional fatigue. Even simply walking on a treadmill while looking at a nature scene can produce this cognitive effect.</p>
<h2>Time in nature</h2>
<p>There are many ways you can put attention restoration theory to the test on your own. First, find any kind of green space – whether that’s your local park, a river you can sit beside or a forest trail you can hike along. Next, make sure you put your phone and any other distractions away.</p>
<p>Or, when you face boring moments during your day, instead of picking up your phone try seeing the pause as an opportunity to let your mind wander for a bit.</p>
<p>Each of us may find certain environments to be more naturally supportive in allowing us to switch off and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2">disengage the mind</a>. So if while trying to put attention restoration theory into practice you find your brain pulling you back to structured tasks (such as mentally planning your week), this may be sign you should go someplace where it’s easier for your mind to wander.</p>
<p>Whether you’re watching a ladybird crawl across your desk or visiting a vast expanse of nature, allow your attention to be undirected. It’s not laziness, it’s neurological maintenance.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/259854/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-letting-your-mind-wander-can-reset-your-brain-259854">original article</a>.</em></p>
</div></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/dopamines-role-in-learning-may-be-broader-than-previously-thought/" 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;">Dopamine’s role in learning may be broader than previously thought</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, 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/10.1038/s41467-025-61099-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nature Communications</a></em> provides evidence that the brain chemical dopamine plays a sophisticated, dual role in how we learn, influencing both our fast, effortful thinking and our slower, habit-forming learning processes. The research indicates that a person’s natural dopamine levels may shape their reliance on mentally demanding strategies, while dopamine-boosting drugs can enhance the brain’s trial-and-error learning system.</p>
<p>To navigate the world, the brain uses at least two major learning systems that often work in concert. The first is reinforcement learning, a slow and steady process in which we gradually learn the value of actions based on their outcomes. Think of it like learning to ride a bike: through trial and error—getting positive feedback (staying upright) and negative feedback (wobbling or falling)—the brain gradually wires in the correct muscle movements until they become automatic. This type of learning tends to be robust but requires time and repetition.</p>
<p>The second system is working memory, which functions as the brain’s mental scratchpad. It allows us to instantly store and manipulate a small amount of information for a short period. For example, when someone tells you a phone number, you hold it in working memory just long enough to dial it. This system is incredibly fast and flexible, but it has limited capacity—you can’t hold dozens of numbers at once—and using it tends to require mental effort.</p>
<p>Both of these systems are thought to be heavily influenced by dopamine signaling in the striatum. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter, or chemical messenger, that plays a major role in motivation, reward, and movement. In the striatum, dopamine signals are believed to be essential for stamping in the lessons of reinforcement learning. At the same time, some theories suggest dopamine also helps manage working memory, possibly by reducing the mental effort it requires.</p>
<p>A key challenge for scientists has been to separate dopamine’s effects on reinforcement learning from its effects on working memory. If a person with higher dopamine levels learns faster, is it because their habit-forming system is more efficient, or because they’re better able to use working memory to bypass the slower process? Answering this question is important for understanding not only healthy cognition but also conditions like ADHD and schizophrenia, where dopamine signaling is believed to be disrupted.</p>
<p>To address this, a large international team of researchers from institutions in the Netherlands, the United States, and Sweden designed a study to isolate the contributions of these two systems. They aimed to determine how a person’s natural dopamine levels—and drugs that modify dopamine signaling—affect each system independently.</p>
<p>“I’ve always been interested in cognitive effort: why does thinking feel like work, why are some tasks (like working memory tasks) much more effortful than others, why are the same tasks effortless for some people, and why do I struggle to stay on task even when it is important to me to do so?” said study author Andrew Westbrook, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Rutgers University and head of <a href="https://bmclab.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Brain Modulation & Control Lab</a>.</p>
<p>“Striatal dopamine signaling has long been known to help rodents and other animals rise to the challenge when they need to exert physical effort to pursue rewards. In recent work, we built on the intuition that dopamine signaling could help shape policies about whether or not to exert cognitive effort too. We wanted to test, in part, whether drug effects and individual differences in striatal dopamine function might influence how much people rely on effortful working memory processes versus effortless reinforcement learning during an instrumental learning task.”</p>
<p>The researchers used a multi-faceted approach involving 100 healthy young adult participants. The study combined a specialized cognitive task with brain imaging and pharmacological interventions.</p>
<p>First, participants performed a task designed to pit reinforcement learning against working memory. They were shown a series of images and had to learn, through trial and error, which of three buttons corresponded to each image. The key manipulation was “set size”—the number of different images presented in a block of trials. In some blocks, there were only two images to remember (a low load on working memory). In others, there were up to five, making it much harder to keep everything straight and encouraging a shift toward the slower, more incremental reinforcement learning system.</p>
<p>Second, the scientists measured each participant’s baseline dopamine function. Using a brain imaging technique called positron emission tomography (PET), they measured each individual’s dopamine synthesis capacity—essentially, the rate at which their brain produces dopamine in the striatum. This provided a snapshot of each person’s natural dopamine profile.</p>
<p>Third, in three separate sessions, participants received either a placebo, a 20 mg dose of methylphenidate (a drug commonly known as Ritalin that boosts dopamine levels by blocking its reuptake), or a 400 mg dose of sulpiride (an antipsychotic drug that blocks a specific type of dopamine receptor known as D2). By comparing performance across these conditions, the researchers observed how boosting or dampening dopamine activity changed learning behavior.</p>
<p>Finally, the team used computational models to analyze participants’ choices. These models estimated hidden mental processes, such as the learning rate of the reinforcement learning system and the degree of reliance on the working memory system.</p>
<p>The results indicated that individuals with a higher capacity to produce dopamine tended to rely more heavily on working memory. Their performance was particularly strong in low-set-size blocks, where working memory is most effective. This suggests that a more robust dopamine system may bias a person toward faster, more flexible—but also more effortful—strategies.</p>
<p>The drug sulpiride had the opposite effect. Under its influence, participants’ performance declined. Modeling results suggest this was because sulpiride reduced their reliance on working memory and caused information held in memory to decay more quickly. It appears that interfering with this dopamine pathway makes working memory less reliable.</p>
<p>When examining the effects of methylphenidate, the researchers found a different pattern. While higher baseline dopamine was associated with stronger working memory use, methylphenidate specifically enhanced reinforcement learning. Participants on methylphenidate showed steeper learning curves, improving more with each correct response than they did on placebo.</p>
<p>The computational model confirmed this by showing that the drug increased the learning rate of the reinforcement learning system. This effect was strongest in individuals with high natural dopamine synthesis capacity, suggesting that the drug amplified existing learning signals. These findings indicate that dopamine not only supports fast learning through working memory but also directly boosts the slow, incremental process of habit formation.</p>
<p>An intriguing finding came from a surprise test phase at the end of the experiment. Participants were shown pairs of images from the learning task and asked to choose which one had been associated with more points. While participants generally performed well, the data revealed a subtle bias: people tended to devalue rewards earned during the more difficult, high-set-size blocks. It was as if the extra mental effort required to earn those rewards made them feel less satisfying.</p>
<p>Methylphenidate blunted this effect. When on the drug, participants were less likely to devalue rewards from harder tasks. This suggests that dopamine not only alters how we decide to expend effort but also how we learn about the cost of effort in the first place. A dopamine boost seems to make mental work feel less taxing.</p>
<p>The findings provide evidence “that striatal dopamine both biases us to rely more on effortful working memory when solving difficult problems and, on separate time scales, also influences how we learn about the cognitive effort required to perform those tasks in the first place,” Westbrook told PsyPost.</p>
<p>The computational modeling also revealed that once the contributions from working memory were accounted for, the reinforcement learning system contributed very little to rapid learning in this task. This suggests that, when faced with a new problem, the brain leans heavily on fast, effortful working memory, while reinforcement learning plays a more secondary role.</p>
<p>“One shocking outcome was how little RL-like processes contribute to task learning once you control for working memory-based contributions,” Westbrook explained. “Although we do find RL-like incremental learning that is moreover influenced by dopaminergic drugs, the effective learning rates were tiny once working memory was factored out. I think this has important implications for studies which aim to infer something about the link between dopamine and RL. Namely, you have to control for dopamine’s effects on working memory first before interpreting anything about RL.”</p>
<p>While the study offers a clearer view of dopamine’s dual role, some questions remain. The precise mechanism by which sulpiride impaired performance is still not fully resolved. Looking ahead, the researchers hope to apply these findings to better understand cognitive and motivational difficulties in psychiatric and neurological disorders. “We need to understand more about how aberrant dopamine signaling plays a role in shaping policies about cognitive effort,” Westbrook said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61099-0">Striatal dopamine can enhance both fast working memory, and slow reinforcement learning, while reducing implicit effort cost sensitivity</a>,” was authored by Andrew Westbrook, Ruben van den Bosch, Lieke Hofmans, Danae Papadopetraki, Jessica I. Määttä, Anne G. E. Collins, Michael J. Frank, and Roshan Cools.</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/what-really-keeps-people-committed-to-long-term-goals-this-study-offers-a-key-insight/" 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;">What really keeps people committed to long-term goals? This study offers a key insight</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, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new series of studies suggests that to achieve long-term goals, finding enjoyment in the process is a better predictor of success than focusing on the importance of the outcome. Research recently published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251350960" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychological Science</a></em> indicates that this principle applies to a wide range of personal goals, holds true across different cultures, and can be used to causally increase a person’s engagement with their objectives.</p>
<p>Every year, millions of people set ambitious New Year’s resolutions, from eating healthier to saving money, only to abandon them within weeks. This common struggle prompted a team of researchers—<a href="https://kaitlinwoolley.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kaitlin Woolley</a> from Cornell University, Laura M. Giurge from the London School of Economics, and Ayelet Fishbach from the University of Chicago—to investigate the underlying motivations that separate success from failure in long-term goal pursuit.</p>
<p>The researchers focused on two types of motivation. Extrinsic motivation is the drive to pursue a goal as a means to a separate end, like exercising to improve long-term health. This is typically why people set difficult goals in the first place; they are willing to endure short-term costs for a larger, later reward. In contrast, intrinsic motivation is the experience of pursuing a goal as an end in itself, where the activity is inherently enjoyable or engaging. A runner who is intrinsically motivated simply enjoys the act of running.</p>
<p>Given that people often set goals for extrinsic reasons, one might assume that the perceived importance of a goal would be the primary factor in sticking with it. The research team, however, hypothesized the opposite. They proposed that because the benefits of extrinsic goals are often delayed, they can be mentally “discounted” over time. Immediate rewards, like the enjoyment captured by intrinsic motivation, might be a more powerful engine for sustained effort over the long haul. The study aimed to test whether intrinsic motivation could better predict—and even cause—long-term adherence to goals.</p>
<p>“This paper builds on a stream of research on intrinsic motivation I’d started with Ayelet Fishbach in graduate school and continued with Laura Giurge during her postdoc at Cornell,” explained Woolley, a professor of marketing at Cornell SC Johnson College of Business.</p>
<p>“In most of my research, I studied short-term persistence—like a single study session or gym visit—and was curious how these effects would play out over longer time horizons. One prior study followed people for two months, but that still felt relatively short. So with this project, I wanted to test how these motivational dynamics unfold over a full year, across a wide range of personal goals.”</p>
<p>The first study followed 2,000 U.S. adults over the course of a full year. All participants had set a New Year’s resolution and were asked to report their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for pursuing it. Intrinsic motivation was measured through questions about how enjoyable or engaging the activity was, while extrinsic motivation reflected perceptions of usefulness and long-term importance. These ratings were collected at four timepoints throughout the year. Participants also rated their success in sticking with their resolution and reported whether they had continued, abandoned, or completed the goal.</p>
<p>The most common types of resolutions included physical health (nearly 40%), financial goals, and healthy consumption. Notably, participants were generally more extrinsically motivated than intrinsically motivated, suggesting that most resolutions were set for long-term gains rather than short-term enjoyment.</p>
<p>Despite being set for extrinsic reasons, the resolutions people stuck with were those that were enjoyable to pursue. Across the year, higher levels of intrinsic motivation predicted greater self-reported success and a higher likelihood of completing the resolution. By contrast, extrinsic motivation did not significantly predict adherence or completion.</p>
<p>The results remained consistent even when accounting for how easy or long-lasting participants expected their resolutions to be. Additionally, the findings held up across multiple statistical approaches and robustness checks, suggesting that people who found their goals more enjoyable were more likely to stay committed over time.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the researchers also found that people underestimated the importance of intrinsic motivation. In follow-up surveys, most participants believed extrinsic factors like usefulness or long-term importance would better predict whether they or others would stick to a resolution. This misjudgment could explain why people tend to select extrinsically motivated goals that are harder to maintain.</p>
<p>In their second study, the researchers aimed to test whether the findings from Study 1 would generalize to a non-Western population. They recruited 500 adults in China who had recently set goals for the Lunar New Year. Participants reported their intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for pursuing the resolution and, one month later, indicated how successful they had been at sticking with it.</p>
<p>Compared to the U.S. sample, participants in China were more likely to set professional or learning-related goals. While their goals also tended to be more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated, the relative distribution allowed for cross-cultural comparisons.</p>
<p>As in the U.S. sample, intrinsic motivation significantly predicted whether Chinese participants stuck to their goals after one month. Extrinsic motivation did not predict adherence. This replication suggests that the influence of intrinsic enjoyment on long-term behavior is not limited to Western contexts.</p>
<p>Although extrinsic motivation varied less in this sample—possibly contributing to its weaker predictive power—follow-up analyses confirmed that even when variance was equated, intrinsic motivation remained the stronger predictor of adherence.</p>
<p>“We found that this pattern emerged among participants in the United States and China,” Woolley told PsyPost. “While our year-long study was conducted with U.S. participants, we conceptually replicated the effects on a shorter time horizon with participants from China. Participants in these two studies set different resolutions—US participants focused on resolutions mainly related to healthy eating/exercise, whereas in China, participants’ goals for the new year related to career or financial pursuits. So we were able to generalize our findings both to a different population and also to a different distribution of resolutions.”</p>
<p>To test whether the pattern held for real-world behavior, the third study focused on participants who had set a goal to walk more. The researchers recruited 439 people who tracked their steps using a smartphone app. Participants submitted their daily step counts for 14 days and reported how much they enjoyed walking (intrinsic motivation) versus how important or useful they believed it was (extrinsic motivation).</p>
<p>The researchers found that intrinsic motivation significantly predicted how many steps people took on average each day. Participants who found walking enjoyable walked about 1,250 more steps per day than those who were less intrinsically motivated. In contrast, extrinsic motivation had no statistically significant effect.</p>
<p>These findings held even when the researchers adjusted for skewed data and conducted additional analyses, such as applying log transformations or capping extreme values. Once again, intrinsic motivation proved to be the key driver of actual behavior, not just intentions.</p>
<p>Finally, the fourth study tested whether increasing intrinsic motivation could actively improve engagement with a new health behavior. Participants were asked to download a mobile app that scans food and cosmetic products to evaluate their health impact. Before using the app, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one that framed the app as fun and surprising (intrinsic motivation), and another that described it as informative and useful (extrinsic motivation). App usage was then tracked over a 24-hour period. The final sample included 763 individuals.</p>
<p>Participants in the intrinsic motivation group scanned significantly more products with the app—on average, over 25% more—than those in the extrinsic motivation group. These results suggest that framing a task as enjoyable can causally increase engagement, even for health-related behaviors that are often framed in terms of utility or future rewards.</p>
<p>“People set extrinsic goals – goals that are useful or important in the long run,” Woolley said. “But, they are more likely to stick with goals that are intrinsically motivating – those they pursue as an end in itself, often because they offer interest and enjoyment in the moment. In other words, people are more likely to abandon goals that lack intrinsic motivation, but when they set goals, they aren’t focused on setting goals that are intrinsically motivating.”</p>
<p>“One of the big surprises for me was just how stable the effect of intrinsic motivation on goal adherence was. I knew that intrinsic motivation mattered for goal adherence in the short-term, but I thought that motivational dynamics may change over time. But we found robust evidence across a year, and for the large variety of personal goals people set for themselves, that intrinsic motivation was a stronger predictor of goal adherence than extrinsic motivation.”</p>
<p>Many people assume that long-term commitment is fueled by the promise of future rewards, yet this research suggests that enjoyment and immediate satisfaction play a bigger role in sustaining effort. But that doesn’t mean people should abandon extrinsic goals, the researchers caution.</p>
<p>“We find that people often set goals for extrinsic reasons, but tend to persist in goals that feel intrinsically motivating,” Woolley explained. “One concern I have is that this might lead people to believe they should only set intrinsic goals. But that’s not the takeaway. I’d actually encourage people to continue setting extrinsic goals—goals that feel important, useful, or even life-changing—but to design their pursuit in ways that make the process more intrinsically enjoyable. That shift can help people stick with the goals that matter most to them.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251350960" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adherence to Personal Resolutions Across Time, Culture, and Goal Domains</a>,” was authored by Kaitlin Woolley, Laura M. Giurge, and Ayelet Fishbach.</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>