<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/can-facial-fillers-and-botox-like-injections-improve-your-dating-prospects-or-how-others-see-you/" 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;">Can facial fillers and Botox-like injections improve your dating prospects or how others see you?</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 26th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People often turn to cosmetic enhancements with the hope of making a better impression—whether in dating, social settings, or the workplace. But how much do these changes in appearance actually influence how others see us? A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066251337353" target="_blank">Perception</a></em> suggests that while popular facial aesthetic treatments like Botox and filler injections can lead to slightly more favorable impressions in terms of attractiveness, the overall impact on how others perceive a person’s warmth, competence, or desirability as a long-term partner appears limited.</p>
<p>Across cultures, people engage in appearance-enhancing behaviors ranging from makeup to tanning to cosmetic procedures. These behaviors are often guided by the belief that a more attractive appearance will lead to better social or romantic outcomes. The research team behind this new study wanted to directly examine whether a single session of minimally invasive aesthetic treatment meaningfully shifts how people are judged by others.</p>
<p>Past research has often suggested that such treatments make people seem not only more attractive but also more competent or likable. However, many of those earlier studies suffered from methodological problems. Some presented pre- and post-treatment images side-by-side, making differences more obvious than they would be in daily life. Others relied on small numbers of participants or analyzed the data in a way that could exaggerate findings. The new research aimed to overcome those shortcomings by using larger sample sizes, standardized procedures, and more statistically sound methods.</p>
<p>“Aesthetic treatments have become much more popular in recent years, especially minimally invasive treatments with fillers and Botox. Many people opt for these treatments because they want to be perceived more positively by others – as more attractive, charismatic, or intelligent. We wanted to test how effective these treatments actually are,” said study author Bastian Jaeger, an assistant professor at Tilburg University.</p>
<p>Jaeger and his colleagues conducted two large-scale, preregistered studies involving a total of 3,201 participants. In both studies, participants viewed standardized photos of people who had received minimally invasive aesthetic treatment, such as botulinum toxin injections or dermal fillers. Each participant only saw either the pre- or post-treatment version of a given face, not both. This design allowed the researchers to estimate the real-world impact of treatment on first impressions without artificially highlighting the changes.</p>
<p>In the first study, 2,720 participants from North America rated photos of 114 individuals—80 percent of whom were women—on a range of traits. These included traits related to attractiveness (such as youthfulness and health), approachability (such as friendliness and trustworthiness), and capability (such as competence and intelligence). Participants also rated additional traits like charisma and whether they believed the person had undergone aesthetic treatment.</p>
<p>To avoid confounding factors, the researchers applied strict quality control. They excluded image pairs if there were differences in facial expression, lighting, makeup, hairstyle, or even subtle signs of positive affect. The remaining photos were aligned and standardized using facial landmark detection and preprocessing algorithms, allowing for an exceptionally controlled comparison between pre- and post-treatment images.</p>
<p>The results from Study 1 indicated that facial aesthetic treatment led to a small but statistically significant increase in perceived attractiveness. On a seven-point scale, the average rating for attractiveness rose by about 0.09 points after treatment. Among all traits tested, youthfulness showed the clearest boost, increasing by 0.13 points on average.</p>
<p>Changes on other social dimensions were even less apparent. The treatment had no significant effect on how trustworthy, honest, friendly, dominant, competent, or intelligent the targets appeared. In other words, while participants tended to view the treated faces as slightly more attractive and youthful, this did not extend to perceptions of moral character, sociability, or capability.</p>
<p>“We obtained carefully controlled images from people before and after facial aesthetic treatment,” Jaeger told PsyPost. “We did find that people were perceived as more attractive after the treatment, but this effect was very small. We found similar effects for perceived health and youthfulness, but no change in perceived charisma, intelligence, competence, friendliness, and many other dimensions.”</p>
<p>In the second study, the researchers shifted their focus to social desirability in a romantic context. Here, 481 heterosexual male participants from North America and the United Kingdom evaluated 81 female targets who had received minimally invasive treatments. Each participant saw profiles that included a photo (either pre- or post-treatment), a first name, an age estimate, and a pair of hobbies. They were then asked whether they would consider the person as a platonic friend, a casual short-term partner, or a long-term romantic partner.</p>
<p>The findings mirrored those from the first study. Participants showed slightly more interest in post-treatment individuals for casual romantic encounters and platonic friendships. Specifically, desirability ratings for casual dating increased by about 0.10 points, while friendship desirability increased by 0.08 points. There was no statistically significant change in how desirable participants found the targets as potential long-term partners.</p>
<p>This pattern suggests that the changes in appearance produced by a single aesthetic treatment session may be enough to influence judgments in lower-commitment contexts, such as casual dating or new friendships. However, when it comes to more serious romantic relationships, those surface-level changes may not carry much weight—at least not on their own.</p>
<p>To put these results into context, the researchers compared the effects of aesthetic treatment with other appearance-enhancing behaviors studied in previous research. For instance, using makeup can lead to a 0.6-point increase in perceived attractiveness, and digitally smoothing facial skin can result in a 0.7-point increase. Even simply smiling, as opposed to keeping a neutral expression, tends to boost attractiveness ratings by about 0.4 points.</p>
<p>Against these benchmarks, the 0.09-point bump in attractiveness seen after minimally invasive facial treatment appears modest. While such procedures may enhance a person’s appearance slightly, they do not seem to produce major shifts in how others judge their personality, capabilities, or potential as a committed partner.</p>
<p>Many people who opt for these treatments do so in the hope of making better first impressions, both socially and romantically. But the study suggests that people may overestimate the social impact of these procedures—at least when it comes to how they are judged by strangers in brief encounters.</p>
<p>“Previous studies often found much larger effects,” Jaeger explained. “But a big problem with many existing studies is that the photos were not sufficiently standardized. It is possible that there were systematic differences between the before and after photos. For example, if individuals are more likely to smile after the treatment (because the treatment gave them a confidence boost), we don’t know if any boost in attractiveness is due to the treatment or due to increased smiling. In our study, we were more careful in creating before and after images that differed as little as possible on dimensions like facial expression, makeup, tanning, etc.”</p>
<p>The researchers point out that this does not mean the treatments are without value. For some individuals, the perceived improvement in appearance might still be meaningful, especially when weighed against the relatively low cost and risk of minimally invasive procedures compared to surgical interventions. People also report feeling more confident after treatment, which could affect how they present themselves and interact with others—a possibility the researchers say is worth studying further.</p>
<p>As comprehensive as the studies were, they do come with some limitations. The sample of people who underwent treatment was drawn from clinics in the Netherlands, while the raters were based in North America and the United Kingdom. Cultural differences in beauty standards or attitudes toward cosmetic enhancement may have influenced the results. Additionally, the researchers could not always determine whether a given subject was undergoing treatment for the first time or had already received prior procedures.</p>
<p>The study also focused exclusively on minimally invasive interventions. More dramatic surgical changes might yield stronger effects on impressions.</p>
<p>“We tested the effect of a single minimally invasive treatment session, so is perhaps not surprising that changes in first impressions were small,” Jaeger noted. “An interesting question, which we could not address yet is if people who consider getting these treatments are aware of how effective they actually are, or if they are perhaps overestimating how much their appearance will change.”</p>
<p>A potential avenue for future research would be to investigate whether the small changes in appearance observed here lead to different social behaviors or outcomes in real-world interactions. Even if others do not judge someone as markedly more capable or trustworthy based on appearance alone, changes in the person’s own confidence or behavior might still improve social outcomes through self-fulfilling dynamics.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066251337353" target="_blank">Face value: The effect of facial aesthetic treatment on first impressions and partner preferences</a>,” was authored by Bastian Jaeger, Berno Bucker, Jacques van der Meulen, and Mark van Vugt.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/a-simple-cognitive-vaccine-can-make-you-more-resistant-to-misinformation/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">A simple cognitive vaccine can make you more resistant to misinformation</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 26th 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 the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104818" target="_blank">Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</a></em> provides evidence that a brief message promoting actively open-minded thinking can serve as a cognitive vaccine, reducing susceptibility to believing false information. The findings suggest that strengthening certain cognitive habits can help individuals better distinguish real from fake news and become less likely to share misinformation online.</p>
<p>In recent years, false or misleading information has played a significant role in shaping public attitudes toward science, health, and politics. Psychologists have become increasingly interested in why some people are more vulnerable to misinformation than others and what can be done to reduce its impact.</p>
<p>A growing body of research has pointed to the importance of cognitive styles in shaping how people evaluate information. In particular, a thinking style known as “actively open-minded thinking” has been identified as a key predictor of resistance to misinformation. This approach emphasizes a willingness to revise one’s beliefs, consider opposing arguments, and avoid overconfidence in one’s own views.</p>
<p>Building on this research, the authors of the new study sought to test whether people could be inoculated against the cognitive tendencies that make them vulnerable to misinformation. Rather than focus on specific content or manipulative tactics, the researchers developed a logic-based inoculation message designed to warn participants about the psychological pitfalls of failing to think in an open-minded way.</p>
<p>“We were motivated by the idea that many misinformation interventions focus on specific false claims or the tricks manipulators use. While these are important, they can be narrow in scope,” said study author <a href="https://www.kent.ac.uk/school-of-psychology/people/1267/biddlestone-mikey" target="_blank">Mikey Biddlestone</a>, a postdoctoral research associate on the University of Kent <a href="https://research.kent.ac.uk/conspiracy-fx/" target="_blank">CONSPIRACY_FX team</a>.</p>
<p>“We wanted to test whether we could target something deeper: the cognitive style of <em>actively open-minded thinking</em>. This style—being willing to reconsider your views, avoid overconfidence, and weigh evidence fairly—has consistently been linked to lower susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. By using a <em>logic-based inoculation approach</em>, we aimed to strengthen this thinking style itself, which could provide broader and longer-lasting protection across different contexts.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted two pre-registered experiments using different participant samples and recruitment platforms. In the first study, 462 participants from the United States were recruited via Reddit. In the second, 464 participants were recruited through Prolific. In both cases, participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group.</p>
<p>Those in the intervention group read a brief educational message designed to “prebunk” the psychological risks of failing to engage in actively open-minded thinking. The message explained five common pitfalls: overconfidence, failure to consider alternatives, the illusion of understanding, selective attention to confirming evidence, and misinterpretation of contradictory evidence as support for existing beliefs. (The full text of the message can be read at the bottom of the article.) </p>
<p>Participants in the control group either received no such message (in Study 1) or completed a content-neutral word sorting task (in Study 2). After the intervention, all participants completed a series of questionnaires designed to assess their thinking style, belief in conspiracy theories, and susceptibility to misinformation.</p>
<p>To assess misinformation susceptibility, Biddlestone and his colleagues used the Misinformation Susceptibility Test, a validated tool that presents participants with both real and fake news headlines. Participants had to judge the accuracy of each headline and indicate whether they would consider sharing it online. Additional measures included a cognitive reflection test, conspiracy belief scales, and questions targeting intellectual humility, tolerance for uncertainty, and awareness of personal ideological bias.</p>
<p>The results consistently showed that participants who received the inoculation message scored higher on measures of actively open-minded thinking than those in the control group. This suggests that even a brief message explaining the cognitive errors associated with dogmatic thinking was enough to boost this reflective mindset.</p>
<p>This shift in thinking had measurable consequences. In Study 1, the intervention group was more discerning when judging real versus fake news headlines and was less willing to share fake news. They also expressed lower belief in several types of conspiracy theories, particularly those involving global manipulation or extraterrestrial cover-ups. In Study 2, participants in the treatment group were better at identifying fake news and showed higher overall accuracy in distinguishing real from false information, although the direct reduction in conspiracy beliefs was smaller.</p>
<p>“We found that a short message encouraging people to engage in actively open-minded thinking made a real difference,” Biddlestone told PsyPost. “Across two studies, it improved people’s willingness to think in this way, which in turn helped them distinguish true news from false news and reduced belief in conspiracy theories. The key point is that teaching people how to think, rather than what to think, may offer a scalable way to build resilience against misinformation in general—not just against one specific claim or tactic.”</p>
<p>Statistical models revealed that the positive outcomes were largely driven by improvements in actively open-minded thinking. That is, the intervention worked not by increasing skepticism across the board, but by enhancing a specific kind of cognitive flexibility that helps people evaluate evidence more effectively. Notably, while the intervention also increased cognitive reflection scores, this thinking style alone was not a consistent predictor of reduced conspiracy beliefs or improved news discernment.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that some of the component traits related to open-mindedness—such as intellectual humility or intolerance of uncertainty—did not fully account for the effects of the intervention. Instead, it was the holistic thinking style of actively open-minded thinking that seemed to matter most.</p>
<p>“While we expected improvements in misinformation discernment, we were struck by how consistent the effects were for actively open-minded thinking itself,” Biddlestone said. “Interestingly, simple reflective thinking alone (like solving brainteasers) didn’t reliably reduce susceptibility, and in some cases was even linked to higher conspiracy beliefs. This reinforced our hunch that it’s the broader mindset of open-mindedness—not just raw analytic thinking—that matters most.”</p>
<p>Although the findings provide evidence that logic-based inoculation can promote healthier thinking and reduce belief in misinformation, the researchers acknowledge some limitations. First, both studies were conducted online using volunteer samples, which may not fully represent the broader population. Second, the interventions, while effective in the short term, were relatively long and text-heavy—raising questions about whether similar approaches would be practical in everyday media environments.</p>
<p>“Our intervention was text-based and fairly detailed,” Biddlestone noted. “While it worked in the lab, people might not always engage with long passages in the real world. Future work needs to adapt it into shorter, more scalable formats—like infographics, short videos, or classroom activities. Another open question is whether repeated exposure over time produces stronger or longer-lasting effects.”</p>
<p>“We want to test how these kinds of interventions can be scaled up for everyday use. For instance, can schools teach open-minded thinking as a norm? Can social media platforms integrate prebunking prompts in ways that people actually notice and internalize? Long term, the goal is to create interventions that don’t just debunk individual falsehoods, but instead give people durable tools to evaluate information across domains.”</p>
<p>“Misinformation is a moving target, but our results show that boosting people’s thinking style—rather than chasing each new false claim—may provide broad protection,” Biddlestone added. “Encouraging open-mindedness is not about making people skeptical of everything, but about giving them the confidence to evaluate information fairly and change their mind when the evidence calls for it.”</p>
<p><strong>The prebunking message:</strong> </p>
<p><em>Please read the following text carefully, considering how arguments and evidence may be received and evaluated.</em></p>
<p>In a recent survey, we found that 80% of people agreed that they should actively search for more information that both supports and contradicts their current viewpoints than they currently tend to do before feeling convinced on a topic.</p>
<p>For this reason, you should be vigilant of the fact that some online content producers seek to manipulate their audience by exploiting the common tendency to feel confident in the opinions that you already hold. This overconfidence reduces the likelihood that you will be motivated to search for relevant information that would otherwise give you a better understanding of the topic at hand. In psychological research, this prevalent issue is often referred to as failing to engage in actively open-minded thinking.</p>
<p>Failing to effectively engage in actively open-minded thinking can be identified through five main pitfalls:</p>
<p>1. Overconfidence in your position.<br>
2. Failure to consider alternative possibilities.<br>
3. Conviction that you understand your position until asked to explain it.<br>
4. Only searching for and attending to evidence that supports your position.<br>
5. Interpreting all evidence as support for your position, even when it isn’t.</p>
<p>As a result, reduced actively open-minded thinking has been linked to many problematic outcomes for society, including poorer ability to objectively evaluate arguments, as well as increased susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy theories.</p>
<p>Importantly, actively open-minded thinking does not require you to be skeptical of all information and viewpoints you encounter, but rather gives you the tools to more appropriately evaluate when and who you should trust. A helpful approach to ensure you are engaging in actively open-minded thinking is to ask yourself whether the content you are consuming provides information explaining how it avoided the five pitfalls mentioned above when drawing its conclusions.</p>
<p>So next time you’re watching the news or reading information online, remember…don’t believe everything you think!</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104818" target="_blank">Norm-enhanced prebunking for actively open-minded thinking indirectly improves misinformation discernment and reduces conspiracy beliefs</a>,” was authored by Mikey Biddlestone, Carolin-Theresa Ziemer, Rakoen Maertens, Jon Roozenbeek, and Sander van der Linden.</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/psychopathic-men-and-less-selective-women-report-more-sex-via-tinder/" 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;">Psychopathic men and less selective women report more sex via Tinder</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 26th 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/10.1089/cyber.2023.0256" target="_blank">Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking</a></em> suggests that certain personality traits and mating strategies are associated with greater success on dating apps like Tinder. People who scored higher in traits such as narcissism, psychopathy, and unrestricted sexual desires were more likely to report finding both dates and sexual partners through the platform.</p>
<p>Although previous research has explored the psychological profiles of dating app users, there has been less focus on what predicts actual outcomes—such as how many people secure dates or engage in sex as a result of using the apps.</p>
<p>The researchers wanted to understand not only who uses dating apps, but who succeeds on them. They applied a framework known as life history theory, which suggests that individuals vary in how they allocate effort toward mating and parenting. People with “fast” life history strategies tend to focus on short-term mating and self-enhancement, while those with “slow” strategies prioritize long-term relationships and caregiving.</p>
<p>The study framed dating apps like Tinder as “digital leks,” drawing from a term in biology. In some animal species, males gather in leks—territories where they display themselves to attract mates but provide no parental investment. Females visit these areas solely to select mating partners. Tinder was considered analogous because it allows people to advertise themselves to a large pool of potential partners in a visually driven, low-effort environment.</p>
<p>“When I started my research in the area of dating apps and social media, I dived deeper into theoretical explanations of our behavior,” said study author Lennart Freyth, the founder and research director of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Institute and a professor at HSD Hochschule Döpfer University of Applied Sciences. “Considering personality a behavioral disposition, I was indeed wondering: why was nobody going for the most obvious elements of dating apps? It took a bit to prepare and to present it, but everyone was fine and liked the idea to explore who are the people who go on dates (via these apps) and who engages in sexual intercourse (via these dates/apps).”</p>
<p>The researchers hypothesized that traits associated with fast life strategies—such as narcissism, psychopathy, and high levels of sociosexual desire—would predict greater dating app success. They were also interested in whether these dynamics differed by sex, and how decision-making styles like “satisficing” (being easily satisfied) or seeking alternative options might factor in.</p>
<p>For their new study, the research team surveyed 495 German-speaking adults, including 288 men and 207 women, aged 16 to 70 years. Participants were recruited online and received a small monetary incentive for their participation. Each person completed a series of questionnaires measuring various traits and behaviors.</p>
<p>The researchers used validated scales to assess the three so-called “Dark Triad” traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—as well as components of sociosexuality, which include attitudes toward casual sex, sexual desire, and previous sexual behavior. They also measured decision-making styles related to dating, such as how easily participants felt satisfied with potential matches or how often they searched for alternatives.</p>
<p>Participants were asked whether they had ever gone on a date arranged through a dating app (referred to as a “Tinder-date”) and whether they had ever had sex with someone they met on such an app (“Tinder-sex”). The researchers then examined which personality and behavioral traits predicted each outcome, using statistical analyses that accounted for sex differences and interaction effects.</p>
<p>About 31 percent of participants reported having gone on a date via Tinder or a similar app, with no significant difference between men and women. However, among those who reported having sex with someone they met on a dating app, men were more likely than women to do so—66 percent of those who had Tinder-sex were men.</p>
<p>People who reported either dating or having sex through Tinder tended to be younger and displayed traits associated with fast life strategies. For example, they scored higher in narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and all three aspects of sociosexuality: more favorable attitudes toward casual sex, greater sexual desire, and more sexual experience. These traits were generally stronger predictors of sexual outcomes than of dating alone, suggesting that sexual style becomes more relevant as the encounter progresses.</p>
<p>Men who reported having sex via Tinder were especially likely to score higher in psychopathy and sexual desire. This pattern did not hold for men who had not had Tinder-sex or for women in either group. The authors suggest that psychopathy in this context may not only reflect exploitative tendencies but may also indicate a strategic ability to identify others who are open to uncommitted sex. This aligns with <a href="https://www.psypost.org/people-with-more-narcissistic-and-psychopathic-traits-report-having-a-higher-number-of-sexual-partners/" target="_blank">previous findings</a> that <a href="https://www.psypost.org/psychopathic-men-have-an-extreme-focus-on-mating-at-the-expense-of-other-domains-and-tend-be-parasitic-fathers/" target="_blank">psychopathic men</a> <a href="https://www.psypost.org/psychopathic-men-have-more-children-study-finds/" target="_blank">may be more successful</a> in short-term mating, particularly in environments with high mate availability.</p>
<p>Women who had sex with someone from a dating app were more likely to report being easily satisfied with their choices compared to women who did not. This trait, known as satisficing, did not differ significantly among men. One interpretation is that these women may have invested more effort in selecting potential partners during the messaging phase and were more willing to accept some mismatch or disappointment in person. Another possibility is that this reflects increased sexual agency or a strategy aimed at maximizing reproductive opportunities.</p>
<p>The study also found that decision-making traits such as alternative search (constantly looking for better options) did not significantly predict mating success. This may suggest that once a match leads to an actual date, being less selective or more focused on present opportunities plays a larger role than ongoing comparison.</p>
<p>While some differences between men and women appeared, the overall trend showed that fast life strategies, regardless of sex, tend to be linked with greater success in using dating apps to find both dates and sexual partners.</p>
<p>“There is a general pattern that emerges when investigating social media use and associated personality traits,” Freyth told PsyPost. “Individuals who have elevated levels of traits associated with a fast life history (like the Dark Triad/Tetrad traits, or sociosexuality) use visual social media platforms more intensely. They also report more dates and sex—here, for instance, men high in psychopathy and sociosexuality.”</p>
<p>“Yet, women who reported sex via dating apps lowered their standards (lower satisficing) compared to women not having ‘Tinder-sex.’ We were surprised by women lowering their standards once on a date. We consider this something like a sunk cost effect—after already texting, once on a date, the decision to engage further was already made.”</p>
<p>“Most importantly, while discussing these and similar findings over the years, I made the observation that dating apps are similar to biological leks in the animal kingdom,” Freyth continued. “Meaning, it is a short-term mating environment favoring opportunistic mating behavior.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations to consider. First, the use of self-reported data on sexual behavior may be influenced by social desirability or gendered reporting biases—men may overreport and women may underreport their experiences. The study was also cross-sectional, meaning it cannot determine causality or track how these behaviors change over time. Longitudinal or experimental research would be needed to assess whether fast life strategies cause greater dating app success or simply emerge as a result of using the apps.</p>
<p>“Compared to most studies on dating apps, our sample was relatively old (the average age was around 40 years),” Freyth noted. “We consider it possible that the effects are underestimated here, as younger people are more opportunistic by nature and due to their current socialization (see, e.g., Haidt’s Anxious Generation). As we have some studies on the topic—one was even replicated—I do not consider a severe shortcoming here.”</p>
<p>The researchers recommend future research explore how these short-term strategies impact broader aspects of life, such as long-term relationship formation, parenting, and even moral decision-making. They also argue that dating apps should be more openly discussed in academic and public discourse and that researchers should not shy away from controversial or sexually charged topics due to stigma or potential backlash.</p>
<p>“Scientifically, I would like to see how the short-term-oriented behavior affects other regions of our daily lives, from partner choice, love, and also moral decisions—from the individual to a societal level,” Freyth explained. “In general, after having done several studies on dating apps (and social media) and associated personality traits, I would like to see it as a normalized part of the scientific and public debate. Our scientific peers are very interested in private but do not publicly show their interest. I think scholars should accept science as science, and we, as scientists, in general, should be more liberal in discussing topics.”</p>
<p>“This study was a hard fight over almost two years to publish,” Freyth added. “It took nine rounds of revisions until the editor-in-chief decided to publish it, after I kindly asked them to look into it. The text was forced to take up relatively unrelated topics because the reviewers disliked the results and approach. Then, we had a similar follow-up study, which was retracted as the results followed up on men and women cheating via dating apps. I filed a complaint after the fifth internal revision following publication. I think people should differentiate their personal stance on things from research and scientific findings. I personally, as a younger man, struggled to find a job simply because I touched these research topics. Indeed, I would like to share more about this, but to keep it short, I will end here.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0256" target="_blank">Dating App Users: Interpersonal Styles and Self-Reported Mating Success</a>,” was authored by Lennart Freyth and Peter K. Jonason.</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/letting-loose-with-a-swear-word-may-actually-make-you-stronger/" 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;">Letting loose with a swear word may actually make you stronger</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 25th 2025, 22:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research provides evidence that repeating a swear word can increase grip strength and activate motivational brain systems, but it does not appear to dampen the brain’s response to errors. The study, published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241308560" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology</a></em>, replicated previous findings that swearing tends to enhance physical performance and emotional engagement. It also found that swearing increased activation in a motivational system called the behavioral approach system. But contrary to expectations, it did not reduce a neural signal known as the error-related negativity, which had been proposed as a possible indicator of temporary disinhibition.</p>
<p>Swearing often carries strong emotional charge, and previous studies have shown that it can blunt pain and even improve physical performance. A possible explanation is that swearing temporarily loosens behavioral restraints, making people more focused on action and less preoccupied with monitoring themselves. This short-term state, referred to as “state disinhibition,” may increase emotional arousal and free up energy to put toward the task at hand.</p>
<p>Earlier studies suggested swearing might lead to greater strength output, possibly by activating parts of the nervous system associated with emotion and motivation. But the underlying brain mechanisms have remained unclear. In particular, the research team was interested in whether swearing affects the brain’s ability to monitor errors—something that typically involves a signal called error-related negativity, or ERN.</p>
<p>The ERN is a burst of electrical activity that appears in the brain shortly after a person makes a mistake. It’s thought to reflect the brain’s internal monitoring system and is often larger when people are more focused on accuracy or more anxious about making errors. If swearing leads to disinhibition, the researchers predicted, the ERN might shrink—suggesting that people are less concerned with monitoring their behavior.</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 52 participants, mostly university students, and used a within-subjects design. Each participant completed the same set of tasks under two different conditions: one involving the repeated use of a self-chosen swear word (such as “fuck” or “shit”), and the other involving a neutral word (like “wood” or “flat”).</p>
<p>Participants began each trial by repeating their assigned word out loud for 10 seconds. After this, they completed a grip strength task, squeezing a dynamometer as hard as possible with their dominant hand. They also performed a flanker task, which involves identifying the direction of an arrow while ignoring distracting arrows flanking it. This task is often used to study attentional control and produces enough mistakes to measure the ERN using electroencephalography, or EEG.</p>
<p>In addition to grip strength and EEG measurements, participants completed several questionnaires after each condition. These assessed emotional states, distraction, novelty, humor, anxiety, self-confidence, and something called the behavioral activation system, which is linked to motivation and goal pursuit. A specific focus was placed on one subscale of this system, known as BAS Drive, which measures how strongly a person feels compelled to pursue a goal.</p>
<p>As expected, participants tended to show stronger grip force after repeating a swear word compared to a neutral word. On average, their strength increased by about 1.4 kilograms. This aligns with earlier studies and supports the idea that swearing can lead to a short-term physical boost.</p>
<p>Swearing also appeared to alter emotional and motivational states. Participants reported higher levels of positive emotion, greater distraction, and more humor during the swearing condition. These effects are consistent with previous findings suggesting that swearing makes people feel more energized and emotionally engaged.</p>
<p>Importantly, swearing significantly increased scores on the BAS Drive scale. This suggests that swearing boosts the urge to pursue a goal or take action—an effect that fits with the idea that it triggers a motivational shift toward goal-oriented behavior. However, other subscales related to fun-seeking and reward sensitivity did not show significant changes, and there was no clear evidence that swearing decreased behavioral inhibition system scores.</p>
<p>The expected effects on the brain’s error-monitoring signal were not observed. Contrary to predictions, the amplitude of the ERN did not decrease after swearing. This means the brain’s internal response to making mistakes remained just as strong whether participants had sworn or not. Because the ERN was thought to reflect behavioral monitoring, its stability across conditions raises questions about whether swearing truly reduces self-monitoring in the way the researchers had hypothesized.</p>
<p>A mediation analysis also showed that changes in ERN amplitude did not explain the link between swearing and increased grip strength.</p>
<p>The findings support the idea that swearing can temporarily boost performance and alter emotional and motivational states. Increased grip strength, greater humor, more positive emotion, and higher BAS Drive all point toward a short-term shift in the brain’s motivational systems following swearing.</p>
<p>But the lack of change in the ERN signal challenges the assumption that swearing reduces behavioral monitoring. It’s possible that the ERN isn’t as sensitive to temporary disinhibition as once believed, or that the swearing effect on disinhibition doesn’t last long enough to influence the ERN, which was measured several minutes after the vocalization task.</p>
<p>Another possibility is that swearing affects some motivational circuits more than others. For example, the increased BAS Drive suggests a sharpening of goal-oriented behavior, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the brain’s conflict-monitoring system shuts down.</p>
<p>Interestingly, although swearing increased positive emotion, it also slightly raised self-reported negative emotion. The researchers suggest this may reflect anger rather than anxiety, which would still fit the picture of heightened emotional arousal and motivation.</p>
<p>The researchers note several factors that could have influenced the results. One key concern is the timing of the tasks. The flanker task and EEG measurements came after the swearing phase, and it’s possible that any disinhibiting effects had worn off by the time ERN was recorded. In future studies, a faster timeline or repeated swearing during the task might help detect subtle neural changes.</p>
<p>The sample size, while adequate for behavioral analysis, was relatively small for EEG research. Additionally, some participants had to be excluded due to technical issues or unusable EEG data. This further reduced statistical power, especially for more subtle effects like changes in ERN amplitude.</p>
<p>Another limitation is the reliance on a self-report measure for state motivation. While the BAS Drive scale provided useful information, it may not capture all relevant aspects of disinhibition or brain activity. More direct physiological or neuroimaging measures might help in future studies.</p>
<p>The findings also raise questions about how long the effects of swearing last, and whether they generalize across different tasks or populations. It’s still unclear whether swearing would produce similar effects in older adults, in more stressful environments, or when used repeatedly over time.</p>
<p>The study provides further support for the idea that swearing can temporarily enhance physical strength and increase motivational states like drive and positive emotion. These effects are consistent with the theory that swearing brings about a short-term state of disinhibition. However, the expected dampening of the brain’s error-monitoring signal was not observed, casting some doubt on whether swearing truly reduces behavioral self-monitoring at the neural level.</p>
<p>While the findings suggest that swearing has psychological and physiological effects that can influence performance, more work is needed to understand the precise neural mechanisms involved. Future studies might explore how long these effects last, whether they generalize across contexts, and how best to measure momentary shifts in behavioral inhibition and conflict monitoring.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17470218241308560" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The effect of swearing on error-related negativity as an indicator for state disinhibition</a>,” was authored by Venja Beck, Joseph L Brooks, and Richard Stephens.</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/pilates-may-help-treat-female-sexual-dysfunction-new-study-indicates/" 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;">Pilates may help treat female sexual dysfunction, new study indicates</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 25th 2025, 20:00</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/10.1186/s12894-025-01749-z" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BMC Urology</a></em> provides evidence that Pilates may offer meaningful improvements for women experiencing female sexual dysfunction. Researchers found that women who participated in a 12-week Pilates program reported better sexual function, reduced symptoms of depression, and improved overall sexual satisfaction compared to those who did not engage in the exercise regimen.</p>
<p>Female sexual dysfunction is a common and complex issue that can affect a woman’s well-being, self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction. Although aging is associated with higher rates of sexual difficulties, recent findings indicate that a significant number of premenopausal women also experience issues related to desire, arousal, orgasm, and pain during intercourse. These difficulties tend to be shaped by a combination of psychological, physiological, and interpersonal factors, including depression, anxiety, and pelvic floor muscle function.</p>
<p>Previous studies have explored the general benefits of exercise on sexual well-being, but there has been limited research focused specifically on the effects of Pilates. Pilates is a mind-body practice that targets flexibility, posture, core strength, and breathing. It has also been linked to improved pelvic floor muscle control and mental health outcomes. Given these benefits, the researchers aimed to evaluate whether Pilates could support women with female sexual dysfunction by improving both physical and psychological factors related to sexual health.</p>
<p>The study included 93 sexually active premenopausal women between the ages of 18 and 50. All participants were in stable, monogamous heterosexual relationships and had been with the same partner for at least three months. To be included in the study, women had to have a baseline score indicating sexual dysfunction on the Female Sexual Function Index (a total score of 26.55 or lower) and a regular frequency of sexual activity. Women with psychiatric disorders, certain medical conditions, or anatomical causes of sexual dysfunction were excluded.</p>
<p>Participants were divided into two groups. The intervention group took part in a Pilates program, while the control group continued with their normal routines. Both groups completed three questionnaires at the start and again after 12 weeks: the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).</p>
<p>The Pilates group attended 60-minute sessions twice per week for 12 weeks. Each session included a 10-minute warm-up, 45 minutes of core Pilates movements using equipment, and a short cool-down and breathing exercise. These sessions were led by qualified Pilates instructors and held in a dedicated studio. The exercises followed classical Pilates principles, emphasizing controlled movements, concentration, and breathwork.</p>
<p>The FSFI measured various aspects of sexual function across six domains: desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain. The ASEX questionnaire focused on sexual drive, arousal, lubrication, orgasm ability, and orgasm satisfaction. Higher ASEX scores indicate greater dysfunction. The BDI assessed symptoms of depression.</p>
<p>At the start of the study, both the Pilates group and the control group had similar scores across all three questionnaires. After 12 weeks, significant improvements were observed in the Pilates group but not in the control group.</p>
<p>The women who participated in the Pilates sessions showed marked improvements in all FSFI domains. These included increased desire, better arousal and lubrication, enhanced orgasm ability, higher satisfaction, and reduced pain during intercourse. On average, the improvements exceeded 95 percent across all FSFI categories.</p>
<p>The Pilates group also showed significantly lower scores on the ASEX questionnaire, suggesting a reduction in sexual dysfunction symptoms. Similarly, their scores on the Beck Depression Inventory improved, indicating decreased symptoms of depression.</p>
<p>In contrast, the control group, which did not engage in the exercise intervention, showed no meaningful changes in sexual function or depressive symptoms over the same time period.</p>
<p>When the researchers compared the post-intervention scores of both groups, the differences were statistically significant. This suggests that the improvements observed were likely due to the Pilates intervention rather than natural changes or external factors.</p>
<p>These findings align with earlier studies indicating that pelvic floor muscle training and psychological support can improve female sexual function. Pilates, as a form of exercise that engages the pelvic floor muscles and promotes body awareness and mental focus, may offer a dual benefit—strengthening the physical systems involved in sexual activity while also enhancing mood and emotional well-being.</p>
<p>The study adds to a growing body of research indicating that non-pharmacological interventions may play a role in improving sexual health. While medications and therapies are commonly used to treat sexual dysfunction, exercises like Pilates may offer a more holistic and accessible approach, especially for individuals who are reluctant to pursue pharmaceutical options or who experience side effects from those treatments.</p>
<p>The researchers also point out that difficulties with orgasm can lead to psychological distress, which in turn can perpetuate sexual dysfunction. This cycle of negative emotions, avoidance, and decreased self-esteem may be interrupted by interventions that target both physical and psychological components, such as Pilates.</p>
<p>In addition, the study suggests Pilates may have benefits for conditions like dyspareunia, or pain during intercourse. Since dyspareunia is often linked to pelvic floor tension and muscular imbalances, the muscle toning and control developed through Pilates may help reduce pain and increase comfort during sexual activity.</p>
<p>While the study suggests promising benefits, the authors acknowledge some limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small, and future research would benefit from larger and more diverse participant groups. The study also did not account for variations in menstrual cycle, which could influence mood and sexual function. In addition, the nature of partner relationships was not assessed, despite the potential influence of interpersonal dynamics on sexual satisfaction.</p>
<p>The researchers also note that they did not evaluate whether participants had underlying gynecological pain syndromes such as endometriosis or vulvodynia, which may affect sexual function and response to exercise interventions. Future studies may benefit from including a broader health assessment to control for these variables.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-025-01749-z" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The effects of pilates exercise on female sexual dysfunction in women: a controlled, prospective study</a>,” was authored by Recep Burak Degirmentepe, Deniz Gul, Yasir Muhammed Akca, Haci Ibrahim Cimen, and Hasan Salih Saglam.</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/is-chatgpt-making-us-stupid/" 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;">Is ChatGPT making us stupid?</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 25th 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Back in 2008, The Atlantic sparked controversy with a provocative cover story: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/">Is Google Making Us Stupid?</a></p>
<p>In that 4,000-word essay, later <a href="https://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=16">expanded into a book</a>, author Nicholas Carr suggested the answer was yes, arguing that technology such as search engines were worsening Americans’ ability to think deeply and retain knowledge.</p>
<p>At the core of Carr’s concern was the idea that people no longer needed to remember or learn facts when they could instantly look them up online. While there <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/26018230">might be some truth to this</a>, search engines still require users to use critical thinking to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745">interpret and contextualize</a> the results.</p>
<p>Fast-forward to today, and an even more profound technological shift is taking place. With the rise of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, internet users aren’t just outsourcing memory – they may be <a href="https://www.psypost.org/ai-tools-may-weaken-critical-thinking-skills-by-encouraging-cognitive-offloading-study-suggests/">outsourcing thinking</a> itself.</p>
<p>Generative AI tools don’t just retrieve information; they can create, analyze and summarize it. This represents a fundamental shift: Arguably, generative AI is the first technology that could replace human thinking and creativity.</p>
<p>That raises a critical question: <a href="https://www.psypost.org/catastrophic-effects-can-ai-turn-us-into-imbeciles-this-scientists-fears-for-the-worst/">Is ChatGPT making us stupid?</a></p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.kennesaw.edu/coles/academics/information-systems-security/faculty-staff.php">professor of information systems</a> who’s been working with AI for more than two decades, I’ve watched this transformation firsthand. And as many people increasingly delegate cognitive tasks to AI, I think it’s worth considering what exactly we’re gaining and what we are at risk of losing.</p>
<h2>AI and the Dunning-Kruger effect</h2>
<p>Generative AI is changing how people access and process information. For many, it’s replacing the need to sift through sources, compare viewpoints and wrestle with ambiguity. Instead, AI delivers clear, polished answers within seconds. While those results <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02406-7">may or may not be accurate</a>, they are undeniably efficient. This has already led to <a href="https://theconversation.com/major-survey-finds-most-people-use-ai-regularly-at-work-but-almost-half-admit-to-doing-so-inappropriately-255405">big changes</a> in how we work and think.</p>
<p>But this convenience may come at a cost. When people rely on AI to complete tasks and think for them, they may be weakening their ability to think critically, solve complex problems and engage deeply with information. Although research on this point is limited, passively consuming AI-generated content may discourage intellectual curiosity, reduce attention spans and <a href="https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/academic-integrity-and-human-cognitive-development-of-learners/358898">create a dependency</a> that limits long-term cognitive development.</p>
<p>To better understand this risk, consider <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-shows-that-people-dont-know-what-they-dont-know/">the Dunning-Kruger effect</a>. This is the phenomenon in which people who are the least knowledgeable and competent tend to be the most confident in their abilities, because they don’t know what they don’t know. In contrast, more competent people tend to be less confident. This is often because they can recognize the complexities they have yet to master.</p>
<p>This framework can be applied to generative AI use. Some users may rely heavily on tools such as ChatGPT to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10562-2">replace their cognitive effort</a>, while others use it to enhance their capabilities. In the former case, they may mistakenly believe they understand a topic because they can repeat AI-generated content. In this way, AI can artificially inflate one’s perceived intelligence while actually reducing cognitive effort.</p>
<p>This creates a divide in how people use AI. Some remain stuck on the “<a href="http://medium.com/workmatters/the-dunning-kruger-effect-climbing-mount-stupid-navigating-the-valley-of-despair-and-ascending-b22d37c1e6f9">peak of Mount Stupid</a>,” using AI as a substitute for creativity and thinking. Others use it to enhance their existing cognitive capabilities.</p>
<p>In other words, what matters isn’t whether a person uses generative AI, but how. If used uncritically, ChatGPT can lead to intellectual complacency. Users may accept its output without questioning assumptions, seeking alternative viewpoints or conducting deeper analysis. But when <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.02202">used as an aid</a>, it can become a powerful tool for stimulating curiosity, generating ideas, clarifying complex topics and provoking intellectual dialogue.</p>
<p>The difference between ChatGPT making us stupid or enhancing our capabilities rests in how we use it. Generative AI should be used to augment human intelligence, not replace it. That means using ChatGPT to support inquiry, not to shortcut it. It means treating AI responses as the beginning of thought, not the end.</p>
<h2>AI, thinking and the future of work</h2>
<p>The mass adoption of generative AI, led by the explosive rise of ChatGPT – it reached <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/">100 million users</a> within two months of its release – has, in my view, left internet users at a crossroads. One path leads to intellectual decline: a world where we let AI do the thinking for us. The other offers an opportunity: to expand our brainpower by working in tandem with AI, leveraging its power to enhance our own.</p>
<p>It’s often said that <a href="https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/articles/ai-wont-replace-human-workers-202300190.html">AI won’t take your job, but someone using AI will</a>. But it seems clear to me that people who use AI to replace their own cognitive abilities will be stuck at the peak of Mount Stupid. These AI users will be the easiest to replace.</p>
<p>It’s those who take the augmented approach to AI use who will reach the path of enlightenment, working together with AI to produce results that neither is capable of producing alone. This is where the future of work will eventually go.</p>
<p>This essay started with the question of <a href="https://www.psypost.org/chatgpt-and-cognitive-debt-new-study-suggests-ai-might-be-hurting-your-brains-ability-to-think/">whether ChatGPT will make us stupid</a>, but I’d like to end with a different question: How will we use ChatGPT to make us smarter? The answers to both questions depend not on the tool but on users.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/255370/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>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/is-chatgpt-making-us-stupid-255370">original article</a>.</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/children-raised-in-poverty-are-less-likely-to-believe-in-a-just-world/" 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;">Children raised in poverty are less likely to believe in a just world</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 25th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A longitudinal study involving high school students in China found that children raised in poverty tended to hold weaker beliefs in a just world. In contrast, childhood unpredictability was not consistently linked to such beliefs. The paper was published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13028">Journal of Personality</a>.</em></p>
<p>Belief in a just world refers to the psychological tendency to think that people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get. This belief can provide a sense of order and predictability in life, helping individuals cope with uncertainty. People with stronger beliefs in a just world often interpret success as the result of hard work and failure as the consequence of personal shortcomings.</p>
<p>While this perspective can encourage persistence and constructive behavior, it can also lead to blaming victims of misfortune, assuming they somehow caused their own suffering. Research suggests that belief in a just world can be adaptive, by fostering optimism and resilience, but also maladaptive, by promoting judgmental or unsympathetic attitudes. It shapes responses to social issues such as poverty, crime, and inequality.</p>
<p>This belief is influenced by cultural values, upbringing, and personal experiences. Some individuals distinguish between justice in their own lives and justice in the wider world (personal and general beliefs), with one often being stronger than the other. The concept is widely studied in social psychology for its influence on moral reasoning and behavior.</p>
<p>Study authors Yuqing Jin and Ying Yang sought to examine the long-term effects of stressful childhood environments on the development of belief in a just world during adolescence. They were also interested in whether perceptions of discrimination mediated this relationship. The researchers hypothesized that childhood harshness and unpredictability would be associated with weaker belief in a just world and that perceived personal or group discrimination would play a mediating role.</p>
<p>In this study, childhood harshness was defined as poverty during childhood, distinct from current poverty experienced by participants. Childhood unpredictability was defined as “fluctuations in environmental conditions across space and time, indexed by changes in family ecology,” such as moving houses or changing residences.</p>
<p>Data came from a large longitudinal study that recruited students from a senior high school in Foshan, Guangdong province, in southeastern China. Initially, 830 first-year students took part in the survey, with 46% being girls. These students completed follow-up surveys in their second and third years. A total of 515 students completed all three surveys.</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="https://www.psypost.org/psypost-newsletter/" target="_blank">Stay informed with the latest psychology and neuroscience research—sign up for PsyPost’s newsletter and get new discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.</a></em></strong></p>
<p>The surveys included assessments of childhood unpredictability (“When I was younger than 10, things were often chaotic in my house”), childhood socioeconomic status (e.g., “I grew up in a relatively wealthy neighborhood”), personal and general belief in a just world (e.g., “I think basically the world is a just place” or “I am usually treated fairly”), and perceptions of discrimination (personal – e.g., “I feel that I am looked down upon by others”; and general – e.g., “Basically, students with family circumstances similar to mine have lost many opportunities”).</p>
<p>Results indicated that participants who reported higher levels of childhood harshness tended to report lower levels of belief in a just world, both personal and general. Childhood unpredictability was linked to slightly lower levels of personal belief in a just world, but not consistently across all time points.</p>
<p>Higher perceptions of both personal and group discrimination were associated with weaker belief in a just world. Participants who experienced more childhood harshness and unpredictability also tended to report greater perceptions of personal and group discrimination.</p>
<p>The authors tested statistical models suggesting that childhood harshness leads to higher perceptions of personal discrimination, which in turn reduce belief in a just world. Results supported this possibility.</p>
<p>“Using a three-wave longitudinal design, we found that childhood harshness negatively predicted both personal and general belief in a just world, while childhood unpredictability was not significantly associated with it. Moreover, personal discrimination perception (but not group discrimination perception) mediated the longitudinal relationship between childhood harshness and belief in a just world,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study adds to scientific understanding of how childhood conditions shape beliefs and attitudes later in life. However, it should be noted that the childhood data were based on participants’ recollections as high school students rather than information collected during childhood, leaving room for reporting bias.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.13028">How Childhood Shapes Adolescents’ Belief in Justice: A Longitudinal Study Examining the Link Between Childhood Stressful Environment and Belief in a Just World,</a>” was authored by Yuqing Jin and Ying Yang.</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/religious-attendance-linked-to-greater-support-for-youth-tackle-football-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Religious attendance linked to greater support for youth tackle football, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 25th 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 the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2024-0223" target="_blank">Sociology of Sport Journal</a></em> suggests that American adults who attend religious services more frequently are more likely to support tackle football for children, despite growing awareness of the sport’s risks. The association appears strongest among individuals identifying as Protestant and those without a college education. These findings indicate that religious engagement may shape how people weigh the benefits and harms of youth sports—particularly a sport as culturally embedded and physically risky as football.</p>
<p>Football holds a special place in American society, celebrated not just as a sport but as a cultural institution. While it is widely embraced for fostering teamwork, character, and community pride, it also presents a number of physical risks, especially for children. Youth tackle football has become a flashpoint in recent debates over player safety, with concerns about concussions, brain injuries, and even fatalities generating increasing scrutiny.</p>
<p>The researchers behind the new study sought to explore how religiosity might influence adult attitudes toward youth tackle football. The idea for this inquiry stemmed from the observation that football and religious belief often overlap in American life. Not only do many athletes and fans openly express religious faith, but churches frequently serve as community hubs that promote traditional masculine ideals aligned with sports culture. As the authors note, for some believers, playing football may even be seen as a way of “glorifying God.”</p>
<p>Given this backdrop, the study aimed to assess whether religious involvement—and specific religious affiliations—are associated with greater support for children playing tackle football. The researchers also examined how these relationships vary across social groups, particularly by race and education level.</p>
<p>“Football is far and away the most popular sport in America. But, there are some very concerning aspects of it and most people do not think too critically, or frequently, about them,” explained Chris Knoester, a professor of sociology at The Ohio State University and principal investigator of <a href="https://nsass.org/" target="_blank">the National Sports and Society Survey</a>. </p>
<p>“While there is growing concern over the health risks of youth tackle football, particularly concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), many Americans still support the sport for children,” added Laura Upenieks, an associate professor of sociology at Baylor University. “We wanted to understand whether religious beliefs and practices play a role in sustaining that support, especially given football’s longstanding ties to Christian values, traditions of masculinity, and the entanglement of football and religion.”</p>
<p>“We know from our previous research that attitudes about kids playing tackle football <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23294965221074017" target="_blank">are quite divided</a>. Also, education and race are important factors distinguishing these attitudes. Moreover, Christian religious affiliations <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01937235241293718" target="_blank">are associated with</a> very positive views about the importance and value of sports participation. </p>
<p>“Thus, we were interested in further exploring the extent to which religiosity may be linked to attitudes about kids playing tackle football and how religiosity might be more or less important for people’s attitudes, based on their education and race,” Knoester said. “Might the violence and risk of football lead particularly religious people to be wary of the appropriateness of tackle football for kids? Might this vary under some conditions, like across educational attainments and racialized experiences in sports and society?”</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="https://www.psypost.org/psypost-newsletter/" target="_blank">Stay informed with the latest psychology and neuroscience research—sign up for PsyPost’s newsletter and get new discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.</a></em></strong></p>
<p>To examine these questions, the researchers used data from the National Sports and Society Survey, which included responses from nearly 4,000 U.S. adults collected between 2018 and 2019. The survey asked participants to indicate their level of agreement with the statement: “Tackle football is an appropriate sport for kids to play.” Responses ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="https://www.psypost.org/psypost-newsletter/" target="_blank">Stay informed with the latest psychology and neuroscience research—sign up for PsyPost’s newsletter and get new discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.</a></em></strong></p>
<p>The survey also collected information on religious attendance, religious affiliation, education, race, income, marital status, and whether the respondent had played football as a child. Using this information, the researchers built a series of statistical models to predict support for youth tackle football based on religiosity and its interaction with social characteristics.</p>
<p>Key indicators of religiosity included how often respondents attended religious services and their stated religious affiliation. Education was categorized by whether or not respondents had completed a college degree, and race was coded as White, Black, Hispanic, or Other.</p>
<p>The results suggest that religion does play a role in shaping how Americans think about children playing tackle football. People who attended religious services once a week or more were more likely to agree that tackle football is appropriate for kids. About 48 percent of weekly attenders supported youth tackle football, compared to only 40 percent of those who never attended services.</p>
<p>Religious affiliation also mattered. Protestants showed the highest level of support, with over half expressing agreement that tackle football is suitable for children. Catholics and other Christians also expressed more support than atheists, agnostics, and those affiliated with Judaism or other religions. These patterns lend support to the idea that Christian traditions—particularly Protestantism—are closely tied to favorable views of football.</p>
<p>“Given the well-documented health risks of youth tackle football, we expected religiosity might correlate with greater caution, as it does with many risky health behaviors (e.g., smoking, excessive consumption of alcohol, illicit drug use),” Upenieks told PsyPost. “Instead, we found the opposite: religious involvement was associated with more support for kids playing tackle football. This suggests that in some communities, football is seen not just as a sport, but as a moral, even sacred, activity–one that builds character, discipline, and faith, and is ‘worth the risk.'”</p>
<p>One explanation is that certain Christian communities promote ideals of toughness, sacrifice, and perseverance that align with football culture. The concept of “Muscular Christianity,” which dates back to the 19th century, promotes physical strength and competitive sports as pathways to moral and spiritual development. In this view, playing football is not just a test of athletic ability but also a character-building exercise that aligns with religious values.</p>
<p>Importantly, education emerged as a key factor shaping these patterns. While more religious individuals tended to support youth tackle football, this effect was especially strong among those without a college degree. Among religious adults with less education, support for tackle football increased with higher religious attendance. But among those with a college degree, religious attendance was not linked to greater support—in fact, college-educated weekly attenders were less likely to endorse tackle football than their less educated counterparts.</p>
<p>Race, on the other hand, did not appear to significantly alter the relationship between religiosity and football attitudes. Black respondents were generally more supportive of youth tackle football than White respondents.</p>
<p>“We reconfirmed our previous finding that Black adults are markedly more supportive of youth football, compared to White adults,” Knoester said. “But, this difference was not moderated by religiosity.”</p>
<p>The researchers note that this finding may reflect the broader cultural significance of football within Black communities, where the sport is often viewed as a potential path to economic mobility and social recognition.</p>
<p>The study’s authors point out a notable tension in their findings. Religious attendance is typically associated with greater health-consciousness and risk aversion. Past research has shown that more religious individuals are less likely to smoke, drink excessively, or engage in other harmful behaviors. Yet in the case of youth tackle football—a sport with well-documented health risks—religious involvement appeared to coincide with greater support, not greater caution.</p>
<p>This seeming contradiction suggests that cultural and spiritual meanings attached to football may override safety concerns, at least for some Americans. The sport may be viewed not only as a rite of passage but also as a way to honor tradition, build character, and even serve a higher purpose. Some religious communities may interpret participation in football as an expression of faith or divine calling, reinforcing positive attitudes toward the sport despite its risks.</p>
<p>The concept of divine protection may also play a role. The researchers suggest that frequent religious service attendance could foster beliefs in God’s providence, which might lead some people to view the dangers of football as manageable or even necessary tests of faith and character. This could produce what psychologists refer to as an “illusion of control,” where people underestimate the risks associated with an activity because of their belief in divine oversight.</p>
<p>“In the case of football, the cultural and spiritual symbolism inherent to the sport—discipline, grit, teamwork, glory—can outweigh safety concerns. If we want to make youth sports safer, especially in religious communities, we have to engage with those values directly and not just present the medical data,” said Joanne Ford-Robertson, a professor of practice at the University of Texas at San Antonio.</p>
<p>While the study provides evidence that religious factors shape opinions about youth tackle football, it is not without limitations. “Our data are not nationally representative, and we asked about attitudes towards ‘kids’ playing tackle football without specifying an age range—so attitudes toward football for a 7-year-old might differ from those for a 13-year-old or a 16-year-old,” Upenieks noted. “We also lacked more nuanced measures of religiosity, such as specific theological beliefs, personal prayer frequency, or views of God, which could shed more light on why religion predicts support for football.”</p>
<p>Another important area for future exploration is the potential role of churches and religious organizations in promoting safer youth sports environments. Given their influence within communities, religious institutions may be uniquely positioned to balance enthusiasm for football with messages about safety and well-being. Pastors and congregational leaders could help frame participation in ways that emphasize character and discipline without downplaying the health risks.</p>
<p>“This study is part of a broader effort to understand the ‘dark side’ of religion and health—instances where religious beliefs and practices may inadvertently promote behaviors that carry significant risks,” Upenieks explained. “In the case of football, our findings suggest that for some Americans, the cultural and spiritual symbolism of the sport can outweigh concerns about children’s safety. Engaging religious communities in conversations about these trade-offs could be key to creating safer youth sports environments.”</p>
<p>“Faith and sport are both powerful forces in American life. When they align, they can inspire people—but they can also reinforce traditions that need critical examination. Our goal isn’t to vilify football or religion, but to understand how they interact.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2024-0223" target="_blank">Religiosity and U.S. Adult Support for Youth Tackle Football: Risk Aversion or Playing for the Glory of God?</a>“, was authored by Laura Upenieks, Joanne Ford Robertson, and Chris Knoester.</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/virtual-workout-partners-may-not-be-real-but-they-still-feel-real-enough-to-boost-your-exercise/" 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;">Virtual workout partners may not be real but they still feel real enough to boost your exercise</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 25th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-13887-001" target="_blank">Psychology of Popular Media</a></em> indicates that exercising in virtual reality alongside prerecorded avatars can foster a genuine sense of social presence, increase feelings of meaningful connection, and even promote greater physical activity. Although these virtual companions are not actually present in real time, they still tend to simulate the experience of group exercise effectively — and that simulated presence appears to matter.</p>
<p>Social exercise has long been recognized as an effective way to boost motivation, increase enjoyment, and support adherence to fitness routines. But coordinating schedules, managing anxiety around exercising in groups, or simply showing up can be barriers for many. Virtual reality offers a workaround by placing users into immersive environments where they can feel as though they’re not alone — even if they are.</p>
<p>With the rise of commercially available VR exergames like FitXR, which let users take part in dance, boxing, or high-intensity workouts in immersive settings, researchers wanted to understand how users respond to these environments. One feature of FitXR allows participants to “work out” with six other players who appear to be present in real time.</p>
<p>But these players are actually representations of real users whose movements were recorded during past sessions. The software-generated partners, or SGPs, replay these movements to simulate a synchronous group experience. The question is whether users actually perceive these avatars as other people — and whether that perception meaningfully shapes their psychological experience and physical engagement.</p>
<p>For <a href="https://drtammylin.com/" target="_blank">Jih-Hsuan “Tammy” Lin</a> — a distinguished professor at National ChengChi University, associate editor of the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and president of the Taiwan Academy for Information Society — this question was rooted in personal experience.</p>
<p>“After getting the VR exercise apps around 2018, I constantly used VR to exercise,” she explained. “Changing the environment and working out anytime you want gives me autonomy to optimize my busy schedule. I was amazed at the multiplayer mode in this VR app because you can tell it’s not a real-time multiplayer mode. Instead, it’s a multiplayer mode across time — other players played at other times, but the program will randomly put past performances (ghost performances) to make you feel like they are with you at the same location! This ‘social presence’ across time is very intriguing, and I wanted to see whether this mode could motivate people to exercise happily — both psychologically and physically.”</p>
<p>The study involved 148 participants between the ages of 20 and 39 who were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: solo exercise or group exercise. In both scenarios, participants followed a virtual coach through a 6-minute aerobic dance routine inside a VR headset. In the group condition, six additional avatars were present, each one representing the prerecorded movements of actual users. In the solo condition, no other avatars appeared.</p>
<p>Participants wore accelerometers on their waist and wrist to measure movement and completed several questionnaires afterward. These included measures of enjoyment, appreciation, perceived social presence, physical exertion, and arousal. Researchers also tracked participants’ attention to the coach and to the scoreboard that displayed performance rankings.</p>
<p>The experiment aimed to test whether the group exercise condition would promote higher levels of physical activity and perceived exertion, as well as stronger psychological responses like enjoyment and a sense of appreciation.</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="https://www.psypost.org/psypost-newsletter/" target="_blank">Stay informed with the latest psychology and neuroscience research—sign up for PsyPost’s newsletter and get new discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.</a></em></strong></p>
<p>The researchers found that the group condition appeared to foster a stronger sense of social presence — that is, participants felt as though they were truly exercising with other people in the same space. This sense was based on two dimensions: “salience” (being aware that others are visually present) and “perceived actorhood” (interpreting those avatars as real people). Participants in the group condition scored significantly higher on both.</p>
<p>“Virtual reality can create an illusion that you are exercising with others in the same space at the same time (although these are other people’s past performances at different times),” Lin told PsyPost.</p>
<p>Participants also rated the experience as more enjoyable and meaningful compared to those in the solo condition. Enjoyment reflects the pleasure of the experience, while appreciation involves a more reflective response — a feeling that the activity was significant or emotionally resonant.</p>
<p>“Exercising with others virtually makes people appreciate the experience,” Lin said.</p>
<p>When it came to actual movement, group participants showed more physical activity in their hand movements, as recorded by the accelerometers, compared to the solo participants. However, differences in waist movement, perceived exertion, and arousal were not statistically significant.</p>
<p>The study’s most notable finding came from a mediation analysis. The researchers found that the perceived social presence of others in the group condition led to greater appreciation, which in turn was linked to increased physical activity (as measured by waist movement). This suggests that feeling connected to others — even virtually and asynchronously — can lead to deeper engagement with exercise.</p>
<p>Enjoyment, while higher in the group condition, did not appear to significantly mediate the relationship between social presence and physical activity. This points to a potentially more meaningful mechanism: it’s not just that VR group exercise is fun; it also feels purposeful.</p>
<p>“I was very impressed with the results that VR exercise with others across time would lead to greater exercise performance and motivation through social presence and through appreciation — not enjoyment,” Lin said. “This is particularly important to indicate that psychological appraisal of the exercise experience can lead to greater physical performance and psychological motivation. Social context is important for exercise outcomes, and VR is very effective in achieving such personalized social presence.”</p>
<p>The researchers argue that this illusion of shared effort — the idea that you and others are tackling the same physical challenge together — plays a key role in making the exercise feel more rewarding. They link this to the psychological concept of eudaimonic appreciation, where meaningfulness, rather than just pleasure, drives emotional engagement.</p>
<p>This has implications for how we understand motivation in virtual environments. The simple perception of others’ presence, even if artificial, can satisfy the human need for social connection. It also introduces a form of social facilitation — the psychological boost that comes from knowing you’re being observed or evaluated — which can improve performance even without direct communication or real-time interaction.</p>
<p>The study provides evidence for the psychological and behavioral effects of simulated group exercise, but it has limitations. The experiment was limited to a single 6-minute aerobic routine, which may not fully capture longer-term engagement or endurance. Future studies could explore whether these effects persist over weeks or months, or how different types of exercises — such as boxing or high-intensity training — interact with the sense of social presence.</p>
<p>While the scale used to measure social presence was well-grounded in existing literature, the researchers note that the experience of presence in VR is complex and may involve more dimensions than were captured in this study.</p>
<p>“The study would have been more thorough if we also measured whether the participants realized that the others are ghost performances instead of real-time performances,” Lin noted. “I wonder if there are differences among those who know that these virtual others are not real-time and those who do not realize that.”</p>
<p>The long-term goal is to design personalized, autonomous, and socially rich exercise environments that promote health and well-being through immersive technology.</p>
<p>“Using technology to achieve better well-being is my goal, and designing a personalized and comfortable VR exercise experience is in line with public promotion,” Lin said. “Not just the social contexts — we can also compete with celebrities, even some iconic people, to break the limit and increase the novelty of these experiences.”</p>
<p>“Everyone should try FitXR and Supernatural to experience how technology can fit our needs and help us autonomize our own busy schedules to pursue a greater life and well-being,” she added.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ppm0000543" target="_blank">Let Us Sweat It Out in Virtual Reality: The Effects of Virtual Reality Exercise Contexts on Physical Activity Outcomes Through Social Presence and Audience Responses</a>,” was authored by Jih-Hsuan (Tammy) Lin, Dai-Yun Wu, and Ji-Wei Yang.</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>