<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/shock-events-in-2024-presidential-campaign-reversed-typical-online-behavior-new-study-shows/" 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;">Shock events in 2024 presidential campaign reversed typical online behavior, new study shows</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 29th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2512765122" target="_blank">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a></em> suggests that positive group emotions, such as solidarity, can drive social media virality during moments of political crisis. During the 2024 U.S. election, partisan users engaged more with posts expressing ingroup support than with hostile content following threats to their own party’s leadership, particularly the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race.</p>
<p>Social media platforms have long been criticized for reinforcing division by rewarding extreme content. Prior studies have consistently found that posts expressing moral outrage or hostility toward opposing groups tend to attract more engagement in politically polarized environments. But researchers have also noted that positive group emotions, such as solidarity and collective identity, become more visible after shared traumatic experiences like terror attacks or military invasions.</p>
<p>One recent example comes from <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52179-8" target="_blank">a 2022 study</a> of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which found that expressions of ingroup solidarity—not hostility toward the enemy—were the strongest predictors of engagement among Ukrainian social media users. That research provided early evidence that during moments of group threat, online communities may rally around shared identity and support, rather than amplifying aggression.</p>
<p>This line of thinking led the authors of the new U.S.-based study to consider whether similar dynamics might unfold in a domestic political context—not following a national tragedy, but after high-stakes events that disrupt party leadership. Lead author Malia Marks, a doctoral researcher in psychology at the University of Cambridge, was particularly struck by the expressions of unity she observed on social media in response to both Trump’s shooting at the Butler Rally on July 13 and Biden’s re-election campaign suspension on July 21.</p>
<p>“During the 2024 campaign trail chaos, I began to wonder if my colleague Yara’s findings from Ukraine would replicate in my home country despite the situational differences — this wasn’t a military invasion or terror attack, which have previously caused this ‘rally ’round the flag’ effect,” Marks told PsyPost. “Plus, America’s two political parties are famously polarized and hostile. However, as I saw reactions to the Butler Rally shooting and Biden’s exit on my own social media feed, I observed so many expressions of in-party solidarity that I began to wonder if threats to group leadership could be enough to trigger this pattern even amongst partisan Americans.”</p>
<p>To explore these questions, the researchers used CrowdTangle, a public insights tool from Facebook, to gather over 62,000 posts from 484 accounts affiliated with American politicians, major partisan news outlets, and high-profile political commentators. The posts were collected over a 25-day period—from July 5 through July 29, 2024—spanning the eight days before the Trump assassination attempt and the eight days following Biden’s campaign withdrawal.</p>
<p>Each post was assessed for content that expressed either solidarity with the poster’s political group (termed ingroup solidarity) or hostility toward the opposing party (outgroup hostility). These classifications were made using a combination of a large language model (GPT-4o) and manual coding. To ensure reliability, two human coders independently labeled a sample of 3,000 posts, and the classification model showed strong accuracy.</p>
<p>The team then used statistical models to test whether posts that expressed solidarity or hostility received more engagement. Engagement was measured by combining all Facebook reactions, including likes, shares, and emotional responses such as anger or care. The analysis was broken down by political affiliation and time period—before and after each major event.</p>
<p>Before either crisis took place, posts that expressed hostility toward the opposing political group were the most powerful drivers of engagement for both Democrats and Republicans. This pattern aligns with much of the existing literature showing that online outrage is often rewarded with attention and interaction.</p>
<p>However, this dynamic shifted sharply after each party faced a leadership crisis. For Republican accounts, posts that expressed solidarity received 36 percent more engagement than those without such content in the days leading up to the Trump shooting. After the assassination attempt, this jumped to 53 percent. Notably, during this same period, the impact of outgroup hostility on engagement decreased.</p>
<p>The pattern flipped again after Biden suspended his campaign. At that point, Republican engagement with solidarity posts fell to a 26 percent increase, while engagement with hostile content jumped to 51 percent above baseline. In short, Republican users gravitated toward unity in the wake of the Trump attack but returned to antagonism once the opposing party faced its own setback.</p>
<p>A similar pattern emerged on the Democratic side. Before the Trump shooting, solidarity posts received 20 percent more engagement than others. That impact disappeared in the aftermath of the attack, suggesting that Democrats were not rallying emotionally during an event that directly affected their opponents. But after Biden’s withdrawal, engagement with posts expressing Democratic solidarity nearly doubled, rising to 91 percent more engagement than neutral posts.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Democrats’ engagement with posts attacking Republicans increased steadily across all three time periods, but solidarity overtook hostility as the dominant driver of engagement only after Biden’s campaign suspension.</p>
<p>These results suggest that users’ responses were closely tied to which party experienced the disruption. Expressions of unity became more engaging when one’s own group was perceived to be under threat, while reactions to the other group’s crisis often triggered a rise in hostility.</p>
<p>“Unlike previous papers testing the effect of threat on ingroup solidarity, we were able to evaluate both sides of the competition,” Marks explained. “What surprised me was that threats to one group seemed to trigger changes in the opposition group, not just the threatened group. Specifically, Democrats interacted much more with content hostile to Republicans after Trump was shot, whereas Republicans’ interactions with posts hostile to Democrats shot up after Biden’s withdrawal. I’m excited to do some follow-up work on this, exploring the idea that people may be sensitive to weakness in an outgroup as a prime moment for attack.”</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that their findings point to a more context-dependent understanding of online engagement than is often presented. While previous studies have highlighted the prominence of hostility in driving virality, this new work shows that expressions of solidarity can also play a leading role—but mostly in response to shared group threats.</p>
<p>“There’s lots of prominent literature showing that hostility and negativity are strong predictors of online engagement,” Marks said. “However, most of this work looks at static averages, rather than testing different predictors over time, matched to major historical events. By taking a more dynamic approach, we found that hostility is sometimes much less important than positive social emotions like solidarity.”</p>
<p>This echoes theories from social psychology, including social identity and intergroup emotions frameworks, which propose that people tend to favor their own group and that this favoritism becomes more pronounced when group identity is made salient by external events.</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are some limitations. The study’s timeline was relatively short, covering just a few weeks around the two political events. While the dataset was large and detailed, a longer observation period might have offered deeper insights into how long these shifts in behavior persist.</p>
<p>“I’d love to conduct a follow-up study using a much longer timeline, which could more robustly parse which types of threats lead to certain effects, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult and costly to access social media data,” Marks said.</p>
<p>Another limitation relates to the data source. Social media behavior may not reflect the emotional reactions of the general population. Those who post and engage with political content on platforms like Facebook may represent a more active or polarized segment of the public. The study also relied on textual signals, meaning nonverbal or visual content was not included in the analysis.</p>
<p>The research team is now developing experimental approaches to test these patterns more directly. “We are now working on an experimental study, whereby we can manipulate people’s exposure to social threat and different types of content,” Marks explained. “This will allow us to better understand the causal relationships between these variables.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2512765122" target="_blank">Ingroup solidarity drives social media engagement after political crises</a>,” was authored by Malia Marks, Yara Kyrychenko, Johan Gärdebo and Jon Roozenbeek.</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/mindfulness-app-helps-reduce-anxiety-and-stress-in-autistic-adults-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;">Mindfulness app helps reduce anxiety and stress in autistic adults, 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 29th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-025-02558-z" target="_blank">Mindfulness</a></em> provides evidence that a self-guided mindfulness app can reduce anxiety symptoms and perceived stress in autistic adults. The study found that participants who used the smartphone-based program reported significant improvements in their emotional well-being, and many of these gains were still evident six weeks after the program ended.</p>
<p>Autistic adults tend to report higher levels of anxiety and chronic stress than the general population. Research suggests that as many as two-thirds of autistic adults may meet criteria for an anxiety disorder at some point, and elevated stress levels are often linked to difficulties in everyday functioning and reduced quality of life.</p>
<p>Although in-person mindfulness-based interventions have shown promise for helping autistic adults manage these symptoms, they are not always accessible. Some autistic individuals may face challenges such as transportation barriers, difficulty with social settings, or limited financial resources that make it harder to attend in-person sessions. Remote, app-based mindfulness programs offer a flexible alternative, but there has been little research on how effective they are for autistic users.</p>
<p>This study aimed to test the feasibility and effectiveness of a six-week smartphone mindfulness intervention designed specifically for autistic adults. The researchers wanted to see whether this app-based approach could reduce anxiety and stress, and whether the benefits would persist after the program ended.</p>
<p>“We were motivated to explore this topic because autistic adults are often diagnosed with mental health conditions at higher rates than in the general population, with anxiety being among the most common condition,” said study author Cindy E. Li, the autism research coordinator at <a href="https://www.autismresearch.mit.edu/" target="_blank">the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research</a> at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</p>
<p>“In-person mindfulness-based interventions have been shown to decrease symptoms of anxiety and stress in autistic adults. However, little is known about the effectiveness of remote mindfulness-based interventions for this population. Due to barriers autistic adults often face in accessing in-person treatment, remote interventions are a cost-effective, convenient, and highly accessible tool that could reach many individuals who might not otherwise seek or be able to obtain treatment.”</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 89 autistic adults from two large databases: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Autism Research Participant Database and the SPARK autism research cohort. All participants reported a formal autism diagnosis and had regular access to a smartphone. To be eligible, participants had to meet certain cognitive and language comprehension thresholds to ensure they could use the app effectively. Those with extensive prior meditation experience were excluded.</p>
<p>Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group began the mindfulness intervention right away, while the other group was placed on a waitlist and received the intervention six weeks later. This design allowed the researchers to compare outcomes between the groups and test whether the waitlist group would experience similar improvements after completing the program.</p>
<p>The intervention used a modified version of the Healthy Minds Program app. Over six weeks, participants were encouraged to complete short daily sessions that alternated between guided meditations and educational lessons on mindfulness. Each practice lasted either 10 or 15 minutes, and users could select the type of practice (sitting or active), the narrator’s voice, and other preferences to personalize their experience.</p>
<p>Participants completed surveys at multiple timepoints to measure anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, positive and negative emotions, and mindfulness traits. These assessments occurred before the intervention, at the halfway point, at the end of the six weeks, and again six weeks after the program concluded. The researchers also tracked how much time each participant spent using the app and collected feedback on their experience.</p>
<p>The results suggest that the mindfulness app was both feasible and effective for autistic adults. Participants in the initial intervention group showed reductions in anxiety symptoms and perceived stress compared to those in the waitlist group. These improvements were measured using multiple standardized tools, and effect sizes ranged from medium to large.</p>
<p>The benefits extended beyond anxiety and stress. Participants also reported decreases in negative emotions and increases in mindfulness-related traits. The positive changes in emotional well-being were supported by statistical tests that accounted for potential differences between groups at the beginning of the study.</p>
<p>“We were surprised by just how effective the intervention was and how consistent the effects were across all of the measures that we assessed,” Li told PsyPost.</p>
<p>After the waitlist group completed the same mindfulness program, they showed a nearly identical pattern of improvement. This replication added strength to the findings by showing that the results were not limited to the first group.</p>
<p>Importantly, most of the improvements were sustained six weeks after the program ended. This included lower anxiety and stress levels and higher mindfulness scores. Even though participants used the app very little during the follow-up period, their mental health outcomes remained stable, suggesting that the effects of the program may have lasting benefits.</p>
<p>“It was interesting to see that the effects were sustained over the 6-week follow-up period even though most participants had stopped using the app during that time,” Li said. “This suggests that in the span of the intervention the participants may have found ways to incorporate mindfulness into their daily lives, which is the ultimate goal of mindfulness practice.”</p>
<p>The study also found a strong relationship between gains in mindfulness traits and reductions in anxiety and stress. Participants who reported becoming more mindful during the program tended to show greater emotional improvement. This pattern is consistent with the idea that mindfulness itself may help buffer against anxiety and stress.</p>
<p>Feasibility was another key focus of the study. Over 70% of participants completed at least 75% of the app’s core curriculum, and most reported that the app was easy to use and fit into their schedules. Very few reported emotional discomfort, and no participants dropped out due to negative reactions.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that this app-based mindfulness intervention was both feasible and helpful for autistic adults and that remote mindfulness interventions may be especially beneficial for autistic adults who might not otherwise seek in-person treatment due to barriers in accessing mental health care,” Li explained.</p>
<p>While the findings are promising, there are some caveats to consider. The sample was relatively homogeneous, consisting primarily of white, cisgender adults without intellectual disabilities.</p>
<p>“The results may not be generalizable to individuals with backgrounds different from those in our study, such as adults whose nonverbal intellectual ability is well below average,” Li noted “We did not involve autistic collaborators who may have suggested important changes to the study. It is possible that if the intervention had been specifically tailored to autistic participants that the effects may have been even stronger. Including an active control group would be important in a follow-up study, both to help determine the specific effects of the intervention and to control for the possibility of any placebo effect.”</p>
<p>“The autistic adults in our sample exhibited high rates of anxiety symptoms, according to their trait anxiety scores,” she added. “This makes it all the more valuable that the mindfulness intervention reduced anxiety symptoms and perceived stress. Although at baseline, 72% of the autistic adults enrolled in the study were categorized as having a high level of trait anxiety, at follow-up that percentage dropped to 51%.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-025-02558-z" target="_blank">Smartphone Mindfulness Intervention Reduces Anxiety Symptoms and Perceived Stress in Autistic Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial</a>,” Cindy E. Li, Kimberly L. Wang, Isaac N. Treves, Lindsay Bungert, John D. E. Gabrieli, and Liron Rozenkrantz.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-research-identifies-a-key-factor-behind-support-for-harsh-leaders/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New psychology research identifies a key factor behind support for harsh leaders</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 29th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research from Columbia Business School suggests that people’s personal worldviews shape how they judge antagonistic leaders. Across seven studies, researchers found that individuals who view the world as a competitive jungle are more likely to see antagonistic behavior as effective, even praiseworthy, in leaders. In contrast, those who believe the world is cooperative tend to view such leaders more negatively.</p>
<p>The authors behind the new study, published in the <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpspa0000456" target="_blank">Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</a></em>, sought to better understand why people react so differently to leaders who behave in harsh, abrasive, or critical ways. The authors point to a viral incident involving a restaurant <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/olive-garden-manager-fired/" target="_blank">manager at an Olive Garden who issued a strict ultimatum</a> to employees calling off work. Some saw the message as a sign of poor leadership, while others praised the manager’s tough stance as necessary.</p>
<p>“We were struck by how differently people react to the same leadership behavior—especially when it’s particularly mean or forceful or disagreeable,” explained the researchers, <a href="https://business.columbia.edu/post-grad/people/christine-nguyen" target="_blank">Christine Nguyen</a>, a PhD student, and <a href="https://business.columbia.edu/faculty/people/daniel-ames" target="_blank">Daniel Ames</a>, a social psychologist and professor of management.</p>
<p>“There have been signs from some corners in recent years of sympathy for more antagonistic bosses in the workplace. We’ve seen commentary that ‘assholery’ and ‘bossism’ is essential for getting things done and for overall success. And there has been some debate that we observed between a perspective that supports empathy and a perspective that supports ‘getting tough’ and ‘being a dick.'”</p>
<p>“We wondered why people might have such different views of how leaders should act. When people see a leader behaving aggressively, some people see the harshness as a sign of incompetence, while others see it as a case of savvy leadership. We suspected that divergence might be not only about the leaders, but also about the people evaluating them, and the lenses through which those people view the social world. That’s what led us to focus on worldview as a lens that might be driving these different evaluations. Past literature had largely considered the main effects of aggressive or affiliative behavior, but hadn’t considered how people’s worldviews might shape how they interpret the same behavior.”</p>
<p>To examine this idea, Nguyen and Ames conducted seven studies involving over 2,000 participants in total.</p>
<p>In the first study, the researchers examined whether individual differences in worldview influenced how people perceive the effectiveness of antagonistic behaviors. They recruited 350 adults living in the United States through an online survey platform. Participants were presented with a series of behaviors that are commonly observed in workplace settings. These behaviors ranged from confrontational or harsh actions, such as blaming others or issuing ultimatums, to more cooperative and friendly behaviors, like expressing care and support. For each behavior, participants rated the extent to which they believed it would help or hinder a person’s ability to achieve goals when working with others.</p>
<p>In addition to these evaluations, participants completed a questionnaire designed to assess their general beliefs about the nature of social life. This measure focused on whether they viewed the world as competitive and cutthroat, or more cooperative and harmonious. The researchers also included a wide range of additional psychological scales measuring political ideology, trust, cynicism, and beliefs about power in order to test whether the effect of worldview was distinct from related constructs.</p>
<p>The researchers found that individuals who saw the world as highly competitive were more likely to view antagonistic behavior as effective. They also tended to be less impressed by affiliative behavior. Those who believed the world was cooperative, on the other hand, generally judged friendly behavior as effective and rated antagonistic tactics more negatively. This pattern remained statistically significant even when the researchers controlled for a variety of other psychological factors. </p>
<p>The second study aimed to test whether these patterns could be influenced by temporarily shifting participants’ mindsets. To do this, the researchers conducted a short writing exercise with 268 adults living in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In one group, they were asked to recall a recent event in which they acted competitively—trying to get ahead, asserting dominance, or feeling the need to win. In the other group, participants described a time when they worked collaboratively, sharing credit, building trust, or cooperating with others toward a common goal.</p>
<p>Following this writing prompt, participants were asked to evaluate the same set of behaviors used in the first study, rating how frequently each one should be used to be effective in interpersonal situations. They also completed the same questionnaire measuring their view of the social world.</p>
<p>As expected, the writing task shaped how participants viewed social behavior. Those who had been prompted to reflect on a competitive episode were more likely to say that antagonistic behavior should be used often. They also rated cooperative behavior as less effective than those in the other condition. These results provided experimental evidence that competitive worldviews can be influenced—at least temporarily—and that these views affect how people assess the value of certain behaviors in achieving social goals.</p>
<p>In the third study, the researchers turned their attention to how people judge leaders specifically. They recruited over two hundred business school students, many of whom were pursuing graduate-level degrees in management or executive leadership. These participants read two short descriptions of managers interacting with others in the workplace. Each story was carefully constructed to vary along several dimensions. The researchers manipulated whether the manager acted in a harsh, confrontational way or in a warm, affiliative manner. They also varied the gender of the manager and whether the interaction involved colleagues of equal status or subordinates.</p>
<p>After reading each scenario, participants evaluated the manager’s competence and effectiveness as a leader. They were then asked to complete the same questionnaire assessing their worldview.</p>
<p>Nguyen and Ames found that people who viewed the social world as competitive tended to give higher ratings to antagonistic managers. They saw these managers as more capable and effective than did those who viewed the world as cooperative. Conversely, those who held a cooperative worldview evaluated affiliative managers more positively. While the average participant still tended to prefer friendly leaders over antagonistic ones, the penalty for antagonism was noticeably smaller among those who believed the world requires aggressive tactics to succeed.</p>
<p>The fourth study was designed to better understand why people with different worldviews respond differently to the same behaviors. This time, the researchers focused on one scenario: a manager speaking to subordinates after a decline in performance. Participants, drawn from a large online pool of adults in the United States, were randomly assigned to read a version of the story in which the manager was either harsh and confrontational or supportive and understanding.</p>
<p>Participants then rated the manager on a number of dimensions. In addition to evaluating competence and leadership effectiveness, they were also asked how much they believed the manager’s behavior would help improve team motivation or performance. They rated their overall impression of the manager as well. Finally, they completed the same worldview measure used in previous studies.</p>
<p>Once again, participants with a more competitive view of the world were more likely to see the antagonistic manager as effective. Importantly, this relationship appeared to be driven by two distinct factors. First, high-competition individuals believed that antagonistic behavior was more likely to produce the desired outcome. Second, they formed a generally more favorable impression of the manager overall. The researchers tested both pathways statistically and found that each helped explain the link between worldview and evaluations of antagonistic leaders.</p>
<p>The fifth study moved outside of hypothetical scenarios to test how people respond to real-world antagonistic leadership. Participants were shown a widely circulated message from a manager at an Olive Garden restaurant chain who scolded employees for calling off work. The message included language that many readers interpreted as harsh or threatening. The sample included nearly two hundred individuals with direct experience working in the restaurant industry.</p>
<p>After reading the message, participants evaluated the manager’s competence, leadership effectiveness, and overall impact. As in previous studies, they also completed the measure of worldview.</p>
<p>The findings echoed those from earlier studies. People who believed the social world is highly competitive were more likely to view the manager’s behavior as effective. They also rated the manager as more competent and reported a more positive overall impression. Statistical analyses confirmed that both beliefs about behavioral impact and general impressions helped explain why competitive individuals reacted more favorably to the antagonistic message.</p>
<p>In the sixth study, Nguyen and Ames flipped the direction of the question. Instead of presenting antagonistic behavior and asking whether it indicated competence, they asked participants to consider successful leaders and speculate about how they behaved during their rise to the top. Nearly three hundred participants living in the United States were asked to choose one of ten well-known corporate executives, such as the heads of major technology, finance, and healthcare companies.</p>
<p>Participants rated how often they thought the chosen executive had used confrontational or cooperative behaviors earlier in their career. They also evaluated whether these behaviors likely contributed to the executive’s success. Once again, the worldview measure was administered.</p>
<p>The results showed that people who held a more competitive worldview were more likely to assume that successful leaders had acted antagonistically—and that those behaviors helped them succeed. In contrast, those with a cooperative worldview were less likely to make this inference. This finding supported the idea that worldviews do not just shape how people respond to visible behavior; they also guide how people interpret the backstories of powerful individuals.</p>
<p>The final study examined people’s direct experiences with managers they had worked for in the past. Over three hundred adults living in the United States participated. Each person was asked to reflect on two different former supervisors: one who was notably antagonistic, and another who was especially warm and cooperative. For each manager, participants rated how often they had behaved in certain ways and evaluated their competence, leadership, and impact on the workplace. They also reported whether they felt motivated, satisfied in their role, or inclined to stay in the job under that manager. The researchers measured participants’ worldview at the end of the survey.</p>
<p>The results showed that people generally preferred cooperative managers, but again, the pattern was moderated by worldview. Individuals with a more competitive outlook were more likely to report positive experiences with antagonistic managers. They were more inclined to say that such managers were effective, competent, and respectable. They also reported being more willing to stay in the job, less likely to leave, and more likely to recommend others work for the same manager. These findings suggested that worldview does not only shape abstract judgments—it also relates to real-world job decisions and experiences.</p>
<p>“We expected worldview to play a role, but we were surprised by just how consistent, strong, and far-reaching its effects were,” Nguyen and Ames told PsyPost. “People’s worldviews shaped how they judged not just fictional managers, but also public figures like CEOs, and even their own bosses. And sometimes people high in competitive worldview not only judged toughness more positively, but also judged warmth and kindness more negatively.”</p>
<p>“One especially eye-opening pattern emerged when we looked at how employees felt about their own managers. Employees higher in competitive worldview said that they would be more likely to choose and stay with, and less likely to leave, tough managers, than those lower in competitive worldview; they reported the reverse for friendly managers. This pattern led us to wonder: Did employees who see the world as a competitive jungle actually end up working for harsher managers?” </p>
<p>“Indeed, when we asked employees about their current managers, we found exactly that,” the researchers said. “Employees higher in competitive worldview currently had more antagonistic managers compared to those lower in competitive worldview, while those lower in competitive worldview were likely to be working for warmer managers. This suggested to us that, over time, through sorting processes like selective attraction (choosing jobs and bosses) and attrition (leaving jobs and bosses), antagonistic leaders may find themselves surrounded by the subset of high-CWV employees with stronger competitive worldviews, who are more tolerant, and even approving, of their antagonism.”</p>
<p>The results from all seven studies support what the authors describe as a ‘sociofunctional’ view of person perception. In this view, people rely on internal beliefs about how the world operates—such as whether competition is necessary or cooperation is possible—to interpret others’ behaviors. If someone believes the social world rewards toughness, they are more likely to view antagonistic actions as strategic and intelligent. Conversely, someone who sees the world as fundamentally collaborative might interpret the same behaviors as incompetent or inappropriate.</p>
<p>“Reactions to a leader’s coercive behavior aren’t universal, but vary from observer to observer, depending on the observer’s worldview,” Nguyen and Ames explained. “In other words, every individual has an idiosyncratic understanding of how the world ‘works,’ and these beliefs serve as lenses that shape how they perceive and evaluate antagonistic leaders. In particular, people who believe the world is a competitive, cutthroat jungle evaluate leaders who behave antagonistically as more competent and effective, compared to people who believe the world is cooperative.”</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that these interpretations influence both how people judge others and how they behave themselves in professional settings. Over time, competitive worldview may help explain why certain types of leaders are more likely to be promoted, supported, or retained—even when their behavior is widely seen as abrasive or aggressive.</p>
<p>“Past research has shown that impression formation is partly ‘in the eye of the beholder,'” the researchers said. “For instance, people have different stereotypes of various social groups or categories that lead them to judge individuals and behavior differently.”</p>
<p>“Our work is the first to apply this to judgments of leaders through the lens of competitive worldviews. It changes what we know about how leaders are judged (namely, that their assertiveness may be seen based on what people think the broader social world is like). It also changes what we know about the impact of competitive worldviews (which had previously been studied largely in the context of political attitudes; we are the first to connect those views to leadership judgments).”</p>
<p>“Previous research has also shown that people may prefer tough, forceful leaders in times of crisis or conflict. Our work adds to that by showing that some people are more disposed to see those conditions as pervasive or permanent, such that the world is filled with endless conflict. For these people, most situations are ones that would benefit from an antagonistic leader.<br>
Stepping back, our work highlights that perceivers’ judgments of a target person are not just a detached appraisal of how that person has acted, but an interpretation of those actions through what the perceiver believes about the world.”</p>
<p>While the findings provide consistent evidence for the role of competitive worldview in leadership evaluations, there are still some limitations. Most of the data came from online surveys using participants based in the United States, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultures or real-world workplace dynamics. In addition, the studies relied on participants’ self-reported attitudes and hypothetical scenarios rather than direct behavioral observations in professional environments.</p>
<p>“One question our paper raises is: If antagonistic leaders are seen so negatively in general, why do some leaders persist in that style?” Nguyen and Ames said. “Some of our ongoing work tackles this question, suggesting that part of the answer may be that dominant leaders, who use threats and coercion, are often clueless about the relationship damage their behaviors cause. Antagonistic leaders may mistakenly think they’re doing fine, that their subordinates appreciate their style, leading them to persist in their behavior without realizing the wake of relationship damage they are leaving behind.”</p>
<p>“We also want to explore how leader behavior and employee worldview interact over time. Our work suggests that tough managers attract and retain more employees with more competitive worldviews. How does that influence the types of employees and leaders who persist in an organizational community? How does that shape the culture that organizations develop? It’s even possible that such managers may go on to instill or reinforce competitive mindsets in their employees and even encourage them to behave antagonistically themselves, which could feed back into and reinforce the competitive beliefs that caused such behavior.”</p>
<p>“Our findings don’t mean that being harsh is an effective leadership strategy,” the researchers added. “Instead, they highlight why some people perceive it as more effective than others, and shed light on how antagonistic leaders may stick around despite the harm they can cause. Leadership isn’t evaluated in a vacuum, but filtered through each person’s lens on how the world works.</p>
<p>“We hope this research helps people understand that when we disagree about what makes someone competent or admirable, it might be that we’re seeing the world differently. More specifically, we hope our work might get people to ask themselves a few questions, such as ‘For the leaders around me, why do I see them as I do? And do others see them differently?’ and ‘How do the people I lead see me? And do they see me differently than I see myself?'”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000456" target="_blank">Savvy or Savage? How Worldviews Shape Appraisals of Antagonistic Leaders</a>,” was published July 14, 2025.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-research-shows-people-shift-moral-arguments-to-fit-their-stance-on-womens-bodies/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New research shows people shift moral arguments to fit their stance on women’s bodies</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 28th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000441"><em>Journal of Personality & Social Psychology</em></a> finds that people often use harm-based moral arguments strategically, rather than sincerely, when debating women’s bodily autonomy.</p>
<p>Public debates about women’s bodily autonomy frequently revolve around contentious issues such as abortion, sex work, or clothing regulations. These discussions often invoke morality, with harm being one of the most commonly cited principles. For example, arguments are sometimes framed around whether particular practices cause physical, psychological, or social harm. Psychologists have questioned whether harm truly drives public opinion, or whether it is used as a broadly persuasive justification.</p>
<p>Thekla Morgenroth and colleagues examined this question through the lens of <a href="https://www.psypost.org/decoding-morality-across-cultures-insights-from-a-mega-study-of-moral-foundations-theory/">moral foundations theory</a>, which identifies several domains of moral reasoning including harm, fairness, purity, authority, and loyalty. They focused on two particularly contentious issues in the United States: the decriminalization of sex work and legal access to abortion.</p>
<p>Across seven studies with a total of 3,431 U.S. participants recruited online, the researchers explored both self-reported and experimentally manipulated reasoning. In the first two studies, participants were asked to explain their views on the decriminalization of sex work. In Study 1, they gave open-ended responses, which were then coded by independent raters to determine whether arguments reflected harm, fairness, purity, or authority.</p>
<p>Study 2a built on this by asking participants directly how much each moral foundation mattered in shaping their views, while also administering the Moral Foundations Questionnaire to measure their general moral beliefs. Study 2b replicated this design but shifted the focus to abortion, allowing the researchers to test whether the patterns extended beyond sex work.</p>
<p>The next set of studies examined whether harm arguments were not only common but also strategically used. In Studies 3a and 3b, participants read claims suggesting that decriminalizing sex work either increased harm (e.g., making sex work less safe) or decreased harm (e.g., reducing exploitation). The researchers then measured whether participants adjusted how important they thought harm was to their position depending on whether the information supported or challenged their stance.</p>
<p>Studies 4a and 4b explored whether harm-based arguments were strategically deployed to persuade others. Participants were asked to evaluate how convincing different types of moral arguments (centered on harm, fairness, or purity) would be to political in-group members compared to out-group members. This design allowed the researchers to test whether harm was seen as a particularly effective rhetorical tool when trying to reach those who might otherwise disagree.</p>
<p>Across the studies, harm consistently appeared in people’s explanations of their views on women’s bodily autonomy, but its role was not necessarily straightforward. In Study 1, supporters of sex work decriminalization tended to rely most on fairness arguments, while opponents emphasized purity. Despite these differences, both sides frequently invoked harm, suggesting it was a shared point of reference. Study 2a confirmed this pattern; when asked directly, both supporters and opponents reported that harm was highly important to their positions.</p>
<p>Yet when their general moral foundations were measured, harm did not actually predict their attitudes toward sex work. Instead, fairness predicted support, and purity predicted opposition. Study 2b revealed the same pattern in the abortion context. Participants claimed harm was central to their views, but the real predictors were fairness and purity. This suggests that people may overstate the role of harm in their reasoning.</p>
<p>The experimental studies provided further evidence for strategic use. In Studies 3a and 3b, when participants were told that sex work increased harm and this aligned with their preexisting opposition, they rated harm as highly important. When told that sex work decreased harm, contradicting their position, they downplayed harm and instead emphasized other foundations such as fairness or purity. In other words, people adjusted their moral reasoning to fit and protect their preexisting stance.</p>
<p>Studies 4a and 4b further showed that harm arguments were seen as especially persuasive tools. Both Republicans and Democrats judged harm-based arguments as more convincing than purity- or fairness-based arguments when trying to sway political opponents, underscoring harm’s role as a kind of moral “common denominator.”</p>
<p>Together, these results demonstrate that harm is not necessarily the true driver of people’s views on women’s bodily autonomy but is often used tactically, both to bolster one’s own position and to persuade others.</p>
<p>The authors note that data was collected online and exclusively within the U.S., which may limit how broadly the findings apply to other contexts or offline discussions.</p>
<p>The research, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000441">The Strategic Use of Harm-Based Moral Arguments in the Context of Women’s Bodily Autonomy</a>,” was authored by Thekla Morgenroth, Michelle K. Ryan, Abigael S. Click, and Nadira S. Faber.</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/students-whose-parents-were-warmer-towards-them-tend-to-have-better-socio-emotional-skills/" 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;">Students whose parents were warmer towards them tend to have better socio-emotional skills</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 28th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study of college students in China found that students whose parents, both mother and father, were warmer towards them tended to have better socio-emotional skills. They also reported better social and psychological well-being. The research was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2025.2502728"><em>Journal of Psychology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Socio-emotional skills are abilities that help people understand and manage their own emotions, build healthy relationships, and make responsible decisions. They include self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, communication, and cooperation. These skills are important because they support mental health, academic success, and positive social interactions throughout life.</p>
<p>Children with strong socio-emotional skills are better at coping with stress, resolving conflicts, and working effectively with peers. In adulthood, these abilities contribute to teamwork, leadership, and resilience in the workplace and personal life. Socio-emotional skills also reduce the risk of behavioral problems, anxiety, and depression by fostering emotional balance and supportive networks.</p>
<p>Their development begins in early childhood through family interactions, play, and early education. Schools that integrate socio-emotional learning (SEL) help students practice empathy, cooperation, and responsible decision-making in structured ways. Positive role models and secure attachments further strengthen these skills. Cultural and community contexts shape how socio-emotional skills are expressed and valued. Like cognitive abilities, they can be trained and improved at any age through practice and feedback.</p>
<p>Study author Xiaotian Zhang and his colleagues wanted to explore the links between parental warmth and the development of socio-emotional skills. They hypothesized that parental warmth fosters children’s social and psychological well-being, which in turn allows them to develop better socio-emotional skills.</p>
<p>Study participants were first- and second-year college students from three public universities in mainland China. Their average age was 19 to 20 years. As the data were collected on two occasions, 832 students completed the questionnaires on the first occasion, but only 362 of them completed them on the second, making 362 the number of participants included in the analyses.</p>
<p>Participants completed a set of questionnaires containing assessments of maternal and paternal warmth (the Japanese Parenting Style Scale), social and psychological well-being (the Mental Health Continuum Short Form, e.g., “I have something important to contribute to society” and “I like most parts of my personality”), and socio-emotional skills (the Social Emotional Skills Scale).</p>
<p>Results showed that participants reporting greater maternal warmth also tended to report greater paternal warmth and vice versa. Participants reporting greater parental warmth also tended to report higher social and psychological well-being, as well as stronger socio-emotional skills.</p>
<p>When the study authors created a statistical model (structural equation model) that controlled for the unique contributions of the studied characteristics, results showed that paternal, but not maternal, warmth uniquely predicted students’ social well-being. This model also suggested that paternal and maternal warmth may foster the development of students’ socio-emotional skills by improving their psychological and social well-being.</p>
<p>“These results underscored the nuanced roles of parental warmth in shaping the emotional and social development of emerging adults, highlighting the interconnectedness of psychological and social factors in parental impact research,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between parental warmth, socio-emotional skills, and well-being. However, the design of the study does not allow any definitive causal inferences to be drawn from the results. Additionally, all the data came from self-reports and recalled memories of childhood, leaving room for reporting bias to have affected the findings.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2025.2502728">Perceived Parental Warmth and Young Adults’ Social-Emotional Skills: Influence Through Social and Psychological Well-Being,</a>” was authored by Xiaotian Zhang, Yi Wang, and Feng Geng.</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/scientists-link-immune-markers-to-mental-health-symptoms-in-children-with-chronic-illness/" 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;">Scientists link immune markers to mental health symptoms in children with chronic illness</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Aug 28th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Specific immune system proteins may help forecast mental health symptoms in children living with chronic physical illnesses, according to new research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70726" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brain and Behavior</a></em>. The study found that certain inflammation-related biomarkers were linked to increased or decreased risk of emotional and behavioral difficulties. While the findings do not confirm a direct causal link, they suggest that immune system activity may play an important role in shaping mental health outcomes for children managing long-term medical conditions.</p>
<p>The rationale for the study stems from growing recognition that children with chronic physical illnesses are more likely to experience mental health challenges than their healthy peers. Past research has repeatedly found elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and behavioral disorders among children diagnosed with conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and juvenile arthritis. Despite this, scientists still do not fully understand why physical and mental health tend to intersect so frequently during childhood.</p>
<p>One hypothesis that has gained attention points to inflammation—a biological process where the immune system activates in response to illness or injury. In recent years, researchers have begun exploring how persistent inflammation might not only contribute to physical symptoms but also affect mood, behavior, and cognition. While this line of inquiry is expanding in adult populations, there has been little longitudinal research on how immune system changes relate to mental health over time in children, especially those already coping with chronic physical illness.</p>
<p>“Evidence shows that children with chronic physical illnesses such as asthma, diabetes, and epilepsy are at increased risk for developing co-occurring mental illness, but the mechanisms that link childhood physical and mental illness remain unconfirmed,” said study author <a href="https://uwaterloo.ca/public-health-sciences/profiles/mark-ferro" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mark Ferro</a>, Canada Research Chair in Youth Mental Health and associate professor at the University of Waterloo.</p>
<p>“While some work has shown that physical and mental illnesses share immunological or inflammatory responses, no studies have examined longitudinal associations between inflammatory biomarkers and symptoms of mental illness in children with physical illness over a four-year period.”</p>
<p>To address this gap, the research team analyzed data from the MY LIFE study, a long-term project tracking children with various chronic illnesses in Ontario, Canada. The MY LIFE cohort includes children between the ages of 2 and 16 who have been diagnosed by healthcare professionals with a chronic physical condition. For this particular investigation, the researchers focused on a subset of 128 children who provided dried blood samples at the start of the study and completed psychological assessments over a 48-month period.</p>
<p>The average age of participants at enrollment was 11 years, and the sample was evenly split between boys and girls. These children were living with a variety of physical illnesses, including respiratory, neurological, endocrine, and rheumatological conditions.</p>
<p>To measure mental health symptoms, both parents and children completed the Emotional Behavioural Scales, a standardized tool that assesses internalizing problems (such as anxiety or sadness), externalizing problems (such as aggression or rule-breaking), and total psychological symptoms. These assessments were repeated at five time points: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and 48 months.</p>
<p>At the start of the study, blood samples were analyzed for a range of immune-related proteins called cytokines and growth factors, which are known to influence inflammation. The researchers used a panel capable of detecting 17 different biomarkers, although not all were present in large enough quantities for analysis. Three biomarkers emerged as especially relevant to mental health outcomes over time: granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and interleukin-6 (IL-6).</p>
<p>Higher levels of G-CSF were linked to more internalizing symptoms, as reported by parents. In other words, children with elevated G-CSF at baseline were more likely to exhibit anxiety-like behaviors or emotional distress during follow-ups. GM-CSF was associated with an even broader range of difficulties.</p>
<p>Children with higher GM-CSF levels had elevated total symptom scores on both child- and parent-reported measures, as well as higher internalizing and externalizing symptom ratings. These associations suggest that greater GM-CSF levels may reflect a more general vulnerability to emotional and behavioral problems in this population.</p>
<p>By contrast, IL-6 showed an inverse pattern. Children with higher IL-6 levels at baseline tended to report fewer total psychological symptoms over time. Parents also reported fewer externalizing symptoms in children with elevated IL-6. This finding runs counter to some earlier studies linking IL-6 with worse mental health, raising the possibility that this cytokine’s role may be more complex—or may depend on age, illness context, or other individual factors.</p>
<p>The researchers also explored whether the type of physical illness a child had affected either their mental health scores or biomarker levels. Psychological symptom scores did not differ across illness types, such as respiratory versus neurological conditions. Most biomarkers also showed no variation between these diagnostic groups, except for one: IL-1β was found to be lower among children in the neurological subgroup compared to other categories.</p>
<p>Overall, the findings suggest that the immune system may be involved in shaping long-term mental health trajectories for children with chronic physical conditions. While not definitive proof of a biological cause, the associations observed between immune markers and psychological symptoms point to potential early warning signs. If validated in larger studies, these biomarkers could be used to identify children who may be at elevated risk for mental health problems and prioritize them for early support or monitoring.</p>
<p>But the study, like all research, has some limitations. First, only 128 children in the MY LIFE cohort provided blood samples, which limits statistical power. This small sample size also prevented the researchers from analyzing specific psychiatric diagnoses or breaking down results by age or sex. Several biomarkers also could not be analyzed due to low detection rates, including some that have been linked to mood and behavior in other studies.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that immune activity and mental health are closely connected, even in children. The authors propose that when physicians order blood work for children with chronic illness, including a broader panel of inflammatory biomarkers might offer insight into future psychological risk. Identifying children at risk earlier could shorten the time to mental health referral and improve outcomes through integrated care.</p>
<p>The research team plans to continue following the MY LIFE cohort to see whether the predictive value of these biomarkers holds up over longer time periods. They are also interested in exploring how these biological indicators interact with social and environmental factors.</p>
<p>“Whether these inflammatory biomarkers continue having predictive power over the longer-term, or new biomarkers emerge over time will be investigated in this cohort,” Ferro said. “The extent to which inflammatory biomarkers interact with psychosocial processes in the development of physical-mental comorbidity will be studied to better understand opportunities for early detection and targets for intervention to reduce the incidence of physical-mental comorbidity in children.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.70726" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Inflammatory Biomarkers Predictive of Psychopathology in Children With Physical Illness</a>,” was authored by Mark A. Ferro, Christy K. Y. Chan, Fasih A. Rahman, Joe Quadrilatero, and Brian W. Timmons.</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>