<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/depressive-individuals-show-decreased-cognitive-functioning/" 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;">Depressive individuals show decreased cognitive functioning</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 4th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Two studies conducted in China suggest that individuals with depressive symptoms tend to score lower on measures of cognitive functioning. However, participants who were physically active, maintained an optimal sleep duration, and reported an overall healthy lifestyle showed better cognitive performance—regardless of whether they experienced depressive symptoms. The link between depression and reduced cognitive function appeared to be weaker in this group. The findings were published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119573"><em>Journal of Affective Disorders</em></a>.</p>
<p>Depression is a mental health disorder characterized by persistent sadness, loss of interest, and diminished ability to function in daily life. Symptoms can last for weeks or months and may become chronic. People with depression often experience changes in sleep, appetite, energy, and motivation. Cognitive functions such as memory, attention, and concentration are also commonly affected.</p>
<p>Depressed individuals may experience slowed thinking, making it harder to make decisions or solve problems. They often display negative cognitive biases, focusing more on failures, threats, or losses than on positive information. Executive functions like planning and organizing are frequently impaired, which can interfere with work and daily responsibilities. Rumination, or repetitive negative thinking, is another common cognitive feature that can maintain and exacerbate depressive symptoms. These cognitive difficulties may persist even after mood symptoms improve.</p>
<p>Study author Shengli Chen and his colleagues aimed to investigate the relationship between depressive symptoms, lifestyle habits, and cognitive functioning among middle-aged and older Chinese adults. Previous research has identified several lifestyle factors that may influence the risk of cognitive decline. The researchers sought to understand how these lifestyle factors might interact with depressive symptoms.</p>
<p>Participants were adults over 40 years old from the provinces of Hubei and Shanghai. The study included 7,756 individuals from Hubei and 4,751 from Shanghai. In Hubei, the average age was 68 years, and 53% of participants were women. In Shanghai, the average age was 72, with 62% female participants.</p>
<p>Participants completed assessments of depression using the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale and were evaluated for cognitive function using the Mini-Mental State Examination. They also provided information about their demographic characteristics (such as marital status and education), lifestyle habits (including smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, waist circumference, and sleep duration), and medical history (such as hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) through structured interviews.</p>
<p>The results indicated that individuals with more severe depressive symptoms tended to have lower cognitive function scores. They were also more likely to meet the criteria for mild cognitive impairment. In contrast, those who were physically active, slept for an optimal duration at night, and scored higher on an index of healthy lifestyle behaviors tended to show better cognitive performance. Notably, among participants who followed these healthy behaviors, the negative association between depression and cognitive functioning was reduced.</p>
<p>“Depressive symptoms are associated with impaired cognitive function and this association could be attenuated by healthy lifestyles”, study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between depression and cognitive functioning. However, it should be noted that the design of this study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119573">Associations of depressive symptoms and lifestyles with cognitive function: results from two cross-sectional studies among middle-age and older Chinese populations,</a>” was authored by Shengli Chen, Wencai Ke, Xin Guan, Shiru Hong, Sheng Wu, Zirong Yu, Jie Lin, Chenming Wang, Ming Fu, Yang Xiao, Yuhan Zhou, Chenliang Liu, Guorong Zhong, Yingqian You, Yuxi Wang, Hui Zhao, Yichi Zhang, Yansen Bai, Zhengce Wan, Yong Lin, and Huan Guo.</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/cannabis-use-linked-to-stronger-emotional-responses-but-also-better-recovery-in-people-with-anxiety/" 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;">Cannabis use linked to stronger emotional responses but also better recovery in people with anxiety</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 4th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A large-scale study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0001023" target="_blank">Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science</a></em> has found that cannabis users with anxiety show more pronounced emotional responses to negative experiences but also bounce back more effectively. These dual effects raise questions about the therapeutic role of cannabis in emotional regulation.</p>
<p>Anxiety disorders affect a significant portion of the population and are linked to a variety of physical health problems, including cardiovascular disease and increased mortality. Emotional reactivity—how intensely and for how long someone responds to a negative experience—tends to be elevated in people with anxiety, and this heightened reactivity may contribute to the persistence and impact of anxious symptoms.</p>
<p>As cannabis becomes more widely legalized and accessible, many people are turning to it to manage anxiety and negative mood. However, scientific understanding of how cannabis use affects emotional reactivity remains limited, particularly outside of controlled laboratory settings. Most existing studies have focused on single doses of synthetic compounds administered in labs rather than the kinds of products people actually use in their daily lives. In addition, few studies have examined the effects of cannabis on recovery—the process of returning to emotional baseline after a stressor.</p>
<p>With their new study, the researchers aimed to fill these gaps by assessing how both acute and extended use of cannabis products with different cannabinoid profiles—primarily THC, primarily CBD, or a 1:1 ratio—affect reactivity and recovery in a naturalistic context among people with mild anxiety symptoms.</p>
<p>“My colleagues and I are generally interested in cannabis use in relation to anxiety given this a prominent reason for use,” said study author Carillon J. Skrzynski, a research assistant professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. “Because reactions to and recovery from negative stimuli can play a role in the development and maintenance of anxiety, and they may be easier to target in the context of treatment, we wanted to know if cannabis use, and specifically different types of legal market products with varying cannabinoid ratios, might affect reactivity and recovery processes after immediate use and/or after several weeks of use.”</p>
<p>The research team recruited 499 adults from the Denver-Boulder area, all of whom reported at least mild anxiety and had no recent history of psychosis or substance use disorder treatment. About two-thirds were female and most were white and well-educated. Participants were divided into four groups: THC-dominant users, CBD-dominant users, 1:1 THC:CBD users, and a non-use control group.</p>
<p>Those in the use groups were instructed to purchase their assigned cannabis product—either flower or edible—from a local dispensary and use it as desired over four weeks. Products were selected to ensure consistency in cannabinoid ratios, and all products were tested and labeled according to state regulations. Participants in the non-use group continued their normal behavior and did not consume cannabis.</p>
<p>All participants took part in three sessions: an initial baseline assessment, a mobile lab session after four weeks, and a second mobile lab session immediately after cannabis use (or a break for the non-use group). At each session, they completed a standardized procedure called the Negative Affect Induction Task, which included rating their mood, recalling a stressful memory to induce negative affect, and completing a breathing exercise to facilitate emotional recovery. Heart rate was recorded throughout, and negative affect was measured using a visual analog scale.</p>
<p>The study used mixed-effects models to analyze changes in emotional reactivity (from before to after the rumination task) and recovery (from after rumination to after the breathing exercise), focusing on both long-term (extended) and short-term (acute) effects of cannabis use.</p>
<p>The researchers found that, across the full sample, participants responded to the rumination task with more negative mood and increased heart rate, confirming the task effectively induced emotional stress. After the breathing exercise, mood improved, but heart rate remained elevated—suggesting that emotional recovery occurs faster than physiological recovery.</p>
<p>When it came to the impact of cannabis use, some patterns emerged. Participants who used any form of cannabis—regardless of cannabinoid ratio—tended to show greater reactivity to the stressor than those who did not use cannabis. At the same time, they also showed greater emotional recovery during the breathing task.</p>
<p>These effects were observed both across the entire four-week period and after acute use. However, the study did not find evidence that reactivity or recovery changed significantly over time in relation to cannabis use. That is, cannabis users did not become more or less reactive or resilient after four weeks of regular use, nor did the act of using cannabis acutely lead to immediate shifts in emotional processing relative to earlier sessions.</p>
<p>Heart rate data told a slightly different story. THC-dominant and THC+CBD users showed elevated heart rates after acute use compared to CBD users and non-users. CBD-only users did not differ from the control group in terms of heart rate, suggesting that THC may have more pronounced physiological effects than CBD. However, heart rate reactivity and recovery during the task did not appear to change significantly as a result of cannabis use.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that <i>on average over time </i>negative reactivity to and recovery from negative stimuli was greater for those who used cannabis (and specifically products with THC in the case of several weeks of use) versus those who did not based on self-reported mood,” Skrzynski told PsyPost. “In contrast, these processes did not <i>change over time</i> differently across groups. This may mean there are pre-existing differences in negative reactivity and recovery processes among individuals who chose to use cannabis versus those who do not.</p>
<p>“Additionally, compared to non-use, average heart rate increased after immediate use of THC products but not CBD product use, suggesting that regardless of negative stimuli, legal market CBD products may not produce immediate physiological effects while THC containing products may.”</p>
<p>The study’s results somewhat align with earlier research suggesting that THC can heighten negative emotional reactions, particularly at higher doses. Prior experimental studies have found that THC increases activity in emotion-related brain areas and can worsen anxiety in some individuals.</p>
<p>“Prior, related research would suggest that use of products high in THC would increase negative reactivity to negative stimuli as experimental studies have demonstrated that use of THC-dominant products can be anxiogenic (i.e., induce or increase anxiety) and can increase brain activation in emotion processing areas after exposure to negative cues like fearful faces,” Skrzynski explained.</p>
<p>“In line with this, reactivity was higher in the group of individuals who used THC-dominant products compared to non-use and THC+CBD use, but this was only <i>on average across the baseline and a mobile van session four weeks later</i>; our study did not find it to be the case that THC <i>changed </i>negative reactivity after either 4 weeks or immediate use. So to some extent, the findings both align and differ from what previous studies indicate.”</p>
<p>Because participants were not blinded to their cannabis product, expectations may have influenced their emotional responses. Cannabis use was also self-directed, with no control over dosage or frequency, introducing variability despite the benefit of studying use in real-world settings. </p>
<p>“One main limitation is that we were not able to control the frequency or quantity of cannabis that people used which limits our ability to make causal conclusions,” Skrzynski noted. “It’s also the case that people were not blinded to their product (i.e., they knew what kind of product they were using). With this in mind, it’s still an open question whether cannabis use does or does not impact negative reactivity and recovery processes as there may be other factors at play (e.g., expectancy or dosing effects).”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study represents a meaningful step forward in understanding how cannabis affects emotional reactivity and recovery outside of laboratory conditions. It is the first to experimentally manipulate affect in conjunction with naturalistic cannabis use using legal market products, and it highlights the complex and potentially bidirectional effects cannabis may have on emotion regulation in people with anxiety.</p>
<p>“Long term, I aim to continue exploring cannabis and its relation to affect and related constructs,” Skrzynski said. “Indeed, I’m currently running a different project that further investigates how cannabis may affect reactions to negative stimuli. Specifically, participants are either assigned to put their hand in freezing cold water or room temperature water and reactions before and after this including heart rate, mood, pain, and perceptions of temperature are measured and assessed in relation to cannabis use. We are currently recruiting in the Boulder/Denver area (title: <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/center/cuchange/pisces" target="_blank">Perceptual Influences from Smoking Cannabis: an Experimental Study aka PISCES</a>) if anyone is interested!”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0001023" target="_blank">Experimental study on cannabis use and affect: Effects on reactivity to and recovery from negative stimuli</a>,” was authored by Carillon J. Skrzynski, Luiza Rosa, Austin Drake, Angela D Bryan, and L. Cinnamon Bidwell.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/extraverts-show-faster-stronger-and-more-patterned-emotional-reactions/" 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;">Extraverts show faster, stronger, and more patterned emotional reactions</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 4th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study provides evidence that people who score higher in extraversion tend to show stronger emotional reactions to positive images than to negative ones. These individuals reacted more quickly, reached higher levels of emotional intensity, and showed more predictable patterns in their feelings when viewing pleasant images. The findings, published in the journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-025-10131-3" target="_blank">Motivation and Emotion</a>, support the idea that extraversion is linked to increased sensitivity to reward.</p>
<p>For nearly a century, psychologists have debated what defines extraversion and what processes underlie this trait. People high in extraversion are typically described as outgoing, energetic, and sociable, while introverts are more reserved and introspective. Decades of research have shown that extraverts report higher levels of positive emotion in daily life. But a key question remains: Why?</p>
<p>One proposed explanation is that extraverts are more sensitive to reward. They may respond more intensely to pleasant experiences, especially when those experiences are exciting or socially rewarding. This idea is often referred to as the “affective reactivity” view. Instead of being chronically happier, extraverts may simply react more strongly to positive stimuli in their environment.</p>
<p>Despite the appeal of this idea, past research has produced mixed results. Many studies have used broad mood induction procedures, such as watching films or recalling past experiences, but these methods may not capture the real-time dynamics of emotional reactions. Emotional reactions tend to be fast and fleeting, while mood states unfold more slowly. As a result, researchers have called for new tools that can measure the specific components of emotional responses—like how quickly they begin or how intense they become—in response to specific events.</p>
<p>“Biological theories of extraversion have long suggested that it should be linked to reward sensitivity and an emerging field of emotion dynamics has also suggested the need to measure emotional reactions in dynamic terms – that is, in terms of how quickly emotional reactions begin, how long they last, and so forth,” said study author <a href="https://www.ndsu.edu/people/michael-robinson" target="_blank">Michael Robinson</a>, a professor of psychology at North Dakota State University. “We designed the Dynamic Affect Reactivity Task (DART) to assess dynamic components of emotional reactivity and we sought to determine whether variations in the personality trait of extraversion can be observed when using the DART.”</p>
<p>The DART presents participants with a series of emotionally charged images and records continuous ratings of their emotional state over time. This allows researchers to track exactly when an emotional reaction begins, how intense it becomes, and how stereotypical or predictable it is across participants.</p>
<p>Two studies were conducted with a combined total of 266 undergraduate participants. In each study, participants viewed a series of images drawn from the International Affective Picture System, a standardized database of emotionally evocative pictures. The images were categorized as either appetitive (reward-related and pleasant) or aversive (threat-related and unpleasant), but they were matched in terms of arousal to ensure that emotional intensity wasn’t simply due to how stimulating the images were.</p>
<p>While viewing each image, participants used a computer mouse to continuously rate their feelings, moving the cursor up when they felt more pleasant and down when they felt more unpleasant. The software recorded these ratings 10 times per second, producing highly detailed emotional waveforms for each image.</p>
<p>The researchers also assessed participants’ level of extraversion using a well-established self-report questionnaire. The goal was to see whether extraversion predicted differences in emotional reactivity to positive versus negative images, focusing on four components: how often a reaction occurred (drop rate), how quickly it began (onset time), how intense it became (peak amplitude), and how closely the reaction matched the typical response pattern for that image (prototypicality).</p>
<p>Across both studies, the researchers found consistent evidence that people reacted more strongly to negative images than to positive ones. On average, participants showed faster, more intense, and more stereotypical emotional responses to aversive images. This finding aligns with the idea that our brains are wired to prioritize threats over rewards, possibly because rapid responses to danger are more important for survival.</p>
<p>But extraversion changed this pattern. Individuals who scored higher in extraversion showed less of this negativity bias. Compared to introverts, extraverts responded more quickly to positive images, had stronger emotional peaks, and showed more predictable emotional trajectories when reacting to pleasant stimuli. These effects were small but statistically significant, and they were consistent across both studies.</p>
<p>In the first study, extraversion was linked to faster emotional reactions, stronger peak responses, and greater prototypicality for appetitive images. In the second study, the pattern was similar, although the effect for peak intensity did not reach significance. When the data from both studies were combined, all four indicators of emotional reactivity showed significant associations with extraversion.</p>
<p>“Consistent with biological theories of extraversion, there was evidence that more extraverted individuals had faster, stronger, and more prototypical reactions to pleasant affective images, relative to introverts,” Robinson told PsyPost. “These links were not large, but they were systematic.”</p>
<p>Importantly, these results held even after accounting for general tendencies to react emotionally. In other words, it wasn’t just that extraverts were more reactive overall. They were specifically more reactive to positive, reward-related images.</p>
<p>The researchers interpret these findings as consistent with biological theories of extraversion that link the trait to the brain’s reward system, especially dopamine-related pathways. Past research has shown that extraversion correlates with activity in brain areas tied to reward processing, and that extraverts may be more responsive to dopamine-based drugs or feedback. The present results provide behavioral support for these ideas, showing that extraverts appear to be more tuned in to positive emotional experiences.</p>
<p>“There is a great deal of interest in what makes extraverts different from introverts,” Robinson explained. “Our findings suggest that extraverts may be prepared to respond, more quickly and unambiguously, to the positive events that happen to them. Examining emotional reactions in terms of temporal features, such as how quickly they begin and how prototypical they are, may allow us to understand the personality-emotion interface in new and important ways.”</p>
<p>The findings offer insight into emotional processing, though some features of the study may shape their generalizability. The participant pool consisted entirely of college students, primarily young and White, which may restrict how broadly the findings apply. The emotional stimuli were standardized images that may not fully capture the richness of real-life experiences, and although matched for arousal, they likely varied in personal relevance.</p>
<p>“In future research, it might be valuable to increase the number of affective stimuli that are presented,” Robinson said. “Doing so could better pinpoint the types of stimuli that elicit more positive reactions as a function of extraversion. For example, theories of extraversion implicate stimuli associated with biological reward (e.g., food, physically attractive others) rather than mere pleasantness (e.g., a nice piece of artwork) and including more positive stimuli of different types could provide support for this perspective.</p>
<p>“We have developed new tools to study the time course of emotional reactions. And we have started to think about how individual differences in emotional intelligence operate. But we have yet to link these two lines of research. It would be valuable to forge these links because we need more dynamic and process-oriented theories of emotional intelligence.”</p>
<p>“Readers may be interested in <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jintelligence/special_issues/6AYFKZR4L0#published" target="_blank">a recent special issue</a> on emotional intelligence, with the topic of ‘Ability-related emotional intelligence: Knowns, unknowns, and future directions,'” Robinson added. “This special issue, which came out in the <em>Journal of Intelligence</em>, is an Open Access special issue, meaning that no subscription is required to access the articles.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-025-10131-3" target="_blank">Extraversion’s link to reward sensitivity: evidence from an emotion dynamics task</a>,” was authored by Michael D. Robinson, Muhammad R. Asad, Roberta L. Irvin, Hamidreza Fereidouni, and Pegah Zarei Talabad. </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/common-artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-cognitive-decline-in-large-study/" 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;">Common artificial sweeteners linked to cognitive decline in large study</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 3rd 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 journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neurology</a></em> provides evidence that regular consumption of certain artificial and low-calorie sweeteners may be linked to a faster decline in memory and other cognitive abilities over time. Using data from more than 12,000 middle-aged and older adults in Brazil, researchers found that individuals who consumed higher amounts of these sweeteners tended to show steeper drops in verbal fluency, memory, and overall cognitive function over an eight-year period. The association appeared stronger in people with diabetes but was also observed among participants without the condition.</p>
<p>With global dementia cases projected to triple by 2050, researchers are increasingly focused on identifying lifestyle factors that might influence cognitive aging. While sugary diets have been linked to poorer brain health, many individuals have shifted toward low- and no-calorie sweeteners as perceived healthier alternatives. These sweeteners—commonly found in diet beverages, yogurts, protein bars, and tabletop products—include aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, and sugar alcohols like erythritol and xylitol.</p>
<p>Despite their widespread use, concerns have grown around their potential health effects. Prior studies have linked artificial sweeteners to higher risks of diabetes, cardiovascular problems, and depression, even when consumed within official safety limits. Some research has also suggested a potential connection between these sweeteners and dementia or poor memory, but evidence from large-scale, long-term studies has been lacking. The current study was designed to address this gap.</p>
<p>The research drew on data from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil), a multicenter cohort that began in 2008 and enrolled over 15,000 public employees aged 35 and older from six cities across Brazil. After excluding individuals with incomplete dietary data or extreme reported calorie intake, the final sample included 12,772 adults, with an average age of 52 at baseline. Participants were followed over three waves of assessment: 2008–2010, 2012–2014, and 2017–2019—a span of approximately eight years.</p>
<p>At the start of the study, participants completed a detailed food frequency questionnaire that asked about their diet over the past year. This allowed researchers to estimate the intake of seven specific low- and no-calorie sweeteners: aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, erythritol, xylitol, sorbitol, and tagatose.</p>
<p>Based on total daily intake, participants were divided into three consumption groups. The lowest group averaged 20 milligrams per day, while the highest group averaged 191 milligrams per day—an amount equivalent to the aspartame content of one can of diet soda. Among all sweeteners, sorbitol was consumed in the highest quantity, with an average intake of 64 milligrams per day.</p>
<p>Cognitive performance was assessed at the start, middle, and end of the follow-up period. The battery of tests included measures of verbal fluency, working memory, word recall, and processing speed, enabling researchers to track changes in memory, language, and general thinking skills. These scores were standardized to allow comparison across waves and participants.</p>
<p>After statistically adjusting for a wide range of factors—including age, sex, income, physical activity, blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, body mass index, and diet quality—the researchers found that individuals in the highest tertile of sweetener consumption showed a 62% faster decline in global cognitive scores than those in the lowest group. This translated to an estimated 1.6 additional years of cognitive aging over the eight-year period. Participants in the middle group experienced a 35% faster decline, equivalent to about 1.3 extra years of aging.</p>
<p>The association between sweetener intake and cognitive decline was strongest in adults under the age of 60. In this group, higher consumption was linked to steeper losses in verbal fluency and overall cognition. Among those aged 60 and older, the study did not find a significant association between sweetener intake and cognitive performance. The researchers also found that the relationship between sweetener use and cognitive decline was stronger in individuals with diabetes compared to those without.</p>
<p>When each sweetener was analyzed separately, consumption of aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, erythritol, xylitol, and sorbitol was associated with faster decline in global cognition, especially in memory and verbal fluency. In contrast, tagatose—a naturally occurring sugar found in some dairy products and fruits—was not associated with cognitive decline.</p>
<p>Notably, the trend held even when looking at the frequency of consumption, rather than the exact quantity. Participants who consumed any type of low- or no-calorie sweetener on a daily basis showed a significantly faster decline in memory, language, and overall cognitive function compared to those who consumed sweeteners only occasionally or not at all.</p>
<p>“Low- and no-calorie sweeteners are often seen as a healthy alternative to sugar, however our findings suggest certain sweeteners may have negative effects on brain health over time,” explained Claudia Kimie Suemoto of the University of São Paulo, the senior author of the study.</p>
<p>Although the study was large and followed participants over several years, the researchers caution against drawing firm conclusions about cause and effect. The study relied on self-reported dietary data collected only at the beginning of the study, which may not capture long-term changes in diet. People with certain health conditions, such as diabetes or obesity, may also be more likely to consume artificial sweeteners in place of sugar, raising the possibility that underlying health issues, rather than the sweeteners themselves, contributed to cognitive decline.</p>
<p>In addition, while the researchers adjusted for a wide range of demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors, unmeasured variables could still play a role. The study also lacked brain imaging or biological markers that could offer clues about how these sweeteners might affect brain structure or function.</p>
<p>Despite these caveats, the new findings add to a growing body of research raising concerns about the long-term safety of common sugar substitutes. Recent laboratory studies have suggested that erythritol, a sugar alcohol frequently used in low-carbohydrate and ketogenic products, <a href="https://www.psypost.org/popular-sugar-substitute-erythritol-may-impair-brain-blood-vessel-health-study-finds/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">may impair the function of blood vessels in the brain</a>. In one in vitro study, erythritol increased oxidative stress and reduced nitric oxide production in human endothelial cells, potentially disrupting blood flow and increasing the risk of stroke.</p>
<p>Epidemiological studies have also linked elevated levels of erythritol in the blood to higher risks of heart attacks and strokes, while clinical trials have reported increased platelet reactivity following erythritol intake—another possible contributor to clot formation.</p>
<p>Sucralose, another widely used sweetener, <a href="https://www.psypost.org/a-common-calorie-free-sweetener-alters-brain-activity-and-appetite-control-new-research-suggests/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has been implicated in altered brain activity</a> related to hunger and reward. A recent brain imaging study found that sucralose increased activity in the hypothalamus, a region involved in appetite regulation, and heightened connectivity with brain areas involved in motivation and sensory processing. These effects varied depending on sex and body weight, with women and individuals with obesity showing stronger responses. Such findings suggest that sucralose may disrupt the brain’s normal signaling related to satiety, potentially contributing to overeating or altered eating behavior over time.</p>
<p>While these studies do not focus directly on cognition, they raise broader concerns about how artificial sweeteners may influence brain health through vascular, metabolic, and neural pathways—concerns that align with the new findings from Brazil.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214129" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an accompanying editorial</a> published in <em>Neurology</em>, Rush University physician scientist Thomas M. Holland wrote that these findings pose “a fundamental question” to the medical community. “In our efforts to prevent stroke and preserve cognition through dietary modification, are we inadvertently recommending substances that may accelerate the very cognitive decline we seek to prevent?”</p>
<p>The new study, according to Holland, has “provided neurologists, and the broader medical community, caring for cognitively at-risk populations, with critical evidence that dietary counseling must extend beyond traditional cardiovascular risk reduction to address the potential cognitive effects of food additives, particularly artificial sweeteners. Supporting long-term brain health requires a proactive, integrated approach, optimizing diet, movement, sleep, stress, cognitive stimulation, and social connection to build cognitive resilience over time.”</p>
<p>Given the widespread consumption of artificial sweeteners, especially among people seeking to manage weight or blood sugar, researchers emphasize the need for more longitudinal and experimental studies to clarify their potential effects on the brain. Future research should include repeated dietary assessments over time, neuroimaging to detect changes in brain structure, and biomarkers of inflammation and neurotoxicity.</p>
<p>There is also a need to examine whether certain populations—such as people with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or low insulin sensitivity—are more vulnerable to the potential harms of artificial sweeteners. In addition, researchers should compare the cognitive effects of natural sweeteners like tagatose, stevia, or monk fruit to those of synthetic ones.</p>
<p>“While we found links to cognitive decline for middle-aged people both with and without diabetes, people with diabetes are more likely to use artificial sweeteners as sugar substitutes,” said Suemoto. “More research is needed to confirm our findings and to investigate if other refined sugar alternatives, such as applesauce, honey, maple syrup or coconut sugar, may be effective alternatives.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Association Between Consumption of Low- and No-Calorie Artificial Sweeteners and Cognitive Decline: An 8-Year Prospective Study</a>,” was authored by Natalia Gomes Gonçalves, Euridice Martinez-Steele, Paulo A. Lotufo, Isabela Bensenor, Alessandra C. Goulart, Sandhi Maria Barreto, Luana Giatti, Carolina Perim de Faria, Maria del Carmen Bisi Molina, Paulo Caramelli, Dirce Maria Marchioni, and Claudia Kimie Suemoto.</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/researchers-rushed-to-study-the-aftermath-of-the-trump-shooting-heres-what-they-found/" 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;">Researchers rushed to study the aftermath of the Trump shooting. Here’s what they found</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 3rd 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in July 2024 sent shockwaves through the political system, but it also provided researchers with an extraordinary opportunity. Moments of political violence are rare in the United States, and when they occur, they raise urgent scientific questions about how people respond. Do such events intensify polarization, or do they generate solidarity? Do they encourage conspiracy thinking, or do they temper support for violence? Social scientists and psychologists have been working quickly to provide data-driven answers.</p>
<p>On July 13, 2024, during an outdoor campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a 20-year-old gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop with an AR-15–style rifle. Trump was struck in the ear, one spectator was killed, and others were seriously wounded before law enforcement killed the shooter. The shocking images of Trump with blood on his face, raising his fist in defiance, were immediately circulated worldwide. The event was widely described as the most serious attempt on a U.S. president or candidate since the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981.</p>
<p>Now, four new studies are offering early evidence about how Americans—and Trump himself—processed the event. From survey experiments measuring shifts in political attitudes, to computational analyses of rhetorical patterns, to studies on the interpersonal spread of misinformation and the dynamics of online engagement, researchers are beginning to chart how this event shaped public behavior, belief, and political expression in its immediate aftermath. Read on to see what science suggests about how this dramatic episode shaped political behavior, cognition, and communication.</p>
<h2><strong>1. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/trump-assassination-attempt-lowered-republican-support-for-violence-and-boosted-party-unity/">After the assassination attempt, Republicans became less supportive of political violence</a></strong></h2>
<p>A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers evidence that the assassination attempt on Donald Trump did not lead to an escalation in support for political violence. In fact, among Republicans—including those who strongly identify with Trump’s movement—support for violent action against Democrats appeared to decrease. At the same time, Republicans reported feeling more positively about their own party, suggesting that the attack fostered a sense of unity rather than increased hostility toward political opponents.</p>
<p>To investigate this question, researchers took advantage of an ongoing national survey that was already collecting data when the shooting occurred. They analyzed responses from over 4,000 participants, comparing answers given before the event to those given in the days immediately after. Participants were asked about their attitudes toward both parties, their support for democratic norms, and their views on different scenarios involving political violence. By analyzing changes across time—and within individuals who completed the survey both before and after the event—the researchers were able to detect meaningful shifts in political attitudes.</p>
<p>The findings suggest that Republicans, and especially those who strongly identified with Trump, became less likely to endorse violent actions such as vandalism or assault as political tools. Their perceptions of their own party also grew more favorable. Democrats, on the other hand, showed no significant change in attitudes. While this drop in violent support among Republicans did not last long, the data contradicts predictions that the shooting would immediately spark retaliation or civil unrest. As lead author Sean Westwood noted, public support for political violence remains low overall, and even events as extreme as an attempted assassination may not push Americans closer to open conflict.</p>
<h2><strong>2. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/trump-shows-signs-of-cognitive-shift-after-2024-shooting-study-suggests/">Trump’s metaphorical language shifted after the shooting—and echoed his 2016 rhetoric</a></strong></h2>
<p>Another study, presented at the 2025 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence, explored how Donald Trump’s language changed after the assassination attempt. By analyzing metaphors in his speeches, researchers found that Trump’s post-shooting rhetoric became more psychologically similar to his 2016 campaign, potentially reflecting a return to familiar mental frameworks as a way of coping with trauma.</p>
<p>Rather than relying on interviews or clinical assessments, the research team used a computational tool called MetaPro to analyze thousands of metaphors across Trump’s campaign speeches. These speeches were drawn from three key periods: his 2016 campaign, his 2024 campaign before the shooting, and his 2024 campaign after the shooting. Metaphors were treated as indicators of deeper thought processes, with the idea that people often rely on familiar figurative language to make sense of abstract concepts—especially during times of stress.</p>
<p>The researchers found that while Trump’s most frequently used metaphors remained relatively consistent, his post-shooting speeches became more similar to his 2016 style. Concepts related to cognition, perception, and internal states became more prominent, while metaphors about success and production took on new emotional undertones. For example, there was an uptick in metaphors connecting physical vulnerability to personal identity, such as references linking the body to objects or actions. These changes may suggest that the shooting prompted a shift in focus—from external achievements to internal resilience and control. While the study cannot make clinical claims, it offers a unique lens into how trauma may shape political communication and mental framing, especially among high-profile figures.</p>
<h2>3. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/its-not-social-media-whats-really-fueling-trump-shooting-conspiracies-might-surprise-you/">People were more likely to believe conspiracy theories about the shooting if they heard them from someone they knew</a></h2>
<p>A separate study published in PNAS Nexus explored how conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination attempt spread and took hold. The researchers found that people who heard these theories from personal contacts—such as friends or family—were more likely to believe them than those who encountered the same claims through social media or news outlets. This finding challenges the common assumption that online platforms are the main drivers of conspiracy belief and suggests that interpersonal influence plays a more powerful role than previously thought.</p>
<p>To examine these dynamics, the researchers surveyed over 2,700 U.S. adults in the days following the shooting. Participants were asked whether they had heard two specific conspiracy theories—one alleging that Democrats orchestrated the attack, and another claiming the shooting was staged—and where they encountered them. The researchers also measured participants’ political views, approval of Trump, and general tendency toward conspiratorial thinking. Social media was the most common source of exposure, but it was hearing the theories from personal contacts that most strongly predicted belief.</p>
<p>Even after accounting for political affiliation and general conspiratorial attitudes, the channel of communication mattered. People were significantly more likely to believe a conspiracy theory if it was passed along by someone they knew personally. The study also found that belief in these theories followed partisan lines, with Trump supporters more likely to believe the theory blaming Democrats, and Democrats more open to the idea that the event was staged. These findings suggest that addressing misinformation may require more than just flagging content on platforms—it may also mean thinking more deeply about how beliefs spread within trusted social circles.</p>
<h2><strong>4. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/shock-events-in-2024-presidential-campaign-reversed-typical-online-behavior-new-study-shows/">Solidarity, not hostility, drove engagement on social media after the Trump shooting</a></strong></h2>
<p>In a final study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers examined how social media users responded to the Trump shooting and a separate political crisis—President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election. The team found that in the wake of Trump’s shooting, Republican social media users were more likely to engage with posts expressing solidarity and support for their own group, rather than posts attacking the opposing party. This shift was temporary, but it suggests that positive group emotions can become powerful drivers of engagement when a political community is under threat.</p>
<p>The researchers analyzed over 62,000 Facebook posts made by politicians, partisan media outlets, and political commentators in July 2024. Using a combination of artificial intelligence and manual coding, they identified posts that conveyed either in-group solidarity or out-group hostility. Before the shooting, posts attacking the other side generated more engagement across the board. But immediately after the assassination attempt, the dynamic changed. For Republicans, posts expressing support for Trump and unity within the party became more viral than aggressive content. After Biden exited the race later that month, the same pattern played out in reverse—Democrats gravitated toward solidarity, while Republicans returned to hostility.</p>
<p>These findings suggest that in times of crisis, people may be more inclined to rally around their own group rather than lash out at others. However, the effect seems to be time-limited and tied to which political side feels under threat. When one party experiences a crisis, their supporters show a greater appetite for messages of unity, while the opposing side may feel emboldened to go on the attack. This dual pattern highlights the complex emotional responses that emerge in polarized environments—and how social media amplifies them.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/what-teddy-bears-reveal-about-comfort-and-care/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">What teddy bears reveal about comfort and care</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 3rd 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>According to a study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2538890" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Journal of Positive Psychology</a></em>, the visual qualities of teddy bears—such as their fur texture, eye size, and color—play a measurable role in how people assign feelings of comfort and compassion. The researchers found that when people view teddy bears as visually appealing, they are more likely to feel soothed and motivated to care for them. This pattern suggests that visual aesthetics can shape emotional responses in ways that may influence prosocial tendencies.</p>
<p>Teddy bears have long been recognized for their ability to ease stress and offer emotional support. From the Teddy Bear Hospital initiative designed to reduce children’s anxiety in medical settings, to findings showing their role in alleviating feelings of social exclusion, stuffed animals are often treated as stand-ins for safety and care. But until now, little research has examined why certain teddy bears are seen as more comforting than others, or how their physical features contribute to these emotional responses.</p>
<p>The researchers aimed to move beyond anecdotal and clinical evidence by asking a deeper question: What makes a teddy bear comforting just by looking at it? And can this perceived cuteness drive a sense of compassion or care? These questions opened up a new avenue for understanding how emotional reactions to inanimate objects may reflect underlying psychological mechanisms—particularly those related to empathy and prosocial behavior.</p>
<p>“Teddy bears are very present in our daily lives, and we can use them as a subject for scientific mediation with the general public,” said study author Nathalie Blanc, a professor of psychology at the University of Montpellier Paul Valéry.</p>
<p>“They can be at the heart of several fascinating research questions, and in particular can shed light on how their representation has evolved over time, how they bring us comfort, with implications for several social issues (what are the determinants of comfort in supporting children who are hospitalized or in situations of acute stress? Are these determinants the same at all stages of life? Is the strong bond with teddy bears an opportunity to raise children’s awareness of the living world that needs to be protected? In short, this subject offers a sea of possibilities.”</p>
<p>The research involved 11,188 participants in France, ranging in age from 3 to 92. Participants completed an online photo-based survey between June and November 2020. The survey presented side-by-side images of teddy bears and asked participants to select which one looked most beautiful, which appeared most comforting, and which they would feel the strongest urge to protect if threatened. Each participant made 15 such comparisons for each of the three categories.</p>
<p>The photos used in the survey came from two sources. A participatory citizen science campaign provided 280 images, while another 156 were sourced and standardized from Google Images to enhance diversity in bear appearance. All images were edited to a consistent size and background, and a ruler was included to help participants estimate the scale.</p>
<p>In addition to collecting participants’ choices, the researchers conducted detailed measurements of each teddy bear’s visual characteristics. This included physical features such as head size, eye diameter, nose surface area, and fur length, along with color metrics like lightness, saturation, and contrast. The team used advanced modeling techniques, including boosted regression trees, to analyze how these visual traits predicted participants’ responses.</p>
<p>The three primary traits measured—beauty, comfort, and care—were found to be highly correlated. Participants who viewed a teddy bear as visually appealing also tended to see it as comforting and worth protecting. This convergence led the researchers to define a composite measure they called “cuteness.”</p>
<p>“Our study shows that beauty, comfort and the desire to protect are closely linked at all ages, and that we can reveal this link from photographs, without even being able to touch or handle the teddy bears,” Blanc told PsyPost. “So the visual perception of photographs of teddy bears allows us to make this assessment, which leads us to come up with a cuteness score.”</p>
<p>Among all age groups, perceived comfort was the most influential component of cuteness. However, in children under the age of 10, all three components—comfort, beauty, and care—were roughly equal in importance. This suggests that younger children experience aesthetic and emotional qualities as more integrated, whereas adults prioritize comforting appearance more heavily.</p>
<p>Hair length emerged as the most influential feature across the board. Bears with longer fur were consistently rated as cuter. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that people can infer softness from visual cues, indicating that tactile expectations may influence emotional judgments even without physical contact.</p>
<p>Features associated with “baby schema”—such as large eyes and small muzzles—also shaped perceptions of cuteness, although with age-specific nuances. Adults were more sensitive to these juvenile traits, but tended to dislike bears with exaggerated eye size. Children, on the other hand, favored rounder chests and brighter, more saturated colors, especially non-traditional ones like green, pink, and blue. Pandas were particularly popular among young participants, likely due to their high contrast and symbolic media presence.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that adults showed a stronger preference for stereotypical teddy bear traits—such as brown coloring and classic proportions—while children were more open to playful variations. These results suggest that older participants may rely more on cultural or nostalgic templates when judging cuteness, while children approach the task with more perceptual flexibility.</p>
<p>“Having both young and older participants allowed us to see that preferences evolve over time and that marketing around teddy bears changes our perceptions and preferences, with consequences for stereotypical representations of what is beautiful, comforting and worth protecting,” Blanc said.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the least-cute bears were typically damaged, heavily worn, or had unconventional designs. While one might expect that “shabby” bears would elicit sympathy, this was not the case in the context of anonymous photos. The researchers suggest that in the absence of personal ownership, visual cues of disrepair may signal a loss of function, reducing feelings of safety or emotional warmth.</p>
<p>The research adds to a growing body of work showing that visual aesthetics are deeply tied to emotional and social responses. But as with all research, there are some limitations. Although the sample size was unusually large for a psychological study, the researchers acknowledge a potential self-selection bias. Many participants had personal connections to stuffed animals, which may have influenced their interest in completing the survey.</p>
<p>Future studies could use teddy bears to assess empathy in children by observing whether they share or protect bears they find cute. Similarly, interventions involving bears could be tested in therapeutic settings, such as hospitals or elder care facilities, where feelings of comfort and protection are especially important.</p>
<p>The researchers also propose that stuffed animals could have educational and environmental applications. For example, cute plush versions of less popular or “uncharismatic” animal species might foster early interest in biodiversity and conservation among children.</p>
<p>“As a psychology researcher, I admit that I am very enthusiastic about continuing to study the determinants of attachment, comfort, its physical properties, and the conditions for observing the emotional support provided, but there is also the link with nature through this artefact that is so appreciated and known to all,” Blanc said. “The popularity of the teddy bear makes it an object of participatory science and allows us to develop scientific mediation workshops that are accessible to young and old alike! In short, psychology is moving closer to teddy bear studies in order to better understand and help the general public understand the psychological functioning of the individual, while interacting with other disciplines to optimize its scope.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2025.2538890" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The science of cuteness: where teddy bears’ beauty, comfort and care converge</a>,” was authored by Nathalie Blanc, Anne-Sophie Tribot, Thierry Brassac, and Nicolas Mouquet.</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>