<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/brain-scan-study-connects-parahippocampal-cortex-thinning-with-depression-and-neuroticism/" 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;">Brain scan study connects parahippocampal cortex thinning with depression and neuroticism</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 17th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A neuroimaging study from Germany found that people with major depressive disorder tend to show significantly reduced thickness of the parahippocampal cortex in the left hemisphere of the brain compared to healthy individuals. Participants with higher levels of neuroticism also tended to have reduced thickness of this brain region in both hemispheres. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-025-03435-y"><em>Translational Psychiatry</em></a>.</p>
<p>The parahippocampal cortex, located in the medial temporal lobe next to the hippocampus, is part of the limbic system and plays an important role in memory and spatial navigation. It acts as a major input and output hub for the hippocampus, helping process information that later becomes stored as long-term memory.</p>
<p>One of its best-studied roles is contextual processing, which allows the brain to understand where and when events occur. The parahippocampal cortex is also deeply involved in scene recognition, helping people identify and remember places. Brain imaging studies show it becomes active when individuals view landscapes, rooms, or buildings, providing contextual cues that link memories to specific environments.</p>
<p>Damage to this region can impair the ability to recall locations or navigate familiar areas. The parahippocampal cortex works closely with the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus to create spatial maps. Beyond navigation, it contributes to episodic memory — the long-term recollection of specific events — by encoding the “background” information surrounding those events.</p>
<p>Study author Dominik Nießen and colleagues note that the parahippocampal cortex is involved in several cognitive processes that tend to be disrupted in major depressive disorder, including episodic, associative, and source memory, contextual processing, scene perception, and emotional regulation. They aimed to determine whether these disruptions are linked to structural changes in this brain area, specifically its cortical thickness.</p>
<p>The study included 43 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder and 43 healthy individuals as controls. Participants’ average age was about 31 years. Patients were recruited from the Department of Psychiatry at RWTH Aachen University Hospital in Aachen, Germany, and met established diagnostic criteria for depression. Some also had other conditions: eight had personality disorders, three had posttraumatic stress disorder, two had alcohol use disorder, and several had other psychiatric diagnoses.</p>
<p>All participants completed an assessment of neuroticism using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and underwent magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroticism is a personality trait characterized by a tendency to experience frequent negative emotions, such as anxiety, sadness, and irritability, along with emotional instability.</p>
<p>As expected, patients with major depressive disorder had higher neuroticism scores than the healthy participants. They also showed reduced thickness of the parahippocampal cortex in the left hemisphere. Across the entire sample, higher neuroticism scores were associated with lower thickness of the parahippocampal cortex in both hemispheres.</p>
<p>“These findings suggest that, in combination with neuroticism, parahippocampal thickness could serve as a potential biomarker of depression. Our results underscore the importance of multimodal assessments in MDD [major depressive disorder], potentially contributing to the foundation of individualized clinical decision-making and paving the way towards precision psychiatry,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study shows that thickness of the parahippocampal cortex can potentially serve as a biomarker of depression. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. While it is possible that major depressive disorder leads to changes in the parahippocampal cortex, it is also possible that individuals in which this cortex is thinner are more prone to depression. Other options also remain open.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-025-03435-y">7-Tesla ultra-high field MRI of the parahippocampal cortex reveals evidence of common neurobiological mechanisms of major depressive disorder and neurotic personality traits,</a>” was authored by Dominik Nießen, Ravichandran Rajkumar, Dilsa Cemre Akkoc Altinok, Gereon Johannes Schnellbächer, Shukti Ramkiran, Jana Hagen, Nadim Jon Shah, Tanja Veselinović, and Irene Neuner.</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/people-experiencing-manic-episodes-have-measurably-higher-skin-temperatures/" 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;">People experiencing manic episodes have measurably higher skin temperatures</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 17th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People with bipolar disorder often experience dramatic shifts in mood, energy, and behavior. A new study suggests that these psychological states may have physical signatures as well. Researchers found that individuals going through manic episodes tend to have higher skin temperatures during the day compared to both healthy individuals and those with bipolar disorder in stable or depressive states. Once the manic episode subsides, the elevated temperature appears to return to baseline. The findings were published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119643" target="_blank">Journal of Affective Disorders</a></em> and suggest skin temperature may serve as a digital signal of mood changes.</p>
<p>Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental health condition characterized by alternating periods of depression and mania. Depressive episodes are marked by sadness, low energy, and hopelessness, while manic episodes are associated with elevated mood, impulsivity, and increased activity levels. The disorder affects about 2.4 percent of the population and is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. </p>
<p>Diagnosing and monitoring bipolar disorder currently relies almost entirely on interviews and symptom reports, which can be subjective and vary widely between individuals. This limitation has driven interest in identifying physiological markers that might objectively reflect changes in mood states. </p>
<p>“Psychiatry has historically relied on subjective assessments – patient reports, clinical observations, and symptom checklists – while other medical specialties have benefited from objective laboratory tests and imaging. This creates significant challenges in making accurate diagnoses and treatment decisions, especially when patients’ memories may be unreliable or their insight limited during acute episodes,” said study author Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei, a senior psychiatrist and postdoctoral researcher at the Hospital Clínic de Barcelona.</p>
<p>“The emergence of wearable technology offers an unprecedented opportunity to continuously and objectively capture physiological signals that may correlate with mental health states. Our team at <a href="https://intrepibd.github.io/" target="_blank">the INTREPIBD-TIMEBASE project</a> is exploring how these digital biomarkers – including activity patterns, electrodermal activity, heart rate variability, and now skin temperature – might help us better understand and monitor severe mental conditions like bipolar disorder. Temperature regulation particularly intrigued us because previous research suggested thermoregulatory abnormalities in mood disorders, but no one had examined this specifically during manic episodes using modern wearable devices.”</p>
<p>The researchers enrolled 139 adults, including 104 patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder and 35 healthy controls, in their study. The patients were grouped based on their clinical state: depressive episode, manic episode, or stable mood (a state known as euthymia). Participants experiencing either a depressive or manic episode were assessed twice—once during the acute episode and again after their symptoms had remitted. Those in the euthymic group and the healthy controls were assessed only once.</p>
<p>Participants wore a wrist-mounted device called the E4 wristband for approximately 48 hours. This wearable tracked their skin temperature as well as their movement. The device recorded skin temperature using an infrared sensor, and researchers extracted average temperature data in short intervals. Because skin temperature can be influenced by many factors, the researchers also took into account potential confounders such as age, sex, time of day, level of physical movement, season, and use of medications that can interfere with body temperature regulation.</p>
<p>The most notable finding was that individuals undergoing manic episodes had consistently higher skin temperatures during the daytime compared to all other groups. On average, their skin temperature was 33.61 degrees Celsius during waking hours, which was approximately 0.8 degrees higher than the euthymic group and significantly higher than the depressive and control groups. Importantly, once the manic symptoms subsided, the elevated temperature decreased as well, dropping to an average of 33.21 degrees Celsius—no longer significantly different from the other groups.</p>
<p>“Our research found that people experiencing manic episodes of bipolar disorder have measurably higher skin temperature during waking hours – about 0.8°C higher than those in stable mood states,” Hidalgo-Mazzei told PsyPost. “Importantly, this temperature elevation returns to normal once the manic episode resolves, suggesting it’s directly linked to the mood state rather than being a permanent characteristic.”</p>
<p>“This matters because it demonstrates that mood episodes have real, measurable physiological manifestations that we can track objectively using simple wearable devices. While a temperature change alone isn’t enough to diagnose or monitor bipolar disorder, combining it with other digital biomarkers could eventually help patients and clinicians detect early warning signs of mood episodes and track treatment response more accurately.”</p>
<p>All groups showed the expected circadian rhythm of skin temperature: lower values during the day and higher values at night. However, the group with mania exhibited higher daytime skin temperatures across most hours, from mid-morning through evening. While the depression group showed a slight earlier rise in temperature in the evening compared to others, this pattern was not statistically significant.</p>
<p>The researchers also examined the range of daily temperature changes, or amplitude, for each group. No meaningful differences were found in amplitude or distribution, further supporting the idea that only the overall temperature level—not the pattern of fluctuation—was affected during mania.</p>
<p>“Two findings particularly stood out,” Hidalgo-Mazzei said. “First, we expected to see temperature changes in depressive episodes based on previous literature, but found no significant differences. This suggests that the thermoregulatory changes in mania and depression may involve different mechanisms. Second, the temperature increases during mania disappeared completely after symptom remission, showing it’s truly state-dependent. This was not expected and extremely interesting. This clean on-off pattern was more pronounced than we anticipated and reinforces the potential value of temperature as a state marker rather than a trait marker of bipolar disorder.”</p>
<p>The researchers offer several possible explanations for why skin temperature might increase during manic episodes. One theory centers on mitochondrial activity. Mania has been associated with increased mitochondrial energy production, which leads to greater heat generation in the body. This excess heat could be dissipated through the skin, resulting in higher peripheral temperatures. Some studies have reported elevated oxygen consumption and mitochondrial activation during manic states, which aligns with this hypothesis, though other research has suggested reduced respiratory capacity during both mania and depression.</p>
<p>Another possibility involves disruptions in brain systems that regulate temperature. For example, the hypothalamus and brainstem circuits are known to play roles in both mood and thermoregulation. Abnormalities in serotonin or orexin signaling, both of which influence temperature control, have also been documented in bipolar disorder. Additionally, alterations in the circadian system, especially in the suprachiasmatic nucleus, could disrupt normal patterns of vasodilation and vasoconstriction, affecting heat loss through the skin.</p>
<p>The study also references work in pediatric populations with a “fear of harm” phenotype linked to altered temperature gradients during sleep. Although more severe and less common, this condition could share biological pathways with adult mania.</p>
<p>While the findings are suggestive, the authors caution that skin temperature alone is unlikely to serve as a reliable standalone marker for mania. “Several important limitations should be noted,” Hidalgo-Mazzei told PsyPost. “The effect size was relatively small, and skin temperature is highly variable – influenced by environmental factors, physical activity, medications, and individual differences. We measured wrist temperature, which is more reactive but less stable than core body temperature.” </p>
<p>“Our sample sizes were modest, and groups differed in age distribution. We also couldn’t fully account for factors like anxiety or agitation that often accompany mood episodes and might independently affect temperature. Most critically, while these findings are scientifically interesting, the temperature changes alone aren’t large or specific enough for clinical use – we need larger studies combining multiple biomarkers to develop clinically useful tools.” </p>
<p>“In general, it might also be interesting to discriminate if the physiological patterns we are finding are a secondary signal of the stress produced by the mood state or rather a primary pattern of the disorder per se,” Hidalgo-Mazzei continued. “For instance, we are now extending the wearables monitoring to other disorders and specifically through a new project (DIREKT) exploring physiological markers of response in MDD patients undergoing esketamine treatment.”</p>
<p>“Our ultimate goal is to develop a multimodal monitoring system that combines temperature with other digital biomarkers like activity patterns, heart rate variability, and electrodermal activity to create personalized “digital signatures” of mood episodes. This requires much larger samples and more sophisticated analyses to identify patterns that generalize across individuals.”</p>
<p>“We envision a future where patients with bipolar and other disorders could wear devices that learn their unique physiological patterns and provide early warnings of impending mood episodes, similar to how continuous glucose monitors have transformed diabetes management and promptly act upon them,” Hidalgo-Mazzei added. “In parallel, clinicians to have at the office individual validated objective-continuous data that could help supporting shared-decision making with the patients, and/or assess treatment response together among other use-cases. However, reaching this goal will require extensive validation studies, regulatory approval, and careful integration into clinical workflows.”</p>
<p>“This research represents a small but important step toward more objective, continuous monitoring of mental health conditions. While we’re excited about the potential of digital biomarkers, it’s crucial to remember that technology will complement, not replace, the therapeutic relationship and clinical expertise. We’re particularly grateful to all the participants who wore devices during some of their most challenging moments. Their contribution is helping us build a more objective understanding of bipolar disorder that could benefit millions of people worldwide.” </p>
<p>“The full TIMEBASE-INTREPIBD study continues to collect data on multiple physiological signals, and we encourage interested readers to learn more about our broader research program at <a href="https://intrepibd.github.io/" target="_blank">https://intrepibd.github.io/</a>. The research team includes collaborators from the University of Barcelona, King’s College London, Deakin University, and the University of Edinburgh, representing the interdisciplinary nature of digital psychiatry research.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119643" target="_blank">State-dependent skin temperature increase during manic episodes of bipolar disorder</a>,” was authored by Clàudia Valenzuela-Pascual, Rocío G. Lamberti, Ariadna Mas, Roger Borràs, Gerard Anmella, Filippo Corponi, Vincenzo Oliva, Michele De Prisco, Marta Korniyenko, Marina Garriga, Meritxell González-Campos, Marc Valentí, Isabella Pacchiarotti, Antoni Benabarre, Iria Grande, Anna Bastidas, Isabel Agasi, Cristina Romero-Lopez-Alberca, Cecilia Muñoz-Doña, Ana Catalan, Allan H. Young, Michael Berk, Eduard Vieta, and Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei.</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/higher-cognitive-ability-and-other-psychological-factors-predict-support-for-free-speech/" 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;">Higher cognitive ability and other psychological factors predict support for free speech</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 17th 2025, 07:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New psychological studies are providing insight into how people think about freedom of speech and censorship. Researchers are exploring the traits, beliefs, and conditions that influence whether individuals support open expression or favor restrictions. The findings suggest a variety of psychological and social factors contribute to how people respond to controversial or unpopular speech.</p>
<p>The ten studies below offer evidence on the conditions under which people are more likely to support free expression or endorse forms of censorship.</p>
<h2><strong>1. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/higher-levels-of-cognitive-ability-linked-to-stronger-support-for-freedom-of-speech/">People with higher cognitive ability are more likely to support free speech, even for disliked groups</a></strong></h2>
<p>Research based on decades of U.S. survey data suggests that individuals with stronger verbal reasoning skills are more likely to support freedom of speech across ideological lines, even for groups they personally dislike. The researchers analyzed 21 waves of the General Social Survey spanning from 1974 to 2018 and found a consistent link between higher vocabulary scores and greater support for allowing controversial groups—whether communists, racists, or anti-religionists—to speak publicly, publish books, and teach.</p>
<p>Follow-up studies confirmed this pattern and expanded it to include additional groups such as Christian fundamentalists and members of the Tea Party. Importantly, those with higher cognitive ability tended to support free speech for all groups, not just those they personally favored. A third study showed that intellectual humility partly explained this link. While individuals high in cognitive ability still judged some speech as objectionable, they were less inclined to support outright censorship. The study provides evidence that cognitive traits—not just ideology—shape one’s tolerance for opposing views.</p>
<h2><strong>2. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/psychology-professors-often-self-censor-on-controversial-topics-study-finds/">U.S. psychology professors often self-censor on controversial topics</a></strong></h2>
<p>A nationwide survey of psychology professors suggests that self-censorship is common in academia, especially around sensitive or controversial research findings. Although most professors support academic freedom in principle, many are reluctant to share empirical beliefs that might be unpopular or misunderstood. The study, which surveyed 470 professors from top U.S. psychology programs, found that fear of social backlash, including reputational damage and online harassment, often leads scholars to stay silent—even when they believe the science supports a controversial conclusion.</p>
<p>The research identified ten specific statements considered taboo, ranging from claims about biological sex to racial differences in intelligence. Professors who privately agreed with some of these claims were often hesitant to say so publicly. Even tenured faculty, who typically enjoy job security, expressed concerns about the social consequences of speaking openly. While most respondents rejected suppressing research for moral reasons, younger and more left-leaning professors were more likely to support actions against colleagues who promoted controversial views. The findings point to a tension between the ideals of open inquiry and the social pressures shaping what academics feel safe to express.</p>
<h2><strong>3. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/both-siderism-debunked-study-finds-conservatives-more-anti-democratic-driven-by-two-psychological-traits/">Conservatives tend to show more anti-democratic attitudes than liberals, partly due to psychological traits</a></strong></h2>
<p>A large-scale survey suggests that anti-democratic tendencies are more common among conservatives than liberals in the United States, and that this difference is partly explained by psychological traits such as right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Using data from the 2022 Health of Democracy Survey, researchers found that conservatives were less likely to support political equality and legal protections and were more open to voting for anti-democratic candidates or endorsing political violence.</p>
<p>Freedom of speech was among the democratic norms assessed in the study, and the results indicate that conservatives were more likely than liberals to justify limiting expression under certain conditions. However, the researchers also found that some conservatives who strongly supported the current political system showed greater respect for free speech and legal guarantees, suggesting that belief in institutional legitimacy may temper authoritarian tendencies. The findings provide evidence that ideological asymmetries in support for free expression are not just political but also psychological in nature.</p>
<h2><strong>4. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/democrats-and-republicans-may-agree-more-on-hate-speech-than-you-think/">Democrats and Republicans agree on what hate speech to censor, even if they don’t realize it</a></strong></h2>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, Democrats and Republicans often agree on which types of hate speech should be removed from social media, according to a survey experiment involving over 3,000 U.S. participants. Both groups were more likely to support censoring posts that targeted marginalized groups such as Black or Jewish individuals, especially when the language was dehumanizing or incited violence. However, Democrats were generally more supportive of censorship than Republicans across the board.</p>
<p>What sets this study apart is its finding that people tend to misjudge their political opponents’ views. Democrats underestimated how much Republicans supported censorship of hate speech targeting marginalized groups, while Republicans underestimated Democrats’ support for censoring hate speech against Whites or Jews. These misperceptions may fuel unnecessary polarization around speech issues. Although Democrats and Republicans differ in how much censorship they favor, the study suggests that their values about what constitutes unacceptable speech are not as far apart as commonly assumed.</p>
<h2><strong>5. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/critical-thinking-education-trumps-banning-and-censorship-in-battle-against-disinformation-study-suggests/">Education is more effective than censorship in countering disinformation</a></strong></h2>
<p>Mathematical modeling suggests that removing disinformation online—such as banning users or deleting false posts—may be far less effective than teaching people how to think critically. A team of researchers used agent-based modeling to simulate how disinformation spreads through social networks. They tested various mitigation strategies, including content moderation, counter-campaigns, and public education, and found that early and consistent education was the most successful at slowing the spread of false information.</p>
<p>The model showed that when people are trained to recognize bias, question claims, and stay open to changing their minds, they become less likely to adopt false beliefs. In contrast, banning disinformation spreaders or flooding platforms with “corrective” content had only short-term effects and often failed to reverse existing opinions. These findings imply that education strengthens the public’s ability to assess speech rather than simply silencing harmful messages. It provides evidence that building cognitive resilience may be more effective than restricting speech in the fight against disinformation.</p>
<h2><strong>6. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/scientists-raise-the-alarm-about-the-growing-trend-of-soft-censorship-of-research/">Scientists sometimes censor each other to protect social harmony</a></strong></h2>
<p>A Perspective piece published in <em>PNAS</em> argues that censorship in science often originates from within the research community. While direct government interference in academic work is relatively rare in democratic societies, more subtle forms of “soft censorship” are widespread. These include discouraging junior researchers from pursuing controversial topics, rejecting papers on the basis of potential harm, and promoting self-censorship out of fear of backlash.</p>
<p>The authors argue that such actions are frequently motivated by prosocial concerns, such as protecting vulnerable groups or preserving social cohesion. While these intentions may be well-meaning, the article warns that they risk undermining the open exchange of ideas that science depends on. Rather than rejecting uncomfortable findings outright, the authors call for clearer ethical guidelines and better communication strategies that balance scientific integrity with social responsibility. The piece highlights how even well-intentioned limits on expression within science can stifle debate and delay discovery.</p>
<h2><strong>7. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/huge-study-reveals-striking-decline-in-the-desire-to-stand-out-and-be-unique/">The desire to publicly defend one’s beliefs is declining</a></strong></h2>
<p>An analysis of more than one million survey responses over two decades suggests that people are becoming less willing to publicly defend their personal beliefs. The study tracked changes in the “need for uniqueness” from 2000 to 2020 and found a consistent decline in all three areas measured: defending one’s beliefs, being unconcerned about others’ opinions, and willingness to break rules. The largest drop was in willingness to speak out, a trend the authors suggest could reflect rising social anxiety and fear of online backlash.</p>
<p>While the study doesn’t measure censorship directly, it suggests a growing climate of self-censorship, especially in digital spaces. People may be opting to stay silent rather than risk criticism or conflict. This shift could have broad implications for freedom of expression in public life, as fewer people feel comfortable sharing dissenting or unconventional views. As one of the study’s authors put it, it’s a “slow creep” toward conformity—one that may be shaped by new communication technologies and shifting social norms.</p>
<h2><strong>8. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/political-correctness-can-lead-to-cognitive-exhaustion-according-to-new-research/">Political correctness at work may come at a personal cost</a></strong></h2>
<p>Being politically correct in workplace conversations—avoiding potentially offensive comments or modifying language to be more inclusive—is often seen as respectful and necessary. But new research suggests that it can also be mentally exhausting. In a series of studies, employees who practiced political correctness during the day reported greater cognitive fatigue in the evening. Their partners were also more likely to describe them as irritable or withdrawn.</p>
<p>The researchers emphasized that political correctness often stems from a desire to be kind and inclusive, not from fear or coercion. However, the cognitive effort involved in monitoring speech and suppressing potentially offensive comments appears to deplete mental resources, which may affect interactions at home and work. While not censorship in the institutional sense, this form of self-regulation shows how social norms around speech—even well-intentioned ones—can have psychological consequences that shape how freely people express themselves in professional settings.</p>
<h2><strong>9. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-helps-pinpoint-the-key-differences-between-liberals-and-progressives-in-the-united-states/">Progressives and liberals differ in how they approach speech and dissent</a></strong></h2>
<p>A new scale developed to measure progressive values reveals key differences between liberals and progressives, especially in how they handle free expression. According to a series of studies, progressives are more likely than liberals to support publicly shaming individuals who express discriminatory views. They are also more likely to endorse diversity mandates and object to cultural appropriation, while liberals tend to favor incremental change and emphasize shared human experiences.</p>
<p>These findings suggest that progressives and liberals differ not just in degree but in kind. For instance, progressives often support what researchers call “public censure” as a tool for social justice, while liberals are more hesitant to punish speech, even if they find it offensive. The studies offer insight into internal disagreements on the political left about how to balance free speech with equity and social responsibility. Understanding these differences may help clarify debates about campus speech, cancel culture, and how best to promote inclusion without silencing dissent.</p>
<h2><strong>10. <a href="https://www.psypost.org/fear-predicts-authoritarian-attitudes-across-cultures-with-conservatives-most-affected/">People across the world become more authoritarian when they feel threatened</a></strong></h2>
<p>A massive global survey covering 59 countries found that people are more likely to favor authoritarian forms of government when they feel personally or politically threatened. This includes support for strong leaders, reduced civil liberties, and diminished tolerance for dissent. The link between threat and authoritarianism held true across cultural and political contexts but was stronger among those who identified as politically conservative.</p>
<p>While the study didn’t focus on speech directly, authoritarian attitudes often include reduced support for freedom of expression. The findings suggest that people’s tolerance for open debate and dissent can shrink when they feel insecure about their safety, health, or political stability. This supports the idea that protecting civil liberties may require more than legal safeguards—it may also depend on reducing fear and instability in society. The study provides evidence that the appeal of censorship and strong control often grows in times of crisis, especially among certain ideological groups.</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/autistic-individuals-and-those-with-social-anxiety-differ-in-how-they-experience-empathy-new-study-suggests/" 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;">Autistic individuals and those with social anxiety differ in how they experience empathy, new study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 17th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70075" target="_blank">Autism Research</a></em> indicates that empathy may operate quite differently in individuals with autism spectrum condition compared to those with social anxiety. Both groups tended to report elevated levels of emotional distress in social situations, but only individuals with autism showed lower levels of emotional concern for others. The researchers also introduced a new way to distinguish between these overlapping conditions: a ratio of self-focused distress to other-oriented concern. This metric, they argue, could help improve diagnosis and support strategies.</p>
<p>Autism and social anxiety are both linked to social difficulties, but for different reasons. People with autism spectrum condition often struggle with understanding and responding to social cues. Social anxiety, on the other hand, involves intense fear of being judged or rejected in social situations. These overlapping traits often make it difficult to distinguish between the two in clinical settings, especially since many autistic people also experience high levels of social anxiety. This overlap has created a need for better tools to tease apart the similarities and differences in how these groups perceive and respond to others.</p>
<p>One of the key traits involved in social functioning is empathy, which can be broadly divided into two components. Cognitive empathy involves understanding another person’s thoughts and feelings. Affective empathy relates to emotional responses to others, such as compassion or distress. Prior studies suggest that people with autism tend to show lower cognitive empathy and mixed patterns in emotional empathy, with some reports of heightened emotional distress. In contrast, individuals with social anxiety may show high emotional reactivity but impaired accuracy in interpreting others’ mental states. Yet few studies have directly compared these two groups on both forms of empathy, using tools that can separate the different aspects.</p>
<p>To address this gap, researchers at the Bruckner Autism Research Center at Ariel University recruited 105 university students and divided them into three groups. One group consisted of students with a confirmed autism diagnosis. A second group included students with high levels of social anxiety but no autism diagnosis. The third group served as a control sample, reporting neither autism nor elevated anxiety. </p>
<p>All participants completed several standardized assessments, including the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, which measures both cognitive and affective empathy, and the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, which evaluates the ability to infer emotions based on subtle facial cues.</p>
<p>The results suggested clear differences between the groups when it came to trait-based empathy. Individuals in the autism group scored lower on perspective taking and empathic concern compared to the control group. Their empathic concern scores were also lower than those in the social anxiety group. Both the autism and social anxiety groups reported significantly higher levels of personal distress in response to others’ emotions compared to the control group. This suggests that while both groups experience intense emotional reactions in social situations, only the autistic group showed a notable reduction in the ability to feel concern for others.</p>
<p>One of the study’s key contributions was the introduction of a novel metric: the personal distress-to-empathic concern ratio. This ratio compares how much emotional discomfort a person feels in response to others’ distress (personal distress) to how much they feel for the person experiencing it (empathic concern). A higher ratio indicates a more self-focused, emotionally overwhelmed response. </p>
<p>The researchers found that the autism group had the highest average ratio, followed by the social anxiety group, and then the control group. This ratio was also positively linked to the severity of autistic traits and anxiety symptoms, but only in the autism group. In other words, higher emotional distress relative to empathic concern was particularly associated with autism.</p>
<p>Importantly, the researchers tested whether this ratio could help distinguish between autism and social anxiety. Using a statistical approach called receiver operating characteristic analysis, they identified a cutoff value of 0.83 on the ratio scale. This value demonstrated good sensitivity, meaning it could correctly identify many individuals with autism, though its specificity was moderate, indicating a moderate ability to rule out autism in those without it. This finding suggests that the PD/EC ratio, while not a standalone diagnostic tool, could serve as a useful screening measure in conjunction with other assessments.</p>
<p>When it came to the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, which provides a snapshot of a person’s ability to recognize emotions from subtle visual cues, the groups performed similarly. All scored within the normal range, and no significant differences emerged. This suggests that state-based cognitive empathy, at least as measured by this task, may not differ meaningfully across these populations. </p>
<p>However, the researchers noted that the simplicity of the task might not fully capture the complexity of real-life social interactions, particularly for autistic individuals who may rely on compensatory strategies in structured testing environments.</p>
<p>“We observed a significant difference in empathy levels between the autism and social anxiety groups,” explained study author Esther Ben-Itzchak, the head of the Bruckner Autism Research Center. “Both groups experienced higher personal distress compared to the control group; however, only the participants with autism showed significantly lower levels of empathic concern. This difference was effectively illustrated by a new ratio we developed, called the personal distress-to-empathic concern ratio (PD/EC). This ratio successfully distinguished between autism and social anxiety, conditions that frequently overlap in clinical settings, which was both surprising and exciting.”</p>
<p>“We were also surprised that by using a well-known and widely applied measure, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) in a new way, namely computing the ratio between personal distress and empathic concern, we could provide a fresh application for this classic tool.”</p>
<p>The findings support a growing view that empathy is not a single, unified trait but a multidimensional construct, with different profiles emerging across psychological conditions. In the case of autism, the study suggests a combination of reduced perspective taking and empathic concern, coupled with heightened personal distress. For those with social anxiety, the pattern includes elevated distress without a corresponding drop in empathic concern. These distinctions have important implications for how we assess and support individuals facing social challenges.</p>
<p>The study also aligns with existing theories about emotional regulation in autism. One model suggests that autistic individuals may experience high levels of emotional arousal in social situations but lack the cognitive tools to manage those emotions effectively. This imbalance may lead to withdrawal or self-focused responses, which can be misinterpreted as a lack of empathy. The current findings add nuance to this picture by showing that lower levels of empathic concern are not necessarily universal but may interact with how individuals experience and regulate emotional distress.</p>
<p>Like all research, there are limitations. Most notably, the social anxiety group was identified using a self-report scale rather than clinical interviews, which means some participants may not meet formal diagnostic criteria. The sample also included a relatively small number of women, which limits generalizability across genders. </p>
<p>Another limitation involves the overlapping nature of autism and social anxiety. In this study, about three-quarters of the autistic group also scored high on the social anxiety measure. Although the authors ran additional analyses to control for this overlap, it remains difficult to completely disentangle the effects of each condition. A follow-up study with larger groups could compare autistic individuals with and without social anxiety, alongside a group with social anxiety but no autism, to better isolate the unique contributions of each condition to empathy profiles.</p>
<p>“Incorporating experimental tasks or physiological measures of empathy in future work could enhance the validity and depth of the findings,” Ben-Itzchak said.</p>
<p>Still, the current findings offer a compelling direction for future research and clinical practice. The PD/EC ratio provides a fresh application of a well-established empathy questionnaire and shows promise as a simple, scalable measure to support diagnostic differentiation. It may also help guide targeted interventions by highlighting specific empathy-related challenges, such as managing distress or building perspective-taking skills.</p>
<p>“We see two main directions for extending this work,” Ben-Itzchak explained. “First, we plan to replicate the findings across different populations by including more women in similar young adult samples, as well as examining clinical populations and younger children. Second, we aim to integrate the behavioral questionnaires with physiological markers of emotional regulation (such as autonomic nervous system measures), which could enhance the clinical utility of empathy profiles.”</p>
<p>“This is the first study to directly compare detailed empathy subcomponents in autism and social anxiety, while carefully screening the social anxiety group for autistic traits,” she added. “By doing so, we were able to reveal unique empathy profiles for each condition. Clinically, these insights could support more accurate differential diagnosis, and theoretically, they advance our understanding of empathy as a multidimensional construct. Importantly, our work underscores that while both groups experience elevated personal distress in social situations, the presence or absence of empathic concern may be a key factor that sets them apart.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70075" target="_blank">Distinct Empathy Profiles in Autism and Social Anxiety: A Comparative Study</a>,” was authored by Sigal Tikochinsky, Esther Ben‐Itzchak, and Gil Zukerman.</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/frequent-cannabis-users-show-no-driving-impairment-after-48-hour-break/" 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;">Frequent cannabis users show no driving impairment after 48-hour break</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 16th 2025, 22:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-025-06880-1" target="_blank">Psychopharmacology</a></em> suggests that frequent cannabis users show no significant driving impairment in a simulator after a break of at least two days. The findings from the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California San Diego challenge some common assumptions about the lingering effects of cannabis and could have significant implications for public health and traffic safety laws.</p>
<p>Cannabis is a plant that contains chemical compounds called cannabinoids, with the most well-known being delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is responsible for the plant’s psychoactive effects. As cannabis use becomes more widespread, both for medicinal and recreational purposes, understanding its full range of effects on complex, real-world activities is a pressing concern for scientists and policymakers. </p>
<p>It is well-established that using cannabis right before driving can impair performance. Studies have consistently shown that acute intoxication from THC can lead to decrements in attention and memory, and in driving simulators, it can <a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-shows-cannabis-can-impair-driving-for-more-than-five-hours-long-after-users-feel-ready-to-drive/" target="_blank">cause increased swerving and difficulty in maintaining a consistent speed</a> or following another vehicle. A significant question that remains is whether these effects persist after the immediate “high” has worn off. </p>
<p>These potential lingering, or “residual,” effects have been a topic of debate. Some previous research has pointed to subtle deficits in learning and memory that can last for days or even weeks after stopping cannabis use, especially in long-term, frequent users. However, other studies have found these effects to be small or to disappear relatively quickly. What has been less clear is whether any of these potential lingering cognitive issues translate into observable problems with a practiced skill like driving. The researchers behind the new study sought to address this knowledge gap by examining if short-term residual effects from cannabis negatively impact driving performance in the absence of acute intoxication.</p>
<p>To investigate this question, the scientists designed a two-part study. The first part aimed to see if there was a relationship between a person’s history of cannabis use and their driving ability after a period of abstinence. The researchers recruited 191 regular cannabis users between the ages of 21 and 55. A key requirement for participation was that all individuals had to agree to abstain from using cannabis for at least 48 hours before their test sessions. This abstinence was confirmed using an oral fluid test on the day of the experiment. </p>
<p>On the testing day, before any other procedures, each participant completed a 25-minute session in a sophisticated driving simulator. This simulator featured a three-screen, wide-angle display, along with a steering wheel, accelerator, and brake pedals to mimic a real driving experience. The simulated drive included a mix of urban and rural settings and presented participants with common challenges like making left turns into oncoming traffic and avoiding potential crashes. </p>
<p>To get a comprehensive assessment of driving ability, the researchers combined multiple performance measures into a single Composite Drive Score. This score included variables like swerving within a lane, the ability to match the speed of a lead vehicle, and performance on a divided attention task that required participants to touch circles on a screen while continuing to drive. A higher score indicated poorer overall driving performance.</p>
<p>The researchers found no relationship between the participants’ overall driving performance and their history of cannabis use. They looked at several factors, including the total amount of cannabis a person had consumed over the last six months, the number of days they used cannabis in the last month, and the quantity they used per day. None of these measures of use intensity predicted how well a person performed in the driving simulator. </p>
<p>The scientists also divided the participants into three groups based on their consumption levels: low, medium, and high. Still, there was no difference in the average driving scores among these groups. The length of the abstinence period, which ranged from two to 21 days, also showed no connection to driving ability. Similarly, the age at which a person first started using cannabis did not appear to influence their performance. </p>
<p>The researchers also analyzed blood samples taken from the participants on the test day. They found no correlation between the concentration of THC or its main inactive byproduct, called THC-COOH, and the driving score. Some jurisdictions use legal blood THC limits to determine driving impairment. In this study, about five percent of participants had THC levels that would have classified them as impaired in some states, despite having abstained for at least 48 hours and showing no signs of poorer driving in the simulation.</p>
<p>The second part of the research was designed to make a direct comparison between very frequent cannabis users and people who do not use the substance. For this, the scientists identified the 18 participants from the first study with the highest intensity of use. These individuals had used cannabis on at least 28 of the previous 30 days and consumed, on average, more than two grams per day. Their driving performance was then compared to that of a separate group of 12 healthy adults who had not used cannabis in the past year. This non-using group completed the exact same training and 25-minute simulated drive as the cannabis users. The results of this comparison mirrored the findings from the first study. </p>
<p>There was no significant difference in the Composite Drive Score between the very frequent cannabis users and the non-using comparison group. The two groups performed similarly on the overall measure of driving ability as well as on all the individual sub-tasks, such as swerving and car following. The groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, and yearly miles driven, ensuring a fair comparison, although the non-using group did have more years of formal education on average.</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their study. The sample size for the second study, which directly compared frequent users to non-users, was relatively small, which means it might not have had enough statistical power to detect very small differences between the groups. Another key point is that a driving simulator, while sophisticated, is not the same as driving on a real road. It is possible that subtle deficits might appear in real-world situations not captured by the simulation. The 25-minute simulated drive may also not have been long or complex enough to challenge participants in a way that would reveal lingering impairments, particularly in sustained attention. </p>
<p>Future research could build on these findings by using larger groups of participants, employing more complex or longer driving tasks, and controlling for potential confounding variables. Despite these limitations, the study provides a robust examination of residual cannabis effects on driving and suggests that after a two-day period of abstinence, frequent cannabis users do not exhibit impairment on this simulated task. These results contribute important data to ongoing discussions about cannabis, public safety, and the development of fair and evidence-based laws for driving under the influence.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-025-06880-1" target="_blank">Short-term residual effects of smoked cannabis on simulated driving performance</a>,” was authored by Kyle F. Mastropietro, Jake A. Rattigan, Anya Umlauf, David J. Grelotti, Marilyn A. Huestis, Raymond T. Suhandynata, Igor Grant, Robert L. Fitzgerald, and Thomas D. Marcotte.</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-pinpoint-brain-region-that-locks-in-addiction-by-learning-to-escape-withdrawal/" 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 pinpoint brain region that locks in addiction by learning to escape withdrawal</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 16th 2025, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>The drive to drink for someone with alcohol addiction often transforms from a pursuit of pleasure to a desperate need to escape the profound discomfort of withdrawal. New research has now identified a specific brain region that becomes intensely active during this process, essentially learning and cementing the powerful connection between alcohol consumption and relief from this negative state. This discovery illuminates a key mechanism behind one of addiction’s most persistent features.</p>
<p>Published on August 5, 2025, in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsgos.2025.100578" target="_blank">Biological Psychiatry: Global Open Science</a></em>, the work from Scripps Research points to a brain area called the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus. This region appears to be a key player in the powerful learning process that drives relapse. The discovery helps explain why seeking a substance to quell negative feelings can become such a potent and compulsive habit, and it may open new pathways for treating substance use disorders and other conditions rooted in maladaptive learning, like anxiety.</p>
<p>Previous work by the same research team had already established that this “withdrawal-related learning” creates a much more powerful and persistent form of alcohol seeking. When rats learned to associate certain environmental cues with the relief that alcohol provides from withdrawal, their subsequent drive to seek alcohol was stronger and more compulsive. They would continue seeking it even when faced with punishments or when it required significantly more effort. </p>
<p>This suggested that a different, and perhaps more robust, brain mechanism was at play compared to the one involved in seeking alcohol for its pleasurable effects alone. The goal of the new study was to pinpoint the exact locations in the brain where this specific type of learning is registered.</p>
<p>A central challenge in addiction research is to pinpoint what happens in the brain as alcohol use shifts from recreational to compulsive. While the brain’s reward systems tied to alcohol’s positive effects are well-mapped, the circuits that encode the motivation to drink simply to stop the misery of withdrawal have been less understood. This learning process, where a behavior is strengthened by the removal of an unpleasant feeling, is a powerful driver of relapse, yet the specific neural pathways that register this potent association have remained elusive.</p>
<p>“What makes addiction so hard to break is that people aren’t simply chasing a high,” said Friedbert Weiss, a professor of neuroscience at Scripps Research and a senior author of the study. “They’re also trying to get rid of powerful negative states, like the stress and anxiety of withdrawal. This work shows us which brain systems are responsible for locking in that kind of learning, and why it can make relapse so persistent.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers designed a comprehensive experiment using adult male rats. They divided the animals into four distinct groups to isolate the effects of alcohol dependence and withdrawal-related learning. The main experimental group consisted of rats that were first made dependent on alcohol through exposure to alcohol vapor. Then, during periods of withdrawal, these rats were placed in a specific chamber where they could press a lever to receive alcohol. Over nine sessions, these animals learned to associate the chamber and the lever-press with the powerful relief from their withdrawal symptoms.</p>
<p>Three other groups served as essential comparisons. One group of non-dependent rats went through the same procedure, learning to associate the chamber with alcohol but without the experience of withdrawal. This allowed the scientists to see how the brain responded to learning about alcohol’s positive effects alone. A second comparison group was made dependent on alcohol but did not undergo the withdrawal-related learning procedure in the chamber, which helped isolate the effects of dependence itself from the specific learning process. A final group was neither dependent nor exposed to the specific learning task, serving as a baseline.</p>
<p>After the training phase, all the rats were placed back into the special chamber, but this time, the alcohol was not available. This test was designed to trigger the learned seeking behavior. Ninety minutes later, the researchers examined the animals’ brains, looking for signs of recent cellular activity. They used a technique that detects the presence of a protein called Fos, which accumulates in brain cells that have been recently activated. By mapping the locations of Fos-positive cells, they could create a picture of which brain regions were “switched on” by the environmental cues associated with alcohol.</p>
<p>The results were striking. When looking at the overall brain, the rats that had learned to associate the chamber with withdrawal relief showed significantly more neuronal activation than the non-dependent rats. The researchers then zoomed in on specific brain regions known to be involved in addiction and motivation. In two areas, the dorsal striatum and the central amygdala, there was heightened activity. </p>
<p>The dorsal striatum is linked to habit formation, and its activation in all dependent rats suggests it plays a role in the habitual behaviors that develop with long-term substance use. The central amygdala, a region tied to fear and stress, was also more active in the withdrawal-learning group, likely reflecting the connection between the environmental cues and the stressful memory of withdrawal.</p>
<p>The most pronounced discovery, however, was in the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus, or PVT. This small, midline brain structure showed a dramatic increase in activated neurons exclusively in the group of rats that had experienced withdrawal-related learning. The PVT remained quiet in the other three groups, including the dependent rats who had not undergone the specific learning task. This finding strongly suggested that the PVT is uniquely involved in encoding the powerful association between an environment and the relief from a negative state.</p>
<p>“This brain region just lit up in every rat that had gone through withdrawal-related learning,” commented co-senior author Hermina Nedelescu of Scripps Research. “It shows us which circuits are recruited when the brain links alcohol with relief from stress, and that could be a game-changer in how we think about relapse.” </p>
<p>The researchers believe the PVT acts as a critical hub in a larger circuit that processes emotionally significant information. Its specific activation in this context suggests it may be central to the development of what scientists call “hedonic allostasis,” a state where the brain’s pleasure and reward systems are chronically dysregulated, leading to a persistent negative emotional state that drives the search for relief.</p>
<p>The study does have some limitations. The experiments were conducted exclusively in male rats, and it will be important to see if the same brain mechanisms are present in females. Also, the detection of Fos protein shows a correlation between cellular activity and behavior, but future studies will be needed to prove causation. For instance, researchers could use advanced techniques to artificially silence the activated PVT neurons and observe whether the compulsive seeking behavior is reduced or eliminated.</p>
<p>Looking ahead, the team plans to expand on these findings. They intend to replicate the study in female rats and to investigate the specific neurochemicals, like neurotransmitters and hormones, that are released in the PVT during this type of learning. Identifying the key molecules involved could provide new targets for medications designed to disrupt this powerful learning cycle and reduce the risk of relapse. </p>
<p>The implications of this research extend beyond alcohol use disorder. The brain’s capacity to learn how to escape from pain or stress is a fundamental process that can drive other maladaptive behaviors, including those seen in anxiety disorders, phobias, and trauma-related conditions.</p>
<p>“This work has potential applications not only for alcohol addiction, but also other disorders where people get trapped in harmful cycles,” Nedelescu said. By identifying a brain region central to this process, the study provides a concrete target for future investigations into a wide range of conditions driven by the powerful motivation to avoid distress.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsgos.2025.100578" target="_blank">Recruitment of Neuronal Populations in the Paraventricular Thalamus of Alcohol Seeking Rats with Withdrawal-related Learning Experience</a>,” was authored by Hermina Nedelescu, Elias Meamari, Nami Rajaei, Alexus Grey, Ryan Bullard, Nathan O’Connor, Nobuyoshi Suto, and Friedbert Weiss.</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-study-finds-strong-links-between-prejudice-and-support-for-political-violence-in-the-united-states/" 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 study finds strong links between prejudice and support for political violence in the United States</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 16th 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X25002455" target="_blank">The Lancet Regional Health – Americas</a></em> suggests that various forms of prejudice are strongly tied to the belief that political violence is justified in the United States. People who expressed the most intense agreement with these prejudiced views were also more likely to say they supported or would personally engage in violence to achieve political objectives. When these forms of bias were combined into a broader measure of generalized hostility, the association with violent attitudes became even more pronounced.</p>
<p>The research was conducted by a team at the University of California, Davis, as part of a larger project to track support for political violence in the U.S. over time. The researchers aimed to quantify how various types of bias contribute to a person’s willingness to justify or commit acts of political violence. They used the term “allophobia” to describe a generalized fear or hatred of others—an umbrella category that includes racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, hostile sexism, and homonegativity.</p>
<p>Concerns about the potential for widespread political violence in the United States have increased in recent years, particularly following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman, and the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. While past research has suggested that individual forms of prejudice are linked to violent behavior, the new study is one of the first to quantify how these views relate to political violence specifically, and on a nationally representative scale.</p>
<p>The study’s findings are drawn from the second wave of an annual, nationally representative longitudinal survey, conducted between May 18 and June 8, 2023. A total of 9,385 adults completed the questionnaire, reflecting an 84 percent completion rate. The survey sample was weighted to mirror national demographics, with respondents averaging nearly 49 years of age. Just over half were women, and more than 60 percent identified as white and non-Hispanic.</p>
<p>Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements aimed at measuring prejudice toward various groups, including immigrants, Muslims, Jewish people, women, sexual minorities, gender-diverse individuals, and racial minorities. These questions were adapted from validated psychological scales but presented in shortened formats. </p>
<p>For example, to assess homonegativity, respondents rated their agreement with statements such as “Gay men and lesbian women should stop shoving their lifestyle down other people’s throats” and “Celebrations such as Gay Pride Day are ridiculous.” Racism was assessed with items like “Discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against Blacks and other minorities.”</p>
<p>Transphobia was evaluated through items including “I think there is something wrong with a person who says they are neither a man nor a woman,” and “I avoid people on the street whose gender is unclear to me.” Xenophobia was measured with statements such as “Interacting with immigrants makes me uneasy” and “I am afraid that our own culture will be lost with an increase in immigration.” </p>
<p>Islamophobia was probed with items like “Most Muslims living in the United States are more prone to violence than other people,” while antisemitism included agreement with the idea that “Jewish people have too much power in the media” or “talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda.” Hostile sexism was assessed using statements such as “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men” and “When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against.”</p>
<p>In addition to these measures, the survey included multiple questions about political violence. Respondents were asked how much they agreed with general statements such as, “True American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country,” and “The United States needs a civil war to set things right.” They were also asked whether they thought violence was justified in specific scenarios, such as stopping an election from being stolen, preventing illegal immigration, or protecting an “American way of life based on Western European traditions.” </p>
<p>Those who endorsed the use of violence were then asked about their personal willingness to damage property, threaten or injure someone, or even kill someone to achieve a political objective. Another set of items gauged how likely they were to use a firearm in such a situation, including openly carrying a gun, threatening someone with it, or shooting someone.</p>
<p>Among the seven forms of prejudice measured, homonegativity was the most prevalent, with 26.6 percent of respondents strongly agreeing with at least one related statement. Racist beliefs were strongly endorsed by 19.5 percent of participants, followed by 16.9 percent for transphobia and 9.8 percent for xenophobia. Hostile sexist views were strongly endorsed by 7.7 percent of respondents, while 5.0 percent expressed strong Islamophobic attitudes. Antisemitism was the least commonly endorsed, but still present, with 2.9 percent of respondents expressing strong agreement.</p>
<p>The researchers found that strong agreement with each type of prejudice was consistently associated with higher support for political violence. People who strongly agreed with Islamophobic statements, for example, were over 50 percentage points more likely to say that political violence was usually or always justified in at least one scenario. They were also about 12.5 percentage points more likely to say they would be willing to kill someone to achieve a political objective.</p>
<p>While Islamophobia showed the strongest individual link to violent attitudes, similar patterns were found across all seven forms of prejudice. The least prevalent forms of prejudice—such as antisemitism—tended to have the strongest connections to support for violence. In contrast, more commonly held biases like homonegativity had smaller but still significant associations. This pattern suggests that people who strongly endorse rarer prejudices may hold more extreme views overall, which could make them more prone to violent beliefs or behavior.</p>
<p>When the researchers combined all seven forms of prejudice into a single measure of “allophobia,” the associations with support for violence became even more pronounced. People who strongly agreed with multiple types of bias were significantly more likely to endorse statements such as “The United States needs a civil war to set things right” or “Our American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” These individuals were also more likely to say they would be armed with a gun or even use one against someone in the future, if they believed the political situation warranted it.</p>
<p>“The vast majority of Americans reject these harmful beliefs, just as they reject political violence,” said lead author Garen Wintemute. “We cannot eradicate such beliefs, but we must work to prevent them from leading to acts of violence.”</p>
<p>The results suggest that people who harbor multiple forms of group-based hostility may pose a particularly high risk for endorsing or engaging in political violence. The authors compare the size of these associations to <a href="https://www.psypost.org/pro-trump-maga-republicans-much-more-likely-to-endorse-delusional-and-pro-violence-statements-study-finds/" target="_blank">what they previously found</a> among supporters of extremist groups like the Proud Boys or QAnon, as well as among people who frequently carry firearms in public.</p>
<p>Notably, the study also found that phobias were moderately to strongly correlated with each other. For example, people who held xenophobic beliefs were also likely to endorse Islamophobia, while those who expressed transphobic views tended to also agree with hostile sexist statements. This clustering of biases aligns with theories suggesting that people who support group-based hierarchies often generalize their dislike across multiple marginalized groups.</p>
<p>While the study’s findings are based on self-reported attitudes rather than actual behavior, the researchers suggest that such attitudes are meaningful indicators of risk. They argue that people who strongly endorse these prejudices should be considered high-risk not just for targeted hate crimes, but for political violence more broadly. The connection appears to extend beyond group-specific animosity and into a more general willingness to use force in the political realm.</p>
<p>The authors note that while deep-seated prejudices may be resistant to change, there may still be ways to reduce the risk that these beliefs lead to violence. One approach could be to “uncouple” hostile beliefs from violent behaviors, possibly by using social pressure or persuasion. For example, previous survey waves have shown that individuals who initially supported the idea of civil war were often willing to reconsider their stance if family members urged them to. In other cases, traditional threat assessment or law enforcement interventions might be necessary.</p>
<p>The researchers also point to potential policy implications. In particular, they suggest that firearm permitting processes and extreme risk protection orders could take into account evidence of hostility toward marginalized groups, especially when combined with prior threats or violent behavior. California has recently implemented such a policy for its gun violence restraining orders.</p>
<p>Still, the study has limitations. Because it is cross-sectional, it cannot establish causal relationships. The researchers acknowledge the potential for sampling error, response bias, and other issues common to survey research. Social desirability bias may have led some participants to underreport their support for violence or their prejudiced beliefs. The findings may also have shifted since the time of data collection, given recent events that may influence public opinion.</p>
<p>The researchers emphasize that their results reflect attitudes held at the population level, rather than predicting any one person’s future actions. They argue that identifying clusters of beliefs associated with political violence can help inform prevention strategies and improve public safety.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X25002455" target="_blank">Fear, loathing, and support for political violence in the United States: findings from a nationally representative survey</a>,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Bradley Velasquez, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Mona A. Wright, Paul M. Reeping, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, and Veronica A. Pear.</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/jail-based-opioid-addiction-treatment-saves-lives-and-reduces-reincarceration/" 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;">Jail-based opioid addiction treatment saves lives and reduces reincarceration</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 16th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study has found that providing medications for opioid addiction to individuals while they are incarcerated can dramatically improve their health and reduce their chances of returning to jail after release. The research, published in <em><a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa2415987" target="_blank">The New England Journal of Medicine</a></em> and supported by the National Institutes of Health, found that this approach significantly increased engagement in treatment and was linked to a substantial drop in overdose deaths. These findings suggest that correctional facilities could serve as a vital front in the public health response to the nation’s opioid crisis.</p>
<p>The rationale for this investigation is rooted in the severe and overlapping crises of opioid addiction and mass incarceration in the United States. In 2023 alone, more than 81,000 people were known to have died from opioid-related overdoses. People who use opioids are at a heightened risk for incarceration, and the period immediately following release from jail or prison is one of extreme vulnerability. Individuals reentering the community after a period of forced abstinence have a much lower tolerance to opioids, placing them at an exceptionally high risk of a fatal overdose. Estimates suggest that nearly half of all community overdose deaths may involve people who were recently incarcerated.</p>
<p>This situation presents a clear opportunity for intervention within the justice system. Medications for opioid use disorder, which include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, are well-established, effective treatments that reduce opioid use and prevent overdose deaths in community settings. Despite this evidence, these life-saving medications have been slow to penetrate the American carceral system, particularly local jails, where most incarcerated individuals are held. </p>
<p>A nationwide survey found that only 13 percent of jails offer these medications to all incarcerated people who need them. Recognizing this gap, the state of Massachusetts mandated a pilot program in 2019 requiring seven county jails to provide all federally approved forms of medication for opioid use disorder. This new study was designed to evaluate the real-world effects of that state-mandated program. Researchers wanted to determine if receiving medication inside a jail would be associated with better outcomes after release, including continued treatment, lower rates of overdose, fewer deaths, and less recidivism.</p>
<p>To conduct the study, researchers analyzed data from 6,400 people who had been identified as having a probable opioid use disorder while incarcerated in one of the seven participating Massachusetts jails between September 2019 and December 2020. The participants were divided into two groups for analysis: a group of 2,711 individuals who received medication for opioid use disorder during their incarceration, and a group of 3,689 who did not. </p>
<p>To track what happened to these individuals after they left jail, the research team linked the jail records to a comprehensive state health database managed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. This powerful data repository contains information from over 35 state administrative sources, including ambulance encounters, hospital records, prescription monitoring programs, death certificates, and subsequent incarcerations. This allowed the scientists to follow the participants for at least six months after their release.</p>
<p>Because this was an observational study of a real-world program and not a randomized experiment, the two groups of participants had some baseline differences. For instance, individuals who received medication in jail were more likely to have already been receiving it before their arrest. To ensure a fair comparison, the researchers used a statistical method known as propensity-score weighting. </p>
<p>This technique allowed them to adjust for dozens of differences between the groups, including age, race, sex, education level, history of homelessness, prior overdoses, and length of incarceration. This adjustment helps to isolate the effect of receiving the medication in jail from other factors that could influence post-release outcomes.</p>
<p>The findings were consistent across several key areas. First, receiving medication in jail was strongly associated with continuing treatment in the community. Among those who received medication while incarcerated, 60 percent started community-based treatment within 30 days of release. This stands in stark contrast to the group that did not receive medication in jail, where only 18 percent initiated treatment in the same timeframe. The effect persisted over time. Six months after release, 58 percent of the group treated in jail were still retained in some form of treatment, compared to just 23 percent of the other group.</p>
<p>The study also found a powerful association between in-jail treatment and a lower risk of life-threatening events. Individuals who received medication for opioid use disorder while incarcerated had a 52 percent lower risk of a fatal opioid overdose after release compared to those who did not. They also had a 24 percent lower risk of a non-fatal opioid overdose. The benefits extended beyond opioid-specific events. The group that received medication in jail experienced a 56 percent lower risk of death from any cause during the follow-up period.</p>
<p>Finally, the program appeared to have a positive impact on public safety and the cycle of incarceration. Those who received medication while in jail had a 12 percent lower risk of being reincarcerated within the state’s county jail or prison system. This suggests that stabilizing individuals with effective medical treatment can also help reduce criminal justice system involvement. </p>
<p>The researchers did note a concerning disparity in their data. Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic individuals were less likely to receive medication for opioid use disorder in these jails. The study authors suggest this could reflect existing inequities in access to treatment in the community, which are then carried into the carceral setting, but they could not rule out other factors like bias or patient preferences.</p>
<p>The study has some limitations that the authors acknowledge. Because it was not a randomized controlled trial, it demonstrates a strong association between in-jail treatment and positive outcomes but cannot definitively prove causation. The findings are from a single state, Massachusetts, which may not be representative of the entire country. The data system was also unable to capture outcomes for individuals who may have moved out of state after their release. The study period also overlapped with the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, which could have influenced health outcomes and correctional system practices in unforeseen ways.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the evidence provides a case for expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder in jails across the country. The results show that these programs are not only feasible but are associated with profound benefits for individuals and society, including greater engagement in life-saving treatment, fewer overdose deaths, and lower rates of reincarceration. </p>
<p>Future research could explore the reasons for the racial and ethnic disparities in treatment access and identify best practices for ensuring equitable care. The authors conclude that jails, which are often at the epicenter of the opioid crisis, have a significant opportunity to become key sites for public health intervention. By offering all forms of effective medication to incarcerated people with opioid use disorder, they can help break the cycle of addiction and save lives.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa2415987" target="_blank">Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in County Jails — Outcomes after Release</a>,” was authored by Peter D. Friedmann, Donna Wilson, Thomas J. Stopka, Dana Bernson, Ekaterina Pivovarova, Warren Ferguson, Randall A. Hoskinson, Jr., Rebecca E. Rottapel, Benjamin Bovell‑Ammon, Ayorkor Gaba, Jake R. Morgan, Thomas Senst, Edmond Hayes, and Elizabeth A. Evans, for the MassJCOIN Research Hub.</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/massive-study-of-reddit-posts-sheds-light-on-lived-experiences-of-autism/" 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;">Massive study of Reddit posts sheds light on lived experiences of autism</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 16th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the journal Autism Research sheds light on how autistic individuals and their communities use Reddit to express themselves, support one another, and challenge traditional views of autism. The researchers used advanced language processing techniques to analyze hundreds of thousands of posts and identified the most common themes in autism-related discussions. The findings suggest that while many conversations center on struggles with relationships, emotions, and daily routines, users also reflect on identity, resilience, and community.</p>
<p>Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition often associated with differences in social interaction, communication, and repetitive patterns of behavior or intense interests. Traditional medical approaches tend to focus on difficulties or deficits, but many autistic individuals and advocacy communities emphasize that these traits are differences shaped by a mismatch between their neurology and societal expectations.</p>
<p>The new study was motivated by a desire to explore how autistic people describe their own experiences outside of clinical or structured research environments. Social media platforms such as Reddit offer users the ability to speak anonymously and openly about their challenges, identities, and interactions with the world. Unlike interviews or surveys, which are typically designed and filtered through a research lens, Reddit posts can offer more spontaneous, nuanced, and personal accounts.</p>
<p>While previous studies have examined how autism is discussed on platforms like Twitter or TikTok, Reddit has received less attention, despite its popularity and depth of conversation. Reddit allows long-form posts, creating a richer space for reflection and dialogue. The researchers aimed to identify what autistic people are actually talking about online, how they describe their experiences, and what kinds of support or understanding they seek.</p>
<p>“We were motivated by the realization that social media is where many autistic individuals share their experiences more freely than in clinical or research settings,” said study author Gianluca Esposito, a professor and director of the Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science at the University of Trento.</p>
<p>“Traditional medical perspectives often reduce autism to a checklist of symptoms, but online communities such as r/autism offer a more person-centered view of daily challenges, coping strategies, and strengths. By analyzing over 700,000 Reddit posts with advanced topic modeling techniques, we wanted to better understand how autistic voices describe their lived experience,”</p>
<p>The research team analyzing Reddit communities focused on autism, including the large and general subreddit r/autism, as well as 15 smaller communities such as r/Autism_Parenting, r/AutisticAdults, r/AutisticCreatives, and r/Aspergers. Posts were collected between 2009 and 2023 and included both original threads and content from across a wide range of autism-related topics.</p>
<p>To analyze the data, the team used a machine learning technique called BERTopic, which identifies meaningful clusters of topics in large text datasets. Unlike older methods that rely on word frequency alone, BERTopic uses contextual information to better capture the meaning behind discussions. The researchers then used a language model to generate labels for the topics based on keywords and sample posts.</p>
<p>In r/autism alone, 174,102 posts were analyzed. The most frequent topic concerned food selectivity and eating challenges, often related to sensory sensitivities. Users discussed food textures, strong aversions, and the pressure to eat foods that felt uncomfortable or overwhelming. Another major topic was “masking,” or the act of concealing one’s autistic traits in public. Posts in this category reflected the emotional toll of suppressing natural behaviors, sometimes for years, in order to fit in socially.</p>
<p>Many users described confusion about where their authentic personality ended and their learned behaviors began. The discussions included both frustration with societal expectations and relief when able to unmask in safe spaces. Other recurring themes involved stimming behaviors, such as hand-flapping or rocking, and challenges around forming and maintaining friendships.</p>
<p>The analysis also highlighted how users discuss romantic relationships in distinct stages. Some posts focused on early dating experiences, particularly anxiety around disclosure and unfamiliar social scripts. Others centered on long-term relationships, emphasizing communication difficulties and emotional labor.</p>
<p>A second analysis of 15 related subreddits—containing over 291,000 posts—revealed similar themes. However, this broader dataset included more discussions about navigating diagnosis, experiences with medication, and parenting autistic children. Many posts described the emotional complexity of receiving a late diagnosis, especially among adults who had masked traits throughout childhood. Users often expressed feelings of identity confusion, grief over missed support, and a desire to make sense of their life history through a new lens.</p>
<p>Music was another frequent subject, with users describing intense emotional connections to songs, repetitive listening habits, and difficulty switching tracks. These posts painted a picture of how restricted or repetitive behaviors, often viewed negatively in clinical literature, can also serve as meaningful coping strategies.</p>
<p>“One surprising result was how frequently topics like food selectivity and music listening emerged as central themes,” Esposito told PsyPost. “These everyday experiences are rarely prioritized in clinical research, yet they clearly play an important role in autistic people’s lives.”</p>
<p>Some topics fell outside traditional clinical frameworks. One such theme was the emotional bond with pets. Users described animals as sources of unconditional acceptance, emotional regulation, and stability in a world that often felt overwhelming or unpredictable. These relationships sometimes offered comfort that social relationships could not.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that autism is not just about deficits, but about differences that become challenging largely because of societal expectations,” Esposito said. “Many discussions focus on masking, sensory sensitivities, friendships, and daily life struggles, but also on positive aspects such as creativity, resilience, and community support. Platforms like Reddit can thus be a valuable source of reliable, peer-driven information that highlights autistic perspectives and emphasizes quality of life rather than pathology.”</p>
<p>While this study provides one of the most extensive looks at autism-related discourse on Reddit, it comes with limitations. One key issue is that it is not always possible to determine whether a Reddit user is autistic, a family member, a professional, or simply someone with an interest in the topic. Posts are anonymous, and identities are not verified. This means that while many discussions appear to reflect lived experiences, some may be secondhand or speculative.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the analysis did not include comment threads — the replies to original posts. These sub-conversations could offer additional insights into how topics evolve, how community members respond to one another, and what kinds of support or disagreement emerge.</p>
<p>The machine learning model also identified a large number of posts as “outliers,” meaning they did not clearly belong to any specific topic. This may reflect the complexity or uniqueness of some individual stories that do not fit neatly into broader patterns.</p>
<p>“We cannot always know whether the authors of Reddit posts are autistic themselves or family members, and our analysis focused only on English-language discussions,” Esposito noted. “Moreover, while topic modeling reveals broad patterns, it cannot capture the full emotional nuance of individual experiences.”</p>
<p>“Our next goal is to integrate these large-scale social media insights with clinical and community-based studies. We hope to bridge the gap between autistic self-expression and professional research, ensuring that interventions and supports are more aligned with the priorities expressed by autistic people themselves.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70066" target="_blank">Autism Spectrum Disorders Discourse on Social Media Platforms: A Topic Modeling Study of Reddit Posts</a>,” was authored by Seraphina Fong, Alessandro Carollo, Giacomo Vivanti, Daniel S. Messinger, Dagmara Dimitriou, and Gianluca Esposito.</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/women-often-display-more-aggression-than-men-toward-their-siblings-large-global-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;">Women often display more aggression than men toward their siblings, large global study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 16th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A sweeping international study led by researchers from the <a href="https://psychology.asu.edu/research/labs/evolutionary-social-psychology-co-laboratory" target="_blank">Evolutionary Social Psychology Co-Laboratory</a> at Arizona State University has found that women tend to be at least as aggressive as men when it comes to their siblings—and in many cases, more so. While previous research has long indicated that men are more physically aggressive than women, especially outside the family, this new work suggests that the dynamics of sibling relationships present a different picture. The findings were published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf239" target="_blank">PNAS Nexus</a></em>.</p>
<p>It is widely accepted that human males tend to engage in more physical and direct aggression than females. This generalization is supported by global data showing that men are far more likely to commit acts of violence, from playground fights to homicide. These patterns have been attributed to a range of factors, including evolutionary pressures related to mating and status, higher testosterone levels in males, and cultural norms that encourage aggressive behavior in boys more than in girls.</p>
<p>But almost all of that research has focused on interactions between unrelated individuals. Far less is known about how aggression plays out within the family, particularly among siblings. Some theories would suggest that the same sex differences should apply to sibling relationships. Others propose that the family environment may dampen or reshape aggressive tendencies, especially given the shared genetic interests and long-term interdependence between siblings.</p>
<p>“Family is really important, yet often overlooked in social psychology. A few years ago we collected data from dozens of countries about how important various motives were to people, and we found to our surprise that on average caring for kin was the strongest motivation people reported. This was true in every society we’ve studied so far,” said co-author Michael E. W. Varnum, a professor of psychology.</p>
<p>“And this got us interested in a broader question. Much of what we know about social psychology has to do with how we interact or think about non-kin, but might things look very different in the context of kin relations? In other words much of what we think we know about human social psychology, might really be a psychology of stranger or non-kin interactions. And in some cases, our psychology may look very different in the context of kin interactions.”</p>
<p><a href="http://psypost.org/sibling-aggression-is-shockingly-common-and-might-have-a-paradoxical-explanation/" target="_blank">Previous findings from the United States</a> hinted that women may be just as likely—or even more likely—to engage in aggression toward their siblings. But the extent to which this pattern held across different cultural and economic settings had not been tested.</p>
<p>To investigate this question, researchers gathered data from 4,136 participants across 24 countries, including both Western and non-Western nations, wealthy and less wealthy societies, and regions from every inhabited continent. </p>
<p>“The reason we collected data from around the world was because we found two surprising things in a recent study of Americans’ aggression toward brothers and sisters,” explained co-author Douglas Kenrick, president’s professor in the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University.</p>
<p>“All the earlier research suggested two truisms about aggression: 1. Males are more aggressive, and 2. People are kinder to their blood relatives. Yet, we found that when it comes to hitting or yelling at another person, a) people are more likely to aggress towards brothers and sisters than toward friends or acquaintances, and b) sisters are at least as aggressive as brothers. We wanted to know if those unexpected findings would be found in other countries, which would suggest something about human nature, or just found in the United States, which would suggest something unique about American culture.”</p>
<p>Participants ranged in age and were asked to report how often they had engaged in various types of aggression—such as hitting, yelling, gossiping, or reporting misbehavior—toward siblings, friends, and acquaintances. They were asked to reflect separately on their behavior during childhood and adulthood.</p>
<p>The study used self-reported frequencies rather than asking for exact counts of behavior. While this method has limitations, it allowed the researchers to capture broad patterns of aggression over time. Participants who did not have biological siblings were excluded from the study, and all surveys were translated into the appropriate languages by researchers in each country.</p>
<p>The types of aggression examined were divided into two broad categories: direct aggression (physical acts like hitting or yelling) and indirect aggression (reputational tactics such as gossiping or telling an authority figure about someone’s behavior). Participants reported on how frequently they had engaged in these behaviors toward brothers, sisters, male and female friends, and male and female acquaintances, both during their childhood and as adults.</p>
<p>Men consistently reported higher levels of direct aggression toward non-relatives, both in childhood and adulthood. This standard pattern—greater male aggression toward nonkin—was observed in nearly every country, aligning with previous studies and suggesting that the data captured real and familiar differences.</p>
<p>But when it came to siblings, the results flipped. For example, during childhood, females were more likely than males to report yelling at or hitting a sibling in countries like the United States, Sweden, Chile, and Pakistan. During adulthood, the pattern persisted, although the differences were slightly smaller. Men did not become more aggressive toward siblings as they aged, and in many cases, women continued to report higher levels of sibling-directed aggression into adulthood.</p>
<p>The results for indirect aggression were somewhat more mixed, but again, females often scored as high or higher than males. In particular, women were more likely to report a sibling’s behavior to family authorities—such as parents or other relatives—both during childhood and adulthood. These patterns held true across a wide range of societies, regardless of economic development or cultural norms around gender.</p>
<p>“I think the big story here is that when it comes to sibling interactions, women are at least as aggressive as men,” Varnum told PsyPost. “This is true not only in childhood, but adulthood. And we see the same thing all over the world. Although in non-kin interactions we, like many others before us, find that men engage in more direct aggression than women, this sex difference goes away or reverses when people are interacting with siblings.”</p>
<p>These results suggest that sex differences in aggression are not fixed traits, but instead depend heavily on who the target is. Aggression between unrelated individuals may serve different social or reproductive functions than aggression between family members. Outside the family, males may compete for status, mates, or resources in ways that reward physical dominance. Inside the family, siblings are often competing for parental attention, affection, and shared household resources—factors that could apply equally to brothers and sisters.</p>
<p>Because siblings share roughly half of their genes, evolutionary theories based on inclusive fitness suggest that they may avoid more extreme or damaging forms of aggression. This might level the playing field for females, who may otherwise face higher risks or social penalties for engaging in direct confrontation outside the home. Parents may also respond differently to sibling conflicts based on the sex of the child, possibly disciplining boys more harshly for aggression, which could shape behavior patterns over time.</p>
<p>The researchers note that their findings challenge not only evolutionary theories based on sexual selection, but also social role theories that emphasize cultural learning and gender norms. Neither framework fully explains why women would be more aggressive than men toward siblings in such a wide variety of societies, especially when those same women report lower aggression toward unrelated peers.</p>
<p>“We’d already found this pattern with some U.S. samples, but it’s always an open question whether you get the same results in very different cultural contexts,” Varnum said. “And were lots of reasons why one might have predicted big cultural differences. But we found the same pattern everywhere we looked and there were no systematic relationships with how wealthy a society was, or how broadly egalitarian, or really with any other cultural factor we looked at. So I think that might surprise some folks.”</p>
<p>But there are still some limitations to consider. The study relied on retrospective self-reports, which are subject to memory biases and differences in interpretation. For example, women and men might define or recall aggression differently, particularly for ambiguous behaviors like hitting or yelling. Social desirability bias could also play a role, especially in cases where men might be reluctant to admit to hitting a sister. That said, the researchers note that they replicated well-established sex differences in aggression toward nonkin, suggesting that the measures were reasonably valid.</p>
<p>“All this data was self-report,” Varnum said. “So all the limitations that go along with that type of work apply here. Ideally, it would be great to test this idea with observational data or reports by others.”</p>
<p>“One possibility is that boys are simply unwilling to report hitting their siblings,” Kenrick added. “However, we found the exact same pattern when we asked another group not about their aggression, but about whether their sisters or brothers ever hit them. People said their sisters were just as likely to hit them or yell at them as were their brothers. This suggests that the self reports are probably not biased in a self serving manner.”</p>
<p>Future research could explore these patterns using observational methods or reports from family members to cross-check self-reported behavior. It would also be useful to examine how factors like family size, birth order, parental discipline, and socioeconomic status shape sibling dynamics across cultures.</p>
<p>“We are currently thinking about many other classic findings from social psychology that might not quite look the same in the context of kin relationships and planning some studies that we hope to launch soon,” Varnum said. “So stay tuned!”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf239" target="_blank">Commonly observed sex differences in direct aggression are absent or reversed in sibling contexts</a>,” was authored by Michael E. W. Varnum, Amanda P. Kirsch, Daniel J. Beal, Cari M. Pick, Laith Al-Shawaf, Chiara Ambrosio, Maria Teresa Barbato, Oumar Barry, Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat, Eduard Brandstätter, Suzan Ceylan-Batur, Marco Antonio Correa Varella, Julio Eduardo Cruz, Oana David, Laina Ngom Dieng, Dimitri Dubois, Ana María Fernandez, Silvia Galdi, Oscar Javier Galindo Caballero, Sylvie Graf, Igor Grossmann, David Guzman, Peter Halama, Takeshi Hamamura, Martina Hřebíčková, Ioana Iuga, Lady Javela, Jaewuk Jung, Johannes A. Karl, Jinseok P. Kim, Michal Kohút, Anthonieta Looman Mafra, Dieynaba Gabrielle Ndiaye, Jiaqing O, Beatriz Perez Sánchez, Eric Roth Unzueta, Muhammad Rizwan, A. Timur Sevincer, Eric Skoog, Eunkook M. Suh, Daniel Sznycer, Evelina Thunell, Arnaud Tognetti, Ayse K. Uskul, Jaroslava Varella Valentova, Yunsuh Nike Wee, Anja Lundkvist Winter, Torin Peter Young, Danilo Zambrano, Anna Ziska, and Douglas T. Kenrick.</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>