<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/emotional-bias-may-run-in-families-shaped-by-how-parents-and-kids-talk/" 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;">Emotional bias may run in families, shaped by how parents and kids talk</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 19th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Children often learn how to navigate the world from their parents. A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.70068" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Developmental Science</a></em> suggests that this includes how they interpret emotionally ambiguous situations. The findings indicate that children are more likely to mirror their parents’ emotional outlook—known as valence bias—particularly when the parent and child report higher levels of communication. This intergenerational pattern may play a subtle but important role in shaping how children approach uncertainty in daily life.</p>
<p>Valence bias refers to the tendency to interpret ambiguous emotional information—such as a surprised facial expression—as either positive or negative. For instance, a surprised face could signal good news, like an unexpected gift, or something more troubling, like an accident. How a person typically interprets these ambiguous cues offers insight into their emotional style. Some people lean toward optimistic interpretations, while others may expect the worst.</p>
<p>This bias tends to emerge early in development and appears to remain fairly stable over time. Research has shown that a more negative valence bias is associated with elevated symptoms of depression, anxiety, social withdrawal, and greater emotional reactivity. Understanding how this bias develops in children has implications for early interventions that promote emotional resilience.</p>
<p>The research team behind the new study, led by scientists at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, wanted to investigate whether valence bias is passed down from parents to children. They also examined whether aspects of the parent–child relationship—particularly communication—might influence this process.</p>
<p>“For nearly 20 years now, I’ve been studying individual differences in how we respond to emotional ambiguity. That is, why is it that two people can look at the same image and have very different responses to it – one person seeing it as more negative and another as more positive?” explained study author Maital Neta, Happold Professor of Psychology, director of <a href="https://canlab.unl.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Lab</a>, and co-author of the textbook <em><a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003389583/psychology-emotion-paula-niedenthal-maital-neta-adrienne-wood" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychology of Emotion</a></em>.</p>
<p>“We have found that the tendency to default to negative interpretations seems to be associated with symptoms of depression and anxiety, and we started to wonder how people come to have the lens, or the bias, that they have. And that’s what we explored in this latest study.”</p>
<p>The study included 136 parent–child pairs, with children ranging in age from 6 to 17 years. Most parents were mothers, and the sample came from urban and suburban communities in the Midwestern United States. To assess valence bias, both parents and children completed a behavioral task in which they viewed facial expressions and categorized them as either positive or negative. The task included clearly positive (happy) and negative (angry) expressions, as well as ambiguous ones (surprised).</p>
<p>The key focus was on how participants interpreted surprised faces. A higher proportion of “negative” responses to these expressions indicated a more negative valence bias. Children and parents completed the task separately, ensuring that children did not directly observe their parent’s choices.</p>
<p>In addition to the behavioral task, children completed a questionnaire assessing their attachment to their parent. This measure included three components: communication (the quality and quantity of communication between parent and child), trust (the degree of mutual understanding), and alienation (feelings of disconnection or separation).</p>
<p>The researchers used structural equation modeling, a statistical method that can estimate relationships between multiple variables even when some data are missing. They also conducted a permutation test, shuffling parent–child pairs to determine whether the observed relationships were stronger than what might be expected by chance.</p>
<p>The researchers found that children’s valence bias tended to resemble that of their parents. Specifically, there was a significant positive relationship between parent and child responses to the ambiguous stimuli. This association remained even after accounting for the child’s age and sex.</p>
<p>To test whether this effect was meaningful or could have occurred by chance, the researchers compared it to a null distribution created by randomly pairing children with adults who were not their parents. The real parent–child pairs showed significantly stronger alignment in valence bias than the randomly assigned pairs, lending weight to the idea that this pattern reflects an intergenerational link.</p>
<p>The study also explored whether the quality of the parent–child relationship influenced this transmission. Among the three attachment subscales, only communication emerged as a significant moderator. In families where children reported high levels of communication with their parent, the link between the parent’s and child’s valence bias was stronger. When communication was lower, this connection disappeared.</p>
<p>This suggests that children may be more likely to adopt their parent’s emotional interpretations of ambiguous events when there is an open line of communication between them. In families where emotional dialogue is more frequent or effective, children may learn not just what their parents believe, but how they process uncertainty or emotionally ambiguous situations.</p>
<p>“One of the major take-homes, which likely comes as no surprise, is that we are powerfully shaped by our caregivers,” Neta told PsyPost. “The way that our parents or other primary caregivers see the world dramatically shapes the way we see it. But in addition to that, our attachment to our caregivers influences the extent to which we are shaped by them –the more we have open lines of communication with our caregivers, the more likely they are to shape our world view.”</p>
<p>The other two dimensions of attachment—trust and alienation—did not show statistically significant effects, although there was a near-significant trend for alienation. Children who reported lower levels of alienation (i.e., feeling closer to their parent) also tended to show more alignment in valence bias with their parent, but this effect did not reach the conventional threshold for significance.</p>
<p>“It turned out that the extent to which a child reported having better communication with their parent was the main factor in how influential parents were in shaping their child’s bias. But other attachment-related factors like trust or companionship (the opposite of alienation) were not as important,” Neta said.</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledged some limitations, including the relatively homogenous sample and use of only White facial stimuli, which may restrict how broadly the findings apply. They also noted the lack of socioeconomic data and the cross-sectional design, which limits conclusions about causality. The study could not determine whether similarities in valence bias stem from genetic, environmental, or relational factors. Future research may explore the roles of temperament, brain mechanisms, other caregivers, and peers in shaping how children learn to interpret emotionally ambiguous situations.</p>
<p>“We studied children and adolescents and their primary caregiver – we did not intentionally recruit biological parents, but in this sample, all the primary caregivers were biological parents, and a large majority of them were mothers,” Neta noted. “Much more research is needed to understand the influence of fathers and non-biologically related caregivers, as these individuals surely also have a powerful influence on shaping our biases.”</p>
<p>“One next step is to broaden our scope to better characterize the influence of other caregivers, and even peers, on our bias. We’d also like to better understand the mechanism of these intergenerational influences – for example, is there a genetic explanation for the transmission of bias, or is it based more on parental modeling, or something else (and maybe there are multiple mechanisms acting together). Finally, we’d like to explore the brain mechanisms that shape the transmission of bias from parent to child.”</p>
<p>“We worked with an incredible team of collaborators on this work, and I am beyond grateful for all the shared ideas and expertise, and for our funding from the National Institute of Mental Health,” Neta added.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.70068" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Intergenerational Transmission of Valence Bias Is Moderated by Attachment</a>,” was authored by Ashley Humphries, Isabella Peckinpaugh, Grace Kupka, Robert James R. Blair, Nim Tottenham, and Maital Neta.</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-identify-skull-to-brain-immune-pathway-linking-chronic-stress-to-depression/" 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 identify skull-to-brain immune pathway linking chronic stress to depression</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 19th 2025, 09:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62840-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nature Communications</a></em> provides evidence that chronic stress triggers the release of immune cells from bone marrow in the skull, which then travel to the protective layers surrounding the brain. These immune cells, known as neutrophils, appear to contribute to behavioral symptoms commonly associated with depression and anxiety. The findings, based on extensive research in mice, highlight a previously unrecognized link between the body’s immune response and stress-related mental health symptoms.</p>
<p>The research was led by Stacey Kigar, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Cambridge, in collaboration with colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States. The study adds to a growing body of work suggesting that inflammation may play a key role in depression.</p>
<p>People experiencing depression often report persistent sadness, low energy, reduced interest in previously enjoyable activities, sleep disturbances, and changes in appetite. While psychological and social factors contribute to its development, biological processes are also involved. In recent years, researchers have increasingly focused on how the immune system may influence the onset and persistence of depressive symptoms, particularly under conditions of chronic stress.</p>
<p>The researchers behind the new findings were motivated by accumulating evidence that the immune system plays an active role in mental health. Chronic inflammation has been associated with both major depressive disorder and ongoing psychosocial stress. Neutrophils—white blood cells that act as rapid responders to injury and infection—have been found at elevated levels in the blood of people with depression. These cells are known to respond to inflammatory signals, including those from type I interferons, a family of proteins involved in antiviral defense and immune regulation.</p>
<p>Previous work by the same research group had already shown that depleting B cells in mice, or subjecting them to chronic social stress, could lead to higher expression of interferon-related genes in the meninges. But it was not clear how neutrophils were being recruited to this region, or what role they might play in stress-induced behavioral changes.</p>
<p>One recently described mechanism involves immune cells traveling directly from skull bone marrow through small vascular channels into the meninges, bypassing the bloodstream entirely. The team aimed to test whether this pathway might be activated by chronic stress, and if so, whether it could influence behavior.</p>
<p>“Depression affects many people and can be debilitating; I have seen it negatively impact loved ones first-hand,” Kigar told PsyPost. “Many people I talk to intuitively understand that stress and the onset of depression are linked, but there is still a narrative out there suggesting susceptibility to stress is somehow a personal failing, and that a person suffering from depression should be able to ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'”</p>
<p>“My goal as a scientist has been to help demystify the black box of mental health research a bit by pinning down specific biological mechanisms that link environmental factors like stress to adverse outcomes like depression. In doing so, I hope we will shift the broader societal narrative on mental health away from one of personal weakness to one of legitimate biomedical concern.”</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers used a well-established model of chronic stress called chronic social defeat. In this paradigm, male mice are repeatedly exposed to brief but intense encounters with aggressive counterparts, leading to a range of behavioral changes. These behaviors—such as reduced interest in social interaction or exploration of new environments—are considered indicators of anxiety-like and depression-like states in mice.</p>
<p>The team subjected groups of mice to one, two, four, eight, or fourteen days of this stress protocol and examined both behavior and immune cell activity in various tissues. Behavioral tests included urine scent marking (a measure of sexual motivation), open field and light-dark box tests (to assess anxiety), and social interaction with unfamiliar mice. Only mice exposed to the full fourteen-day stress procedure showed significant increases in neutrophils in the meninges, while neutrophil levels in the blood rose after just one day of stress.</p>
<p>Advanced imaging of the skull and meninges revealed that many of these neutrophils originated from bone marrow in the skull. The researchers used genetically modified mice whose neutrophils glowed under a microscope to visually trace the route these cells took through bone channels into the meningeal tissue. They found that stressed mice had more neutrophils present in these skull-to-meninges channels, and that the composition of neutrophils in the meninges resembled those in bone marrow rather than those in the bloodstream. This pointed to the skull as a likely source of these stress-related immune cells.</p>
<p>Using single-cell RNA sequencing, the researchers analyzed the gene activity of meningeal immune cells in stressed versus control mice. They discovered that stressed mice had a higher proportion of neutrophils in the meninges, and that these cells expressed high levels of genes related to type I interferon signaling. These gene expression patterns indicated a heightened inflammatory response specific to this immune pathway. Notably, the effect was not seen in other immune cells such as monocytes, further pointing to a unique role for neutrophils.</p>
<p>The presence of more neutrophils in the meninges was associated with behavioral changes. Mice with higher numbers of these immune cells in meningeal tissue showed stronger signs of anxiety and anhedonia—the reduced ability to experience pleasure. The researchers also noted that the buildup of neutrophils in the meninges lasted longer than similar increases in the blood, suggesting a prolonged immune presence near the brain.</p>
<p>“We were surprised to find that following exposure to chronic stress, neutrophils in the brain’s protective tissues (meninges) showed a type I interferon signature,” Kigar explained. “While we had assumed chronic stress would change neutrophils in some way, we weren’t sure how; with this finding, things began to click. Type I interferons are given to patients with life-threatening viral infections; they boost an immune response and help clear the infection, but a well-known side effect is depressed mood. Identifying this pathway in meningeal neutrophils (and only neutrophils—none of the other cell types in our experiment showed enrichment of this pathway) was exciting and may help explain interferon-related depression.”</p>
<p>To test whether interferon signaling was essential to these effects, the team administered a drug that blocks the receptor for type I interferons. Mice given this treatment before and during chronic stress exposure showed fewer behavioral signs of stress, particularly in the urine marking and open field tests. At the same time, these mice had reduced numbers of neutrophils in the meninges, but not in the blood, reinforcing the idea that interferon-driven trafficking of neutrophils into brain-adjacent tissue contributes to behavioral symptoms.</p>
<p>“Stress has a demonstrable effect on your body; we can easily detect it using simple tests that count different types of immune cells in your blood,” Kigar told PsyPost. “Specifically, stress leads to greater release of ‘first responder’ cells called neutrophils into the bloodstream. While our bodies are generally good at ‘resetting’ after brief exposures to stress, if stress is prolonged, our ‘reset point’ may change so that we are more prone to an inflammatory state. This appears to alter the type of neutrophil that gets released, not just into the bloodstream, but also in the protective tissues that line the brain—which appears to negatively influence mood.”</p>
<p>While the study used a mouse model, the authors suggest that the findings may help explain how chronic stress promotes mood disorders in humans. Elevated neutrophil levels have already been observed in people with depression, and interferon treatments in clinical settings are known to trigger depressive symptoms. The discovery that skull bone marrow plays a role in immune signaling to the brain opens up new lines of investigation into how psychological stress can influence immune activity in specific anatomical niches.</p>
<p>The study also identifies interferon signaling as a potential target for intervention. Drugs that block this pathway already exist for other conditions, and might be repurposed or refined to address mood symptoms linked to chronic inflammation. However, the researchers acknowledge that further work is needed to determine whether similar immune dynamics occur in humans, and how best to target them without disrupting the immune system more broadly.</p>
<p>One key limitation of the study is its focus on male mice. Depression is more common in women, and some previous research suggests that female immune responses to stress and inflammation may differ in important ways.</p>
<p>“Though depression is more common in women, our study used only male mice, as we were unsuccessful in our attempts to adapt the chronic stressor for use in females,” Kigar noted. “There is some evidence to suggest women respond to interferon therapy more strongly than men, which might mean this pathway would be more active in women exposed to chronic stress. Future studies are needed to address this potential sex difference.”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the research provides a detailed map of how chronic social stress can trigger a cascade of immune events—beginning in the skull and ending in behavior—that may help shape our understanding of stress-related mental health disorders. The study raises the possibility that part of the brain’s response to adversity comes not from within the brain itself, but from the immune system just outside it.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62840-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chronic social defeat stress induces meningeal neutrophilia via type I interferon signaling in male mice</a>,” was authored by Stacey L. Kigar, Mary-Ellen Lynall, Allison E. DePuyt, Robert Atkinson, Virginia H. Sun, Joshua D. Samuels, Nicole E. Eassa, Chelsie N. Poffenberger, Michael L. Lehmann, Samuel J. Listwak, Ferenc Livak, Abdel G. Elkahloun, Menna R. Clatworthy, Edward T. Bullmore, and Miles Herkenham.</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/trauma-can-trigger-obsessive-compulsive-disorder-not-just-ptsd-new-study-shows/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Trauma can trigger obsessive-compulsive disorder, not just PTSD, new study shows</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 19th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study provides the first direct evidence that experiencing acute trauma can cause the onset of obsessive-compulsive disorder or make existing symptoms worse. Following the October 7th attacks in Israel, researchers found that survivors directly exposed to the violence were nearly six times more likely to develop symptoms consistent with obsessive-compulsive disorder compared to a group that was not directly exposed. The research was published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1159/000548026" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics</a></em>.</p>
<p>For many years, scientists have observed a connection between trauma and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Studies have shown high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder in people who also have obsessive-compulsive disorder, and vice versa. People with obsessive-compulsive disorder often report a history of traumatic events.</p>
<p>However, this connection has been a bit of a “chicken or egg” puzzle. It was unclear if trauma could directly cause obsessive-compulsive disorder, or if people with obsessive-compulsive disorder were simply more vulnerable to the effects of trauma. No previous study had been able to show a direct causal link where a specific traumatic event led to the emergence of the disorder.</p>
<p>The tragic events of October 7th in Israel presented a unique and unfortunate natural experiment. The attacks created two distinct groups of people within the same country. One group consisted of residents of the ‘Gaza envelope’ communities who experienced intense, direct trauma for hours, including witnessing violence and death and facing immediate threats to their own lives.</p>
<p>A second group consisted of people living elsewhere in Israel who were not directly attacked but experienced the events through news reports, rocket alerts, or having friends and family in the affected areas. This situation allowed researchers to compare the psychological outcomes of a group with extreme, direct trauma to a matched group with more indirect exposure.</p>
<p>The research team, led by Professor Eyal Kalanthroff of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Professor Helen Blair Simpson of Columbia University, sought to understand if this severe, acute trauma could lead to new or worsened obsessive-compulsive symptoms. They hypothesized that the directly affected group would show higher rates of these symptoms and that this increase would be linked to the severity of their post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers recruited 132 Israeli adults between four and six months after the attacks. The study included two groups of 66 people each. The first group was composed of survivors who were residents of towns in the Gaza envelope. All individuals in this group were present in their homes during the attacks, had a family member or friend who was killed, injured, or kidnapped, and had been evacuated from their homes for months.</p>
<p>The second group served as a control. It consisted of 66 people who lived in other parts of Israel, more than 12 miles from the Gaza border, where no ground battles occurred. The researchers made sure the two groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, ensuring that the primary difference between them was their level of direct exposure to the traumatic events.</p>
<p>All participants completed a series of questionnaires. One questionnaire confirmed their location and experiences on October 7th to ensure they were in the correct group. Another detailed survey, the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5, measured the severity of their post-traumatic stress symptoms related to the attacks.</p>
<p>To measure obsessive-compulsive symptoms, participants filled out the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory-Revised twice. The first time, they were asked to rate their symptoms over the past month. The second time, they were asked to rate their symptoms as they remembered them in the month before October 7th. This retrospective approach allowed the researchers to establish a baseline and measure any changes. A final questionnaire explored the specific types of symptoms people experienced and asked them to pinpoint when those symptoms first appeared.</p>
<p>The findings were striking. Before October 7th, the self-reported obsessive-compulsive symptom scores were nearly identical and very low for both groups. However, when measured four to six months later, the scores for the directly affected survivor group had increased dramatically. The scores for the control group also rose slightly, but not nearly to the same extent.</p>
<p>Using a strict set of criteria based on the questionnaires, the researchers determined the rate of “probable obsessive-compulsive disorder” in each group. In the group of survivors directly affected by the attacks, nearly 40 percent of individuals met the criteria. This stood in stark contrast to the control group, where only 7 percent met the same criteria.</p>
<p>The study then examined where these symptoms came from. Among the survivors, 24 percent of the entire group were classified as having “new onset” symptoms, meaning their significant obsessive-compulsive symptoms appeared for the first time only after the attacks. In the control group, only one person, representing less than 2 percent, fell into this category. Additionally, for participants who had some pre-existing symptoms, the trauma had a clear impact. Of the survivors with prior symptoms, nearly all reported that their symptoms had become worse since the attacks.</p>
<p>The researchers also explored the role of post-traumatic stress disorder. They found that being in the directly affected group was strongly associated with higher scores on the post-traumatic stress disorder checklist. A statistical analysis revealed that the severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms helped explain the connection between being directly exposed to trauma and the likelihood of developing probable obsessive-compulsive disorder. This suggests that trauma severe enough to cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress may also be a powerful trigger for obsessive-compulsive symptoms. The authors noted that the most common new symptom to emerge was compulsive checking, which may be linked to the specific trauma of violent home invasions.</p>
<p>The study has some limitations, which the authors acknowledge. The research relied on self-report questionnaires rather than clinical interviews conducted by a psychiatrist or psychologist. Additionally, the assessment of symptoms before the trauma was retrospective, meaning participants had to rely on their memory, which can sometimes be imperfect. The researchers attempted to strengthen their conclusions by using multiple questionnaires and setting a high threshold for what they considered clinically meaningful symptoms.</p>
<p>Future research will be needed to follow trauma survivors over a longer period to see if these new symptoms persist, resolve, or change over time. It will also be important to understand which individuals are most at risk of developing obsessive-compulsive disorder after a traumatic experience. Despite the limitations, the study’s findings have significant implications. They suggest that healthcare professionals working with trauma-exposed populations should screen not only for post-traumatic stress disorder but also for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Recognizing that severe stress can trigger these symptoms is the first step toward providing proper support and treatment for all of trauma’s hidden psychological wounds.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1159/000548026" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Acute Trauma and OCD: Evidence from October 7th, 2023</a>,” was authored by Eyal Kalanthroff, Shir Berebbi, Mor David, and Helen Blair Simpson.</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-caffeine-intake-linked-to-better-cognitive-function-in-older-u-s-adults-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Higher caffeine intake linked to better cognitive function in older U.S. adults, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 19th 2025, 07:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Older adults who consume more caffeine may be less likely to experience cognitive decline, according to a new population-based study using U.S. health survey data. The findings suggest that higher levels of caffeine intake are associated with improved cognitive functioning, particularly in domains related to memory and attention. The study was published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.70090" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics</a>.</em></p>
<p>As the global population ages, cognitive decline has become a growing public health concern. Conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and related forms of dementia are rising in prevalence, placing increasing burdens on individuals, caregivers, and healthcare systems. While there are currently no widely available treatments to reverse cognitive impairment, researchers have focused on identifying lifestyle factors that might help delay or prevent its onset.</p>
<p>Diet is one such factor. Among the many components of a typical diet, caffeine has drawn particular interest because of its widespread use and potential impact on brain health. Previous studies have proposed that caffeine may improve alertness, memory, and attention by blocking adenosine receptors and promoting neurotransmitter release.</p>
<p>Some researchers have also pointed to the antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects of caffeine as possible mechanisms for protecting brain function. However, most of the evidence comes from experimental or small-scale studies. Large population-based investigations examining the association between caffeine intake and cognitive outcomes have been limited.</p>
<p>To help address this gap, researchers from Shanxi Province in China used nationally representative data from older U.S. adults to evaluate whether caffeine intake is linked to cognitive performance. By analyzing a large, diverse sample, the study aimed to clarify whether the relationship between caffeine and cognition holds up across different groups and consumption levels.</p>
<p>The study analyzed data from 2,461 adults aged 60 and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during the 2011 to 2014 cycles. NHANES is a well-known survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that collects detailed information about health, diet, and behavior from a representative sample of the non-institutionalized population.</p>
<p>Caffeine intake was assessed using a 24-hour dietary recall interview, which asked participants to report all food, drinks, and supplements they consumed the previous day. Trained personnel used a standardized method to ensure the accuracy of reporting. While dietary recall may not reflect long-term habits, it can offer a snapshot of typical consumption patterns, especially when standardized across a large sample.</p>
<p>To measure cognitive function, participants completed three standard assessments: the CERAD Word Learning Test (which evaluates verbal memory), the Animal Fluency Test (which assesses verbal fluency and executive function), and the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (which gauges processing speed and attention). Researchers combined these scores into a composite measure, with lower scores indicating poorer cognitive function.</p>
<p>The team used multivariable logistic regression models to analyze whether caffeine intake was linked to cognitive performance, adjusting for a range of factors that might also influence cognition. These included age, sex, education, marital status, body mass index, smoking and drinking habits, and medical history, including diabetes, hypertension, and stroke.</p>
<p>The results indicated a consistent association between higher caffeine intake and better cognitive function. In the fully adjusted model, each 80 milligram increase in daily caffeine consumption—roughly the amount in a cup of tea or a small cup of coffee—was linked to a 12 percent reduction in the odds of having poor cognitive function. Participants in the highest quartile of caffeine intake had a 42.5 percent lower risk of poor cognitive function compared to those in the lowest quartile.</p>
<p>A dose-response pattern emerged from the data: the more caffeine participants consumed, the less likely they were to exhibit cognitive impairment. This pattern appeared largely linear, based on a statistical method called restricted cubic spline analysis. Even after performing sensitivity tests and subgroup analyses to account for demographic and health differences, the inverse association between caffeine intake and poor cognition remained robust.</p>
<p>When broken down by age and sex, the findings suggested that younger participants (under 75) and men tended to benefit more from caffeine intake than older participants and women, although the differences were not statistically significant in all comparisons. Among men, those in the highest caffeine group had about one-third the odds of cognitive impairment compared to those in the lowest group. For women, the pattern was less consistent.</p>
<p>The relationship between caffeine and cognition also held across groups defined by education level, marital status, smoking, and drinking behaviors. Even among participants without a history of diabetes, hypertension, or stroke, higher caffeine intake was associated with better cognitive performance.</p>
<p>While the findings are suggestive, they come with several caveats. The study was cross-sectional, meaning all data were collected at one point in time. This design makes it impossible to determine cause and effect. It remains unclear whether caffeine protects against cognitive decline, or whether individuals with better cognitive function are more likely to consume caffeine regularly.</p>
<p>The use of a single 24-hour dietary recall may not fully capture long-term caffeine consumption habits. Although the recall method was standardized and professionally administered, there is still a risk of underreporting or overreporting, especially when it comes to items like tea, coffee, energy drinks, or supplements.</p>
<p>Cognitive function was measured using standardized tests rather than clinical diagnoses. While these tools are widely accepted and useful for research, they may not detect subtle impairments or distinguish between different types of cognitive decline.</p>
<p>The researchers also acknowledged the lack of data on other relevant factors such as physical activity, sleep quality, or genetics. For example, individual differences in caffeine metabolism, influenced by genetic variations, could affect how caffeine impacts the brain. Some people process caffeine more slowly, which may lead to longer-lasting effects on alertness or sleep, potentially altering its cognitive impact.</p>
<p>Another complication lies in the distinction between caffeine and coffee. Coffee contains other compounds such as chlorogenic acids and diterpenes, which may have independent or synergistic effects on brain health. By focusing specifically on caffeine from all dietary sources, including tea, soda, and chocolate, the study attempted to isolate caffeine’s role. However, it does not exclude the possibility that these other compounds contribute to the observed associations.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.70090" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Caffeine Intake and Cognitive Function Among US Adults Aged 60+: Insights From NHANES 2011−2014</a>,” was authored by Xiaoli Wang, Meng Li, and Minheng Zhang.</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/testosterone-linked-to-cognitive-decline-but-behavioral-improvements-in-dementia-patients/" 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;">Testosterone linked to cognitive decline but behavioral improvements in dementia patients</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 19th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study from Taiwan suggests that higher levels of testosterone in the blood may simultaneously worsen cognitive performance while easing behavioral and psychological symptoms in older adults with dementia. These findings, published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116666" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychiatry Research</a></em>, point to a complex and potentially conflicting role for testosterone in patients experiencing the behavioral and emotional challenges that often accompany cognitive decline.</p>
<p>Testosterone is often recognized for its roles in physical development, sexual function, and mood regulation, but growing evidence indicates that it also influences brain health. In younger adults, testosterone tends to support neuroplasticity, learning, and memory. However, its effects in aging individuals are less consistent and may depend on a variety of biological conditions.</p>
<p>Prior studies have reported mixed results regarding testosterone and cognition in older populations. Some findings suggest protective effects, while others report no association or even potential harm. In particular, elevated testosterone levels may interact with the brain’s oxidative stress systems in ways that either help or harm cognitive function depending on the context. This dual potential led the Taiwanese researchers to consider whether testosterone might affect not only cognitive performance but also the behavioral symptoms frequently seen in dementia.</p>
<p>Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, often referred to as BPSD, affect the vast majority of people with moderate to severe cognitive decline. These symptoms include hallucinations, aggression, anxiety, depression, and disruptions to sleep or eating patterns. They often impose a heavy burden on caregivers and are a leading reason for institutionalization.</p>
<p>Antipsychotic medications are commonly prescribed, but they come with significant side effects, especially in older adults. If testosterone could be shown to influence these symptoms, it might offer new therapeutic insights or highlight biological pathways worth targeting.</p>
<p>“Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia are very common, affecting up to 90% of people with dementia, and can worsen the quality of life, lead to increased caregiver burden, and result in higher healthcare costs,”</p>
<p>explained study authors Chieh-Hsin Lin, a professor at Chang Gung University, and Hsien-Yuan Lane, a professor and director of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health & Department of Psychiatry at China Medical University Hospital. “Prior research showed diverse effects of testosterone on behaviors and cognition in the elderly. Therefore, this study aimed to explore how testosterone influences these two domains in adults with dementia.”</p>
<p>The study included 94 Taiwanese patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease who also showed clinically significant behavioral and psychological symptoms. Participants were between 50 and 100 years old and were recruited from two major medical centers in Taiwan. To qualify, they needed to meet several criteria, including at least six years of education or work experience, a confirmed Alzheimer’s diagnosis, and evidence of behavioral disturbances. Patients with other serious neurological or psychiatric conditions were excluded.</p>
<p>Cognitive function was assessed using the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive Subscale, or ADAS-Cog, which evaluates memory, language, and other key cognitive domains. Behavioral and psychological symptoms were measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, or NPI, a widely used tool that captures a range of symptoms such as depression, delusions, and nighttime disruptions.</p>
<p>Blood samples were drawn from each participant, and plasma testosterone levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), a standard laboratory technique. The researchers then used statistical models to explore how testosterone levels were associated with scores on the cognitive and behavioral assessments, while also accounting for factors like age, education, disease severity, and use of medications.</p>
<p>The results indicated that testosterone played contrasting roles. Higher testosterone levels were associated with worse cognitive outcomes but better behavioral profiles.</p>
<p>In terms of cognitive performance, the analysis showed that higher testosterone concentrations predicted significantly worse scores on the ADAS-Cog. This suggests a detrimental influence of testosterone on memory and other cognitive skills in this group. The effect appeared somewhat stronger in male patients, although it did not reach statistical significance in the gender-specific analysis.</p>
<p>At the same time, higher testosterone levels were linked to better behavioral and psychological outcomes, as measured by the NPI. Patients with more testosterone tended to show fewer signs of mood disturbances, agitation, or abnormal behaviors. This relationship remained significant even after controlling for age, education, and use of antipsychotic medications.</p>
<p>When researchers broke down the NPI into symptom clusters, they found that testosterone levels were most strongly related to improvements in symptoms like depression and nighttime behavior disturbances. In women, testosterone was also linked to a reduction in a cluster that included hallucinations, delusions, and irritability, once other variables were taken into account.</p>
<p>“We were surprised to learn from this study that testosterone may be a double-edged sword: while it can improve behavioral performance, it may also impair cognitive ability,” the researchers told PsyPost.</p>
<p>These findings provide support for the idea that testosterone interacts with brain chemistry in ways that are context-dependent. In earlier stages of life, or under healthy conditions, testosterone may support brain function. But in older individuals with dementia, particularly in environments of high oxidative stress, testosterone may have a more complicated impact. It could amplify damage in cognitive systems while simultaneously helping to regulate neurotransmitters like dopamine that contribute to behavioral disturbances.</p>
<p>This interpretation is consistent with animal research, which has shown that testosterone can worsen cognitive outcomes in models of neurodegeneration. Other studies have suggested that testosterone’s effects depend on its interaction with other hormones, such as estrogen, and with proteins like sex hormone-binding globulin, which regulates its availability in the body.</p>
<p>But the study, like all research, has some limitations. “First, its findings were based upon a cross-sectional design, which was unable to clarify if higher testosterone directly negatively impacted cognition or if it was a side effect of the disease’s progression,” Lin and Lane noted. “Future longitudinal studies are needed. Second, exclusively Taiwanese people were recruited. Whether the findings can be applied to other populations remains unclear. Third, the sample size was modest. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.”</p>
<p>“Hopefully, testosterone at an optimal level range can improve behavioral/psychological symptoms with minimal, if any, damage to cognitive function, at least in a subpopulation of the people with dementia.”</p>
<p>“In the current sample, a testosterone concentration range between 1.5-2.5 ng/mL could be recommended for balancing both behaviors and cognition: this range yielded a substantial improvement in behavioral/psychological symptoms with a trivial decrease in cognitive function,” the researchers added. “Nonetheless, as aforementioned, more studies are necessary to determine or individualize the optimal level.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116666" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The double-edged roles of testosterone in cognitive function and behavioral/psychological symptoms of patients with dementia</a>,” was authored by Chieh-Hsin Lin, Shi-Heng Wang, and Hsien-Yuan Lane.</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/loneliness-is-more-closely-tied-to-paranoid-thought-than-to-isolation-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;">Loneliness is more closely tied to paranoid thought than to isolation, 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 18th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study in Poland found that loneliness is bidirectionally associated with paranoid thoughts, and this association appears stronger than the link between social isolation and paranoia. The authors suggest that social isolation contributes to loneliness, which in turn fosters paranoid thoughts. They also note that the connection may work in both directions, with paranoid thinking potentially making people lonelier and increasing social isolation. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172510130X"><em>Psychological Medicine</em></a>.</p>
<p>Paranoid thoughts involve suspicions or beliefs that others might try to harm, deceive, or take advantage of someone. They often arise without clear evidence and can distort how everyday interactions are interpreted. For example, a person might believe coworkers are secretly plotting against them, even when no signs support this.</p>
<p>These thoughts can range from mild, occasional doubts about a stranger’s intentions to severe, persistent beliefs. Stress, anxiety, and fatigue can heighten the likelihood of experiencing paranoia. In some cases, such thoughts are linked to mental health conditions such as paranoid personality disorder, delusional disorder, or schizophrenia. Paranoid thinking can make neutral situations seem threatening, prompting withdrawal from others, avoidance of social contact, or conflict in relationships. It can also trigger strong emotions such as fear, anger, or defensiveness.</p>
<p>Study author Błażej Misiak aimed to investigate whether cognitive processes help explain the connection between social disconnection and paranoid ideas. He also examined whether social isolation and loneliness differ in how they relate to paranoid thoughts in the general population.</p>
<p>It is important to note that social isolation and loneliness are related but distinct concepts. Social isolation is an objective state, referring to having few or no social contacts or interactions. Loneliness, on the other hand, is the subjective feeling of disconnection or a lack of meaningful relationships. Isolation describes the external situation, while loneliness reflects the internal emotional experience. Someone may feel lonely even without being socially disconnected, and someone with few social contacts may not necessarily feel lonely.</p>
<p>The study recruited participants to represent the Polish population in terms of age, gender, education level, employment status, and place of residence. There were two waves of data collection. In the first, 5,099 individuals participated; 3,275 of them completed the second assessment. The participants’ average age was 45 years, and 48% were men.</p>
<p>Participants completed measures of loneliness (the 11-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), social isolation (the Lubben Social Network Scale), cognitive biases (the Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases), rejection sensitivity (the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire), paranoid ideation (the Revised Green et al. Paranoid Thoughts Scale), depressive symptoms (the Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and anxiety (the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7). These assessments were administered at both time points, allowing the researchers to examine their stability and relationships over time.</p>
<p>Misiak used a statistical method called network analysis to explore how these psychological characteristics were connected. The results suggested that loneliness was the most central element in the network, serving as the best predictor of the other traits.</p>
<p>The findings indicated that loneliness may be bidirectionally linked to paranoid thoughts. Loneliness could foster paranoid thinking, while paranoia may also contribute to feelings of loneliness. Cognitive biases may play a role in this relationship, with both loneliness and paranoia shaping biased thinking, which then strengthens their mutual influence. Social isolation predicted paranoia indirectly, through loneliness. In other words, social isolation may lead to loneliness, which can encourage paranoid thoughts, and those thoughts may then increase loneliness.</p>
<p>“Social disconnection might be bidirectionally associated with paranoid thoughts. However, loneliness is more closely tied to paranoid thoughts compared to social isolation. Cognitive processes might mediate the association of social disconnection with paranoid thoughts,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between loneliness, social isolation, and paranoid thoughts. However, it should be noted that the study was conducted on individuals from the general population, meaning that the average levels of loneliness, paranoid thoughts, and cognitive biases, were likely not very high. Also, the study had a very high attrition rate, with only 64% of participants completing the second survey.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172510130X">Cognitive processes and pathways between social isolation, loneliness, and paranoia: findings from a cross-lagged network analysis of population-based data,</a>” was authored by Błażej Misiak.</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/interracial-couples-tend-to-feel-more-jealousy-but-a-strong-sense-of-unity-can-buffer-its-impact/" 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;">Interracial couples tend to feel more jealousy, but a strong sense of unity can buffer its impact</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 18th 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 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251317425"><em>Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</em></a> finds that people in interracial relationships tend to experience higher levels of jealousy than those in same-race relationships, but a strong sense of partnership can protect them from the harmful effects of this emotion.</p>
<p>Jealousy is a complex emotion that often stems from fear of losing a valued relationship to a rival. It can manifest in thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed at both the partner and any perceived threats to the relationship. Previous studies hinted that interracial couples may experience more jealousy, but those investigations were limited in scope.</p>
<p>Led by Vikki Pham, researchers from the University of Toronto aimed to fill these gaps. They were interested in understanding not just whether interracial partners felt more jealousy, but also what specific types of jealousy they experienced—and whether certain relationship strengths could help counteract its negative effects.</p>
<p>The study surveyed 394 adults from the United States and Canada who were in either interracial (196) or same-race (198) romantic relationships. Participants answered detailed questions about their feelings of jealousy, their sense of unity with their partner (called “couple identity”), and how satisfied they were with their relationships. They also provided background information such as age and how long they had been with their partner.</p>
<p>The researchers discovered that people in interracial relationships were more likely to report feeling jealous frequently and intensely (general jealousy). They also worried more about other people being interested in their partners (cognitive jealousy) and were more likely to feel distrust and anger toward potential romantic rivals (emotional jealousy).</p>
<p>Interestingly, these heightened feelings did not translate into more aggressive or possessive behaviors. Individuals in interracial and same-race relationships reported similar levels of behavioral jealousy, such as flaunting their relationship or putting down rivals.</p>
<p>However, not all the differences remained once the researchers dug deeper. When they accounted for attachment anxiety (a person’s fear of being abandoned or unloved) the differences in general and cognitive jealousy disappeared.</p>
<p>“Greater social disapproval, commonly experienced by individuals in interracial relationships, might heighten their fears of rejection and account for their reportedly higher attachment anxiety compared to those in same-race relationships,” the authors suggested.</p>
<p>But there was a bright side. Pham and colleagues discovered that when people in interracial relationships had a strong sense of togetherness with their partner—a feeling of being a “we” rather than two separate individuals—they were shielded from the negative effects of jealousy. In those cases, jealousy didn’t lead to lower relationship satisfaction.</p>
<p>This protective factor didn’t show up for same-race couples, suggesting that a strong couple identity may be especially important in helping interracial couples navigate societal pressures and emotional challenges.</p>
<p>While the study offers important insights, there are some limitations. For instance, it relied on self-reported feelings, which can be biased or inaccurate.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251317425">Jealousy in Interracial and Same-Race Relationships</a>,” was authored by Vikki Pham, Eri Sasaki, Hanieh Naeimi, and Emily A. Impett.</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-tend-to-feel-more-fearful-in-nature-especially-when-social-threats-are-present/" 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 tend to feel more fearful in nature, especially when social threats are present</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 18th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Women are more likely than men to feel unsafe in nature, particularly in areas with dense vegetation or when social threats are implied, according to a new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102722" target="_blank">Journal of Environmental Psychology</a></em>. Across three experiments involving hundreds of adults in the United Kingdom, women consistently expressed more fear, perceived higher risk, and were less inclined to explore wooded environments when potential dangers were present.</p>
<p>The study was partially inspired by a viral social media trend that captured public attention in 2024. The “Man or bear” debate asked users whether they would rather encounter a man or a bear while alone in the woods. Many women chose the bear, suggesting that they perceived a greater threat from an unknown man than from a wild animal. This phenomenon sparked a broader discussion about women’s experiences of safety in natural environments and highlighted how social fears can shape engagement with nature.</p>
<p>Although earlier studies have shown that environmental features like vegetation density can influence feelings of safety, relatively few had examined how those effects may vary by gender, especially when different types of threats — such as social, animal, or physical dangers — are involved. The researchers sought to fill this gap using experimental methods that allowed them to systematically vary environmental cues and measure psychological responses.</p>
<p>“I became interested in women’s experiences in forests and greenspaces because I had a few experiences in nature myself when I didn’t feel entirely safe, and as a consequence the visit was not as enjoyable as I hoped,” explained study author <a href="https://abornioli.wixsite.com/annabornioli" target="_blank">Anna Bornioli</a>, a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health and an associate researcher at the Environmental Psychology Research Group at the University of Surrey, where this study was conducted.</p>
<p>“When chatting with my friends about this, I realised that many female friends empathized, having had similarly bad experiences. On the other hand, many male friends had no idea of what we were talking about. So I started to wonder if gender has anything to do with how we experience nature, and reflected on how gender stereotypes, the way we are brought up, and safety concerns can affect nature experiences. This specific study focuses on safety perceptions.”</p>
<p>The research involved three separate studies, each using online simulations to present participants with images or videos of natural settings. These settings varied in the density of vegetation and the presence of different types of danger signals. In all three studies, participants were asked to imagine walking through the environment and to report their levels of fear, perceived risk, perceived danger (such as social or physical threats), aesthetic appraisal of the setting, and intention to engage with it.</p>
<p>In the first study, 269 university students viewed slideshows depicting nature settings categorized as open, medium, or dense. Participants imagined taking a walk through these environments after a stressful day and then completed a series of rating scales. The researchers found that women reported significantly more fear and perceived risk than men. They were also more likely to anticipate social dangers, such as being followed or assaulted. Men, by contrast, did not report significantly different levels of fear across the different settings.</p>
<p>“I was surprised that men’s experiences were largely unaffected by danger threats,” Bornioli told PsyPost. “The possible presence of wild animals or of a dangerous attacker did not trigger fear among men, compared to the control scenario that had no dangers at all. This could mean that men are less affected by possible threats, or that they are reluctant to express fear and concerns.”</p>
<p>In terms of how vegetation density affected perceptions, both men and women viewed dense environments as more dangerous and less aesthetically appealing than open settings. However, the effect of density on fear and behavioral intentions — such as wanting to explore or leave the area quickly — tended to be stronger for women.</p>
<p>The second study replicated the first with a larger and more balanced sample of 414 adults, including both students and participants recruited online. This replication largely confirmed the previous findings. Again, women expressed more fear, rated the risk of encountering danger as higher, and were especially concerned about social threats. The effect of vegetation density was once more more pronounced for women, with denser settings amplifying their perceptions of risk and decreasing their willingness to engage with the environment.</p>
<p>The third study added a new layer by directly manipulating the type of danger sign participants saw before watching a video of a nature setting. These signs warned of different dangers: social threats (such as an assault warning), physical threats (like tripping hazards), animal threats (such as wild boars), getting lost, or no danger at all. This allowed the researchers to examine how specific threat types influenced fear and behavioral responses.</p>
<p>Across the board, women again reported higher levels of fear and lower willingness to explore the environments. This was especially true when the danger was social in nature. In fact, the presence of a social threat produced the strongest gender differences. Women’s fear scores spiked significantly in these conditions, while men’s responses remained largely unaffected. This pattern was not seen when the danger was physical or animal-related.</p>
<p>“There are three important takeaways,” Bornioli explained. “1). Women consistently reported higher levels of fear and felt more at risk in natural environments than men. This was always the case, independently from the type of greenspace and from the presence or absence of danger threats. 2). Gender differences were particularly pronounced in dense, heavily vegetated areas. There, women felt especially scared and unsafe. 3). Social threats were a key concern for women. When shown scenarios involving social dangers (a potential assaulter spotted in the same greenspace), women’s feelings of fear increased significantly. This concern was much more impactful than other dangers, including wild animal threats (which is somehow in line with the social media trend “man or bear”). </p>
<p>“All of this is problematic because spending time in natural spaces can offer important benefits for health and wellbeing, such as conducting exercise or restoring from stress. But a poor sense of safety can discourage people to visit greenspaces. If women don’t feel safe in nature, this can perpetuate a form of gender inequality in nature access and enjoyment.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations. The experimental stimuli were videos and slideshows rather than real-world nature experiences. While these formats allowed for better experimental control, they could not fully replicate the sensory experience of being outdoors.</p>
<p>“The studies are based on virtual experiments rather than on actual nature visits,” Bornioli noted. “Participants watched videos filmed in nature and were asked to image being there. In addition, when showing the videos we did not give instructions to participants on whether they were alone or in company. This is a factor that is likely to affect perceptions of safety.”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study offers consistent evidence across multiple experiments that women tend to perceive nature settings as more dangerous than men do, particularly when social dangers are implied. These findings have important implications for environmental design, public safety messaging, and efforts to promote equitable access to nature. Parks and natural reserves may benefit from interventions aimed at improving perceived safety, such as clear signage, regular maintenance to reduce dense overgrowth, or community programming that fosters a stronger sense of collective presence and care.</p>
<p>“I am interested in understanding the reason behind these gender differences, and what can be done to improve perception of safety among women,” Bornioli said. “Are these concerns entirely due to the fact that women are more likely to be sexually harassed in public spaces? Or are they also related to cultural ideas on nature, and how girls and boys are brought up (other studies indicate that boys are generally encouraged to “be brave” and explore the outdoor, while girls get discouraged to be independent and are often warned about the dangers of nature)?”</p>
<p>“There could be several elements playing a role – for example, dense vegetation did contribute to fear perceptions among women. However, it is clear that in order to improve women’s (and everyone else’s) sense of safety in nature, the solution is not cutting down trees. The key is to address crime in natural and public spaces – and gender-based violence.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102722" target="_blank">Gender differences in safety perceptions and experiences of natural environments: The role of vegetation density and danger threats</a>,” was authored by Alice Bornioli and Birgitta Gatersleben.</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>