<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/children-with-autism-face-more-frequent-and-persistent-digestive-problems/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Children with autism face more frequent and persistent digestive problems</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 21st 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new long-term study has found that children diagnosed with autism are far more likely to experience ongoing gastrointestinal problems than their typically developing peers. The research also reveals that these stomach and digestive issues are linked to greater challenges with sleep, communication, sensory processing, and behavior. The findings were published in the scientific journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251362349" target="_blank">Autism</a></em>.</p>
<p>Autism is a developmental condition that affects how a person communicates, interacts with others, and experiences the world around them. It is common for individuals with autism to show a preference for routines and engage in repetitive behaviors. It has long been observed that children with autism frequently experience other medical conditions, with gastrointestinal problems being among the most common complaints. While this connection is known, much less is understood about how these digestive issues progress throughout a child’s life.</p>
<p>Many previous studies that explored this link relied on reviewing past medical records, which may not capture a complete picture of a child’s day-to-day experience. Scientists at the University of California Davis MIND Institute sought to address this gap by following a group of children over several years. </p>
<p>They wanted to get a more direct and detailed view of the frequency and persistence of these symptoms. The researchers hypothesized that gastrointestinal symptoms would be both more common and more enduring in children with autism. They also predicted that this physical discomfort would be associated with greater challenges in other areas of development and behavior.</p>
<p>The investigation was a component of a larger, ongoing study called the Autism Phenome Project. It included 322 children diagnosed with autism and 153 typically developing children who served as a comparison group. Researchers collected information from the children and their families at three different points in time. The first assessment occurred when the children were between two and four years old. A second assessment took place two years later, and a final one happened during middle childhood, when the children were between nine and twelve years old.</p>
<p>At each visit, a developmental pediatrician who specializes in autism interviewed caregivers using a detailed questionnaire. This questionnaire asked about nine common gastrointestinal symptoms, including abdominal pain, gassiness or bloating, diarrhea, constipation, pain during bowel movements, and vomiting. </p>
<p>The researchers took specific steps to only include symptoms that did not have a known medical explanation. They excluded children from the gastrointestinal symptom group if their issues were explained by diagnosed conditions like celiac disease, chronic gastritis, or specific food allergies that were being managed. This allowed the team to focus on digestive problems without a clear underlying cause. </p>
<p>In addition to questions about digestive health, parents also completed a wide range of established questionnaires designed to evaluate their child’s cognitive abilities, social skills, repetitive behaviors, sensory sensitivities, sleep habits, and general emotional and behavioral well-being.</p>
<p>The results of the multi-year study confirmed the researchers’ initial expectations. Children with autism were about twice as likely to experience gastrointestinal symptoms at any given time point compared to their typically developing peers. The data showed that these problems were not only more common but also significantly more persistent in the autism group. While nearly two-thirds of the typically developing children never reported any of the nine targeted gastrointestinal symptoms across all visits, this was true for only about one-third of the children with autism.</p>
<p>The difference was even more apparent when looking at chronic issues. Among the children who participated in all three assessments, 30 percent of those with autism had gastrointestinal symptoms reported at every single visit. This rate of persistence was more than four times higher than the 7 percent observed in the typically developing group. Children with autism also tended to experience more digestive issues at the same time. </p>
<p>On average, they had about 2.4 more co-occurring symptoms, such as having both constipation and bloating, than children in the comparison group. The most frequently reported problems in both groups were constipation, diarrhea, gassiness, and abdominal pain, but these were all reported at higher rates for the children with autism.</p>
<p>The study also provided strong evidence for a connection between these physical symptoms and a child’s daily functioning. The analysis showed that, across both groups, the simple presence of gastrointestinal issues was associated with more significant challenges. Children with digestive problems, whether they had autism or not, tended to have more sleep difficulties, increased anxiety and depression, more complaints of physical discomfort, and greater sensitivity to sounds and sights.</p>
<p>When looking exclusively at the group of children with autism, the researchers found what could be described as a dose-response relationship. The more gastrointestinal symptoms a child experienced, the more pronounced their difficulties were across a broad spectrum of areas. An increasing number of digestive problems was directly linked to more intense repetitive behaviors, greater challenges with social communication, and heightened sensory sensitivities related to touch, taste, and smell. This pattern also extended to sleep, where a higher number of symptoms was associated with a wide array of disturbances, from breathing problems during sleep to significant daytime sleepiness and frequent night wakings.</p>
<p>The authors of the paper pointed out several limitations to their work. The information on digestive health relied on parent reports rather than direct medical examinations or lab tests. The study was also conducted at a single research center in California, which means the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Like many long-term studies, some families discontinued their participation over the years. The research team did analyze this and found that this attrition did not appear to significantly alter their main findings.</p>
<p>Despite these considerations, the study’s findings have important implications for clinicians, families, and researchers. The results highlight a clear need for doctors and parents to be aware of the high rate of persistent gastrointestinal problems in children with autism. The emergence of new behavioral challenges or the worsening of existing ones might be an outward sign of underlying physical pain or discomfort that a child cannot easily communicate. </p>
<p>The researchers suggest that screening for and effectively treating these digestive problems could lead to substantial improvements in a child’s overall well-being, daily functioning, and quality of life. Future research can build on these findings to explore the root causes of these gastrointestinal issues in the autistic population and to develop better ways to identify and support children who are most at risk for chronic digestive distress.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251362349" target="_blank">A longitudinal evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism spectrum disorder</a>,” was authored by Bibiana Restrepo, Sandra L. Taylor, Matthew Dominic Ponzini, Kathleen Angkustsiri, Marjorie Solomon, Sally J. Rogers, Paul Ashwood, Daphne S. Say, Sonny Caceres, Shayan Alavynejad, Brianna Heath, David G. Amaral, and Christine Wu Nordahl.</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/genetic-analysis-upends-narrative-linking-social-media-use-to-lower-wellbeing/" 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;">Genetic analysis upends narrative linking social media use to lower wellbeing</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 21st 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 evidence that genetics may shape how people use social media—and how this use relates to their mental health. Published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-025-10224-2"><em>Behavioral Genetics</em></a>, the research suggests that the small associations often reported between social media use and either psychological wellbeing may not be driven entirely by social media itself. Instead, these links appear to be partly explained by shared genetic factors that influence both psychological wellbeing and social media behavior.</p>
<p>“Social media is now nearly universal, with about 60% of the world’s population using at least one platform. At the same time, there’s an ongoing debate about whether it supports or harms wellbeing,” said study author <a href="https://selimsametoglu.github.io/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Selim Sametoglu</a> (<a href="https://bsky.app/profile/selimsametoglu.bsky.social" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@selimsametoglu</a>), a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.</p>
<p>“Most research so far has been based on simple correlations, often using cross-sectional data, which doesn’t tell us much about causality. In addition, associations between wellbeing and social media use are typically very small. Yet, public discussions frequently make strong claims, especially about adolescents.”</p>
<p>“We wanted to move beyond this by investigating the source of the small relations between social media use and wellbeing, using genetically informative data from the Netherlands Twin Register. This allowed us to test whether links between social media use and wellbeing—including symptoms of depression and anxiety—might partly reflect shared genetic influences. By looking across multiple platforms and a wide range of wellbeing indicators, we aimed to provide a more nuanced picture than the simple idea that social media is either ‘good’ or ‘bad.'”</p>
<p>The study used data from the Netherlands Twin Register, focusing on 6,492 individuals. The sample included 3,369 monozygotic (identical) twins and 3,123 dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Participants ranged in age from 16 to 89, with an average age of 35.</p>
<p>Wellbeing was assessed using both hedonic and eudaimonic measures. Hedonic wellbeing reflects life satisfaction and happiness, while eudaimonic wellbeing refers to a deeper sense of purpose, engagement, and positive functioning. To capture mental illbeing, participants also completed a validated scale of anxious-depressive symptoms.</p>
<p>Social media use was measured in three ways: how much time participants spent daily on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and LinkedIn; how frequently they posted; and how many social media accounts they maintained. These different measures allowed the researchers to distinguish between the quantity and type of engagement.</p>
<p>Using a classical twin design, the researchers examined how much of the variation in each trait could be attributed to genetic factors, shared environmental factors, or unique environmental factors. They then looked at whether correlations between wellbeing or anxiety symptoms and social media use were also influenced by genetic overlap.</p>
<p>The results confirmed what prior meta-analyses have suggested: the associations between social media use and both wellbeing and anxious-depressive symptoms were statistically significant in some cases but consistently small. The correlations ranged from −0.09 to 0.10. For example, people who posted more frequently on social media tended to report slightly lower levels of life satisfaction, but the effect was modest.</p>
<p>More notable was what explained these small associations. The researchers found that most of the statistically significant correlations were due to shared genetic factors. This suggests that certain genetic traits might predispose individuals both to specific patterns of social media use and to differences in psychological wellbeing.</p>
<p>The study also showed that social media use itself is partly heritable. Time spent on social media had a heritability estimate of 72%, posting frequency was 54% heritable, and the number of social media accounts showed 32% heritability. The remaining variation was explained by individual environmental differences that were not shared between twins.</p>
<p>“Overall, the associations between wellbeing and social media use were small or nonexistent,” Sametoglu told PsyPost. “Social media use itself was heritable, with genetic influences explaining up to 72% of the variation in daily time spent online. The small but statistically significant associations we did find seemed to be explained by overlapping genetic factors that influence both social media use and wellbeing. In other words, the effects of social media are not as sweeping as often portrayed in public debates. Instead, they appear modest, nuanced, and partly shaped by individual differences in genetics.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, different aspects of social media use showed different patterns of genetic influence. Time spent and posting frequency were highly genetically correlated with one another, but had weaker overlap with the number of accounts, suggesting that these behaviors may be driven by distinct psychological or biological traits.</p>
<p>One somewhat surprising finding was that the wellbeing measure known as “flourishing,” which captures purpose and engagement in life, was positively associated with both time spent on social media and the number of social media accounts. In contrast, other wellbeing indicators such as life satisfaction and subjective happiness were slightly negatively correlated with time spent online or posting frequency.</p>
<p>“This suggests that while slightly lower wellbeing levels often go hand in hand with greater social media use, higher flourishing can also be linked to greater use,” Sametoglu explained. “It reinforces the idea that social media has both positive and negative sides. That said, these correlations were very small and should be interpreted with care.”</p>
<p>“People with higher wellbeing seemed to use more platforms and spend more time online, but more passively—browsing rather than posting. In contrast, those with lower wellbeing tended to post more frequently on fewer platforms. These patterns align with previous findings on oversharing and reduced wellbeing, but they need to be replicated.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations. The cross-sectional design means the researchers cannot determine the direction of causality. “We can’t say whether wellbeing influences social media use, the other way around, or whether the relationship goes both ways,” Sametoglu noted. “What we can say is that shared genetic factors seem to play a role in the associations.”</p>
<p>“Another limitation is that our sample was drawn from the Netherlands, where social media participation is considerably higher than the global average. Moreover, heritability estimates can vary across cultural contexts, as demonstrated in previous research on traits such as personality. Future studies should therefore aim to replicate these findings in more diverse populations.”</p>
<p>Taken together, the findings suggest that the relationship between social media and psychological wellbeing is far more nuanced than often portrayed in public debates. Rather than being a straightforward cause of mental health problems, social media use appears to be influenced by individual genetic differences that also shape wellbeing and mental health traits.</p>
<p>This does not mean that social media has no effect. But it suggests that population-level interventions may have limited impact unless they account for individual variability. People with different genetic backgrounds may respond to the same digital environments in different ways. The researchers suggest that future work should focus on understanding these individual pathways and tailoring interventions accordingly.</p>
<p>“I’m interested in continuing to explore how individuals engage with new technologies and the extent to which genetic and environmental factors influence this engagement,” Sametoglu said. “Just like with the printing press, the telephone, or television, social media has triggered moral panic. But our findings show that its links with wellbeing and mental health are small and nuanced at the population level—not the sweeping negative picture we often hear.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-025-10224-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Association Between Frequency of Social Media Use, Wellbeing, and Depressive Symptoms: Disentangling Genetic and Environmental Factors</a>,” was authored by Selim Sametoğlu, Dirk H. M. Pelt, and Meike Bartels.</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/psychology-researchers-uncover-how-personality-influences-rejection-of-negative-feedback/" 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;">Psychology researchers uncover how personality influences rejection of negative feedback</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 21st 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>When people are confronted with negative feedback, they often respond by trying to protect their self-image. But not everyone reacts the same way. A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251345925" target="_blank">Social Psychological and Personality Science</a></em> provides evidence that certain personality traits shape how strongly people engage in self-protective reactions.</p>
<p>Most people have experienced moments when they receive feedback that challenges how they see themselves. Whether it comes from a failed exam, a workplace critique, or a social rejection, such feedback can feel threatening. Psychological theory suggests that people are motivated to defend themselves in these situations, in order to maintain a positive self-image. This defensive motivation, often called the self-protection motive, can prompt people to dismiss the feedback, blame external factors, or even question the credibility of the source providing the information.</p>
<p>While these reactions have been well documented, less is known about why some people engage in them more than others. Previous research has hinted that personality traits such as self-esteem and narcissism play a role. People who think highly of themselves may be especially sensitive to negative feedback, making them more likely to react defensively. </p>
<p>At the same time, other traits—such as a desire to gain self-insight or a tendency to observe thoughts non-judgmentally, as is the case with mindfulness—have been thought to help people accept unflattering feedback without feeling threatened. The authors of the new study set out to examine these possibilities in a systematic and well-powered way, using a preregistered experiment and a large sample.</p>
<p>“This idea came from an earlier project on how well people know themselves. We found that simply wanting self-knowledge doesn’t always lead to having more accurate self-knowledge,” said study author Christoph Heine, a psychologist and personality researcher at Witten/Herdecke University.</p>
<p>“One reason may be that several motives shape how we see ourselves. A big one is protecting a positive self-image: when feedback feels threatening, we often react defensively. If those defenses kick in automatically, even people who genuinely want to know themselves can end up with distorted self-views. So we set out to study how people respond to threatening feedback and whether certain personality traits make those defensive reactions more or less likely.”</p>
<p>The study involved 1,744 adults from Germany, ranging in age from 18 to 89. Participants were recruited through a research panel and took part in an online study framed as an investigation of social perception and personality. Before receiving any feedback, participants completed questionnaires assessing a range of personality traits. These included general self-esteem, narcissism (including admiration and rivalry components), the self-insight motive, and mindfulness. Some traits were also assessed in a domain-specific way. For example, participants rated their own social sensitivity, which was the domain later targeted by the feedback.</p>
<p>Participants then completed a measure of social sensitivity: the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test, which asks people to infer emotions from photos of eyes. After finishing the test, participants were randomly assigned to receive either positive or negative feedback. Those in the positive condition were told they had performed better than 80 percent of a comparison group, while those in the negative condition were told they performed worse than 80 percent.</p>
<p>To measure self-protective reactions, the researchers asked participants to rate the validity of the test, evaluate the competence of the researchers who created it, and assess the importance of social sensitivity as a trait. In addition, participants rated unrelated objects, such as a mug or a hanger, to see whether any effects were specific to self-related outcomes or simply reflected a general negative mood.</p>
<p>Across the board, participants who received negative feedback were more likely to question the validity of the test, view the researchers as less competent, and rate social sensitivity as less important compared to those who received positive feedback. These findings support the idea that negative feedback prompts people to protect their self-image.</p>
<p>But the strength of these reactions varied depending on personality. As predicted, people with high self-esteem were more likely to reject the negative feedback. This effect was stronger when the self-esteem was specific to the domain of social sensitivity. In other words, if someone believed they were socially perceptive and then received feedback suggesting otherwise, they were particularly likely to doubt the test.</p>
<p>Narcissistic traits showed a similar pattern. Individuals high in grandiose narcissism were more likely to show defensive responses, especially if their narcissism was centered on communal traits like being helpful or understanding—traits that relate directly to social sensitivity. Among the two components of narcissism, admiration (which reflects self-importance and pride) predicted stronger self-protective reactions, while rivalry (which reflects a tendency to be combative or defensive) did not show the same consistent effect. This finding challenges some theoretical expectations and suggests that admiration may be a more potent driver of defensive behavior than rivalry.</p>
<p>“People want to see themselves positively and defend their self-concept in the face of threat,” Heine told PsyPost. “However, people don’t all respond in the same way, and it is not just about the situation. It is also about who they are. Having high self-esteem or narcissism make people more likely to question negative feedback, especially in areas they see as strengths. Being aware of our own dispositions can sharpen our sensitivity to these tendencies as they arise.”</p>
<p>Unexpectedly, individuals who scored high on the self-insight motive—those who say they want to know their strengths and weaknesses—also responded more defensively to negative feedback. This finding runs counter to the idea that people motivated to understand themselves would be more accepting of unpleasant truths. Instead, it suggests that even those who are motivated to gain self-knowledge might resist feedback when it threatens their self-image. This may help explain why wanting to understand oneself does not always translate into having more accurate self-knowledge.</p>
<p>The findings related to mindfulness were also contrary to expectations. People who scored high on self-reported mindfulness showed stronger, not weaker, self-protective reactions to negative feedback. The researchers suggest that this may reflect a problem with how mindfulness is measured. Self-reported mindfulness scores may be more closely linked to socially desirable traits, such as viewing oneself as calm and aware, rather than accurately reflecting the ability to respond non-reactively to challenging situations. In fact, scores on mindfulness were positively correlated with communal narcissism, which may help explain why those high in mindfulness were more defensive in the face of social sensitivity feedback.</p>
<p>“We expected that being mindful would help people step back and reduce defensive reactions,” Heine said. “Being a mindful person means to take a non-judgmental perspective. However, that did not happen. This could mean our measures we usually use to assess mindfulness are not very good in doing so, or it could mean that self-protective reactions are strong enough that mindfulness does not reliably buffer against them.”</p>
<p>Finally, the researchers found that while negative feedback made people feel more negative overall, as seen in their lower ratings of unrelated objects, this general negativity was not influenced by personality traits. Only the self-relevant outcomes were shaped by traits like self-esteem and narcissism, suggesting that these personality-driven reactions were specific to self-protective motives rather than general mood.</p>
<p>Although the study included a large, diverse adult sample, it focused solely on feedback about social sensitivity. It is not yet known whether the same patterns would hold for other types of feedback, such as feedback about intelligence or physical appearance. Future studies could test whether domain-specific self-esteem and narcissism consistently predict stronger defensive reactions across different feedback areas.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study focused on self-protection and did not directly assess other motives that may shape feedback responses. “We focused on self-protection,” Heine noted. “However, other motives, like self-verification, which describes the desire to confirms what we already believe about ourselves, may additionally shape our reactions. For example, someone with low self-esteem might have seen especially negative feedback as more credible because it fits their existing self-view. We measured only a handful of traits. There may be surely other traits and situational factors that influence how much and when people defend their self-image.”</p>
<p>The findings also raise questions about how to reduce unhelpful self-protective responses, especially in contexts like therapy, education, or the workplace. Learning to process negative feedback without defensiveness is an important skill. The researchers suggest that future work could explore how to help people maintain healthy self-esteem while remaining open to self-relevant criticism, especially in domains that feel central to their identity.</p>
<p>“It would be interesting to track how defensive reactions change over time, to test them in different feedback domains (e.g., social skills vs. intelligence), and to look at situational characteristics that influence self-protection,” Heine explained. “In the long run, it would be interesting to see whether we can find way that allow to reduce unhelpful self-protection without lowering healthy self-esteem.”</p>
<p>“Context matters. If negative feedback hits a domain that feels central to someone’s identity (say, a ‘creative’ person receiving criticism of their creativity), defensive reactions are especially strong. As people often build education and careers around their perceived strengths, learning to engage with threatening feedback in valued domains is crucial—even though it is uncomfortable.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251345925" target="_blank">The Ego’s Bodyguard: The Role of Personality in Self-Protective Reactions</a>,” was authored by Christoph Heine, Stefan C. Schmukle, and Michael Dufner.</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/social-contagion-is-powerful-heres-how-researchers-suggest-we-can-build-resistance/" 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;">Social contagion is powerful — here’s how researchers suggest we can build resistance</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 20th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>In 2019, a rare and shocking event in the Malaysian peninsula town of Ketereh <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48850490">grabbed international headlines</a>. Nearly 40 girls age 12 to 18 from a religious school had been screaming inconsolably, claiming to have seen a “face of pure evil,” complete with images of blood and gore.</p>
<p>Experts believe that the girls suffered what is known as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12298">mass psychogenic illness</a>, a psychological condition that results in physical symptoms and spreads socially – much like a virus.</p>
<p>I’m a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=K44Uu4MAAAAJ&hl=en">social and behavioral scientist</a> within the field of public health. I study the ways in which individual behavior is influenced by prevailing social norms and social network processes, across a wide range of behaviors and contexts. Part of my work involves figuring out how to combat the spread of harmful content that can shape our behavior for the worse, such as misinformation.</p>
<p>Mass psychogenic illness is not misinformation, but it gives researchers like me some idea about how misinformation spreads. Social connections establish pathways of influence that can facilitate the spread of germs, mental illness and even behaviors. We can be profoundly influenced by others within our social networks, for better or for worse.</p>
<h2>The spreading of social norms</h2>
<p>Researchers in my field think of social norms as perceptions of how common and how approved a specific behavior is within a specific network of people who matter to us.</p>
<p>These perceptions may not always reflect reality, such as when people overestimate or underestimate how common <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae001">their viewpoint is within a group</a>. But they can influence our behavior nonetheless. For many, perception is reality.</p>
<p>Social norms and related behaviors can spread through social networks like a virus can, but with one crucial caveat. Viruses often require just one contact with a potential host to spread, whereas behaviors often require <a href="https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906851.00025">multiple contacts to spread</a>. This phenomenon, known as complex contagion, highlights how socially learned behaviors take time to embed.</p>
<h2>Fiction spreads faster than fact</h2>
<p>Consider a familiar scenario: the <a href="https://www.thedailystar.net/life-living/fashion-beauty/news/baggy-jeans-are-back-and-millennials-are-still-denial-3731156">return of baggy jeans</a> to the fashion zeitgeist.</p>
<p>For many millennials like me, you may react to a friend engaging in this resurrected trend by cringing and lightly teasing them. Yet, after seeing them don those denim parachutes on multiple occasions, a brazen thought may emerge: “Hmm, maybe they don’t look that bad. I could probably pull those off.” That’s complex contagion at work.</p>
<p>This dynamic is even more evident on social media. One of my former students expressed this succinctly. She was looking at an Instagram post about <a href="https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/mschf-big-red-boot/">Astro Boy Boots</a> – red, oversize boots based on those worn by a 1952 Japanese cartoon character. Her initial skepticism quickly faded upon reading the comments. As she put it, “I thought they were ugly at first, but after reading the comments, I guess they’re kind of fire.”</p>
<p>Moving from innocuous examples, consider the spread of misinformation on social media. Misinformation is false information that is spread unintentionally, while disinformation is false information that is <a href="https://www.un.org/en/countering-disinformation">intentionally disseminated to deceive or do serious harm</a>.</p>
<p>Research shows that both misinformation and disinformation spread <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559">faster and farther than truth online</a>. This means that before people can muster the resources to debunk the false information that has seeped into their social networks, they may have already lost the race. Complex contagion may have taken hold, in a malicious way, and begun spreading falsehood throughout the network at a rapid pace.</p>
<p>People spread false information for various reasons, such as to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113">advance their personal agenda or narrative</a>, which can lead to echo chambers that filter out accurate information contrary to one’s own views. Even when people do not intend to spread false information online, doing so tends to happen because of a <a href="https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3n9u8">lack of attention paid to accuracy</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666">lower levels of digital media literacy</a>.</p>
<h2>Inoculation against social contagion</h2>
<p>So how much can people do about this?</p>
<p>One way to combat harmful contagion is to draw on an idea <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2786067">first used in the 1960s</a> called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211070958">pre-bunking</a>. The idea is to train people to practice skills to spot and resist misinformation and disinformation on a smaller scale before they’re exposed to the real thing.</p>
<p>The idea is akin to vaccines that build immunity through exposure to a weakened form of the disease-causing germ. The idea is for someone to be exposed to a limited amount of false information, say through the <a href="https://prebunking.withgoogle.com/quiz">pre-bunking with Google quiz</a>. They then learn to spot common manipulation tactics used in false information and learn how to resist their influence with evidence-based strategies to counter the falsehoods. This could also be done using a trained facilitator within classrooms, workplaces or other groups, including virtual communities.</p>
<p>Then, the idea is to gradually repeat the process with larger doses of false information and further counterarguments. By role-playing and practicing the counterarguments, this resistance skills training provides a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.5026">sort of psychological innoculation</a> against misinformation and disinformation, at least temporarily.</p>
<p>Importantly, this approach is intended for someone who has not yet been exposed to false information – hence, pre-bunking rather than debunking. If we want to engage with someone who firmly believes in their stance, particularly when it runs contrary to our own, behavioral scientists recommend leading with empathy and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000923">nonjudgmentally exchanging narratives</a>.</p>
<p>Debunking is difficult work, however, and even strong debunking messages can result in the persistence of misinformation. You may not change the other person’s mind, but you may be able to engage in a civil discussion and avoid pushing them further away from your position.</p>
<h2>Spreading facts, not fiction</h2>
<p>When everyday people apply this with their friends and loved ones, they can train people to recognize the telltale signs of false information. This might be recognizing what’s known as a false dichotomy – for instance, “either you support this bill or you HATE our country.”</p>
<p>Another signal of false information is the common tactic of scapegoating: “Oil industry faces collapse due to rise in electric car ownership.” And another is the slippery slope of logical fallacy. An example is “legalization of marijuana will lead to everyone using heroin.”</p>
<p>All of these are examples of common tactics that spread misinformation and come from a <a href="https://prebunking.withgoogle.com/docs/A_Practical_Guide_to_Prebunking_Misinformation.pdf">Practical Guide to Pre-Bunking Misinformation</a>, created by a collaborative team from the University of Cambridge, BBC Media Action and Jigsaw, an interdisciplinary think tank within Google.</p>
<p>This approach is not only effective in combating misinformation and disinformation, but also in delaying or preventing the onset of harmful behaviors. My own research suggests that pre-bunking can be used effectively to delay the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16685">initiation of tobacco use among adolescents</a>. But it only works with regular “booster shots” of training, or the effect fades away in a matter of months or less.</p>
<p>Many researchers like me who study these social contagion dynamics don’t yet know the best way to keep these “booster shots” going in people’s lives. But there are recent studies showing that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000315">it can be done</a>. A promising line of research also suggests that a group-based approach can be effective in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211953">maintaining the pre-bunking effects</a> to achieve psychological herd immunity. Personally, I would bet my money on group-based approaches where you, your friends or your family can mutually reinforce each other’s capacity to resist harmful social norms entering your network.</p>
<p>Simply put, if multiple members of your social network have strong resistance skills, then your group has a better chance of resisting the incursion of harmful norms and behaviors into your network than if it’s just you resisting alone. Other people matter.</p>
<p>In the end, whether we’re empowering people to resist the insidious creep of online falsehoods or equipping adolescents to stand firm against peer pressure to smoke or use other substances, the research is clear: Resistance skills training can provide an essential weapon for safeguarding ourselves and young people from harmful behaviors.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/254298/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/misinformation-lends-itself-to-social-contagion-heres-how-to-recognize-and-combat-it-254298">original article</a>.</em></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/reframing-biblical-interpretation-helps-religious-students-accept-evolution/" 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;">Reframing biblical interpretation helps religious students accept evolution</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 20th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Many Americans continue to reject the scientific theory of evolution, particularly those who identify as religious. A new study provides evidence that biblical literalism—the belief that the Bible should be interpreted as the direct and factual word of God—is a key factor driving this rejection. But the findings also suggest that when students are exposed to an educational approach that respects religious beliefs while presenting evolution in a compatible framework, their acceptance of evolution tends to increase—without any apparent loss in religiosity.</p>
<p>The research was published in the <em><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jssr.70004" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion</a></em>.</p>
<p>Scientific consensus holds that evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, yet it continues to face widespread skepticism in the United States. National surveys indicate that a sizable portion of the public, particularly those with strong religious identities, does not accept evolution as a valid explanation for the origin and development of species. While researchers have long known that religiosity is linked to lower levels of evolution acceptance, the specific reasons behind that relationship are still being examined.</p>
<p>One possibility is that the issue lies not in religion itself, but in how religious individuals interpret religious texts. In particular, a literal reading of the Bible—such as interpreting the creation story in the book of Genesis as describing a six-day creation of all life forms—may directly conflict with evolutionary science. The researchers behind this study wanted to test that idea more explicitly. They also wanted to see whether changing biblical interpretation in the classroom could alter evolution acceptance.</p>
<p>“Our lab studies science communication surrounding controversial science topics, with much of our work focusing on bridging the divide between evolution and religious ideologies,” said study author Jamie L. Jensen, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University.</p>
<p>“Much of our work has been on developing what we call the ‘<a href="https://biology.byu.edu/reconciling-evolution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reconciliation Module</a>,’ a method whereby we try to help students build a bridge between their religious faith and the science of evolution. One of the things we have noticed seems to help is to offer alternative ways of interpreting Genesis. Thus, we decided to try this method in the classroom (and first confirm that biblical literalism is indeed a barrier to acceptance – which seems like a foregone conclusion but has not been very systematically studied in the past).”</p>
<p>To explore this, the researchers carried out a two-part study. They began by surveying a national sample of religious Americans to better understand how religiosity, biblical literalism, and evolution acceptance are connected. Then they turned to a classroom setting, examining how a culturally competent educational intervention might influence students’ beliefs about both the Bible and evolution.</p>
<p>The first part of the study involved a nationwide survey of 408 religious adults from various Judeo-Christian backgrounds, including Catholics, Protestants, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and others. Participants were asked about their religiosity, their interpretation of the Bible, and their acceptance of evolution. The researchers used statistical modeling to assess how these variables were related.</p>
<p>The second part of the study was conducted in a university biology classroom at a private religious institution where the vast majority of students were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A total of 186 students enrolled in an introductory biology course completed surveys before and after a specially designed instructional module.</p>
<p>This lesson, referred to as the Culturally Competent Instructional Model, was a one-day module delivered before the biology unit on evolution. It was developed from the Religious Cultural Competence in Evolution Education framework, which encourages instructors to recognize and respect students’ religious worldviews while teaching evolution. In this context, the lesson focused on identifying points of compatibility between evolutionary theory and the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.</p>
<p>One key element was a discussion of how the creation story in Genesis could be interpreted in ways that do not contradict the scientific evidence for evolution. Rather than telling students how to reconcile these perspectives, instructors suggested possible interpretations and left room for students to make their own meaning. The aim was to reduce perceived conflict without challenging students’ religious identities.</p>
<p>The nationwide survey revealed a consistent pattern. People who reported higher levels of religiosity were more likely to interpret the Bible literally. In turn, those who interpreted the Bible more literally were less likely to accept evolution, including microevolution (small changes within species), macroevolution (the emergence of new species), and human evolution. This pattern held across different religious traditions and demographics.</p>
<p>In the classroom setting, the same relationship emerged at the start of the semester. Students who reported stronger religious hope and influence were more likely to interpret the Bible literally, and those with a literal interpretation were less likely to accept evolution. But after taking part in the culturally competent instructional module, students’ responses began to shift.</p>
<p>Acceptance of evolution increased across all categories. Acceptance of microevolution rose modestly, while acceptance of macroevolution and human evolution showed larger gains. Students also showed a small but statistically significant decrease in biblical literalism. Students’ overall level of religiosity did not change, suggesting that the educational intervention did not weaken their religious identity.</p>
<p>“The nationwide study confirmed that there is a link between biblical literalism and evolution acceptance,” Jensen told PsyPost. “The classroom study showed that you can overcome this barrier by offering students alternative ways to interpret Genesis that can help them more fully embrace science.”</p>
<p>The researchers also found that students’ post-course levels of biblical literalism predicted their post-course acceptance of evolution. Those who became less literal in their interpretation of the Bible were more likely to report greater acceptance of evolution, especially in the context of human origins.</p>
<p>These findings support the idea that biblical literalism may act as a mediating factor between religiosity and rejection of evolution. In other words, it may not be religion itself that leads to evolution skepticism, but rather how individuals interpret religious texts.</p>
<p>“Most surprising was that of all the things we measured, biblical literalist interpretations amongst our students changed very little, but that small change was predictive enough of changes in acceptance of evolution,” Jensen said. “However, you’ll notice that students still score alarmingly high on biblical literalism even though they score extremely high on evolution acceptance measures. This has prompted a follow-up study that we have just finished the data analysis on where we are attempting to explain this potential mismatch between literalist interpretations and evolution acceptance. The results are really fascinating! We will hopefully have a paper out soon!”</p>
<p>Although the study offers evidence for a link between biblical interpretation and evolution acceptance, the researchers acknowledge some limitations. The classroom intervention took place at a single university with a fairly homogenous student body, both religiously and culturally.</p>
<p>“The transferability of our findings is unknown,” Jensen noted. “That being said, we have run similar ‘Reconciliation modules’ at other institutions with differing faith traditions and found similar increases in evolution acceptance, so we suspect it probably does transfer, at least within a conservative/evangelical Christian context.”</p>
<p>Another limitation involves the measurement of biblical literalism. Although the researchers found a statistically significant drop in literalism after the instructional module, many students continued to agree with literal interpretations of some biblical narratives, particularly those involving Adam and Eve. Yet these same students still increased their acceptance of evolution, raising questions about how they reconciled these views.</p>
<p>“We are right in the middle of a follow-up study on this phenomenon (the high biblical literalism but also high evolutionary acceptance),” Jensen said. “I presented on it recently at a Scopes Centennial Celebration at Vanderbilt (you can watch the recording here if you want a sneak preview of results: <a href="https://youtu.be/K7-IuUR7pHg?si=RL8XZ6MDNTk-rslo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://youtu.be/K7-IuUR7pHg?si=RL8XZ6MDNTk-rslo</a>). We are finding that students are much more likely to be epistemologically secure, but they lack key factual information to build a robust bridge between science and religion. We aim to offer suggestions on teaching strategies to help supply these key pieces of information.”</p>
<p>“I just want to acknowledge the wonderful work of my co-authors who are talented undergraduate students (and a previous doctoral student),” she added. “They are phenomenal researchers.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.70004" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Offering Alternatives to Biblical Literalism May Be the Key to Increasing the Public’s Acceptance of Evolution</a>,” was authored by Grant Rousseau, Dalton Bourne, Kenneth Harrington, Jessica Abele, Daniel Ferguson, and Jamie Jensen.</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-levels-linked-to-ptsd-symptoms-in-both-men-and-women-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;">Testosterone levels linked to PTSD symptoms in both men and women, 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 20th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-025-03482-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Translational Psychiatry</a></em> suggests that testosterone may play a more complicated role in mental health than previously understood. Researchers found that both low and high testosterone levels were associated with higher levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms, while mid-range levels were linked to the fewest symptoms. The findings, which were consistent for both men and women, raise questions about whether hormonal balance might shape the risk for stress-related mental health problems—and whether this relationship might be influenced by body weight.</p>
<p>Testosterone is a hormone often associated with physical traits such as muscle mass and male sexual development, but it also has important roles in brain function and emotional regulation. In both men and women, testosterone is believed to affect how the body and brain respond to stress. Past studies have suggested that testosterone may suppress the activity of the stress-response system known as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, or HPA axis, which controls the release of stress hormones like cortisol.</p>
<p>Because stress and trauma are known to affect the risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, some researchers have speculated that testosterone might influence how likely someone is to develop PTSD symptoms. However, existing evidence has been inconsistent, often limited by small sample sizes, military-only populations, or by including only male participants.</p>
<p>The new study aimed to address these gaps using a large, civilian sample that included both men and women, and by exploring more complex patterns in the data. The researchers also looked at whether body mass index, or BMI, might alter the relationship between testosterone and PTSD symptoms.</p>
<p>“We know from previous research that naturally occurring hormones – including testosterone and estrogen — can influence the risk of developing psychiatric disorders such as depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders,” said study author <a href="https://www.laramieduncan.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Laramie Duncan</a>, an assistant professor at <a href="https://profiles.stanford.edu/laramie-duncan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stanford University</a>. “But most of these studies were done decades ago on small numbers of people so the results weren’t reliable. We took advantage of a large, modern study and evaluated data from over 100,000 people to more definitively answer the question of whether PTSD and depression symptoms are correlated with natural testosterone levels.”</p>
<p>The researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a large research database that contains genetic, health, and lifestyle information from about half a million adults in the United Kingdom. From this dataset, they focused on 130,471 participants who had both testosterone measurements and completed a mental health questionnaire in 2016 that included items related to PTSD symptoms. To ensure the reliability of their analysis, they excluded people whose testosterone levels were unusually high or low compared to the rest of the population.</p>
<p>PTSD symptoms were assessed using a short survey that asked about emotional responses such as irritability, avoidance, feelings of detachment, upsetting memories, and difficulty concentrating. Although this measure does not capture the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD, it provides a general indication of symptom severity across the population.</p>
<p>The researchers examined three different types of testosterone metrics: total testosterone, calculated free testosterone (which estimates the biologically active portion of the hormone), and the free androgen index, which is another way of estimating testosterone availability. They looked at how these hormone levels related to PTSD symptom scores using both standard statistical models and models that allowed for nonlinear relationships, such as U-shaped curves.</p>
<p>They also adjusted their analysis for several factors known to affect testosterone, including age, time of day the blood sample was taken, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and BMI. Finally, they tested whether the relationship between testosterone and PTSD symptoms differed depending on a person’s BMI category (underweight, healthy weight, overweight, or obese).</p>
<p>The researchers found that the relationship between testosterone and PTSD symptoms followed a U-shaped curve. In both men and women, people with mid-range testosterone levels reported the lowest levels of PTSD symptoms, while those with either very low or very high levels had higher symptom scores. This pattern held true across all three testosterone measurements.</p>
<p>“A talented PhD student in our lab, Hanyang Shen, thought to ask whether there might be a non-linear relationship between testosterone and mental health symptoms, and there was,” Duncan told PsyPost. “She found that ever-higher testosterone was not correlated with better mental health symptom scores. Rather, our results suggest that only especially low testosterone may be a concern for mental health symptoms, for most people at least.”</p>
<p>For example, when participants were divided into ten equal groups based on testosterone levels, those in the seventh decile (just above the middle of the distribution) had the lowest average PTSD scores. Those in the lowest decile had the highest scores. These patterns remained significant even after accounting for other variables such as age and BMI.</p>
<p>“The nature of the relationship we observed between testosterone and mental health symptoms was very similar in males and females,” Duncan noted. “This is interesting because testosterone is often thought of as a male hormone, but it’s also important for women.”</p>
<p>When the researchers looked more closely at the interaction between testosterone and BMI, they found that the association between testosterone and PTSD symptoms was stronger among people with higher BMI. In other words, for individuals who were overweight or obese, the link between out-of-range testosterone levels and PTSD symptoms was more pronounced. This finding was consistent across both men and women.</p>
<p>The researchers also performed several additional analyses to ensure their findings were robust. These included looking at whether similar patterns emerged when they used anxiety and depression scores instead of PTSD symptoms. The results were largely similar, suggesting that the relationship between testosterone and mental health symptoms may not be limited to PTSD alone.</p>
<p>While the study benefited from an unusually large and well-characterized dataset, the authors caution against drawing firm conclusions about cause and effect. One major limitation is that testosterone and PTSD symptoms were measured at different time points. Testosterone was assessed during the initial recruitment phase between 2006 and 2010, while PTSD symptoms were measured in 2016. Because the study did not track participants over time with repeated measurements, it is unclear whether hormone levels predicted future symptom development or reflected existing mental health issues.</p>
<p>“We found a small correlation between lower testosterone levels and higher symptom scores for both PTSD and depression,” Duncan told PsyPost. “However, we want to be 100% clear that the results do not say whether low testosterone <em>causes</em> PTSD or depression (or vice versa) but do suggest there is a relationship between them. The results are consistent with other studies showing that treating clinically low testosterone can have mental health benefits. It is important to know that testosterone supplementation is not effective or safe for everyone with mental health symptoms, which is why it is critical to talk to a doctor before taking them.”</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study could not include cortisol or other stress hormone data. Some researchers suggest that the balance between testosterone and cortisol may be more informative than either hormone alone. Other hormones, such as estrogen, could also play a role.</p>
<p>“We would really like to measure the effect of estrogen on women’s mental health symptoms,” Duncan said. “This is currently almost impossible, however, even with a sample size of over 100,000 people (as we had here) because estrogen levels fluctuate so much across shorter (monthly) and longer (lifetime) timescales in women.”</p>
<p>“Also, the relationship between estrogen and mood seems to be more complex than with testosterone because the fluctuations in estrogen may be as important (or more) than the levels themselves. We need a device like a continuous glucose monitor to really understand how differences estrogen levels impact mental health symptoms, for different women.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-025-03482-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associations between testosterone and future PTSD symptoms among middle age and older UK residents</a>,” was authored by Hanyang Shen, Ciera Stafford, Joeri Meijsen, Lijin Zhang, Jacob Reiter, Rebecca B. Lawn, Alicia K. Smith, Mytilee Vermuri, and Laramie E. Duncan.</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>