<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/gamers-show-no-major-psychological-disadvantages-compared-to-non-gamers/" 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;">Gamers show no major psychological disadvantages compared to non-gamers</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 23rd 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251370255" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychological Reports</a></em> suggests that individuals who engage regularly in video gaming do not differ significantly from non-gamers in fundamental psychological functions such as emotional regulation, interpersonal relatedness, and defense mechanisms. The findings challenge the assumption that gaming is inherently linked to maladaptive personality traits or dysfunction, and instead indicate that gamers may actually show strengths in some psychological areas.</p>
<p>Public discourse around gaming often swings between viewing it as harmful and seeing it as a beneficial hobby. Concerns about video game use have largely focused on risks such as addiction, social isolation, and poor emotional control. At the same time, researchers have also noted cognitive and social benefits among some gamers. Yet few studies have examined whether regular gaming influences deeper aspects of psychological functioning, including personality organization, defense strategies, and how individuals form and sustain emotional bonds.</p>
<p>The authors were motivated by a gap in the literature. While many studies focus on the positive or negative impacts of games themselves, relatively few examine whether people who invest heavily in gaming differ from non-gamers in the structure and quality of their personality functioning. The researchers aimed to assess this question using a more psychoanalytic and clinical psychology framework. Their goal was not to assess whether gaming causes mental health issues, but to explore whether frequent gaming is associated with differences in psychological functioning at a structural level.</p>
<p>“I have long been engaged in clinical psychology and psychoanalytic theory, while also being surrounded by many friends and students who are deeply involved in gaming,” said study author Ekin Emiral, an assistant professor of clinical psychology at the University of Health Sciences in İstanbul.</p>
<p>“Although I have never been a gamer myself (I left gaming with Solitaire), this ‘in-between’ position gave me a unique perspective: I could see both the clinical bias toward pathologizing gaming and the everyday reality that gamers are not fundamentally different from other social groups. As a psychoanalytically oriented clinical psychologist, I was particularly curious whether investing large amounts of time in gaming—especially in MMORPGs—might be resulted from not serious pathology but some disruptions in early ego functions such as object relations.”</p>
<p>The study involved 762 participants aged 18 to 44. Among them, 345 were categorized as gamers, and 407 as non-gamers. Gamers were defined as individuals who spent at least eight hours per week gaming and described it as a meaningful activity. Non-gamers either did not play games or played fewer than eight hours per week without assigning it much importance in their lives.</p>
<p>To assess participants’ psychological characteristics, the researchers used several well-established self-report measures. These included scales to assess personality disorders (based on the categories from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), emotion regulation difficulties, defense mechanisms (ways of unconsciously managing stress or internal conflict), and object relations (how people perceive and interact with others at an emotional level).</p>
<p>Initial analyses found some differences between gamers and non-gamers in specific personality disorder traits. Non-gamers scored slightly higher on traits associated with paranoid, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant, and dependent personality disorders. Gamers scored slightly higher on traits related to antisocial and schizotypal personality disorders.</p>
<p>However, when the researchers adjusted for age—since gamers were, on average, about two years older than non-gamers—only three of these differences remained statistically significant. Gamers still showed slightly higher scores on antisocial and schizotypal traits, while non-gamers continued to score higher on avoidant and dependent traits.</p>
<p>These group differences were modest in size, suggesting that they should not be overinterpreted. The researchers noted that age may account for many of the apparent differences, as some traits, such as impulsivity or interpersonal sensitivity, tend to decrease with age.</p>
<p>When it came to object relations, which includes concepts like alienation, insecure attachment, egocentricity, and social incompetence, the researchers found no meaningful differences between the two groups. This finding is particularly important because object relations are considered foundational to healthy psychological development and interpersonal functioning. The similarity between gamers and non-gamers in this domain suggests that gaming is not associated with disruptions in how people relate to others on a fundamental level.</p>
<p>“I initially expected to see at least some differences in object relations (developmentally first ego function related to object investments), given the substantial time investment that gaming requires,” Emiral told PsyPost. “However, we found no such deficits. On the contrary, some aspects of ego functioning even appeared stronger in the gamer group. This was surprising not only to me but also to some psychoanalysts I discussed the results with. Interestingly, my students felt reassured to see that their gaming habits were not automatically pathologized.”</p>
<p>The researchers also examined defense mechanisms, which refer to the unconscious strategies people use to manage internal conflict and distress. These were categorized into three types: immature, neurotic, and mature. Immature defenses include mechanisms like denial or projection, neurotic defenses include suppression and reaction formation, while mature defenses involve humor, sublimation, and anticipation.</p>
<p>Gamers reported using mature defenses more frequently than non-gamers. At the same time, non-gamers reported greater use of neurotic defenses. There was no difference between the groups in the use of immature defenses. The authors suggest that the cognitive and social demands of gaming may support the use of more adaptive coping strategies, especially in complex team-based or goal-oriented game environments.</p>
<p>With respect to emotion regulation, the initial results showed that gamers had fewer difficulties than non-gamers. However, this difference disappeared after controlling for age. This pattern aligns with research indicating that emotion regulation improves in young adulthood, and the slightly older average age of the gamer group may explain the apparent advantage.</p>
<p>“The central takeaway is that gamers are not inherently more pathological than non-gamers,” Emiral explained. “In fact, in some domains they even demonstrate stronger capacities. Of course, there are problematic gamers—as earlier research has documented—but this should not be generalized, since in any group of people we will find individuals struggling with a variety of difficulties. Our results challenge the traditional psychiatric tendency to pathologize behaviors that deviate from established norms. Instead, gaming may be better understood as a cultural and developmental activity—much like literature or cinema—rather than as a marker of dysfunction.”</p>
<p>The study does have some limitations. The most notable is the gender imbalance between the groups. The gamer group was predominantly male, which may have influenced the findings, particularly those related to personality traits and defense styles. Future research should aim for a more balanced sample across gender identities to ensure broader generalizability.</p>
<p>The classification of participants into gamer and non-gamer groups was based on self-reported gaming time and subjective importance, which could introduce variability. People who game fewer hours but place high emotional value on gaming may be more similar to heavy gamers than the classification suggests. Future studies might benefit from including more nuanced distinctions based on game genre, playing style, or gaming motivations.</p>
<p>“Our study focused on individuals who dedicate significant time to long-term gaming formats like MMORPGs and FPS titles,” Emiral noted. “Hyper casual gamers or those in different genres might present different psychological profiles. I strongly think that they might be different from our findings because the game mechanics are quite different.”</p>
<p>The cross-sectional design of the study also limits the ability to draw conclusions about causality. It remains unclear whether gaming supports the development of certain psychological traits or whether individuals with particular traits are more drawn to gaming. Longitudinal studies would be needed to assess how gaming may influence psychological functioning over time.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study provides one of the more comprehensive assessments of ego functioning and personality features in gamers compared to non-gamers. The findings suggest that gaming does not inherently impair psychological development and may even be associated with adaptive features in some contexts.</p>
<p>“Currently, my colleagues and I are turning to a related but broader frontier: the role of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy,” Emiral said. “We are exploring how potential users perceive AI as a potential therapeutic tool and what implications this might have for the future of clinical psychology. Just as gaming reshaped cultural practices, I believe AI will pose both challenges and opportunities for psychotherapy—potentially even becoming a new object of psychological investment.”</p>
<p>“I think it is time we begin to see gaming not just through the lens of risk but also as a new domain of development and expression. Much like literature, cinema, or sports, gaming has become a cultural space where individuals test skills, form relationships, and explore aspects of identity. Recognizing this may help us move away from a simplistic “good vs. bad” framing and toward a more nuanced understanding of gamers’ psychology.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251370255" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Challenging Stereotypes: Ego Functioning and Personality Pathology in Gamers versus Non-Gamers</a>,” was authored by Ekin Emiral and Yıldız Bilge.</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/neuroscience-study-shows-how-praise-criticism-and-facial-attractiveness-interact-to-influence-likability/" 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;">Neuroscience study shows how praise, criticism, and facial attractiveness interact to influence likability</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 23rd 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People often form impressions of others by quickly evaluating both how they look and what they say. A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109107" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biological Psychology</a></em> offers evidence that verbal behavior and facial appearance interact in shaping these impressions, with this interplay also reflected in brain activity. The research found that while attractive people tend to be rated as more likable than average-looking individuals, this advantage shrinks when they are associated with critical remarks. The findings suggest that verbal negativity can blunt the effect of physical attractiveness on social evaluations.</p>
<p>Previous research has shown that people often associate physical attractiveness with positive traits, a bias sometimes referred to as the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype. At the same time, what someone says—especially if it is framed as praise or criticism—also influences how they are perceived by others. These two types of information, visual and verbal, do not operate in isolation during social interactions. Yet most studies examine either facial appearance or verbal content in isolation, leaving open questions about how these signals combine to affect person judgments.</p>
<p>The researchers behind this study aimed to fill that gap. They wanted to understand how verbal behaviors like praise and criticism interact with facial attractiveness in shaping social impressions, and whether this interaction is reflected in brain activity. They also explored whether this effect varied by the sex of the observer and the person being evaluated. By combining behavioral measures with brainwave recordings, the researchers sought to capture both conscious evaluations and underlying neural responses.</p>
<p>“We were inspired by the way people often rely on both appearance and words when forming first impressions,” said study author <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shan-Gao-19" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shan Gao</a>, a professor and head of the Language Science Lab at the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.</p>
<p>“While the ‘beauty premium’ has been widely investigated, less is known about how verbal behavior (e.g., praise or criticism) interacts with facial attractiveness and how these interactions are represented in the brain. This gap motivated us to combine behavioral measures and event-related potentials (ERPs) to address the joint impact of verbal and nonverbal cues in social judgment.”</p>
<p>Sixty-four participants, equally divided between men and women, took part in the experiment. All were young adults without any known neurological or psychiatric disorders. Each participant was randomly assigned to view either male or female faces, which were categorized as either attractive or average-looking based on prior ratings. The faces were presented alongside verbal descriptions that were either praising, critical, or neutral in tone. Importantly, participants were told to imagine that the individuals depicted in the photographs were the ones making the verbal statements.</p>
<p>Each trial followed a structured format. A face was shown alone, followed by the same face with a cue indicating speech was about to begin. Participants then saw two short sentences of the same emotional tone, each ending in a critical word that carried the emotional weight of the statement. Afterward, participants rated how likable they found the individual.</p>
<p>The researchers measured behavioral responses using these likability ratings. Simultaneously, they recorded electrical brain activity using electroencephalography, focusing on two specific brain signals: the early posterior negativity and the late positive complex. These brain responses are thought to reflect different stages of emotional processing, with the early component capturing quick, automatic reactions and the later component reflecting more detailed evaluation.</p>
<p>The data showed that participants rated attractive faces as more likable than average-looking ones overall, supporting the idea that physical appearance biases social judgments. Faces paired with praise were rated as more likable than those paired with neutral or critical comments. Criticism significantly reduced likability ratings, even for attractive individuals.</p>
<p>Notably, the benefit of attractiveness was not consistent across all verbal contexts. When attractive faces were paired with criticism, the usual advantage of attractiveness was diminished. In contrast, praise did not significantly boost the likability of attractive individuals compared to when they were described neutrally. This suggests that negative verbal behavior may carry more weight than positive behavior when it comes to forming impressions, especially when combined with visual attractiveness.</p>
<p>“One surprising result was that praise did not amplify the attractiveness advantage,” Gao told PsyPost. “We initially expected a ‘double bonus’ when an attractive person also offered praise, but the findings showed that negative information (criticism) has a much stronger impact than positive information. This points to the powerful role of negativity in shaping first impressions.”</p>
<p>Brainwave data supported these behavioral findings. The early posterior negativity was stronger in response to criticism, suggesting that participants quickly registered negative comments as emotionally significant. The late positive complex, associated with deeper evaluation, also showed a clear pattern. Criticism elicited the largest responses, followed by praise and then neutral descriptions.</p>
<p>“The brain responds more strongly to criticism than praise, highlighting the greater weight of negative information in social evaluation,” Gao said.</p>
<p>But when it came to attractive versus average-looking individuals, the brain responses showed a more specific pattern: praise led to increased brain activity only when it came from attractive individuals. This brain response was also positively associated with likability ratings, but only for praising attractive people.</p>
<p>The researchers also found differences based on the sex of participants and the faces they viewed. For instance, when viewing attractive individuals of the same sex who were offering praise, both men and women showed larger late positive complex responses. This may suggest that people are especially attuned to traits in same-sex individuals that signal social competition, particularly in contexts where praise is given.</p>
<p>In contrast, the presence of verbal criticism from attractive same-sex individuals seemed to provoke larger brain responses in women, indicating that they may be more sensitive to both positive and negative social cues when evaluating others of the same sex.</p>
<p>Another notable finding was that neutral comments from attractive men triggered larger brain responses in male participants compared to female participants. This may reflect heightened social awareness or vigilance in male-to-male interactions, possibly due to competitive or affiliative social dynamics. By contrast, women appeared to show a more varied pattern, responding strongly to both praise and criticism from other women.</p>
<p>Interestingly, while prior studies have reported that facial attractiveness can influence early-stage brain responses, this study did not find strong evidence for such an effect. The early posterior negativity did not differ based on whether the face was attractive or average-looking. The researchers suggest that early perceptual processing may not be influenced by attractiveness in situations where faces are already familiar or when the emotional content is carried by accompanying verbal cues.</p>
<p>“In short, looks matter, but what you say matters just as much—especially when it is negative,” Gao told PsyPost.</p>
<p>As with all research, there are caveats to consider. The study relied on a relatively small sample of young, heterosexual Chinese participants, which may limit how broadly the findings can be applied. Cultural differences in how attractiveness and verbal behavior are perceived could influence the results in other populations.</p>
<p>“We only used static, neutral-expression faces and short sentences, which may not capture the richness of real-life interactions,” Gao noted. “The study focused only on praise and criticism. Other forms of verbal and nonverbal cues (e.g., tone of voice, body language) may interact in different ways.”</p>
<p>Another avenue for future work could involve exploring how these impressions change over time or after repeated exposure. The current study captured first impressions, but real relationships often involve evolving judgments as new information becomes available. Understanding how early biases either persist or fade could have implications for fields ranging from hiring to education to social media design.</p>
<p>“Our long-term aim is to better understand how multiple social signals are integrated in the brain to form impressions and guide behavior,” Gao said. “Future research could examine more diverse cues (e.g., voice tone, gaze, gestures) and explore cross-cultural differences to provide a more complete picture of how people evaluate others in everyday life.”</p>
<p>“This study highlights that first impressions are not just about appearance. Words can strongly reinforce or undermine initial judgments, and the brain is particularly sensitive to negative verbal behavior. Recognizing this can help us become more aware of our biases and perhaps make more balanced evaluations of others in social and professional contexts.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109107" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Words or appearance? The impact of verbal behaviour and facial attraction on first impression</a>,” was authored by Shan Gao, Qian Li, Chen He, Xiaojie Yan, and Yihao Yin.</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/short-sleepers-tend-to-have-decreased-microbial-diversity-in-their-mouths/" 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;">Short sleepers tend to have decreased microbial diversity in their mouths</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 23rd 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study data has found that individuals who report sleeping 6 or fewer hours per night tend to have decreased microbial diversity in their mouths compared to individuals sleeping the recommended 7-8 hours. Several bacterial genera were more likely to be absent in the group of short sleepers, but there were also bacterial genera that tended to be more abundant. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/sleepadvances/zpaf023"><em>Sleep Advances</em></a>.</p>
<p>Sleep is a natural, recurring state of rest in which consciousness, responsiveness, and many bodily functions slow down while the brain and body engage in essential restorative processes. It supports memory consolidation, emotional regulation, immune functioning, and physical repair of tissues. Lack of sufficient or good-quality sleep impairs concentration, mood, and decision-making, and increases the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and depression.</p>
<p>Sleep disturbances, such as insomnia, sleep apnea, and restless legs syndrome, are common worldwide. Modern lifestyles contribute to these problems, with artificial light, long work hours, digital device use, and stress disrupting natural sleep patterns. In many societies, chronic sleep deprivation is so widespread that it is considered a public health concern. Studies show that a large portion of adults in industrialized countries regularly get less than the recommended 7–9 hours of sleep. Poor sleep affects workplace productivity, raises accident risks, and adds to healthcare costs.</p>
<p>Study author Kathryn R. Dalton and her colleagues wanted to examine the association between self-reported sleep duration and the oral microbiome composition within the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study dataset. This dataset contains data of a large cohort of older Americans. Study authors hypothesized that reduced sleep duration will be associated with an unhealthy microbial composition in the mouth. This will show as both reduced microbial diversity and increased abundance of potentially pathogenic microbes.</p>
<p>The oral microbiome is the community of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, and protozoa, that live in the mouth. It plays a key role in maintaining oral health, but imbalances in this ecosystem can contribute to cavities, gum disease, and various other adverse health conditions.</p>
<p>Data used in these analyses came from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study participants. These individuals were recruited for participation in 1995-1996 when they were 50-71 years old. They resided in six U.S. states – California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania) and two metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Georgia, and Detroit, Michigan). While this group initially included over 500,000 participants, these analyses were conducted on a subsample of 1,139 individuals from whom oral wash specimens were collected and who were selected to be a reference group for another study.</p>
<p>The study authors used data on participants’ self-reported sleep duration, both at the start of the study, and follow-ups. This question asked about the typical number of hours the participant slept within a 24-hour day over the past year. Participants were divided into the group of individuals with recommended sleep duration (7-8 hours), those sleeping longer than recommended (9+ hours) and those sleeping less than recommended (6 hours or less). They also used data on participants’ oral microbiome composition.</p>
<p>The results showed that participants reporting short sleep duration consistently showed decreased oral microbial diversity. Several bacterial genera were more likely to be absent in the short sleep group than in the normal sleep group. These included <em>Prevotella</em> and <em>Corynebacterium</em>, both the types of microorganisms that normally live in the mouth without causing disease. Bacterial genera with lower abundance included <em>Fusobacterium</em>, <em>Atopobium</em>, and <em>Campylobacte. </em>On the other hand, some bacterial genera tended to be more abundant in mouths of short sleepers. These included <em>Streptococcus</em> and <em>Rothia</em>.</p>
<p>“Our findings provide evidence for an association of short sleep duration with oral microbial diversity and composition. This suggests that oral bacteria may play a possible mechanistic role related to sleep health. Improved understanding of physiological pathways can aid in the design of interventions that may beneficially improve overall sleep health,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between sleep habits and oral microbiome composition. However, it should be noted that study data came exclusively from older individuals, while age and health are important determinant of oral microbiota composition. Results on younger people might differ. It should also be noted that the design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results. Additionally, oral microbiome composition generally depends much more on factors other than sleep, such as oral hygiene, diet, smoking, or antibiotic use.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/sleepadvances/zpaf023">Sleep duration associated with altered oral microbiome diversity and composition in the NIH AARP cohort,</a>” was authored by Kathryn R. Dalton, Vicky C. Chang, Mikyeong Lee, Katherine Maki, Pedro Saint-Maurice, Vaishnavi Purandare, Xing Hua, Yunhu Wan, Casey L. Dagnall, Kristine Jones, Belynda D. Hicks, Amy Hutchinson, Linda M. Liao, Mitchell H. Gail, Jianxin Shi, Rashmi Sinha, Christian C. Abnet, Stephanie J. London, and Emily Vogtmann.</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/night-owls-more-prone-to-problematic-smartphone-use-with-loneliness-and-anxiety-as-key-factors/" 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;">Night owls more prone to problematic smartphone use, with loneliness and anxiety as key factors</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 22nd 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study suggests that young adults who naturally prefer to stay up late and wake up late are at a higher risk for developing problematic patterns of smartphone and social media use. The research indicates that feelings of loneliness and anxiety may be significant underlying reasons for this connection, offering new perspectives for addressing technology addiction. The findings were published in the scientific journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331961" target="_blank">PLOS One</a></em>.</p>
<p>As smartphones and social media platforms have become embedded in daily life, concerns have grown about their potential for addiction. Problematic smartphone use is characterized by a dysfunctional relationship with the device, such as feeling distressed when it is not accessible or letting its use interfere with other life activities. Similarly, social media addiction involves dedicating so much time and effort to these platforms that other responsibilities are neglected. </p>
<p>These issues are especially common among young adults, a group where being an “evening type” is also highly prevalent. An individual’s circadian preference, or their natural inclination to be a morning person or an evening person, has been previously linked to addictive behaviors. Researchers have observed that people who are evening types report higher rates of both problematic smartphone use and social media addiction. What has been less clear is why this association exists. This study aimed to investigate potential psychological mechanisms that could explain the link, focusing on mental health, loneliness, and sleep quality as possible connecting factors.</p>
<p>To explore these connections, a team of researchers recruited 407 undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 25. The participants, who had an average age of nearly 20, completed a series of established questionnaires online. These instruments were designed to measure several different aspects of their lives and well-being. One scale assessed the degree of problematic smartphone use, asking about things like feeling irritable when unable to use the phone. Another questionnaire measured social media addiction by probing core elements of addiction, such as preoccupation with social media and using it to escape from personal problems. </p>
<p>Participants also completed a survey to measure symptoms of anxiety and depression they had experienced in the last week. A separate scale was used to evaluate feelings of emotional and social loneliness. To gauge sleep, participants filled out a questionnaire about their subjective sleep quality over the past month. Finally, a standardized questionnaire determined each participant’s circadian preference, categorizing them as a morning type, an evening type, or an intermediate type based on their preferred times for waking and sleeping.</p>
<p>The researchers then analyzed the collected data. First, they confirmed the expected associations. As predicted, individuals who identified as evening types reported higher levels of problematic smartphone use compared to morning and intermediate types. The evening preference was also associated with more symptoms of anxiety and depression, greater feelings of loneliness, and poorer sleep quality. Following this, the researchers employed a statistical method to test whether loneliness, anxiety, depression symptoms, and poor sleep quality could act as pathways explaining the relationship between being an evening person and problematic technology habits. Two separate analyses were conducted, one for problematic smartphone use and one for social media addiction.</p>
<p>In the analysis of problematic smartphone use, the results showed that loneliness was a significant explanatory factor. The connection between being an evening person and problematic smartphone use was partially accounted for by feelings of loneliness. This means that part of the reason evening types might engage in unhealthy smartphone habits is linked to their feelings of being lonely. The other factors, including anxiety, depression symptoms, and poor sleep quality, did not emerge as significant pathways in this specific relationship. A direct connection between eveningness and problematic smartphone use remained even after accounting for loneliness.</p>
<p>The analysis for social media addiction revealed a different pattern. In this case, both loneliness and anxiety symptoms were found to be significant explanatory factors. Together, these two feelings fully accounted for the relationship between being an evening person and social media addiction. This suggests that the tendency for evening types to develop an addiction to social media is completely explained by their elevated feelings of loneliness and anxiety. Once these emotional states were considered, there was no longer a direct statistical link between being an evening person and being addicted to social media.</p>
<p>“Our findings point to a vicious cycle,” said co-author Anna-Stiina Wallinheimo of the School of Psychology, Sport, and Health Sciences at the University of Portsmouth. “Young adults who are naturally more active in the evening often find themselves socially out of sync, which may lead to feelings of loneliness and anxiety. Many then turn to smartphones and social media to cope, but unfortunately, these tools can make things worse, not better.”</p>
<p>The research team suggests that young adults who are evening types may turn to their phones and social media as a dysfunctional coping strategy. When feeling isolated or anxious, especially late at night when social opportunities are limited, the immediate accessibility of a smartphone can seem like a solution. However, this pattern of use may not truly fulfill social needs and could in some cases worsen negative feelings through mechanisms like upward social comparison.</p>
<p>The study has some limitations that the authors acknowledge. The participants were all university students, which means the findings may not be generalizable to all young adults in different life circumstances. The research also relied on self-reported data from questionnaires, which can be influenced by individual biases in memory or reporting. Because the data was collected at a single point in time, it is not possible to determine the direction of the relationships. For example, the study cannot establish whether being an evening person leads to loneliness, which in turn leads to phone use, or if other complex interactions are at play. Future research could use a longitudinal design, following individuals over time, to better understand these dynamics.</p>
<p>The study’s conclusions carry important implications for how to support young people’s mental health and well-being in an increasingly digital world. Co-author Simon Evans, from the School of Psychology at the University of Surrey, commented on the findings. “Rather than simply telling young people to spend less time on their phones, we need to address the reasons behind their usage,” he said. “That means providing effective strategies to manage loneliness and anxiety, particularly during late evening hours when support services are limited, and feelings of isolation can be most intense.”</p>
<p>The researchers are calling for more targeted education and support systems for young adults. Helping them recognize how their sleep patterns and emotional states might put them at risk for problematic technology use could be a key step.</p>
<p>“Increased awareness of these underlying mechanisms could lead to far more effective interventions,” Wallinheimo added. “If we can help young people understand that their phones and social media feeds aren’t the solution to loneliness or anxiety but part of the problem, we might begin to turn the tide.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331961" target="_blank">Mechanisms that link circadian preference to problematic smartphone and social media use in young adults</a>,” was authored by Anna-Stiina Wallinheimo and Simon L. Evans.</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/personality-traits-predict-students-use-of-generative-ai-in-higher-education-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;">Personality traits predict students’ use of generative AI in higher education, 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 22nd 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Students who are curious, organized, and outgoing may be more likely to incorporate generative artificial intelligence tools into their learning, according to new research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16339-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scientific Reports</a></em>. The findings suggest that personality plays a significant role in how students engage with generative AI for educational purposes.</p>
<p>Generative AI refers to tools that can produce new content—such as text, images, or audio—by learning from large datasets. These systems are capable of responding to natural language prompts, generating summaries, offering explanations, and tailoring feedback. In educational settings, they can serve as writing assistants, study aids, or even personalized tutors, helping students understand complex topics and access a broader range of resources.</p>
<p>As generative AI becomes more widely used in schools and universities, researchers have begun to explore how individual traits influence its adoption. Past studies have focused on attitudes toward AI, ethical concerns, and perceived usefulness, but few have examined how personality might affect usage patterns. This study aimed to fill that gap by looking at the Big Five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. These traits are commonly used in psychology to describe broad patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion.</p>
<p>The research team reasoned that traits like openness and conscientiousness could increase engagement with AI, as they reflect curiosity and goal-directed behavior. On the other hand, individuals with higher neuroticism may find new technologies stressful or intimidating. By understanding how these traits relate to educational use of AI, educators and developers might design more personalized tools and support systems that align with students’ learning preferences.</p>
<p>The researchers collected data from 1,800 university students across various disciplines in Türkiye, including engineering, education, medicine, and the social sciences. Participants were recruited through an online survey in the fall of 2024. To be included in the final analysis, students had to have prior experience using generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Bing AI, Jasper, or ChatSonic for educational purposes. This led to a final sample of 1,016 students aged 17 to 28, with roughly equal representation of men and women.</p>
<p>Participants completed two main questionnaires. The first measured their personality traits using the 44-item Big Five Inventory, which assesses how strongly individuals identify with behaviors linked to openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The second scale measured their educational use of generative AI through five statements such as “I often use generative AI to learn new concepts,” rated on a five-point scale.</p>
<p>The researchers then analyzed the data using multiple techniques. Linear regression was used to assess how each personality trait predicted AI use. They also employed artificial neural networks, a form of machine learning, to detect more complex or nonlinear relationships. Additionally, they conducted separate analyses to examine whether age or gender influenced the findings.</p>
<p>Students in the study generally had positive perceptions of generative AI. On average, they agreed that it helped enrich their learning, adapt to their educational needs, and provide support with complex tasks. However, they were slightly less confident in its ability to promote creativity and critical thinking.</p>
<p>The personality trait most strongly linked to educational use of generative AI was openness to experience. Students who scored higher on this trait—often associated with intellectual curiosity and creativity—were more likely to use AI tools in their learning. Conscientiousness, which reflects organization and responsibility, was also a strong positive predictor. Extraversion had a smaller but still significant association with AI use. Students high in this trait may be more inclined to interact with conversational agents or explore new technologies.</p>
<p>Neuroticism was negatively associated with AI use. Students who tended to be anxious or emotionally reactive were less likely to engage with generative AI. This supports the idea that emotional discomfort with technology can serve as a barrier to adoption. Agreeableness, which includes traits like kindness and cooperativeness, was not significantly linked to AI use in this study.</p>
<p>Further analyses revealed that some of these associations differed by gender. For example, conscientiousness was a slightly stronger predictor of AI use among women, while openness had a more pronounced effect among men. Extraversion had a larger influence on AI use for women than men, and neuroticism was a stronger barrier for women than for men. Agreeableness did not predict AI use for either gender.</p>
<p>Age also showed a small effect. Students around age 22 were slightly more likely to use generative AI for educational purposes compared to younger students. However, age did not emerge as a significant predictor when personality traits were included in the statistical models.</p>
<p>The machine learning analysis confirmed that openness was the most influential trait in predicting AI use, followed by conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The use of neural networks allowed the researchers to identify more subtle relationships that might not be captured through standard statistical methods.</p>
<p>The authors noted several limitations. The study was conducted entirely in Türkiye, a country with a collectivist cultural background, which may influence how students relate to technology. Cultural values could shape the expression of personality traits and attitudes toward AI. As such, the findings may not generalize to students in other regions. Future studies could include cross-cultural comparisons to assess whether these patterns hold globally.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study focused only on students who had already used generative AI tools. It did not examine why some students avoid using AI altogether, which could reveal other personality or situational factors at play. In addition, the study did not control for variables such as digital literacy or academic motivation, which may also influence technology adoption.</p>
<p>The researchers also pointed out that they did not include established models of technology acceptance in their framework. Future research could benefit from integrating theories like the Technology Acceptance Model or the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology to provide a more comprehensive understanding of student behavior.</p>
<p>There are also ethical concerns related to the use of AI in education. While tools like ChatGPT can enhance learning, they also raise questions about academic integrity, dependency, misinformation, and access. As generative AI becomes more sophisticated and embedded in educational systems, future research will need to address these challenges.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16339-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The role of personality traits in predicting educational use of generative AI in higher education</a>,” was authored by Ibrahim Arpaci, Ismail Kuşci, and Omer Gibreel.</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/marriage-provides-little-additional-life-satisfaction-boost-beyond-that-of-partnership-and-cohabitation/" 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;">Marriage provides little additional life satisfaction boost beyond that of partnership and cohabitation</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 22nd 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new large-scale study finds that people’s overall satisfaction with life increases significantly when they transition from living alone to cohabiting with a romantic partner. The research indicates that the most substantial improvement in well-being is linked to the formation of the relationship itself, with gains often appearing before the couple starts living under the same roof. The research was published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.70013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Personality</a></em>.</p>
<p>Being in a romantic relationship is often associated with benefits like better health, increased social support, and greater life satisfaction. As life satisfaction is a strong predictor of general mental health, understanding the events that influence it is an important area of study. In many Western cultures, the traditional sequence of life events from being single to getting married has changed, with cohabitation before marriage becoming increasingly common.</p>
<p>This shift raises questions about which specific milestones in a relationship contribute most to a person’s sense of happiness. Previous research has often shown that married individuals report higher life satisfaction than single people, but it has been less clear whether this boost comes from marriage itself, the act of moving in together, or simply from starting a new relationship. The researchers of this study wanted to disentangle these connected events to better understand their individual associations with life satisfaction.</p>
<p>The investigation aimed to address several specific questions. First, the researchers sought to map the trajectory of life satisfaction as individuals moved from being single and living alone to entering a relationship and then cohabiting. They wanted to see how large the increase in well-being was and if it was sustained over the first few years of living together. Second, they wanted to examine if getting married around the same time as moving in provided an additional, separate boost to life satisfaction.</p>
<p>They were also curious if the link between marriage and well-being has changed over the past few decades, as social norms around cohabitation have evolved. Finally, the study explored whether changes in life satisfaction around this transition varied based on personal characteristics like a person’s age, gender, income, education level, or country of residence.</p>
<p>To conduct their analysis, the research team utilized data from two major, long-term national surveys: the German Socio-Economic Panel, with data collected between 1984 and 2019, and the UK Household Longitudinal Study, with data from 2009 to 2019. These surveys track thousands of households and individuals over many years, asking them annually about various aspects of their lives, including their relationship status, living arrangements, and overall life satisfaction.</p>
<p>The researchers implemented a very specific selection process to create a clean comparison group. They identified all participants who, at some point, reported being single and living alone. From this group, they focused only on those who subsequently entered a new romantic relationship and moved in with that partner. To avoid complicating factors, they excluded individuals who had children in the household or who got married before they began living with their partner. This meticulous filtering resulted in a final sample of 1,103 people who followed this specific life path.</p>
<p>For each person in the final sample, the researchers analyzed their reported life satisfaction over a five-year window centered on the year they moved in with their partner. This timeline included the two years before cohabitation, the year of the event itself, and the two years that followed. This method allowed the team to establish a baseline of life satisfaction while single and then track how it changed during and after this major life transition.</p>
<p>The findings showed a distinct pattern. Life satisfaction reached its highest point in the year that participants first moved in with their new partner. Compared to two years prior, when they were single and living alone, their satisfaction had risen by a noticeable amount. The analysis revealed that this peak was followed by a slight decline in the next two years. However, even with this small drop, their life satisfaction remained significantly higher than it had been during their time as a single person living alone.</p>
<p>To better understand what was driving this increase, the researchers performed a more detailed analysis on a subgroup of participants. They looked specifically at individuals who were already in a relationship one year before they moved in together. For this group, a large part of the increase in life satisfaction had already occurred by that one-year-before mark. Their well-being was already elevated while they were in a relationship but still living alone.</p>
<p>When they eventually moved in with their partner, their high level of life satisfaction was maintained but did not experience another significant jump. This result suggests that the formation of the romantic partnership itself, rather than the physical act of cohabiting, is the primary event associated with the initial boost in well-being.</p>
<p>When the researchers examined the role of marriage, they found it had a limited additional effect. There was no consistent evidence that getting married at the same time or shortly after moving in together provided an extra surge in life satisfaction on top of the gains from cohabitation.</p>
<p>One interesting historical pattern did emerge from the German data. For participants who moved in together around the year 1993, getting married was associated with a temporary extra boost in happiness one year later. But for participants in more recent years, and for all participants in the United Kingdom data, this effect was absent. This suggests that as unmarried cohabitation has become more socially accepted, the unique contribution of marriage to well-being may have diminished over time.</p>
<p>The study also found that the pattern of rising life satisfaction was largely consistent across different demographic groups. There were no significant differences between men and women in their life satisfaction trajectories around this transition. However, age and income did show some minor influence. Older participants reported lower life satisfaction two years before moving in compared to younger participants. Individuals with higher incomes reported greater life satisfaction one year before moving in, and their well-being did not decline as much in the years that followed compared to those with lower incomes.</p>
<p>The authors acknowledge certain limitations of their work. The findings are based on correlational data, which means it is not possible to definitively state that moving in with a partner causes an increase in life satisfaction; other unmeasured factors could be involved. The study also relied on a single question to measure life satisfaction. The highly specific sample of people who followed a particular relationship path, while strengthening the internal comparisons, may limit how broadly the findings can be applied to the general population. Finally, because the data came from Germany and the United Kingdom, the results may not be applicable to other cultures with different social norms regarding relationships and cohabitation.</p>
<p>For future research, the team suggests further investigation into the mechanisms behind their findings. It would be beneficial to explore why individuals with lower incomes experience a steeper decline in life satisfaction after the initial cohabitation peak. Additional studies in different countries could help determine if these patterns are universal or culturally specific. Researchers could also examine how personality traits, such as extraversion, might interact with relationship transitions to influence a person’s well-being over time.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.70013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mapping Life Satisfaction Over the First Years of Cohabitation Among Former Singles Living Alone in UK and Germany</a>,” was authored by Usama EL-Awad, Robert Eves, Justin Hachenberger, Theresa M. Entringer, Robin Goodwin, Anu Realo, and Sakari Lemola.</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/study-finds-caffeine-increases-task-persistence-under-pressure/" 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;">Study finds caffeine increases task persistence under pressure</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 22nd 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study provides evidence that caffeine can increase how long people persist in trying to complete difficult or unsolvable tasks, and this effect is especially pronounced in people who have recently experienced stress. The findings, published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.70014" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental</a></em>, suggest that caffeine may promote a more active coping style in humans, in line with earlier behavioral findings from rodent research.</p>
<p>Caffeine is one of the most widely consumed psychoactive substances in the world, known for its stimulating effects on alertness and attention. In animal studies, caffeine has been shown to reduce what researchers describe as “immobility” during behavioral despair tasks like the forced swim test, which has traditionally been used to screen for antidepressant activity. However, more recent work has challenged the idea that immobility in these tests necessarily reflects despair. Some researchers now believe that reduced immobility may instead represent greater persistence or active coping in the face of difficulty.</p>
<p>This rethinking has raised questions about what decreased immobility really measures, and whether caffeine’s effects in animal models might translate to human behaviors like persistence during frustrating or impossible challenges. To test this possibility, the authors designed a set of experiments aimed at measuring task persistence in people, with and without caffeine, and in both stressful and non-stressful contexts.</p>
<p>“I originally got interested in caffeine research a number of years ago upon realizing that there was a dearth of research on the effects of caffeine during adolescence accompanied by an increase in consumption due to the introduction of energy drinks,” said study author Sarah M. Turgeon, the James E. Ostendarp Professor of Psychology at Amherst College.</p>
<p>The study was conducted in three experiments using 329 college students from Amherst College. The researchers used tasks specifically designed to include unsolvable components, allowing them to measure how long participants would continue trying after the solvable portion was complete.</p>
<p>In the first experiment, participants were randomly assigned to receive either no gum, a placebo gum with no caffeine, or a gum containing 40 milligrams of caffeine. After chewing for five minutes, they completed two tasks: a hidden picture task, where they had to find objects in a complex image (with one object intentionally missing), and an anagram task that included one unsolvable word. Persistence was measured by the time participants spent searching after all solvable items had been found.</p>
<p>The results of this first experiment showed no significant effects of the 40-milligram caffeine dose on either performance or persistence. Most participants solved the solvable portions of the tasks, and caffeine did not seem to increase the time they spent continuing to try.</p>
<p>The second experiment increased the caffeine dose to 100 milligrams, roughly the amount found in a strong cup of coffee. A new group of participants completed either the hidden picture task or a word search task, again with a missing item.</p>
<p>This time, participants who received 100 milligrams of caffeine spent significantly more time persisting in the hidden picture task. On average, caffeine increased the percentage of total task time devoted to searching for the unfindable item from 38 percent to 52 percent. However, caffeine did not influence persistence in the word search task, possibly due to differences in task structure or difficulty.</p>
<p>In the third experiment, the researchers explored how stress might interact with caffeine’s effects. They used the socially evaluated cold pressor test, a standard method for inducing mild psychological stress, in which participants are asked to hold their hand in ice-cold water while being observed. This procedure tends to raise cortisol levels, particularly 20 to 30 minutes after the stressor.</p>
<p>After undergoing either the cold water stress test or a warm water control, participants chewed gum containing either 0 or 100 milligrams of caffeine and completed the hidden picture task. The researchers found that stress improved task performance, with stressed participants identifying the seven solvable objects more quickly than their unstressed peers.</p>
<p>There was also a notable interaction between stress and caffeine on persistence. Among stressed participants, those who received caffeine persisted longer and spent a greater portion of their time searching for the unfindable object compared to stressed participants who received no caffeine. In contrast, among participants who had not experienced stress, caffeine appeared to slightly reduce persistence.</p>
<p>“Caffeine seems to have some positive effects on task persistence and these effects are influenced by stress,” Turgeon told PsyPost.</p>
<p>While the findings support the idea that caffeine can increase persistence in certain contexts, the researchers acknowledge some limitations. One issue is that participants who reached the task’s time limit had to be excluded from persistence analyses, which may have affected the results. Future studies could attempt to separate the measurement of performance and persistence more cleanly, perhaps by designing tasks in which these components can be independently assessed.</p>
<p>Another limitation is the lack of information on participants’ prior caffeine consumption habits in some of the experiments. While participants were asked to avoid caffeine for several hours beforehand, baseline tolerance levels were not strictly controlled, which could influence how they responded to the caffeine gum.</p>
<p>The researchers also note that persistence is a complex behavior influenced by many psychological and physiological processes. Caffeine may influence persistence by reducing fatigue, altering effort-reward calculations, or affecting neurotransmitter systems such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and adenosine. The role of stress hormones like cortisol also remains an open question. Future work may benefit from incorporating physiological measures or brain imaging to better understand the mechanisms involved.</p>
<p>In addition, while the study focused on a specific form of persistence — continuing to work on an unsolvable visual or verbal task — it is not yet clear whether caffeine would influence other types of goal-directed persistence, such as sticking with long-term projects or resisting distraction over extended periods.</p>
<p>“We are working to better design tasks to deal with these limitations and confirm our findings,” Turgeon said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.70014" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Effects of Caffeine and Stress on Persistence and Performance in an Unsolvable Visual Search Task in Humans</a>,” was authored by Parssa Akbari, Sabrina R. Comess, Olivia Henkoff, Phyllis Oduor, and Sarah M. Turgeon.</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>