<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/autistic-traits-linked-to-stronger-attraction-to-masculinity-in-both-male-and-female-faces/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Autistic traits linked to stronger attraction to masculinity in both male and female faces</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 27th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Facial sexual dimorphism, that is masculine or feminine features, shapes attractiveness judgments differently for people with higher autistic traits, according to a study published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-025-00438-2"><em>Evolutionary Psychological Science</em></a>.</p>
<p>Faces are central to human interaction, carrying cues about identity, emotion, and social intent. Research shows that sexual dimorphism, features that differ between men and women, affects how attractive a face is judged. Feminine traits in women’s faces and masculine traits in men’s faces are often preferred by neurotypical observers, partly because such traits can signal health and reproductive fitness.</p>
<p>Little is known about whether people with higher levels of autistic traits perceive these facial cues in the same way. Farid Pazhoohi and colleagues set out to address this research gap.</p>
<p>Earlier work has shown that individuals with autism or high autistic traits may differ in how they look at and evaluate faces. For example, they often spend less time looking at the eyes, or they may show less consistency in attractiveness ratings. But no study had directly tested whether the preference for masculine or feminine features extends to those higher in autistic traits. This study explored whether such individuals show different gaze behaviors or preferences when asked to judge facial attractiveness.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted two complementary studies at the University of British Columbia. In Study 1 a total of 61 undergraduate participants were recruited, but the final sample after exclusions included 45 heterosexual students (39 women, 6 men). Participants completed the Autism Spectrum Quotient-10 (AQ-10), a brief screening tool, which allowed researchers to group them into high autistic trait scorers and low scorers.</p>
<p>They were then shown 40 pairs of faces (20 male, 20 female) that had been digitally altered to appear more masculine or feminine. Each pair was displayed for five seconds while an eye-tracker recorded where participants looked; they were asked to choose which face was more attractive.</p>
<p>In Study 2, the team recruited a larger and more diverse sample of 222 students, of whom 214 heterosexual participants remained after exclusions (156 women, 66 men). Again, participants completed the AQ-10, with 75 identified as high scorers and 139 as low scorers. This time, the procedure was conducted online and participants had unlimited time to choose between masculinized and feminized faces. The same set of stimuli was used, but without eye-tracking, in order to test whether more time would reveal different patterns in facial preferences.</p>
<p>Study 1 found that participants with higher autistic traits spent less time fixating on the eyes compared to those lower in traits, consistent with past findings. However, both groups still looked at the eyes more than the mouth when making attractiveness judgments, and there was no difference between groups in whether they preferred masculinized or feminized faces. This suggests that under time-limited conditions, autistic traits influenced gaze behavior but not reported attractiveness preferences.</p>
<p>In contrast, Study 2 revealed that autistic traits were associated with differences in preference. Across the larger sample, participants generally preferred masculine traits more in male faces than in female faces.</p>
<p>Importantly, when autistic traits were treated as a continuous measure, higher AQ-10 scores predicted stronger preferences for masculinity in both male and female faces. When comparing high- and low-trait groups, the same pattern emerged, though group differences only approached significance. These findings indicate that with unlimited time to decide, higher autistic traits may be linked to a preference for masculinity in faces.</p>
<p>The authors note that their samples excluded non-heterosexual participants, even though autistic individuals are more likely to identify as non-heterosexual. This limitation means the findings may not generalize to the broader population.</p>
<p>The research, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-025-00438-2">Facial Sexual Dimorphism and Attractiveness Perception in High Autistic Trait Individuals</a>”, was authored by Farid Pazhoohi, Leilani Forby, and Alan Kingstone.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/scientists-say-x-formerly-twitter-has-lost-its-professional-edge-and-bluesky-is-taking-its-place/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Scientists say X (formerly Twitter) has lost its professional edge — and Bluesky is taking its place</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 27th 2025, 08:00</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/10.1093/icb/icaf127" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Integrative and Comparative Biology</a></em> suggests that scientists are leaving X (formerly known as Twitter) in significant numbers due to its declining professional value. The survey of over 800 researchers and science communicators indicates that many now find Bluesky to be a more effective platform for networking, outreach, and staying updated on research. The findings suggest a significant shift in how scientists interact online, with Bluesky emerging as a preferred space for professional engagement.</p>
<p>Twitter, once considered the central gathering place for scientists on social media, has changed dramatically in recent years. The platform, now officially called “X,” was purchased by Elon Musk in late 2022. Since then, changes to how the platform is moderated and how content appears in users’ feeds have raised concerns among many users, especially academics.</p>
<p>Reports have pointed to a rise in misinformation, conspiracy theories, and harassment, particularly directed at minority groups. These shifts appear to have made the platform less welcoming and less useful for professional tasks. As Twitter’s character evolved, so too did the willingness of researchers to remain active on the platform.</p>
<p>In its place, Bluesky has gained attention as a new space for academic interaction. Although other platforms like Threads and Mastodon have also positioned themselves as alternatives, Bluesky appears to be the primary destination for scientists migrating from X. Against this backdrop, researchers set out to document whether scientists were truly abandoning X and whether Bluesky was filling the gap.</p>
<p>“I am a scholar of public understanding (and misunderstanding) of science and the environment, and have long been fascinated by where people learn things about nature. Social media has become one of the leading sources of information about the world, but the social media landscape is changing, and I wanted to see how my professional colleagues were adapting,” said study author David Shiffman, a marine biologist and public science engagement specialist based in Washington, D.C, and author of <em><a href="https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12267/why-sharks-matter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Why Sharks Matter</a></em>.</p>
<p>To investigate these questions, researchers distributed a survey to professional scientists, science communicators, and educators who had used both X and Bluesky for work-related purposes. In total, 813 individuals participated. The survey asked when participants joined each platform, how they used them, and how their experiences had changed over time.</p>
<p>The responses showed that X had once served a wide range of professional purposes. Nearly all respondents had used it to learn about developments in their fields, and most had relied on it for networking and public outreach. Many also used it for job postings, research promotion, and casual professional conversation.</p>
<p>However, those same users reported a sharp decline in the usefulness of X. Roughly three-quarters said the platform was now “much less useful” for networking and science communication. Two-thirds said it was less helpful for keeping up with developments in their field.</p>
<p>The vast majority described their experience on Twitter as increasingly unpleasant, citing irrelevant content, ads, spam, extremist posts, and a loss of meaningful engagement. Some described ethical discomfort with continuing to use a platform that appeared to tolerate, or even amplify, harassment and misinformation.</p>
<p>In terms of actual usage patterns, only 11 percent of respondents said they still actively use X. Nearly 40 percent had deleted their accounts entirely. Almost half said they still had accounts but rarely used them.</p>
<p>In contrast, users reported that Bluesky was meeting many of their professional needs. Like Twitter in its earlier days, Bluesky offered a space for learning, networking, and public engagement. Over 94 percent said they used Bluesky to stay informed about research in their field, and nearly 88 percent used it for professional networking. A majority said the new platform was more useful than X for these purposes.</p>
<p>The researchers also explored why people chose to try Bluesky. Nearly half said they were invited by a colleague or saw others in the science community making the shift. Many viewed Bluesky’s features — such as stronger moderation tools, less algorithmic interference, and more control over what appears in their feed — as more aligned with their professional goals.</p>
<p>Others said they were simply trying to avoid X’s drawbacks. More than a quarter said they moved to Bluesky because of what they perceived as a rise in extremism on X, and many explicitly named Elon Musk as a reason for their departure.</p>
<p>“The degree to which the scientific community’s experiences mirrored my own was surprising,” Shiffman told PsyPost. “I knew that for me, Twitter had become unusable, but the extent to which hundreds of surveyed experts strongly agreed with me on almost every point was surprising. You rarely see that kind of strong agreement in surveys.”</p>
<p>These results provide new evidence to support what other studies and media reports have been suggesting for some time: that X’s role as a hub for academic communication is fading. A previous study <a href="https://www.psypost.org/elon-musks-twitter-takeover-triggered-academic-exodus-study-suggests/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">documented a noticeable drop in academic activity on X</a> after Musk’s acquisition. That research tracked over 15,000 academic accounts and found a significant reduction in tweets, especially original posts and quote tweets, starting in November 2022. Verified users — typically more established academics — were especially likely to reduce their engagement.</p>
<p>Both studies indicate that changes to how X is managed and moderated have had measurable effects on academic use of the platform. The new survey adds further weight to this idea by showing that scientists are not just using X less — they are actively replacing it with another platform.</p>
<p>What makes the current study distinctive is its focus on Bluesky as the replacement. While earlier data showed general declines in X use, this survey points to a specific alternative that scientists are embracing. And unlike the earlier study, which focused on activity levels, the new survey captures users’ motivations and perceptions, offering a more detailed view of what is driving this migration.</p>
<p>“For many years, Twitter was the leading platform used by academics for a wide variety of purposes, including public education about science,” Shiffman explained. “I was a Twitter power-user and evangelist for a decade, and I trained thousands of scientists how to use the platform. Changes to the platform made by Elon Musk, including changing the algorithm to promote extremist views and changes to harassment policy, have made Twitter almost unusable for professional purposes, and academics are abandoning Twitter in droves. Fortunately, alternatives exist, and I, along with many other academics, prefer Bluesky of the available alternatives.”</p>
<p>The authors note that the survey was limited to users who had already made the switch from X to Bluesky, or were using both platforms. This means it does not account for those who may have stopped using social media altogether or migrated to other platforms. Because the survey was shared primarily through one author’s network, it may reflect the perspectives of those within particular academic communities more than others.</p>
<p>Another open question concerns whether Bluesky can support the same level of diversity that once defined the science community on X. Movements like Black Birders Week and Queer in STEM gained traction through Twitter’s large, visible networks. It remains unclear whether Bluesky can foster similar grassroots engagement. The authors suggest this should be the focus of future research, particularly if scientists want to ensure that new digital spaces remain inclusive.</p>
<p>There is also the issue of platform longevity. Whether Bluesky can maintain momentum over time — or whether users will need to shift again — is uncertain. But for now, it appears to offer what many researchers were missing from X: a sense of community, professional utility, and control over their online interactions.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icaf127" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scientists no Longer Find Twitter Professionally Useful, and have Switched to Bluesky</a>,” was authored by David S. Shiffman and Julia Wester.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-finds-two-way-connection-between-rumination-and-problematic-pornography-use/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New study finds two-way connection between rumination and problematic pornography use</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 27th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2544208" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Journal of Sex Research</a></em> provides evidence that people who experience problematic pornography use tend to also engage in repetitive negative thinking patterns known as rumination. Over time, this relationship appears to be two-way, especially among women. The findings suggest that patterns of thinking and behavior are deeply connected, particularly in the context of distress related to sexual behavior.</p>
<p>Problematic pornography use refers to a pattern of consumption that becomes difficult to control and causes distress or problems in a person’s life, such as relationship conflicts, academic or work issues, or emotional suffering. While pornography use is common and often non-problematic, a subset of individuals struggles with usage patterns that are compulsive and distressing.</p>
<p>Previous research has associated problematic pornography use with a range of mental health difficulties, including anxiety, depression, and feelings of shame or guilt. These emotional experiences are often linked to rumination, which is the repetitive focus on distressing thoughts and feelings.</p>
<p>Despite this conceptual overlap, no studies had directly explored how rumination and problematic pornography use influence each other over time. The current research aimed to fill this gap by looking at two types of rumination—brooding and reflection—and assessing how they relate to problematic pornography use in both men and women.</p>
<p>Rumination involves getting mentally stuck in negative thoughts. It has two commonly studied forms. Brooding is a more passive, critical style of thinking where people dwell on their problems without seeking solutions. Reflection, on the other hand, is more deliberate and focused on trying to understand and resolve problems. While both are forms of rumination, brooding is more strongly linked with emotional problems such as depression, whereas reflection can sometimes help with coping.</p>
<p>“Rumination is generally understood as a maladaptive thought pattern. Pornography use, unlike many other behavioral addictions, is often accompanied by shame and guilt, which are less common in other types of addictive behaviors,” said study author Süleyman Agah Demirgül, a Phd candidate and research assistant at ELTE Eötvös Loránd University. “Based on this, we hypothesized that individuals with higher levels of problematic pornography use would also be more prone to ruminative thoughts. Our primary motivation was to test this hypothesis systematically.”</p>
<p>The research team used data from the Budapest Longitudinal Study, which followed young adults in Hungary over several years. For this particular analysis, they used data collected at two points: once between mid-2020 and late 2021, and again a year later. A total of 2,786 adults (average age 28) participated, including roughly equal numbers of men and women. Participants completed questionnaires that measured the severity of their problematic pornography use and the degree to which they experienced brooding and reflective rumination.</p>
<p>To assess problematic pornography use, participants answered questions about their behavior over the past six months, including how often they tried and failed to stop using pornography, how strongly they felt drawn to it, and whether it interfered with their daily life, such as work, relationships, or emotional well-being.</p>
<p>Rumination was measured through self-reports of how often participants engaged in repetitive and negative thinking. The researchers focused on two types of rumination: brooding and reflection.</p>
<p>Brooding refers to a more passive and critical form of thinking. It involves dwelling on one’s problems without actively seeking solutions, often accompanied by self-blame and feelings of inadequacy. For example, someone who broods might repeatedly ask themselves why they always make the same mistakes or why their life isn’t better.</p>
<p>In contrast, reflection is a more purposeful and active process. It involves thoughtfully considering one’s emotions and experiences in an effort to understand and cope with them. A person who reflects might ask themselves what they can learn from a difficult experience or how they might handle things differently in the future.</p>
<p>The researchers used a statistical method called cross-lagged analysis to assess the direction of influence between problematic pornography use and rumination over time. They also tested whether the patterns were different for men and women.</p>
<p>In the short term, people who scored higher on problematic pornography use also scored higher on both brooding and reflective rumination. This was true for both men and women. These cross-sectional findings suggest that individuals who feel distressed by their pornography use tend to also report higher levels of repetitive negative thinking, whether it’s focused on self-criticism or problem-solving.</p>
<p>Over the course of a year, higher levels of problematic pornography use at the beginning of the study predicted increased levels of both brooding and reflection later on. This pattern held true for both men and women. The findings provide support for the idea that distress caused by problematic pornography use may lead people to engage more frequently in rumination over time.</p>
<p>However, the reverse relationship—whether rumination predicted future pornography use—differed by gender and by the type of rumination.</p>
<p>“Our longitudinal studies demonstrate that the relationship between rumination and problematic pornography use is bidirectional,” Demirgül told PsyPost. “This means that problematic pornography use increases individuals’ tendency to ruminate over time, regardless of gender, while rumination itself also contributes to the escalation of problematic pornography use. However, the nature of this relationship differs across genders.”</p>
<p>“Among women, brooding has been shown to increase problematic pornography use over time. In contrast, among men, reflective rumination seems to act as a protective factor, reducing problematic pornography use. These findings suggest that problematic pornography use shapes cognitive processes in both genders, but the outcomes diverge—negative for women and, in some cases, protective for men.”</p>
<p>“The most surprising result was that reflective rumination actually decreased problematic pornography use among men. While we anticipated brooding to be maladaptive, the protective role of reflective rumination was unexpected and quite striking.”</p>
<p>The authors caution that while their study provides evidence of associations between problematic pornography use and rumination, it cannot establish definitive cause-and-effect relationships. The reliance on self-reported data is another limitation, as participants may have underreported or exaggerated their behavior or thoughts. The sensitive nature of pornography use, which often carries stigma, may also have influenced how people responded.</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that future studies should include more diverse samples, examine the context in which pornography is used, and consider other factors such as sexual orientation. They also propose looking more closely at how reflective rumination might serve as a protective factor, particularly among men, and how this might inform therapeutic approaches.</p>
<p>“My broader research focus is on pornography use and body-related dissatisfaction,” Demirgül explained. “Our recent findings have been both surprising and thought-provoking, and I would like to continue exploring how rumination interacts with problematic pornography use, particularly in relation to body dissatisfaction. This direction, I believe, can deepen our understanding of the cognitive and psychological mechanisms underlying pornography use.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2025.2544208" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Longitudinal Associations Between Problematic Pornography Use and Types of Rumination</a>,” was authored by Süleyman Agah Demirgül, Zsolt Demetrovics, Andrea Czakó, Borbála Paksi, Gyöngyi Kökönyei, and Beáta Bőthe.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/people-are-more-likely-to-act-dishonestly-when-delegating-tasks-to-ai/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">People are more likely to act dishonestly when delegating tasks to AI</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 26th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study shows people are more likely to behave dishonestly when they can delegate the task to an artificial intelligence system. The research, published in <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09505-x" target="_blank">Nature</a></em>, demonstrates that certain ways of interacting with artificial intelligence can dramatically increase cheating and that these systems are more likely to comply with unethical requests than human beings are.</p>
<p>Artificial intelligence refers to software systems that can perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as decision-making and language comprehension. People are increasingly using these systems to handle tasks in various parts of life, from managing investments to driving cars. This phenomenon, known as machine delegation, has raised questions about its potential ethical risks. </p>
<p>An international team of researchers, led by Nils Köbis of the University of Duisburg-Essen and Zoe Rahwan of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, sought to investigate whether offloading a task to a machine would make people more likely to engage in dishonest behavior for personal gain. The rationale was that people often avoid acting unethically because of the moral cost associated with seeing themselves, or being seen by others, as dishonest. Delegating an action might reduce this moral cost by creating psychological distance from the dishonest act.</p>
<p>To test this idea, the researchers conducted a series of experiments. The first two studies focused on how people give instructions, known as the principal’s side of the interaction. They used a well-established method for measuring honesty called the die-roll task. In this task, participants observe a die roll and are asked to report the outcome, receiving a small cash bonus corresponding to the number they report. A higher reported number yields a larger bonus, creating a financial incentive to lie. When participants perform this task themselves in private, a vast majority, about 95 percent, report the outcomes honestly.</p>
<p>In the first study, participants were assigned to one of four groups. The control group performed the die-roll task themselves. The other three groups had to delegate the task to a simple machine agent, but they used different interfaces to provide instructions. One group used a rule-based system, where they had to explicitly tell the machine what number to report for each possible die roll outcome. Another group used a supervised learning interface, where they chose one of three datasets to “train” the machine. The datasets reflected honest behavior, partial cheating, or full cheating. The third group used a goal-based interface, where they set a high-level objective for the machine using a dial that ranged from “maximize accuracy” to “maximize profit.”</p>
<p>The findings showed a significant increase in dishonesty when tasks were delegated. While 95 percent of people were honest when reporting for themselves, only about 75 percent behaved honestly when using the explicit rule-based delegation. The level of dishonesty grew substantially with interfaces that offered more ambiguity. In the supervised learning group, the rate of honesty dropped to around 50 percent. </p>
<p>The most striking result came from the goal-based group, where only a small minority, between 12 and 16 percent, remained honest. This suggests that when people can give vague, high-level commands, their moral reservations about cheating weaken considerably. A second study, where delegation was optional, produced very similar results among the participants who chose to delegate.</p>
<p>The next set of studies shifted focus to the agent’s side of the interaction, examining how both human and machine agents respond to unethical instructions. These experiments used natural language, where principals could write instructions for an agent just as they would send a text message. For this, the researchers used advanced large language models, the same technology that powers popular chatbots. Principals wrote instructions for both a human agent and a machine agent in the die-roll task. The researchers found that, in this context, people did not request significantly more cheating from machine agents than they did from human agents.</p>
<p>The critical difference appeared when these instructions were carried out. The researchers recruited other participants to act as human agents and fed the same instructions to several large language models. When given a request for honest reporting, both human and machine agents complied. The divergence happened with instructions that called for full cheating. The machine agents almost always complied with these unethical requests. </p>
<p>Human agents, in contrast, were much more likely to refuse. About half of the human agents chose to report honestly even when they received explicit instructions to cheat, despite being financially incentivized to follow their principal’s wishes. This indicates that human agents have an internal moral compass that can lead them to reject unethical orders, a safeguard that is not inherently present in machine agents.</p>
<p>The researchers also tested whether different types of “guardrails,” or safety prompts, could reduce a machine agent’s compliance with unethical requests. They tested general ethical reminders, task-specific warnings, and explicit prohibitions. These messages were inserted either at the system level, where they are invisible to the user, or at the user level, appended to the end of the user’s prompt. </p>
<p>The most effective strategy across all tested language models was a strongly phrased, task-specific prohibition injected at the user level. This is a challenging result for safety, as it suggests that broad, system-level ethical guidelines may not be enough to prevent misuse.</p>
<p>To confirm that these findings were not limited to a simple laboratory game, the research team conducted a conceptual replication using a more realistic scenario: tax evasion. Participants first earned income in a task and then had to report that income for taxation. The collected taxes were donated to charity, creating a clear negative consequence for cheating. As in the previous experiment, principals wrote natural language instructions for both human and machine agents. In this tax-evasion context, principals did intend for machine agents to cheat slightly more than human agents.</p>
<p>Once again, the behavior of the agents was the most telling part of the study. Machine agents were far more likely to comply with requests to underreport income than human agents were. The compliance of machine agents with fully dishonest requests was lower in the tax evasion game than in the die-roll game, perhaps because the context of taxes triggers stronger built-in ethical cautions in the models. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, compliance was still the most common response for machines in the absence of extra guardrails. The experiments with safety prompts again showed that specific, user-level prohibitions were the most effective way to deter the machines from acting dishonestly.</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledge that their studies, while extensive, cannot capture all the complexities of real-world delegation. Scenarios in the real world may involve social dynamics, long-term relationships, and the possibility of collusion between individuals. Future research could explore how machine delegation affects moral behavior in different cultures or in team settings that include both human and machine collaborators.</p>
<p>The results point to several concerns about the increasing use of machine agents. The design of the interface used to delegate tasks can have a large impact on a person’s willingness to act unethically. Interfaces that allow people to set high-level goals without specifying the details appear to provide a form of plausible deniability that encourages cheating. Even when people do not explicitly ask for more cheating from machines, the sheer accessibility and scalability of machine agents could lead to an overall increase in unethical behavior. Perhaps most importantly, the high compliance rate of machine agents with unethical requests removes a key social check on bad behavior.</p>
<p>“Using AI creates a convenient moral distance between people and their actions—it can induce them to request behaviors they wouldn’t necessarily engage in themselves, nor potentially request from other humans,” said Rahwan.</p>
<p>“Our study shows that people are more willing to engage in unethical behavior when they can delegate it to machines—especially when they don’t have to say it outright,” added Köbis.</p>
<p>“Our findings clearly show that we urgently need to further develop technical safeguards and regulatory frameworks,” said co-author Iyad Rahwan, the director of the Center for Humans and Machines at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. “But more than that, society needs to confront what it means to share moral responsibility with machines.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09505-x" target="_blank">Delegation to artificial intelligence can increase dishonest behaviour</a>,” was authored by Nils Köbis, Zoe Rahwan, Raluca Rilla, Bramantyo Ibrahim Supriyatno, Clara Bersch, Tamer Ajaj, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan.</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/post-orgasmic-illness-syndrome-can-severely-disrupt-relationships-and-mental-health-new-study-suggests/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Post-orgasmic illness syndrome can severely disrupt relationships and mental health, new study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 26th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01103-9" target="_blank">International Journal of Impotence Research</a></em> provides evidence that post-orgasmic illness syndrome, a little-known medical condition, may severely affect the emotional and relational well-being of those who experience it. Men with the condition were found to report low self-esteem, feelings of helplessness, and significant strain in their intimate relationships. The findings highlight a psychosocial burden that has received limited scientific attention and suggest a need for more comprehensive care approaches for this patient group.</p>
<p>Post-orgasmic illness syndrome is a rare disorder that causes a range of physical and mental symptoms following ejaculation. These symptoms often include fatigue, cognitive impairment, mood disturbances, and muscle pain, and can last for days. The condition has mostly been reported in men, although some reports suggest it may also affect women.</p>
<p>Despite being documented for over two decades, the underlying causes of post-orgasmic illness syndrome remain unclear. Some researchers have proposed that it is an allergic or autoimmune reaction to semen, while others have suggested links to hormone imbalances, nerve dysfunction, or psychological factors. Until recently, much of the scientific work on this condition has focused on trying to understand its physical causes and to develop treatments.</p>
<p>The new study, led by Luke N. Maietta of the University of Massachusetts T.H. Chan Medical School, shifts focus to the emotional and social effects of living with this chronic condition. Maietta and his colleagues sought to explore how post-orgasmic illness syndrome affects self-perception, relationship dynamics, and feelings of social isolation. The researchers also aimed to create a framework for addressing the emotional and interpersonal struggles that patients may experience alongside their physical symptoms.</p>
<p>The research team collected data through online surveys completed by 83 male participants who either had a formal diagnosis of post-orgasmic illness syndrome or met all diagnostic criteria for the condition. These surveys were shared in online communities focused on the condition, including Reddit, Twitter, and POISCenter.com. Participants completed the Sexual Dysfunction Attribution Scale, a tool designed to measure how individuals understand the causes of their sexual difficulties and the effects those difficulties have on their emotional well-being and relationships.</p>
<p>Participants in the study tended to be highly educated, with over 70 percent holding at least a bachelor’s degree, and came from predominantly middle- to upper-income backgrounds. Most were between the ages of 25 and 44, and about two-thirds were single.</p>
<p>The survey results point to widespread emotional distress among men with post-orgasmic illness syndrome. Most participants believed that their symptoms were permanent and unchangeable. Specifically, 96 percent reported feeling that their symptoms would “always be present,” and over 80 percent said they had no control over their condition. A similar percentage believed that their partners also had no control over their symptoms.</p>
<p>Many participants internalized blame for their condition. About 60 percent said they deserved to be blamed for their sexual difficulties, while only 7 percent assigned blame to their partners. Most participants attributed their difficulties to their own physical or psychological makeup, with nearly 80 percent agreeing that something about them physically was causing their problems, and nearly half believing their difficulties were caused by something personal, such as their personality or mood.</p>
<p>This sense of self-blame appeared to have consequences for participants’ intimate lives. Over 80 percent said their condition negatively affected their relationships. Roughly 37 percent said they had not had sex within the past year, which is higher than the typical rates for men in similar age groups in the general population. These findings suggest that people with post-orgasmic illness syndrome may avoid sexual activity out of fear of triggering symptoms or due to feelings of shame or inadequacy.</p>
<p>Participants were also asked about the stability and perceived causes of their symptoms. Most did not believe that outside factors like social pressure or lack of privacy were contributing to their condition. Nor did they believe that their partners were intentionally affecting their sexual functioning. Instead, respondents largely viewed their difficulties as being deeply rooted in themselves and resistant to change.</p>
<p>The researchers note that their study is descriptive in nature and does not include a comparison group of individuals without post-orgasmic illness syndrome. Because participants were recruited online through support communities, the sample may not represent all individuals with the condition. It is also possible that those who experience greater distress were more likely to respond to the survey.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the measurement tool used—the Sexual Dysfunction Attribution Scale—was originally developed to assess sexual dysfunction in women. Although it was adapted for use in this study, it has not been formally validated for men with post-orgasmic illness syndrome. Future studies could refine the tool for broader use or develop a new assessment specifically tailored to this patient group.</p>
<p>The authors suggest that future research should include more in-depth interviews or focus groups to explore how these psychosocial patterns play out in different contexts. There is also a need to study how partners are affected and whether interventions like counseling or support groups might improve outcomes for couples. Additionally, longitudinal studies could track how these psychological patterns change over time or in response to treatment.</p>
<p>The results suggest that mental health support should be considered an essential part of care for people living with post-orgasmic illness syndrome. Since most participants reported low levels of perceived control and high levels of personal blame, interventions aimed at increasing self-compassion and challenging distorted beliefs may be beneficial.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-025-01103-9" target="_blank">Post-orgasmic illness syndrome and its effects on self esteem and relationships: a survey</a>,” was authored by Luke N. Maietta, Isaac Bronson, Michael Cabral, Cameron Stokes, Karla Radillo Mendoza, Olivia Johnson, Dipavo Banerjee, Anthony J. Rothschild, and Rachel S. Rubin.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/people-use-dating-apps-for-more-than-just-love-or-hookups-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;">People use dating apps for more than just love or hookups, 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 26th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new meta-synthesis sheds light on the wide range of motivations that drive people to use dating apps—especially among underrepresented groups such as sexual minorities and older adults. Published in the <em><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02654075251366963" target="_blank">Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</a></em>, the study synthesizes findings from 21 qualitative investigations, identifying eight major themes that go beyond the common stereotypes of online dating. The results suggest that motivations vary depending on age and sexual identity, and that existing survey tools may miss some of the reasons people turn to these platforms.</p>
<p>Previous research on online dating has relied heavily on quantitative methods, which tend to use predefined checklists of reasons why someone might use a dating app. While this approach has uncovered useful patterns, it often overlooks the more nuanced or personal experiences of marginalized individuals. In contrast, qualitative studies are more likely to include diverse participants and allow them to express their motivations in their own words. By compiling and analyzing these qualitative findings, the researchers aimed to generate a more inclusive and detailed picture of why people use dating apps.</p>
<p>“This research was spearheaded by my former doctoral student, Dr. Jenna McPherson. Quite a bit of research has focused on what motivates people to use online dating platforms and dating apps. The goal of our study was to locate all of the existing qualitative research that focuses this topic and synthesize, or combine, their findings,” said corresponding author <a href="https://robnett.faculty.unlv.edu/" target="_blank">Rachael Robnett</a>, a professor of psychology at the University of Nevada,</p>
<p>“This process is called a meta-synthesis. The major advantage of a meta-synthesis is that it allows researchers to detect patterns across a wide body of research that are not apparent when you focus on the findings of a single study. In our case, for example, we were curious about whether people from different groups have different reasons for using dating apps.”</p>
<p>The research team conducted a systematic search of databases such as PsycINFO, PubMed, and ProQuest to identify studies focused on online dating and users’ motivations. They included only qualitative studies published in English or Spanish that examined why people use dating apps. Out of over 7,000 initial results, the team narrowed the pool to 21 studies that fit the criteria. These included interviews with a wide range of users from different age groups, gender identities, and sexual orientations, across countries including the United States, China, South Africa, India, and Mexico.</p>
<p>Using thematic analysis, the researchers identified eight overarching categories of motives: romantic relationships, sexual relationships, socializing, entertainment, self-enhancement, convenience, curiosity, and external factors. </p>
<p>Many of these themes contained multiple subthemes. For example, the entertainment category included people who used dating apps for fun, distraction, or stress relief, while the self-enhancement category included motives related to building self-esteem, improving flirting skills, or experimenting with identity. The romantic relationship category was the most common and was found in nearly every study. This included people seeking long-term relationships, marriage, or companionship.</p>
<p>Sexual relationships were also frequently mentioned, often in connection with short-term encounters. However, not all sexual motives were casual. Some participants described using dating apps to explore sexuality with a partner or in the context of a committed relationship. Socializing was another widely cited reason. Participants used dating apps to make friends, meet people while traveling, or alleviate loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some even described using dating apps primarily for platonic connections.</p>
<p>Several motivations appeared to be especially relevant to marginalized groups. For instance, sexual minority participants were more likely than heterosexual participants to use dating apps to access specific communities. In areas where public expressions of same-sex attraction might be stigmatized or unsafe, dating apps offered a way to connect with like-minded individuals while minimizing personal risk. One participant described how the app Jack’d allowed him to interact with other gay or bisexual men in a “comfort zone” where he didn’t have to guess others’ sexual orientation or fear rejection or violence.</p>
<p>“As mentioned, we were interested in whether people from different groups had different reasons for engaging in online dating,” Robnett told PsyPost. “Relative to participants who identified as heterosexual, participants who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) were especially likely to note that they appreciate the safety, belonging, and convenience that dating apps afford.” </p>
<p>“For example, some LGBQ participants explained that more traditional dating methods (e.g., approaching someone at a bar) can be challenging and even dangerous when you don’t know their sexual identity. This is because LGBQ people continue to face stigma, aggression, and violence on the basis of their sexual identity. Dating apps help to circumvent this issue by allowing users to screen dating partners on the basis of sexual identity and other characteristics.”</p>
<p>Older adults, on the other hand, were more likely to report using dating apps to find romantic companionship rather than for sex or self-esteem boosts. In one example, a retired man explained that he turned to dating apps after losing social contact with others and wanting to avoid being alone. This finding supports earlier research suggesting that older adults may be drawn to online dating for emotional connection and companionship more than for entertainment or physical intimacy.</p>
<p>The study also identified a number of motivations that are rarely captured in traditional surveys. These included using dating apps out of curiosity, boredom, or peer pressure. Some participants said they joined apps simply because their friends did, or because “everyone else was doing it.” Others used dating apps as a way to move on from a breakup, boost their confidence, or pass time during a stressful period. A few even used dating apps for business purposes, such as meeting people in specific professions or finding clients.</p>
<p>“A common stereotype is that people mainly use dating apps to facilitate short-term sexual encounters,” Robnett said. “Our findings demonstrated that this is only one of the many reasons why people use dating apps. People also use these platforms to find long-term romantic partners or even platonic friendships. A few studies also indicated that people use dating apps to learn more about themselves and their preferences, improve their self-esteem, and practice skills such as flirting. Overall, people use these platforms strategically, flexibly, and with intent to meet a variety of needs.”</p>
<p>Despite this wide range of motives, the researchers found relatively few differences based on gender. This may reflect limitations in the existing literature, which still tends to treat gender as a binary and often fails to include or differentiate between cisgender, transgender, and nonbinary individuals. Similarly, many studies did not report participants’ sexual identity, which limited the researchers’ ability to explore how motivations may differ across diverse sexual orientations.</p>
<p>“We did not find that people’s reasons for using dating apps differed on the basis of their gender identity,” Robnett said. “This runs counter to some prior research; however, the gender similarities we observed are consistent with other research demonstrating that most gender stereotypes about dating and romance are overstated.”</p>
<p>The authors note that these gaps point to a larger issue in dating app research. Studies often focus on young, heterosexual users and overlook older adults, gender-diverse individuals, and sexual minorities. This can skew our understanding of how and why people use online dating platforms. The authors recommend that future research report more detailed demographic information and that researchers update existing survey instruments to include a broader range of motivations.</p>
<p>The study also raises questions about how dating apps themselves could evolve to better serve different user groups. Given that many people use apps for friendship, emotional support, or self-growth—not just for romance or sex—dating platforms might consider creating more flexible user experiences that allow for a wider range of connections. Some newer apps already include features for finding friends or networking, but the findings suggest that even traditional dating apps could benefit from acknowledging this diversity in user intent.</p>
<p>There are some limitations to the study. Because the meta-synthesis focused on English- and Spanish-language articles, it may have missed relevant research published in other languages. “Because norms surrounding dating and romance vary globally, it stands to reason that we would have found a wider range of motives if we had included articles written in other languages,” Robnett noted.</p>
<p>Also, the quality of the original studies varied, and some lacked full reporting on participant demographics. “Several of the articles in our meta-synthesis did not include any information about participants’ sexual identity,” Robnett explained. “Having this information would have enabled us to test for more nuanced patterns related to this aspect of background. Relatedly, only a few of the articles that we examined focused on participants age 40 and older, which hampered our ability to draw strong conclusions about whether and how people’s reasons for using dating apps might change with age.”</p>
<p>Still, the authors believe the synthesis offers important insights that can help researchers, clinicians, and dating app designers understand the complex motivations behind online dating. Future studies could explore how motivations change over time. For example, someone might initially join an app to find a partner but later use it for companionship or to build confidence. Researchers could also examine how experiences such as dating fatigue, burnout, or algorithmic matching influence users’ goals and satisfaction. Longitudinal studies would be especially useful for tracing these changes.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02654075251366963" target="_blank">Motives for engaging in online dating: A meta-synthesis</a>,” was authored by Jenna L. McPherson, Claudia Q. Luu, Jessica P. Nguyen, Melanie Garcia, and Rachael D. Robnett.</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>