<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/millions-of-americans-support-arresting-presidents-critics-and-suspending-congress-survey-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;">Millions of Americans support arresting president’s critics and suspending Congress, survey suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 1st 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study finds that while a large majority of Americans reject authoritarianism and political violence, a substantial minority supports a move away from democracy toward a government led by a strong leader. The research also reveals that smaller minorities would approve of the federal government using the military to enforce its policies and would be willing to engage in violence themselves. The paper detailing these findings was published as a preprint on the <em><a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/pxfnk_v1" target="_blank">SocArXiv</a></em> server.</p>
<p>The research was conducted by a team of scientists at <a href="https://cvp.ucdavis.edu/" target="_blank">the Centers for Violence Prevention</a> at UC Davis. They initiated an annual, nationally representative survey in 2022 to monitor American attitudes toward political violence and democracy. The scholars explain that for nearly a decade, experts have raised alarms about the potential for political conflict and the fragility of democratic institutions in the United States.</p>
<p>In their 2025 survey, the researchers were particularly interested in public sentiment following the 2024 elections, which they note installed an administration that has advocated for the use of armed force against civilians. In response to this political environment, the team added new questions to their survey. These new items were designed to assess public opinion on violence initiated by the federal government and citizens’ personal willingness to use force either in support of or in opposition to its policies. The stated goal of the study is to provide evidence that can inform efforts to prevent political violence and preserve democratic governance.</p>
<p>To conduct the study, the research team administered the fourth wave of their longitudinal survey online between May 23 and June 13, 2025. The survey was managed by the research firm Ipsos and was available in both English and Spanish. </p>
<p>The participants were drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a large group of people recruited to be representative of the United States adult population. This panel is established using address-based probability sampling, a method that helps ensure the results accurately reflect the nation as a whole. All individuals who had participated in any of the previous three annual surveys and were still part of the panel were invited to take part.</p>
<p>Of the 9,179 people invited, 8,248 completed the questionnaire. The data from these responses were then statistically weighted to align with the demographics of the noninstitutionalized adult population of the United States. In the survey, “force or violence” was explicitly defined for participants as “physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.” Political violence was described as using such force “to advance an important political objective that you support.”</p>
<p>Respondents answered a series of questions about their views on democracy and authoritarianism. These included their level of agreement with statements like, “Having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy,” and a proposal to “suspend Congress for a few years so a strong leader can clean up the mess made by politicians in Washington.” </p>
<p>The new questions for 2025 asked about actions the federal government might take, such as using the military or private armed militia groups to enforce its policies, and whether it should arrest ordinary people or journalists for public criticism. Finally, individuals who had indicated that political violence was justified in at least some circumstances were asked about their personal willingness to commit acts of violence.</p>
<p>The results showed that a vast majority of Americans express support for democracy. The survey found that 88 percent of respondents considered it very or extremely important for the United States to remain a democracy. A majority, 61.1 percent, also reported believing that American democracy faces a serious threat. However, the findings on authoritarian sentiment painted a different picture. About one-third of respondents agreed at least somewhat that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy.” This represents an estimated 90 million adults.</p>
<p>Similarly, when asked to choose between “having election outcomes determined democratically” and “having political leaders I can trust to look out for my values and interests,” one-third of respondents chose the latter. About one-quarter of people surveyed agreed at least somewhat with the idea of suspending Congress for several years to allow a strong leader to take charge, with 11.6 percent agreeing strongly or very strongly. This corresponds to an estimated 30.9 million adults.</p>
<p>When asked about the federal government using force, about one-third of participants agreed at least somewhat that it “should use the military to help enforce its policies in the United States.” This includes 9.6 percent, or an estimated 25.8 million adults, who agreed strongly or very strongly. More than 10 percent of respondents supported the idea of the government using “private armed militia groups” for the same purpose. Between 15 and 20 percent of people agreed that the federal government should arrest citizens and journalists who publicly oppose its policies or the president.</p>
<p>Regarding personal engagement in violence, the numbers were smaller. Approximately 10 percent of respondents indicated they were at least somewhat willing to personally use force or violence to either support or oppose the government’s enforcement of its policies. The proportion of those who were “very or completely willing” to commit such violence was much lower. For violence in support of the government, this figure was 2.1 percent, representing about 5.5 million adults. For violence in opposition to the government, it was 2.7 percent, or about 7.1 million adults.</p>
<p>The researchers also looked at trends over time for questions that had been asked in previous years. They found that support for authoritarian positions has remained largely stable since 2022. There was no significant increase in these views either before or after the 2024 elections. Strong agreement with the statement that a strong leader is more important than a democracy has even decreased slightly over the four-year period.</p>
<p>The study has some limitations, which the authors acknowledge. First, the paper is a preprint, meaning it has not yet completed the formal peer-review process where other scientists in the field evaluate the work. The findings are also from a single point in time and are subject to potential biases from nonresponse or from participants giving socially desirable answers rather than their true opinions. The authors note that people may be hesitant to admit a willingness to commit violence, which could lead to under-reporting.</p>
<p>The survey was also conducted during a period when several high-profile events were in the news, including a widely publicized arson at a community event and the deployment of military troops for domestic law enforcement. These events may have influenced how people responded to the questions. The authors plan to conduct a sensitivity analysis in their final report to examine the potential impact of these events.</p>
<p>Future research will build on this initial analysis. The final report on the study will explore how these views on authoritarianism and violence vary by political ideology, party affiliation, and other demographic characteristics. The authors conclude that while most Americans reject violence, the substantial and stable support for authoritarianism could create a climate of acceptance for a transition away from a democratic form of government. They suggest that the large numbers of Americans who reject violence can play a role in prevention efforts.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/pxfnk_v1" target="_blank">Support for Authoritarianism and Use of Force by and against the Federal Government in the United States in Mid-2025: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey</a>,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Andrew Crawford, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Mona A. Wright, Aaron B. Shev, Daniel J. Tancredi, and Sonia L. Robinson.</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/experiencing-awe-can-deepen-our-psychological-connection-to-social-groups/" 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;">Experiencing awe can deepen our psychological connection to social groups</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 1st 2025, 09:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Feeling awe—whether from witnessing natural wonders or recalling profound moments—may help people feel more connected to their communities, universities, or even their countries. A new study published in the journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001589" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Emotion</a> provides evidence that awe can promote a deep sense of psychological merging with social groups, a phenomenon known as identity fusion. The findings suggest that awe doesn’t just shrink the self but may align personal identity with collective goals, potentially motivating cooperation and shared action.</p>
<p>Awe is the emotion we tend to feel in response to things that are vast and difficult to fully comprehend. It often arises when encountering something powerful or beautiful—like a star-filled sky, a powerful speech, or a towering mountain. While past research has shown that awe can reduce self-focus and foster humility, there is growing interest in how it might also influence social relationships.</p>
<p>The researchers behind the new study were curious about awe’s role in fostering strong group ties. Specifically, they focused on identity fusion, a psychological state where people feel a profound overlap between their personal identity and the identity of a group. This type of connection has been linked to behaviors such as self-sacrifice for the group and enduring loyalty.</p>
<p>“I’ve always been fascinated by how groups use awe-inspiring spectacles to create a powerful sense of unity. While this social function of awe has been theorized for a long time, the precise psychological mechanism wasn’t entirely clear,” said study author Ji Young Song, a PhD student in the <a href="https://psychologicalsciences.unimelb.edu.au/research/msps-research-groups/beam-lab" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Behavioural Ethics, Affect and Meaning Lab</a> at the University of Melbourne and a research fellow at Monash University.</p>
<p>“Honestly, I was initially quite sceptical that a fleeting emotion could influence something like identity fusion. However, my early exploratory studies kept revealing a surprisingly strong and robust connection. This pushed us to investigate more rigorously: could awe prime a ‘readiness to fuse’ with our groups, creating a deep, visceral sense of oneness?”</p>
<p>The research team conducted five studies involving over 1,100 participants in the United States and Australia. The first two studies were cross-sectional, meaning they looked at people’s natural tendencies to experience awe and how these related to feelings of identity fusion. The remaining three studies used experimental designs to test whether inducing awe would actively lead to stronger feelings of identity fusion.</p>
<p>In the first study, American participants completed questionnaires measuring their tendency to experience awe in everyday life, called dispositional awe. They also completed a scale that measured their level of identity fusion with their country. Even after accounting for political views, religious commitment, and social class, people who reported more frequent experiences of awe also reported a stronger sense of fusion with their national identity.</p>
<p>The second study repeated this approach with Australian university students. Again, those who more frequently felt awe also reported stronger identity fusion with their country, even after adjusting for other positive emotions such as pride or joy. These findings suggest that awe is uniquely tied to deep group connection, rather than being simply part of a broader pattern of feeling good.</p>
<p>Next, the researchers shifted to experimental methods. In the third study, Australian students were asked to recall either an awe-inspiring experience or a funny event. After this emotional recall, they completed the same identity fusion scale focused on their country. Those who remembered awe experiences reported higher identity fusion than those who recalled amusement. Importantly, the link between awe and identity fusion was explained in part by a feeling of “vastness vis-à-vis the self”—a recognition of being part of something larger, which appears to be a central feature of awe.</p>
<p>The fourth study tested whether these effects would replicate in an American sample and whether they extended to different group affiliations. Here, university students recalled either an awe-inspiring or a neutral everyday event, and then reported their identity fusion with their university. Once again, those in the awe condition felt more fused with their group. This effect also led to a higher willingness to engage in costly actions to defend their university, including even violent actions, though these findings were influenced by cultural context.</p>
<p>“Our goal was to isolate the basic psychological process,” Song told PsyPost. “To do that, we often used awe experiences unrelated to the groups we measured; for example, awe for nature influencing feelings toward one’s nation. Even with these deliberately indirect setups, we found surprisingly strong effects (ds = .32-.47), suggesting the underlying mechanism is powerful.”</p>
<p>“In real life, awe is often much more direct and targeted (think of a religious service inspiring devotion or a political rally building solidarity). So, the key practical significance isn’t that our lab effect sizes predict every real-world situation, but that awe creates a potent state of openness, a readiness to bond deeply with whatever community or idea is most salient in that moment.”</p>
<p>The final study used virtual reality to induce awe. Participants viewed either an immersive underwater VR experience (a giant jellyfish migration accompanied by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAYb8ZyjzD0" target="_blank">music</a>) or amusing marine animal clips. Those who experienced awe reported greater identity fusion with their country. They also expressed more willingness to take nonviolent action in support of their group. As in earlier studies, the sense of being part of a greater whole helped explain why awe led to stronger group fusion.</p>
<p>“The jellyfish experiment was designed to be a very hard test of our hypothesis, and I was surprised by how clearly it worked,” Song said. “The fact that a completely non-political, nature- based awe stimulus could increase fusion with a political entity like one’s country was striking. It really underscored that we were tapping into a very fundamental psychological process where the feeling of awe makes us seek connection, regardless of the awe’s source.”</p>
<p>Across all studies, the researchers found that awe increased both components of identity fusion: oneness with the group and a sense of mutual strengthening. This means people didn’t just feel psychologically closer to their group—they also felt they could contribute to its strength and benefit from it in return.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that awe is more than just a fleeting moment of wonder; it’s an experience that fosters a deep sense of oneness and unity with our communities,” Song explained. “Many of us grapple with the tension between our personal ambitions and the needs of the greater good. Our research suggests this feeling of oneness helps resolve that conflict. It doesn’t erase our personal drive but instead gives us a moment of clarity, a higher perspective from which we see that our own wellbeing is deeply tied to the wellbeing of our communities. Through this process, we gain a sense of shared fate with our communities, inspiring us to act for the collective good.”</p>
<p>While the findings suggest a reliable link between awe and identity fusion, the researchers note some limitations. Most participants were from Western, educated, and industrialized societies, which may not reflect how awe functions in other cultural contexts. The emotional experience of awe—and the types of groups that people fuse with—may vary in cultures that place greater emphasis on collective identity from the outset.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the studies often relied on predetermined or externally assigned group targets, such as “your country” or “your university.” Future research could examine how awe influences connection with personally meaningful groups or explore how people naturally choose what to fuse with after experiencing awe. Preliminary evidence suggests that awe may increase openness to whichever group is most salient at the time, which could be shaped by context or cultural symbols.</p>
<p>“Awe doesn’t automatically reinforce old in-groups,” Song said. “Much of the identity-fusion literature has focused on traditional groups like nations, but our findings show awe acts more like an amplifier of connection, and it’s largely agnostic about the target. In our experiments, awe deepened bonds with a nation but also fostered a sense of oneness with a universal entity like Nature. So rather than seeing awe as a force that only strengthens existing boundaries, it may also be a tool for expanding our sense of ‘we.'”</p>
<p>The findings also highlight some cultural differences in how identity fusion translates into behavior. American participants were more willing to endorse extreme or violent actions in support of fused groups, while Australian participants leaned toward nonviolent forms of support. These variations may reflect broader societal narratives or perceived threats that shape how group loyalty is expressed.</p>
<p>“In the long run, I hope to test whether awe can foster a ‘universal fusion’—a deep, agentic sense of connection with all humanity or with the natural world—unlocking the collective will needed for global challenges like climate change,” Song said. “In the short term, my next steps depend on funding and collaboration opportunities, but the vision is to translate these findings into evidence-based ways of cultivating awe to align personal and collective goals.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001589" target="_blank" rel="noopener">From Vastness to Unity: Awe Strengthens Identity Fusion</a>,” was authored by Ji Young Song, Jack W. Klein, Young-Jae Cha, Sean Goldy, Haisu Sun, James Tisch, and Brock Bastian.</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/researchers-predict-romantic-attraction-using-brain-signals-and-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;">Researchers predict romantic attraction using brain signals and AI</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 1st 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A small study in Israel developed a machine learning model that achieved moderate to high accuracy in predicting romantic attraction and rejection in a simulated dating app scenario. The researchers also found that the model was better able to predict the romantic emotions of picky participants than for those who were less fussy about their romantic interests, suggesting that picky individuals might exhibit stronger, more distinct brain activity related to romantic preferences. The paper was published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110754" target="_blank">Computers in Biology and Medicine</a>.</em></p>
<p>Romantic love is an important aspect of human relationships. For many, it is the most important aspect of their lives. Romantic love promotes intimacy, bonding, and long-term pair connections that support both individual well-being and social stability. Across cultures, romantic love is linked to companionship, emotional security, and the motivation to form families. Psychologically, it engages brain systems tied to reward and attachment, which can foster resilience and life satisfaction.</p>
<p>In modern societies, however, the ways people meet potential partners have changed significantly. Dating apps provide a new method for initiating relationships, expanding social networks beyond traditional circles of friends, workplaces, or communities. They can increase efficiency by matching people based on preferences, values, or location, and they offer opportunities to individuals who might otherwise struggle with limited social exposure. At the same time, dating apps can sometimes promote superficial judgments, encourage serial dating, or create unrealistic expectations.</p>
<p>Study authors Dor Zazon and Nir Nissim wanted to explore whether machine learning can be used to accurately infer an individual’s romantic emotions based on the analysis of their neural responses to fictional dating profiles using electroencephalography (EEG). They aimed to predict attraction by analyzing event-related potentials (ERPs)—the brain’s specific electrical responses to stimuli like seeing a face—which were captured by the EEG.</p>
<p>The 61 participants were students at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, aged 23 to 32, and included 31 women.</p>
<p>Study authors used 400 free images of people (200 men, 200 women) between 20 and 30 years of age downloaded from the internet to serve as visual stimuli. Each participant was shown 200 of these images (of the gender they declared being attracted to) while their brain activity was recorded using EEG. After viewing an image, the participant had to indicate whether they found the person in the picture attractive or not.</p>
<p>In a subsequent experiment, the researchers told participants that their profile picture had been sent to other participants for feedback. They were then shown images of the people they had found attractive, accompanied by feedback indicating whether that person was supposedly attracted to them in return. This feedback, however, was fabricated. The deception was revealed to participants after the experiment concluded.</p>
<p>After viewing this feedback, participants had to indicate whether they were happy with it or not (a question designed to ensure engagement). During this time, EEG recordings of their brain activity continued. In this way, the researchers simulated the core feedback loop of attraction and potential rejection common to most dating apps.</p>
<p>The researchers tested multiple machine learning models to predict participants’ romantic emotions. The best-performing models achieved accuracy rates significantly above chance. Prediction accuracy was higher for romantic rejection (predicting the brain’s response to the feedback with 81.3% accuracy) than for initial attraction (71.3% accuracy). Results also showed that the machine learning models were more accurate when predicting the responses of picky participants (those who found fewer people attractive) than for those who were less fussy, suggesting that picky individuals may have stronger or more distinct neural signals related to romantic preference.</p>
<p>“By analyzing EEG signals, we can predict user actions on dating apps, such as whether they will swipe right or left on a potential match. This prediction can offer insights into user emotions, including whether they find someone physically appealing or experience negative emotions related to rejection,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the development of technological ways to decode and interpret human brain responses. However, it should be noted that the study was carried out on a small group of students using static pictures of people. Real dating app profiles usually contain more information than just a picture. Additionally, people use dating apps when they actively try to connect with potential partners, something that might not have been the case with all students participating in this study. Studies of brain responses of individuals fully engaged in searching for a romantic partner might not yield identical results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110754">Can your brain signals reveal your romantic emotions?,</a>” was authored by Dor Zazon and Nir Nissim.</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/most-white-men-dont-feel-discriminated-against-according-to-10-years-of-new-zealand-data/" 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;">Most White men don’t feel discriminated against, according to 10 years of New Zealand data</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 1st 2025, 07:00</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/10.1111/bjso.70010" target="_blank">British Journal of Social Psychology</a></em> suggests that while most White men in New Zealand do not perceive themselves as victims of discrimination, a small but significant minority believes they are increasingly being treated unfairly because of their race and gender. Drawing on ten years of data from a large national panel, the study provides evidence that these perceptions have become more common in recent years among a particular subgroup of White men.</p>
<p>Social movements promoting racial and gender equality have gained global visibility over the last decade, prompting both public support and political backlash. Some conservative voices argue that efforts to address structural inequalities have gone too far and now disadvantage groups traditionally seen as privileged—such as White men.</p>
<p>Despite the growing prominence of these claims in political discourse, there has been relatively little empirical research into how White men themselves perceive discrimination over time. Most existing studies focus on one point in time, often in specific political or ideological contexts. The researchers behind this study aimed to fill that gap by examining whether perceptions of reverse discrimination among White men have changed over a significant time period and by identifying the types of individuals most likely to feel this way.</p>
<p>“In recent years, political leaders have used claims that White/European groups (particularly men) face discrimination. These narratives have influenced social policy and movements, including drastic effects on equity, diversion, and inclusion policy in many Western countries,” explained study author Kieren Lilly, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland.</p>
<p>“Our aim in this study was to determine exactly who among white men feels discriminated against, whether this has changed over time, and how these feelings relate to their political attitudes. By identifying who these people are, our hope is that we can address the root causes of these feelings and ultimately promote support for positive social change.”</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers used data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, a nationwide longitudinal survey that follows tens of thousands of participants over time. The researchers focused on 20,486 White men who completed one or more waves of the survey between 2014 and 2023. Each year, participants rated the extent to which they felt discriminated against because of their ethnicity and gender.</p>
<p>To analyze the patterns in these responses, the research team used a statistical method that groups people based on how their answers changed over time. They found that most White men (about 83 percent) consistently reported low levels of perceived discrimination throughout the ten-year period. This group, labeled the “Enfranchised” class, generally held favorable views of minority groups, supported progressive policies, and reported relatively high levels of well-being.</p>
<p>Two smaller subgroups, however, reported very different experiences. The first, labeled the “Disenfranchised” class, made up around 8.5 percent of the sample. Members of this group consistently reported moderate levels of perceived discrimination and tended to feel financially insecure. They were more likely to believe that their ethnic group was economically disadvantaged and showed higher levels of psychological distress. These individuals also scored higher on measures reflecting a desire for group-based social hierarchy and were more likely to hold conservative beliefs.</p>
<p>“An important takeaway is that most white men do not feel discriminated against based on their race or gender – this is a really encouraging finding in a world where narratives of reverse racism and sexism are prevalent in politics,” Lilly told Psypost. “That said, our findings also show that there are groups of white men who <em>do</em> feel discriminated against. Addressing these feelings requires tackling the underlying causes of poverty and status concerns, which can affect how people interpret their position in society.”</p>
<p>The second subgroup, the “Radicalized” class, represented about 8.8 percent of participants. Unlike the Disenfranchised group, members of this class started with low levels of perceived discrimination but reported sharp increases over time, especially after 2016. This timing coincides with major political and cultural events, including Donald Trump’s election, the #MeToo movement, and global protests against racial injustice. </p>
<p>Members of the Radicalized class tended to be younger and economically secure, often owning homes. They expressed stronger support for right-wing political parties and viewed progressive social movements more negatively. Despite their relative privilege, they reported increased feelings of alienation and reduced well-being over time.</p>
<p>“The changes we see in feelings of discrimination among some groups of white men are very pronounced – practically, this shows us the importance of tailoring interventions to reduce prejudice and feelings of discrimination to specific groups,” Lilly said. “It is also important to note that political beliefs were a much stronger predictor of feelings of discrimination than any demographic factors like age or education.”</p>
<p>Further analysis showed that both the Disenfranchised and Radicalized classes differed from the Enfranchised group not just in their perceptions of discrimination but also in their social and political attitudes. They were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, express negative views toward immigrants and minority groups, and oppose gender equality initiatives. They also reported higher levels of psychological distress, suggesting that these beliefs may be tied to broader issues of dissatisfaction or anxiety about their place in society.</p>
<p>The study offers one of the most comprehensive examinations of perceived discrimination among White men to date, but the authors note some limitations. The measures of perceived discrimination were based on single items, which do not capture the full complexity of these experiences. For example, they do not indicate whether people feel discriminated against in specific settings, such as at work or in education, or which groups they believe are responsible.</p>
<p>Additionally, the study’s design does not allow researchers to pinpoint exactly why individuals’ perceptions changed. Although the timing suggests that societal events and political messaging may have played a role, further research is needed to test these connections more directly.</p>
<p>Another consideration is that the study took place in New Zealand, a country known for its relatively egalitarian social policies. The patterns found here may look different in countries where political polarization or economic inequality is more pronounced. Still, the emergence of these trends in a relatively peaceful and equitable society may suggest that similar patterns could be even more prominent elsewhere.</p>
<p>One potential interpretation the authors caution against is the idea that White men cannot face discrimination. The findings do not suggest that all claims of discrimination are false or politically motivated.</p>
<p>“I think there may be a misconception that we believe white men cannot experience discrimination,” Lilly said. “This is not the case; our findings demonstrate that many of the white men in our sample struggle with economic precarity and other forms of marginalization. It is also important to note that many right-wing political leaders use economic concerns to attract support from both working-class and more privileged white men. Our study highlights that some white men misattribute their economic concerns to race or gender, and that this can have severe consequences for women and ethnic minority groups.”</p>
<p>The researchers plan to explore these issues further, particularly the role of political messaging and media narratives in shaping feelings of discrimination among advantaged groups. They also aim to investigate potential strategies to reduce these perceptions, especially given the political influence such narratives can have.</p>
<p>“I intend my future work to further examine the role of discrimination narratives in right-wing social movements, as well as effective interventions to address them,” Lilly explained. “We are at a critical point in human history where social progress for women, ethnic minorities, Indigenous, and LGBTQIA+ people (among many others) is being challenged, and I believe now more than ever in the value of research in understanding and addressing the root causes of movements aiming to reverse this progress.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.70010" target="_blank">Rise of the alt-White? Examining the prevalence of perceived racial and gender discrimination among White men from 2014 to 2023</a>,” was authored by Kieren J. Lilly, Chantelle Kimberley, Zoe Bertenshaw, Joaquín Bahamondes, Chris G. Sibley, and Danny Osborne.</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/major-study-reshapes-our-understanding-of-assortative-mating-and-its-generational-impact/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Major study reshapes our understanding of assortative mating and its generational impact</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 1st 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A large-scale study using Norwegian registry data provides evidence that the similarity in education levels between partners is mainly the result of shared family environments and associated social factors, not simply individual educational attainment. The research, published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60483-0" target="_blank">Nature Communications</a></em>, introduces a new framework for studying how people end up with partners who are similar to them, and how these patterns influence the transmission of education from parents to children.</p>
<p>People often marry someone with a similar level of education. Researchers have long observed this trend and debated what drives it. One possibility is that individuals deliberately choose partners who have the same educational background. Another is that people who come from similar environments—such as the same neighborhoods, social classes, or family cultures—are more likely to meet and form relationships. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, and both could influence how couples form.</p>
<p>Understanding these processes matters because partner similarity can have long-term consequences. When highly educated people pair up, their children tend to benefit from both genetic and environmental advantages. This can reinforce patterns of social inequality over generations. However, earlier research has not always agreed on why these partner similarities exist or how they influence children’s outcomes. The definitions and methods used in the past have varied widely, leading to inconsistent results.</p>
<p>“Past research often reported conflicting findings about why partners tend to have similar levels of education. Some studies suggested that this similarity was largely due to genetic or constitutional factors, while others argued it was mainly due to environmental factors such as family background and social environment,” said study author <a href="https://www.hansfredriksunde.com/" target="_blank">Hans Fredrik Sunde</a>, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Fertility and Health at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.</p>
<p>“Because definitions and methods varied widely, the field lacked a clear framework, making it difficult to interpret and compare results and understand what partner similarity means for intergenerational transmission of education. Crucially, earlier studies reached wildly different conclusions about why children attained similar education as their parents depending on what they assumed about partner similarity. Some concluded that genetic transmission was a sufficient explanation, others that environmental effects were very important.”</p>
<p>“We wanted to bring clarity to the study of partner similarity, and see if we could reconcile the discrepant findings in the literature. Ultimately, we want to understand (1) why some people end up together, and (2) why education runs in families.”</p>
<p>To explore these questions, the researchers developed a new way of thinking about partner similarity. Their framework separates the idea of “assortative mating”—when people pair up based on shared traits—from other sources of similarity, like growing up in the same type of environment. Importantly, they distinguish between different types of similarity: genetic, social, and personal (or idiosyncratic).</p>
<p>They also introduced the concept of a “sorting factor,” which represents the combination of traits that people are actually selecting for in partners. This might not be identical to formal education levels. For example, someone might value ambition, family background, or cultural compatibility—all factors that tend to be linked with education but are not exactly the same.</p>
<p>In this study, the researchers applied their model to more than 1.5 million individuals from 212,070 extended families in Norway. These included monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, and full siblings. Using statistical models that considered partners, twins, and their children, they tried to tease apart how much of the similarity between partners was due to genetics, shared family environments, or other factors.</p>
<p>The team used data from the Norwegian population registry, which includes detailed records on births, education, and family relationships. They focused on Norwegian-born families with children born between 1975 and 1995, giving them access to both parent and offspring generations.</p>
<p>To model how people select partners, they looked at pairs of twins and their partners. This allowed them to compare how similar someone is to their sibling’s partner—a relationship that reveals whether partner similarity is due to shared family background or specific personal characteristics. If partner choice were based purely on individual achievement, these in-law relationships would not show strong similarities.</p>
<p>The researchers used two main models: one that focused on partner similarity (called iAM-ACE) and another that also considered children’s outcomes (iAM-COTS). These models separated out the influence of genetics, shared environments, and unique personal experiences.</p>
<p>The results indicate that people do not primarily choose partners based on their actual education levels. Instead, they tend to match with people who come from similar family backgrounds and environments that are conducive to achieving higher education. This kind of partner selection is referred to as “social homogamy.”</p>
<p>The estimated similarity in the underlying traits that influence partner selection was stronger than the similarity in observed education. Based on their models, the researchers found that only about 38 percent of the correlation between partners in education was due to genetic similarity. A much larger portion was explained by shared family environments, particularly those shared between siblings.</p>
<p>“We were struck by how much of the educational similarity between partners could be explained by social background rather than matching on heritable traits,” Sunde told PsyPost. “Earlier studies had convincingly shown that partners are more genetically similar than expected under direct matching on education, leading many to believe that partners must be matching on highly heritable traits associated with education. This was what we expected we would find when we started the project.” </p>
<p>“And while we did find that matching on heritable traits must play a role, we also found that partners must be primarily matching on social background, and that the greater-than-expected genetic similarity between partners can mainly be attributed to gene-environment correlations.”</p>
<p>Notably, when models assumed that partners chose each other directly based on education levels—rather than on deeper traits or backgrounds—they underestimated the importance of environmental influences. These models also failed to fit the data well.</p>
<p>“Partners are strikingly similar in their education, roughly as similar as full siblings (meaning very similar),” Sunde explained. “While other conclusions are harder to frame in terms of simple effect sizes, one point is clear: partners are not matching directly or solely on observed education. Instead, social background appears to be far more influential: around five times more important for partner similarity in education than education itself. The practical significance lies in recognizing that partner similarity in education shapes broader patterns of intergenerational transmission and social mobility.”</p>
<p>The researchers found that 62 percent of the similarity in education between parents and their children could be explained by genetic transmission. However, the remaining 38 percent was due to environmental factors—both the direct influence of parents on their children and environmental influences shared across the extended family.</p>
<p>“A key takeaway is not just the technical details of this study, but the broader fact that partners tend to be very similar in their education and social background,” Sunde said. “This has important consequences for society: resourceful parents often end up with other resourceful parents, and those advantages accumulate in their children.” </p>
<p>“Likewise, parents with fewer resources tend to partner with each other, reinforcing disadvantage. In practical terms, this means that if you have one highly educated parent, you are very likely to have two highly educated parents—and the same pattern holds in the other direction. This dynamic helps explain why social differences can persist or even widen across generations.”</p>
<p>The authors acknowledge some limitations. The models require very large datasets, particularly ones that include detailed family structures like twins and their partners. Additionally, while the models can estimate how much influence comes from genetics or environment, they do not reveal the exact mechanisms. For instance, the environmental effects could come from parenting style, cultural values, neighborhood characteristics, or other factors shared across families.</p>
<p>“A common misunderstanding is to treat assortative mating as synonymous with partner similarity, or as a single process with a single cause,” Sunde told PsyPost. “In our paper, we take great care to separate the concept of assortative mating (i.e., matching on similar traits) from the broader observation of partner similarity, and to distinguish the different possible causes, because these have often been conflated in the past. For example, social homogamy and genetic homogamy are both examples of assortative mating, and can both be involved in creating partner similarity for the same trait.”</p>
<p>“Another point worth stressing is that the family models we use—like all twin and extended-family models—are highly agnostic about the specific mechanisms. It essentially reframes the observation that siblings-in-law and piblings-niblings are much more similar than would be implied by genetic transmission alone. We do not know what the precise mechanisms are. That is for future research to identify.”</p>
<p>“I hope this paper can serve as a go-to source for researchers thinking about the different possible explanations for why partners are similar,” Sunde added. “The aim was to provide clarity in a field where concepts have often been muddled, and to give researchers a framework they can build on. For psychologists, the value lies in using the paper as a reference point: when they see partner similarity in their own research, they can use our distinctions and explanations to ask more precise questions about what might be driving it. The broader importance is that understanding these processes helps us see how private relationships and public inequalities are linked.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60483-0" target="_blank">Understanding indirect assortative mating and its intergenerational consequences for educational attainment</a>,” was authored by Hans Fredrik Sunde, Espen Moen Eilertsen, and Fartein Ask Torvik.</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/chronic-insomnia-linked-to-faster-cognitive-decline-and-brain-aging/" 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;">Chronic insomnia linked to faster cognitive decline and brain aging</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 30th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study reports that individuals with chronic insomnia may face a more rapid decline in memory and thinking abilities as they age. Published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214155" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Neurology</a></em>, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology, the research also found that these cognitive changes correspond with physical alterations in the brain visible on imaging scans. The findings suggest that long-term sleep difficulties are associated with brain aging, although the study does not establish that insomnia directly causes this process.</p>
<p>Researchers have long suspected a link between poor sleep and cognitive problems, but many previous studies had limitations. These earlier investigations often did not account for other co-occurring health issues that could influence the results, such as obstructive sleep apnea or the use of sleep medications.</p>
<p>The lead author of the new study, Diego Z. Carvalho of the Mayo Clinic, and his colleagues wanted to conduct a more comprehensive analysis. Their goal was to clarify the relationship between insomnia and cognitive decline while also exploring the specific underlying brain pathologies, such as changes related to Alzheimer’s disease or to the brain’s blood vessels.</p>
<p>The investigation drew upon data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, a long-term project that follows residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota. The researchers included 2,750 participants aged 50 and older who did not have major neurological or psychiatric disorders at the outset. To identify individuals with chronic insomnia, the team reviewed electronic medical records for documented insomnia diagnoses that occurred at least 30 days apart. This method resulted in a group of 443 people with chronic insomnia and a comparison group of 2,307 people without.</p>
<p>All participants underwent regular and thorough cognitive evaluations, which assessed memory, language, executive function, and visual spatial skills. These scores were combined to create a global measure of cognitive health, allowing the researchers to track changes over time. The team also monitored participants for the new onset of mild cognitive impairment or dementia.</p>
<p>A subset of the participants received brain scans. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to measure the volume of white matter hyperintensities, which are small areas of damage often linked to problems with the brain’s blood supply. Positron emission tomography scans were used to measure the amount of amyloid plaques, which are protein deposits strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease.</p>
<p>The study found a clear association between chronic insomnia and accelerated cognitive aging. Individuals with chronic insomnia experienced a faster decline in their global cognitive scores over the study period. Their risk of developing mild cognitive impairment or dementia was 40% higher than that of people without insomnia. The researchers calculated that this increased risk was equivalent to the effect of being 3.5 years older.</p>
<p>A more detailed analysis revealed that the combination of insomnia and a self-reported reduction in sleep duration was particularly significant. People who had both chronic insomnia and reported sleeping less than usual had lower cognitive scores at the beginning of the study compared to other participants. This suggests that the negative effects may have been present even before the formal tracking began.</p>
<p>The brain imaging results provided physical evidence that may help explain these cognitive findings. The group with both insomnia and reduced sleep had a greater volume of white matter hyperintensities at the start of the study. These brain lesions suggest a link between this specific sleep profile and cerebrovascular disease, which affects the small blood vessels in the brain. In contrast, participants with insomnia who reported sleeping more than usual had a lower volume of these white matter changes, indicating a potentially different relationship with brain health.</p>
<p>The scans also showed a connection to Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Participants with insomnia and reduced sleep had higher levels of amyloid plaques in their brains at baseline. The magnitude of this effect was comparable to carrying the APOE e4 gene, a well-known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. This finding suggests that poor sleep may be connected to the accumulation of proteins that are a hallmark of the neurodegenerative disorder.</p>
<p>“Insomnia doesn’t just affect how you feel the next day—it may also impact your brain health over time,” said Carvalho. “We saw faster decline in thinking skills and changes in the brain that suggest chronic insomnia could be an early warning sign or even a contributor to future cognitive problems.”</p>
<p>The research team also examined the potential role of hypnotic medications, often prescribed for sleep. In this study, the use of these medications was not associated with faster cognitive decline or with the brain changes observed on scans. These findings may offer some reassurance to individuals who rely on such treatments, though the researchers note that more detailed investigation is needed.</p>
<p>“Our results suggest that insomnia may affect the brain in different ways, involving not only amyloid plaques, but also small vessels supplying blood to the brain,” Carvalho said. “This reinforces the importance of treating chronic insomnia—not just to improve sleep quality but potentially to protect brain health as we age. Our results also add to a growing body of evidence that sleep isn’t just about rest—it’s also about brain resilience.”</p>
<p>The study has several limitations that the authors acknowledge. The diagnosis of insomnia was based on medical records rather than standardized interviews for every participant. Sleep duration was self-reported and not measured objectively with sleep-monitoring devices. The data on hypnotic medication use did not include details about dosage, frequency, or duration of treatment. Finally, the study population was predominantly white, which means the findings may not apply to more diverse populations.</p>
<p>Future research should aim to confirm these results using objective sleep measures and more diverse cohorts. It will also be important to investigate whether effectively treating insomnia, through methods like cognitive behavioral therapy or specific medications, can slow or prevent cognitive decline and the associated brain changes. Such studies could help determine if improving sleep is a viable strategy for promoting long-term brain health.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000214155" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associations of Chronic Insomnia, Longitudinal Cognitive Outcomes, Amyloid-PET, and White Matter Changes in Cognitively Normal Older Adults</a>,” was authored by Diego Z. Carvalho, Bhanu Prakash Kolla, Stuart J. McCarter, Erik K. St. Louis, Mary M. Machulda, Scott A. Przybelski, Angela J. Fought, Val J. Lowe, Virend K. Somers, Bradley F. Boeve, Ronald C. Petersen, Clifford R. Jack, Jonathan Graff-Radford, Andrew William Varga, and Prashanthi Vemuri.</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/does-left-wing-authoritarianism-need-to-be-re-examined-new-research-from-serbia-suggests-so/" 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;">Does left-wing authoritarianism need to be re-examined? New research from Serbia suggests so</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 30th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Researchers in Serbia have developed a new psychological scale, called the SLAV scale, for assessing a set of beliefs often labeled as left-wing authoritarianism. Their research indicated that these beliefs comprise four distinct but related components: anticapitalist sentiment, anticonventionalism, antihierarchical aggression, and censorship of right-wing ideas. A central finding of the study, however, is that these beliefs have a weak or even negative relationship with ideologically neutral measures of authoritarianism, prompting the researchers to question the accuracy of the “authoritarian” label itself. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70053"><em>Political Psychology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Authoritarianism is a political and psychological concept describing a preference for strict obedience to authority and strong conformity to established rules and norms. It emphasizes order, hierarchy, and control, typically at the expense of personal freedoms and individual autonomy. Psychologically, authoritarianism is linked to traits such as submission to authority figures, aggression toward out-groups, and resistance to ambiguity.</p>
<p>Traditionally, researchers noted that authoritarian individuals tend to value security, tradition, and stability over diversity and change. This generally describes what is now referred to as right-wing authoritarianism. Newer studies have indicated that there might be another type of authoritarianism found in individuals with left-wing political views.</p>
<p>It seems that this left-wing type of authoritarianism shares with its right-wing counterpart a preference for conformity with rules and norms, as well as moral absolutism and aggression toward perceived enemies. However, unlike right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism is characterized by a desire to abolish the current societal hierarchy by force, a rejection of traditional and conventional values, and a strong belief that the government should censor speech viewed as intolerant.</p>
<p>Study authors Marija B. Petrović and Milica Ninković wanted to construct a psychological scale that could be used to assess left-wing authoritarianism. To do this, they decided to rely on study participants from Serbia, a post-communist country, where left-wing authoritarian views might show some specificities given that the country experienced left-wing authoritarian governments in the past.</p>
<p>The study’s authors viewed left-wing authoritarianism as a set of beliefs and attitudes one adopts, not as an innate psychological trait. They initially proposed that, in line with previous research, a scale for assessing these beliefs should capture four aspects: antihierarchical aggression, anticonventionalism, anticapitalist and antineoliberal sentiments, and top-down censorship and control.</p>
<p>Antihierarchical aggression is the belief that the current system needs to be overthrown through political violence instead of the regular democratic process and the justification of said violence (e.g., “The existing social order has to be burned down to the ground.”). Anticonventionalism is the rejection of traditional, conservative values, and moral absolutism regarding progressive values (e.g., “All forms of religious education in schools should be abolished”).</p>
<p>Anticapitalist and antineoliberal sentiments involve the rejection of modern capitalism, including all of its values and practices. “This includes attitudes that range from the rejection of neoliberalism and consumerism to downright opposition to private property, as well as support for centralized over free market economy (e.g., ‘Capitalism’s most successful product is actually global poverty’). Rejection of capitalism implies the rejection of a free, non-controlled market, and it can also imply the refusal of liberal democracy. This would suggest a strong limitation of choice and freedom in the economic domain (e.g., ‘Inheritance should be abolished and redistributed according to the needs of society.’ or ‘Private property should be abolished.’),” the study authors explain.</p>
<p>Finally, the concept of top-down censorship and control includes support for government or organizational censorship of intolerant speech and political opponents, with an emphasis on strong state control over information and intolerant speech (e.g., “We need to limit who can appear in the media during societal crises”), but also over resources (e.g., disagreeing with the statement, “The healthcare system would have better quality if it were entirely privatized.”).</p>
<p>The researchers conducted three studies. The goal of the first was to select the best items for the new scale with the help of 20 psychologists and sociologists from Serbian universities. Based on expert ratings, the authors excluded the 20% of the lowest-rated items before proceeding to the next study.</p>
<p>The second study established the validity and reliability of the scale with 546 participants recruited through social media (average age 51; 52% women). The statistical analysis supported the four-component structure but also led to a refinement; based on the specific content of the associated items, the Top-down censorship and control dimension was renamed Censorship of right-wing ideas.</p>
<p>Finally, the third study examined associations between scores on the SLAV scale and various other psychological characteristics. The participants were 655 individuals recruited through social media (average age 45; 66% women).</p>
<p>Results showed that scores on the SLAV scale were positively associated with scores on another existing left-wing authoritarianism scale. Additionally, individuals with stronger anticapitalist sentiments tended to show more political cynicism and were more prone to see the world as dangerous and to hold conspiracy beliefs. Higher scores on the SLAV scale were generally associated with seeing the current economic system as less just.</p>
<p>However, left-wing beliefs as measured by the SLAV scale were not associated with higher general authoritarianism or with support for authoritarian child-rearing practices. For example, individuals with pronounced anticonventionalism tended to have lower levels of endorsement for authoritarian child-rearing practices. Antihierarchical aggression was positively associated with authoritarian aggression, but higher endorsement of Censorship of right-wing ideas and anticonventionalism was associated with lower general authoritarianism.</p>
<p>“Despite our efforts to broaden the range of potentially authoritarian leftist ideas, the newly developed scale (as well as the existing LWA [left-wing authoritarianism] index scale) rather captures radical leftist ideas than it captures authoritarianism. This, alongside other results, would suggest that ideological labeling of authoritarianism might hinder instead of help our understanding of it. In fact, even the initial label of right-wing authoritarianism makes it unclear what is the opposite pole of this dimension: whether it is left-wing liberalism (non-right-wing non-authoritarianism), or maybe left-wing authoritarianism, or right-wing liberalism. As such, our studies paradoxically offer empirical support for the need to reassess the term authoritarianism,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study makes a valuable contribution to the scientific understanding of left-wing political views and attitudes. However, it should be noted that study participants came from two large community samples in Serbia and cannot be considered representative for the general population of the country. Results in samples more representative of the general population or conducted in other countries and cultures might differ.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70053">A specter is haunting political psychology—a specter of left-wing authoritarianism: Development and validation of left-wing authoritarianism scale in a post-communist society,</a>” was authored by Marija B. Petrović and Milica Ninković.</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/brain-iron-levels-may-signal-alzheimers-risk-years-before-symptoms-appear/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Brain iron levels may signal Alzheimer’s risk years before symptoms appear</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Sep 30th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new brain imaging study provides evidence that high levels of iron in certain parts of the brain may signal an increased risk of developing cognitive problems years before symptoms appear. The study, published in <em><a href="https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.250513" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Radiology</a></em>, found that greater iron accumulation in two brain regions was linked with later development of mild cognitive impairment, a condition that often precedes Alzheimer’s disease. These findings suggest that brain iron could play a role in the early stages of neurodegeneration and might eventually serve as a tool for identifying people at higher risk for memory decline.</p>
<p>Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause of dementia, gradually impairing memory, thinking, and behavior. It is marked by the buildup of two abnormal proteins in the brain: amyloid-beta and tau. These changes begin silently, sometimes decades before noticeable symptoms. Mild cognitive impairment is often the earliest clinical sign that something is wrong, acting as a transitional phase between normal aging and dementia.</p>
<p>Although researchers have developed methods to detect amyloid and tau, these markers do not fully explain how fast someone will decline. Some people with high amyloid levels never develop dementia, while others deteriorate quickly. This inconsistency has led scientists to explore other contributors to neurodegeneration.</p>
<p>One such factor is iron. Although iron is essential for brain function, too much of it can cause harm. Excess iron may trigger inflammation, damage cells, and worsen the effects of other proteins involved in Alzheimer’s. Earlier studies have shown that iron tends to accumulate with age and that high iron levels may be linked to memory and motor problems. The current study aimed to determine whether measuring brain iron could help predict who might go on to develop cognitive decline, even before any symptoms begin.</p>
<p>“We were motivated by the need for earlier and more practical biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Amyloid and tau are well established Alzheimer’s biomarkers, but are usually detected by costly PET scans, while conventional MRI markers like brain atrophy only appear at late stage,” said senior author Xu Li, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a research scientist in the Kennedy Krieger Institute.</p>
<p>“In addition, therapies targeting amyloid only showed modest effect, suggesting the importance of other co-pathologies. We therefore wanted to test if quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) MRI, a MRI method for measuring brain iron, could fill this gap and help identify dementia risks years before cognitive impairment happens.”</p>
<p>Quantitative susceptibility mapping can detect tiny changes in tissue by measuring magnetic properties linked to iron content. The research was part of a larger, long-term project called the BIOCARD study, designed to investigate early signs of Alzheimer’s. The participants were all older adults who showed no signs of memory problems at the beginning.</p>
<p>The scientists focused on ten specific brain regions, including the entorhinal cortex, putamen, hippocampus, and several others involved in memory, language, and motor function. The participants were monitored for up to 7.7 years, during which they received regular cognitive assessments. Some also underwent brain scans to measure amyloid accumulation using positron emission tomography.</p>
<p>By the end of the study, 27 individuals had developed mild cognitive impairment or dementia. The analysis revealed that higher iron levels at the beginning of the study in two regions — the entorhinal cortex and the putamen — were strong predictors of later cognitive decline. Participants with elevated iron in the entorhinal cortex had about twice the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment compared to those with lower levels. Similar patterns were observed for the putamen.</p>
<p>“The key message is that higher brain iron, especially in memory-related regions, was linked to a greater risk of developing memory problems and faster cognitive decline,” Li told PsyPost. “This suggests that brain iron may serve as an early warning sign of Alzheimer’s disease, years before symptoms become obvious.”</p>
<p>The entorhinal cortex is a region deeply involved in memory and is known to be one of the first areas affected by Alzheimer’s. The putamen, although more commonly associated with movement, also contributes to cognitive processes such as language and flexibility in thinking. Interestingly, these associations between iron levels and future decline were found to be independent of structural brain changes such as shrinkage.</p>
<p>The findings were even more pronounced in individuals who had higher amyloid levels in their brains. Among this group, those with high iron in the entorhinal cortex or putamen showed faster declines in their overall cognitive performance over time. This pattern suggests that brain iron might work in tandem with amyloid buildup to accelerate the disease process.</p>
<p>“We found out that participants with higher brain iron in key memory regions were about twice as likely to develop mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which is a transition stage to dementia,” Li explained. “Such risk could be even higher in participants with known Alzheimer’s pathology such as elevated amyloid burden.”</p>
<p>The study also found that greater iron accumulation in other areas, like the caudate nucleus and hippocampus, was associated with lower cognitive scores over time, particularly in people who were already showing signs of amyloid pathology. In terms of specific mental abilities, higher iron levels in the entorhinal cortex and putamen were linked to declines in language and visuospatial function.</p>
<p>Although the findings are promising, the researchers caution that the results should be interpreted carefully. The study group was relatively small and mostly included highly educated White participants with a family history of Alzheimer’s, which may limit how broadly the findings apply. Additionally, the number of participants who progressed to mild cognitive impairment was modest, especially in the subgroup who underwent both types of brain scans.</p>
<p>Another caveat is that iron accumulation is not unique to Alzheimer’s disease. Elevated brain iron has been seen in other conditions, including Parkinson’s disease and normal aging. This suggests that while brain iron may be a useful marker of neurodegeneration, it may not be specific to Alzheimer’s.</p>
<p>“One potential caveat or misinterpretation I want to point out is that our study does not mean brain iron is the sole cause of Alzheimer’s disease,” Li noted. “It could be a potential early marker of Alzheimer’s related neurodegeneration, but it is likely just one factor among many, and should be considered alongside with other markers such as amyloid and tau. Its exact role, whether causal or secondary, and how it interacts with other Alzheimer’s pathology still need more studies. Anyway, brain iron as measured by QSM MRI could be useful for Alzheimer’s staging, categorizing risk populations and can potentially guide early treatment in the future.”</p>
<p>“Our findings need to be validated in larger and more diverse populations. We want to further investigate how iron interacts with amyloid and tau in Alzheimer’s disease. We are also working on standardizing QSM MRI and hope to make it faster, more reliable, and more widely available in clinical practice.”</p>
<p>“Our study shows that brain iron predicts future MCI risk and memory decline in people who are still cognitively normal,” Li said. “It is among many efforts to develop earlier and better biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease beyond the well known amyloid and tau pathology. Development of therapies targeting brain iron in Alzheimer’s is still at its very early stage, but hopefully there will be more studies and trials in the future.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.250513" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Susceptibility MRI Helps Predict Mild Cognitive Impairment Onset and Cognitive Decline in Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults</a>,” was authored by Lin Chen, Anja Soldan, Andreia Faria, Marilyn Albert, Peter C. M. van Zijl, and Xu Li, for the BIOCARD Study Team.</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>