<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/your-perception-of-loudness-bends-to-what-you-know-according-to-fascinating-new-psychology-research/" 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;">Your perception of loudness bends to what you know, according to fascinating new psychology research</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 3rd 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.445" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Cognition</a></em> provides evidence that what we know influences what we hear. Researchers found that when people listened to pairs of words and nonsense words spoken at the same volume, they tended to judge the real words as louder. This perceptual bias appeared not only in a person’s native language but also in their second language, although with some differences in strength. The findings suggest that familiarity with language can shape basic aspects of auditory perception, such as loudness.</p>
<p>The researchers were interested in whether a previously documented visual illusion—where familiar letters and words are perceived as physically larger than unfamiliar combinations—also occurs with sound. In other words, could the brain treat known words as perceptually “louder” in the same way it treats them as visually “taller,” even when there is no physical difference?</p>
<p>This question connects to larger theories in cognitive science about how perception is influenced by prior knowledge. In particular, models of language processing suggest that top-down processes, like recognizing a word, can shape the way basic sensory features are experienced. The team wanted to know whether this effect could cross sensory boundaries, extending from vision into hearing.</p>
<p>They also wanted to test whether this effect depends on how familiar someone is with the language. For example, would a person hear a native-language word as louder than a foreign one? And would the effect be weaker when listening to a second language, where vocabulary is less deeply ingrained?</p>
<p>“We were inspired by earlier findings of the word/letter height superiority illusion in vision (New et al., 2016), where letters and words are perceived as taller than pseudoletters or pseudowords (letter strings that follow the orthographic and phonotactic rules of a language but have no meaning, e.g., wug) of the same size,” said study author Boris New, a professor in cognitive psychology at the Université Savoie Mont Blanc, LPNC.</p>
<p>“We wanted to know whether this illusion was specific to reading (and perhaps to the visual word form area) or whether it reflected a more general cognitive mechanism that could also be observed in other modalities like audition. The study connects also to an everyday phenomenon – many people feel they need to ‘turn up the volume’ when watching movies in a foreign language. We wanted to test whether this subjective experience has a perceptual basis: do words in a familiar language actually feel louder than in a less familiar one, even when their physical intensity is identical?”</p>
<p>The researchers ran two experiments. In the first, they recruited 77 native French speakers who also spoke English as a second language. In the second, they tested 89 native English speakers who had some knowledge of French.</p>
<p>Participants listened to pairs of audio clips in which two spoken items—a real word or a nonsense word made by swapping the syllables of a real word—were played one after the other. The key trials involved pairs where the two items were played at exactly the same volume, yet one was a real word and the other was not. The participants’ task was to decide which of the two items sounded louder.</p>
<p>The nonsense words were carefully constructed to resemble real words in terms of their syllable structure and length, but they lacked meaning. This allowed the researchers to control for acoustic features and focus on the effect of lexical familiarity. The sounds were presented in both the participants’ native and second languages, with the language blocks counterbalanced to avoid order effects.</p>
<p>Participants first completed a headphone check and a calibration step to ensure consistent listening conditions. Then they practiced with example trials to familiarize themselves with the task. The full experiment involved several trials in which the words varied in their actual volume or were equal in volume. The key measure was whether, in trials where the volume was objectively the same, participants were more likely to say the real word sounded louder than the nonsense word.</p>
<p>In Experiment 1, the French-speaking participants showed a clear pattern. When real words and nonsense words were played at the same volume, they were significantly more likely to judge the real words as louder. This happened in both their native French and their second language, English. However, the effect was stronger in their native language. When errors were made in identifying which item was louder, over 70 percent of those errors favored the real word in French, compared to about 59 percent in English.</p>
<p>Experiment 2 replicated the basic finding with a different group: native English speakers. These participants also showed a bias to hear real words as louder than nonsense words. Interestingly, though, the strength of the effect was similar in both their native English and their second language, French.</p>
<p>“We expected the illusion (words being perceived as louder than pseudowords) to be stronger in the native language (L1) than in the second language (L2) for both groups,” New told PsyPost. “That’s what we found with French participants (illusion was stronger in French than in English). But for English participants, the pattern was different: the illusion was present in both English (L1) and French (L2), but the strength was about the same in both languages, not stronger in L1 as predicted.”</p>
<p>“This was surprising because it went against the initial hypothesis. We think it might be due to how the stimuli were created: syllables were concatenated, which disrupted natural stress patterns, a crucial cue in English but less so in French. That could have weakened the ‘native-language boost’ for English listeners.”</p>
<p>The team examined whether differences in second-language proficiency could explain this asymmetry. Data showed that French speakers reported using English more frequently and rated themselves as more proficient in it than English speakers did with French. This suggests that the level of experience with a language might influence the strength of top-down processing effects.</p>
<p>Taken together, these findings suggest that language knowledge influences perception in a direct way. Words that are familiar to the listener are more likely to be perceived as louder than nonsense words, even when there is no actual difference in volume. This provides support for theories that top-down processes—where knowledge and expectations feed back into early sensory processing—can shape how we perceive the world.</p>
<p>“The key takeaway is that our brains don’t just passively register sounds – what we know and recognize shapes how we hear them,” New explained. “Words we know are literally perceived as louder than nonsense words, even when the physical volume is the same.”</p>
<p>“So the big message is: familiarity with language changes how we actually perceive sound intensity, our knowledge literally shapes our perception. Readers should think of the effect as modest in size but revealing of an important principle: the brain’s expectations and knowledge can change how loud something feels. The illusion is subtle, not dramatic; the effect is a small perceptual bias. So it’s not that your ears are changing physics, it’s that your brain’s language system nudges your perception.”</p>
<p>But the study, like all research, has some limitations. The stimuli were synthetic and constructed from individual syllables, which may have disrupted natural speech rhythm, especially in English. Future studies could explore whether the illusion holds with naturally spoken words and across a wider range of languages.</p>
<p>The task was also demanding, and the experiment was designed to be completed in under 20 minutes, which limited the number of test words. Expanding the range of stimuli would help confirm whether the effect generalizes beyond the specific examples used here.</p>
<p>Individual differences in hearing sensitivity were not directly measured. Although participants adjusted their listening volume at the start of the study, this method relies on self-assessment and may not capture subtle differences in auditory processing. Future work could include more precise hearing tests.</p>
<p>Another avenue for research would be to test this auditory illusion in other syllable-timed languages. If the effect varies across languages, it might reveal how speech rhythm and lexical familiarity interact in shaping perception.</p>
<p>“We would like to replicate the experiment in other syllable-timed languages like Italian, to see if the illusion generalizes the same way it does in French,” New told PsyPost. “Our study helps explain a very common experience, why people often feel the need to turn up the volume when listening to a foreign language. It shows that this isn’t just about effort or attention, but about how our brain’s familiarity with words literally changes perception.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://journalofcognition.org/articles/10.5334/joc.445" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Listening to Foreign Languages: Pump Up the Volume!</a>,” was authored by Boris New, Clément Guichet, Elsa Spinelli, and Julien Barra.</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/simplistic-thinking-and-rejecting-democracy-scientists-find-strikingly-strong-link/" 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;">Simplistic thinking and rejecting democracy: Scientists find “strikingly” strong link</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 3rd 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who want to uphold the current political system and people who want to tear it down may have more in common than it seems. A new study published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences provides evidence that antidemocratic attitudes are not tied to one single ideology. Instead, a broad range of psychological tendencies, beliefs, and thinking styles — from authoritarianism and social dominance to distrust in elites and chaotic thinking — were linked to support for ideas that go against liberal democratic principles. These effects were especially strong when individuals viewed the political system as illegitimate.</p>
<p>Democracy is often taken for granted in established societies. Yet recent reports have highlighted a steady decline in support for democratic institutions across the world. Scholars have pointed to authoritarian leaders, political extremism, polarization, and misinformation as potential threats. Despite a growing body of research, findings have remained scattered across different theories and approaches.</p>
<p>The research team aimed to bring together these threads. Their goal was to identify whether a wide range of ideological worldviews — both those supporting the current system and those opposing it — were associated with antidemocratic attitudes. The researchers also explored how other factors, such as black-and-white thinking and misperceptions about political opponents, might help explain why some people support actions that weaken democracy.</p>
<p>“Despite growing concern about the erosion of democratic values worldwide, we do not have a solid understanding of the psychological underpinnings of antidemocratic attitudes,” said study author <a href="https://arturnilsson.se/main.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Artur Nilsson</a>, a professor of psychology at the University of Bergen and Linköping University.</p>
<p>“Although many studies have examined specific psychological factors linked to antidemocratic attitudes—such as authoritarianism, political animosity, and societal discontent—this research remains fragmented. To address this gap, the present study set out to bring together and compare the most influential explanations, offering a more unified understanding of why people might turn against principles of liberal democracy (e.g., free elections, free speech, or political equality).”</p>
<p>The researchers surveyed 824 adults in the United Kingdom. Participants answered questions covering a wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and psychological tendencies. These included their views on democracy, openness to new information, trust in political institutions, support for violence, and how they viewed people from different political and social groups.</p>
<p>The study drew from two key models of measuring antidemocratic views. One measured general support for democratic principles like free speech and universal suffrage. The other broke these attitudes into four more specific areas: support for free and fair elections, support for censorship, support for political violence, and willingness to deny rights to certain groups.</p>
<p>The researchers categorized participants’ worldviews into three broad types. The first was system-justifying, which included a preference for maintaining the status quo, such as authoritarianism and social dominance. The second was system-challenging, marked by beliefs that the system is corrupt or illegitimate and should be overthrown. This included a desire for chaos and hostility toward the wealthy and powerful. The third category involved ways of thinking that were not tied to either defending or attacking the system. These included simplistic, black-and-white reasoning, conspiratorial beliefs, and misperceptions about political opponents.</p>
<p>Overall, individuals with strong system-justifying or system-challenging worldviews tended to express more support for antidemocratic ideas. For instance, people with authoritarian leanings were more likely to support censorship, while those with a desire for chaos were more willing to endorse political violence.</p>
<p>These associations remained strong even when accounting for other psychological traits and demographic factors. Notably, people who lacked what the researchers called “actively open-minded thinking” — a tendency to consider opposing viewpoints and revise beliefs based on evidence — were more likely to oppose core democratic principles, especially free elections. This thinking style turned out to be one of the most consistent predictors of antidemocratic attitudes.</p>
<p>Misperceptions about political opponents also played a role. People who wrongly believed that their political rivals supported antidemocratic actions were themselves more likely to endorse such views. This effect was distinct from general hostility toward political outgroups and appeared to shape attitudes toward political violence in particular.</p>
<p>Interestingly, some predictors stood out more depending on the specific kind of antidemocratic belief being measured. For example, support for discrimination was most closely tied to beliefs about social dominance, while support for political violence was more strongly associated with a desire for chaos and hostility toward the elite. Support for censorship was linked to authoritarian views and submission to authority. Meanwhile, opposition to democratic elections was most strongly predicted by simplistic reasoning and a lack of open-mindedness.</p>
<p>“A concern with rationally updating beliefs in light of new information—so called ‘actively open- minded thinking’—is known to protect people from falling for misinformation,” Nilsson told PsyPost. “In our study, it also strongly predicted lower levels of antidemocratic attitudes, particularly regarding free elections.”</p>
<p>“Strikingly, it outperformed nearly all other predictors drawn from research on extremism, authoritarianism, and democratic values. These findings suggest that attitudes to knowledge and misinformation play an underappreciated role in shaping antidemocratic tendencies in today’s world. By contrast, some more established predictors, such as narcissism and apocalyptic beliefs, showed no unique association with antidemocratic attitudes after accounting for other predictors.</p>
<p>Another important finding was that people were more likely to support antidemocratic views if they believed the democratic system itself was illegitimate. For example, individuals who felt that democracy was a sham or that elites secretly controlled the country were more likely to endorse violence, censorship, or undermining elections. This sense of illegitimacy appeared to explain why both authoritarian and anti-elite individuals adopted similar antidemocratic views, despite having opposing ideological orientations.</p>
<p>“There is no single ideological worldview explaining antidemocratic attitudes,” Nilsson explained. “Both individuals who seek to defend existing authorities and social hierarchies and those who harbor hostility toward elites and a desire to disrupt established systems were more likely to oppose principles of liberal democracy. In addition, simplistic and irrational thinking styles, as well as misperceptions of antidemocratic attitudes among political opponents, were among the most robust predictors of antidemocratic attitudes.”</p>
<p>The authors caution that the study was cross-sectional. This means it cannot show whether particular beliefs or traits cause people to adopt antidemocratic views. It also cannot determine whether antidemocratic attitudes might shape people’s ideological outlooks in return.</p>
<p>“It is too early to draw conclusions about the causal impact of ideological worldviews on antidemocratic attitudes,” Nilsson noted. “Further research is needed to develop an understanding of the causal processes through which antidemocratic attitudes evolve over time.”</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the study focused on a single country. While the United Kingdom offers a valuable context, findings might look different in countries with weaker democratic institutions or more intense political conflict. The researchers suggest that future studies should compare different national contexts to understand how local political conditions might influence these psychological patterns.</p>
<p>The researchers plan to build on this work with a study that tracks participants over time. “The next step is to complete a recently launched longitudinal study that will follow participants over the course of 1.5 years,” Nilsson said. “This will allow us to examine the causal interplay between antidemocratic attitudes and ideological worldviews, susceptibility to misinformation, maladaptive personality traits, cognitive dispositions, and life events. Our goal is to better understand how and why people become drawn to antidemocratic ideas.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.70062" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Dark Side of Ideology: Ideological Worldviews and Antidemocratic Attitudes</a>,” was authored by Artur Nilsson and Ali Teymoori.</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/only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-misophonia-may-reflect-deeper-psychological-realities/" 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;">“Only the tip of the iceberg:” Misophonia may reflect deeper psychological realities</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 3rd 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 the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">British Journal of Psychology</a></em> has suggests that misophonia reflects broader psychological and cognitive traits rather than being limited to annoyance at specific noises. The research suggests that people with misophonia tend to struggle with switching attention in emotionally charged situations, show lower cognitive flexibility, and are more prone to rumination. These patterns indicate a more complex psychological profile that may affect how individuals experience and respond to emotional and cognitive challenges in daily life.</p>
<p>Misophonia is a condition in which specific sounds, such as chewing or pen clicking, trigger strong emotional reactions like anger, disgust, or anxiety. These reactions often lead to significant distress and social disruption. While this sensitivity may appear to be a behavioral quirk, mounting evidence points to deeper psychological components.</p>
<p>Previous studies have linked misophonia to emotional regulation difficulties and attentional control problems. People with this condition often hyperfocus on specific sounds and struggle to shift attention away from them, even when they try. They also report high levels of distress in situations that involve their “trigger” sounds, sometimes resulting in avoidance behaviors or emotional outbursts.</p>
<p>The new study set out to explore whether these challenges relate to more general difficulties in switching attention, particularly when emotions are involved—a quality known as affective flexibility. The researchers also investigated cognitive flexibility more broadly and looked at whether people with misophonia tend to ruminate, meaning they repeatedly think about distressing situations or emotions.</p>
<p>“For a long time, I’ve thought that misophonia might be more than just a sound-sensitivity condition. Instead of sound sensitivity being the root cause, it might actually be just one symptom of a broader, more complex disorder,” said study author Mercede Erfanian of the ESSCA School of Management.</p>
<p>“If that’s true, then we should see differences in people with misophonia even when no triggering sounds are present. Previous research has identified the anterior insula cortex (AIC) as an important brain region in misophonia. The AIC regulates emotion, bodily awareness, salience detection, and other functions. We wanted to test whether some of those other functions, specifically, mental flexibility, might also be impaired in misophonia.”</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers recruited 140 adults to complete a set of psychological tasks and self-report questionnaires. About one-quarter of participants met the threshold for clinically significant misophonia, based on a validated scale called the S-Five. Participants completed a computerized task called the Memory and Affective Flexibility Task (MAFT), which measures how well people can shift between different types of mental tasks, especially in response to emotional stimuli. For example, they were asked to switch between remembering images and identifying whether new images were emotionally positive or negative.</p>
<p>The main focus was on how accurately and quickly participants could switch tasks, especially during emotionally charged trials. Participants also completed questionnaires that assessed cognitive flexibility, rumination tendencies, and the severity of their misophonia symptoms.</p>
<p>The researchers found that people with higher misophonia severity performed worse on the affective flexibility task, specifically in terms of accuracy. They made more errors when switching to emotion-related tasks, although their response times were not significantly different. This suggests that their difficulty lies more in adjusting mental strategies than in processing speed.</p>
<p>Crucially, this reduced performance was not just due to general inflexibility. When researchers accounted for broader cognitive flexibility—how easily participants adapt their thinking in general—the link between misophonia and lower affective flexibility remained. This indicates that the emotional aspect of the task was especially challenging for those with misophonia.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that misophonia severity was tied to lower self-reported cognitive flexibility. People who reported being more rigid in their thinking also tended to have more intense misophonia symptoms. However, this self-reported cognitive inflexibility was not linked to performance on the affective task, implying these may reflect separate psychological processes.</p>
<p>“We examined two types of flexibility: cognitive flexibility (measured by self-report questionnaires) and affective flexibility (measured with a behavioral task similar to a game),” Erfanian told PsyPost. “Both were linked to misophonia severity, but surprisingly, they were not linked to each other. However, this is consistent with prior research showing that questionnaires and behavioural tasks can measure the same mental capacity on different levels, and they don’t always align perfectly.”</p>
<p>Another notable finding involved rumination. Participants who reported higher levels of misophonia also tended to ruminate more, especially in the forms of brooding and anger-related thinking. These tendencies were consistent across different types of rumination. Furthermore, people who ruminated more also reported greater cognitive inflexibility, although their task performance on the MAFT was not related to their rumination levels.</p>
<p>“Our results suggest that misophonia is not simply a ‘quirk’ or pet peeve, it’s a complex ‘disorder,'” Erfanian explained. “Sound sensitivity may only be the visible tip of the iceberg. People with misophonia often show other psychological differences, even in the absence of auditory or visual triggers. Recognizing this complexity can help refine treatment approaches and reduce stigma.”</p>
<p>Finally, statistical models suggested that the link between cognitive inflexibility and misophonia might be partly explained by rumination. In other words, people who struggle to adapt their thinking may be more prone to misophonia in part because they also tend to get stuck in negative thought patterns.</p>
<p>While the findings offer insight into the psychological mechanisms that may be involved in misophonia, the study has some limitations. It relied partly on self-report measures, which can be influenced by subjective bias. Although the researchers used a behavioral task to assess affective flexibility, they did not include a comparable non-emotional task. This limits conclusions about whether the observed difficulties were specific to emotional situations or reflect broader switching problems.</p>
<p>“Each study on misophonia is like a piece of a larger puzzle,” Erfanian said. “On its own, a single finding may seem modest, but when connected with past and future studies, it contributes significantly to a more complete understanding of the disorder. Together, these findings will help move us toward more personalized and effective treatments.”</p>
<p>Despite the caveats, the results contribute to a growing view that misophonia is not merely a reaction to bothersome sounds but may reflect deeper patterns of rigidity in both thought and emotion. The researchers suggest that future work could investigate how brain regions related to emotional processing and cognitive control contribute to these difficulties.</p>
<p>“Misophonia is a real, disabling disorder, not simply an overreaction to annoying sounds,” Erfanian said. “It is not caused by a problem with the ears or hearing. Proper diagnosis requires expertise, since it is complex and multifaceted. Importantly, sound sensitivity may be just one outward symptom, pointing to a broader set of psychological differences, similar to autism or obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD.”</p>
<p>“While many colleagues are investigating different aspects of misophonia, I’m particularly interested in exploring the role of the anterior insula cortex more deeply. My next step is to study social cognition and theory of mind in people with misophonia, since these mental processes are also linked to the AIC. If the AIC functions differently in misophonia, we may also expect to see difficulties in these domains. This is also important since misophonia is context-related and mostly occurs in interaction with other people.”</p>
<p>“This study was a team effort and collaboration of different institutes with fundings from University of California, Berkeley and <a href="https://www.soquiet.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SoQuiet</a>, a non-profit charity, offering advocacy, support, and resources for people whose lives are affected by misophonia,” Erfanian added.</p>
<p>“If you know someone struggling with misophonia, please share research findings like these with them. Awareness is crucial, it can help people feel understood and encourage them to seek support. Severe misophonia can disrupt relationships, education, and careers, significantly affect mental health, and in some cases even increase suicide risk. Raising awareness can quite literally save lives.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Misophonia symptom severity is linked to impaired flexibility and heightened rumination</a>,” was authored by Vivien K. Black, Kenneth J. D. Allen, Hashir Aazh, Sheri L. Johnson, and Mercede Erfanian.</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/this-is-the-devastating-long-term-reality-for-hundreds-of-thousands-after-covid/" 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;">This is the devastating, long-term reality for hundreds of thousands after COVID</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 2nd 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>When most people think of COVID now, they picture a short illness like a cold – a few days of fever, sore throat or cough before getting better.</p>
<p>But for many, the story doesn’t end there. Long COVID – <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Post_COVID-19_condition-Clinical_case_definition-2021.1">defined by the World Health Organization</a> (WHO) as symptoms lasting at least three months after infection – has become a lasting part of the pandemic.</p>
<p>Most research has focused on describing symptoms – such as fatigue, brain fog and breathlessness. But we know less about their effect on daily life, and this hasn’t been well studied in Australia. That’s where our new study, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1071/PY25033">published in August</a>, comes in.</p>
<p>We show long COVID isn’t just uncomfortable or inconvenient. People with the condition told us it can profoundly limit their daily life and stop them from doing what they want to do, and need to do.</p>
<h2>What is long COVID?</h2>
<p>Long COVID affects about <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/post-covid-19-condition-(long-covid)">6% of people with COVID</a>, with more than <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00846-2">200 symptoms</a> recorded. For some, it lasts a few months. For “<a href="http://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1759568">long haulers</a>” it stretches into years.</p>
<p>The size of the problem is hard to measure, because symptoms vary from person to person. This has led to debate about what long COVID really is, what causes it, and even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100167">whether it’s real</a>.</p>
<p>But mounting evidence shows long COVID is very real and serious. Studies confirm it reduces quality of life to levels seen in illnesses such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/CPT.0000000000000291">chronic fatigue syndrome</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzac005">stroke, rheumatoid arthritis and Parkinson’s disease</a>.</p>
<h2>Here’s what people with long COVID told us</h2>
<p>We surveyed 121 adults across Australia living with long COVID. They had caught COVID between February 2020 and June 2022, with most aged 36–50. Most were never hospitalised, and managed their illness at home.</p>
<p>But months or years later, they were still struggling with daily activities they once took for granted.</p>
<p>To understand the impact, we asked them to complete two surveys widely used in health research to measure disability and quality of life – the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (<a href="https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health/who-disability-assessment-schedule">WHODAS 2.0</a>) and the Short Form Health Survey (<a href="https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form.html">SF-36</a>).</p>
<p>These surveys capture people’s own voices and lived experience. Unlike scans or blood tests, they show what symptoms mean for everyday life.</p>
<p>The results were striking.</p>
<p>People with long COVID reported worse disability than 98% of the general Australian population. A total of 86% of those with long COVID met the threshold for serious disability compared with 9% of Australians overall.</p>
<p>On average, people had trouble with daily activities on about 27 days a month and were unable to function on about 18 days.</p>
<p>Tasks such as eating or dressing were less affected, but more complex areas – housework and socialising – were badly impacted. People could often meet basic needs, but their ability to contribute to their homes, workplaces and communities was limited.</p>
<p>Quality of life was also badly affected. Energy levels and social life were the most impacted, reflecting how fatigue and brain fog affect activities, relationships and community connections. On average, overall quality of life scores were 23% lower than the general population.</p>
<h2>What are the implications?</h2>
<p>International research shows similar patterns. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00572-0">One study across 13 countries</a> found similar levels of disability. It also found women had higher disability scores than men. As long COVID disability has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.28.24308048">many facets and can change a lot over time</a>, it doesn’t fit into traditional ways of providing health care for chronic conditions.</p>
<p>Another key insight from our study is <a href="https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00040">the importance of self-reported outcomes</a>. Long COVID has no diagnostic test, and people often report <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2025.108665">health professionals are sceptical</a> about their symptoms and their impact. Yet our study showed people’s own ratings of their recovery strongly predicted their disability and quality of life.</p>
<p>This shows self-reports are not just “stories”. They are valid and reliable indicators of health. They also capture what medical tests cannot.</p>
<p>For example, fatigue is not just being tired. It can mean losing concentration while driving, giving up hobbies, or pulling away from cherished friendships.</p>
<p>Our study shows long COVID disrupts futures, breaks connections, and creates daily struggles that ripple out to families, workplaces and communities.</p>
<h2>What needs to happen next?</h2>
<p>Evidence presented to the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Former_Committees/Health_Aged_Care_and_Sport/LongandrepeatedCOVID/Report">2023 parliamentary long COVID inquiry</a> estimates hundreds of thousands of Australians are living with long COVID.</p>
<p>We know disadvantaged communities are <a href="https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51435">even more likely</a> to be impacted by the cascading effects of long COVID. So ignoring the scale and severity of long COVID risks <a href="https://theconversation.com/first-covid-hit-disadvantaged-communities-harder-now-long-covid-delivers-them-a-further-blow-183908">deepening inequality</a> and worsening its impact even further.</p>
<p>By building services based on lived experience, we can move towards restoring not just health, but dignity and participation in daily life for people with long COVID.</p>
<p>We need rehabilitation and support services that go beyond basic medical care. People need support to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000002368">manage fatigue</a>, such as “pacing” and conserving energy by not overexerting themselves. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10173-3">Workplaces need to accommodate</a> people with long COVID by reducing hours, redesigning job demands and offering flexible leave. People also need support to rebuild social connections.</p>
<p>All this requires people with long COVID to be thoughtfully assessed and treated. Listening to patients and valuing their experience is a crucial first step.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>We’d like to acknowledge the following co-authors of the research mentioned in this article: Tanita Botha, Fisaha Tesfay, Sara Holton, Cathy Said, Martin Hensher, Mary Rose Angeles, Catherine Bennett, Bodil Rasmussen and Kelli Nicola-Richmond.</em><!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/263623/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/long-covid-is-more-than-fatigue-our-new-study-suggests-its-impact-is-similar-to-a-stroke-or-parkinsons-263623">original article</a>.</em></p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/genetic-predisposition-for-adhd-and-autism-linked-to-higher-heart-disease-risk/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Genetic predisposition for ADHD and autism linked to higher heart disease risk</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 2nd 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new analysis of genetic data suggests that individuals with a genetic predisposition for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism spectrum disorder may also have a heightened risk for specific heart conditions. The research, which synthesized the results of 14 different studies, points to potential causal links between these neurodevelopmental conditions and cardiovascular health, according to the paper published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14151180" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cells</a></em>.</p>
<p>ADHD and autism spectrum disorder are both considered neurodevelopmental conditions. This means they typically appear early in a person’s development and are associated with how the brain grows and functions. ADHD often involves patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Autism spectrum disorder is characterized by differences in social communication and interaction, along with restricted or repetitive behaviors and interests. For many years, doctors and researchers have observed that people with these conditions seem to experience higher rates of cardiovascular diseases, but the reason for this association has been unclear.</p>
<p>Previous studies showing this link were mostly observational. They could identify a correlation, for instance, that adults with ADHD have a 20 percent prevalence of cardiovascular disease. They could not, however, prove that one condition causes the other. The relationship might be explained by other factors, known as confounders. For example, lifestyle habits, stress levels, or the side effects of medications could contribute to heart problems, making it difficult to isolate the direct impact of the neurodevelopmental condition itself.</p>
<p>To get closer to understanding causality, researchers led by Piotr Ryszkiewicz at the Medical University of Białystok in Poland conducted a new type of analysis. Their goal was to examine whether the genetic factors that increase the risk for these neurodevelopmental conditions also directly increase the risk for heart disease.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that used a method called Mendelian randomization. This technique leverages genetic information to investigate causal relationships between a risk factor and a health outcome. The method is based on the principle that genetic variants are randomly passed down from parents to their offspring, much like participants in a clinical trial are randomly assigned to different groups.</p>
<p>By using genetic variants that are known to be associated with a specific condition, like ADHD, scientists can see if those same variants are also associated with an outcome, such as heart failure. If a connection is found, it provides stronger evidence of a causal link, because the genetic makeup of a person is not influenced by lifestyle or other environmental factors.</p>
<p>Ryszkiewicz and his colleagues searched three major scientific databases for all existing Mendelian randomization studies that explored the links between ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and various cardiovascular diseases. They identified 14 studies that met their criteria. The team then extracted the data from these studies and evaluated their methodological quality to ensure the findings were reliable. They analyzed the data in two directions: first, looking at whether genetic liability for a neurodevelopmental condition affected the risk of heart disease, and second, whether genetic liability for heart disease affected the risk of a neurodevelopmental condition.</p>
<p>The combined analysis revealed several significant genetic connections. A genetic predisposition for ADHD was linked to an increased risk of developing coronary artery disease, heart failure, and several forms of stroke. Specifically, the data pointed to a higher likelihood of any stroke, ischemic stroke, and large-artery atherosclerotic stroke among individuals with the genetic markers for ADHD. This suggests that the biological pathways associated with ADHD may directly contribute to the development of these serious cardiovascular problems.</p>
<p>The findings for autism spectrum disorder showed a different but also concerning pattern. A genetic predisposition for autism spectrum disorder was associated with a higher probability of developing atrial fibrillation, a type of irregular heartbeat, and heart failure. The analysis did not find a genetic connection between autism spectrum disorder and stroke or coronary artery disease.</p>
<p>When the researchers examined the relationship in the other direction, they found one notable link. A genetic liability for atrial fibrillation was associated with an elevated risk of developing ADHD. The analysis did not find that hypertension, or high blood pressure, had a genetic association with either ADHD or autism spectrum disorder.</p>
<p>The authors of the paper noted some limitations to their work. The number of studies available for analysis was small for some of the specific comparisons, which means some conclusions should be interpreted with caution until more research is done. Another significant limitation is that most of the genetic data came from studies of individuals of European ancestry. This makes it uncertain whether the findings can be generalized to people from other ethnic backgrounds. Additionally, many of the analyzed studies did not conduct power calculations, which are used to determine if a study is large enough to detect a real effect.</p>
<p>Future research should aim to untangle the specific biological mechanisms that connect the genes for these neurodevelopmental conditions to cardiovascular health. Understanding these pathways could lead to better prevention and treatment strategies.</p>
<p>The current findings suggest that clinicians should consider cardiovascular risk assessment as part of the routine care for individuals diagnosed with ADHD and autism spectrum disorder. Early monitoring and intervention related to lifestyle factors like diet and exercise could play an important part in managing the long-term health of people with these conditions. The research also highlights the need for more studies to investigate these bidirectional relationships, especially how specific types of cardiovascular disease might influence the risk of developing neurodevelopmental conditions.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14151180" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Evaluating the Causal Effects of ADHD and Autism on Cardiovascular Diseases and Vice Versa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian Randomization Studies</a>,” was authored by Piotr Ryszkiewicz, Barbara Malinowska, and Magdalena Jasińska-Stroschein.</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/why-lesbian-couples-face-a-higher-divorce-risk-new-study-explores-the-mystery/" 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;">Why lesbian couples face a higher divorce risk: New study explores the mystery</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 2nd 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Lesbian couples who marry or enter registered partnerships in Finland are more likely to divorce than their gay or heterosexual counterparts, even when accounting for whether they lived together beforehand or had children, according to a new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.70027" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Marriage and Family</a></em>. The researchers found that differences in family formation and relationship history only partly explain why female couples experience a higher risk of divorce. These findings provide evidence that both individual life trajectories and broader social contexts shape the stability of same-sex and different-sex unions in distinct ways.</p>
<p>In recent years, as same-sex marriage has become legally recognized in more countries, researchers have begun to examine how these unions evolve over time. While prior work has consistently found that same-sex couples tend to divorce at higher rates than different-sex couples, less is known about why this is the case—especially among female couples, who show the highest rates of union dissolution.</p>
<p>The authors of the study sought to examine whether certain life experiences—such as how long couples lived together before marriage, whether they had children from previous relationships, or whether they had children together—might help explain the observed disparities in divorce rates. Their approach draws on the life course perspective, which suggests that people’s earlier life experiences influence their later relationship outcomes.</p>
<p>“Prior studies have shown that same-sex couples, especially female couples, have a higher divorce risk than different-sex couples across several countries. However, the explanations for female couples’ higher divorce risk are unclear,” said study author <a href="https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/maria-elina-ponkilainen" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Maria Elina Ponkilainen</a>, a doctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki.</p>
<p>“There is a well-known stereotype of female couples as eager to commit and move in together soon after meeting, suggesting a strong inclination toward serious relationships. Some prior studies have also speculated that short periods of premarital cohabitation, i.e., rapid entry into marriage, could be linked to their higher divorce risk, but no study has tested this assumption. We wanted to address this open question.”</p>
<p>To explore these questions, the researchers used comprehensive administrative data from Finland, covering all same-sex and different-sex couples who entered legal unions between 2003 and 2020. In total, they analyzed data from over 5300 same-sex couples—about two-thirds of whom were female couples—and more than 450,000 different-sex couples.</p>
<p>They examined whether the length of premarital cohabitation, the presence of children from previous relationships, and having children within the current union were associated with divorce risk. They also compared these factors across couple types to determine how much they contributed to divorce patterns.</p>
<p>The researchers found that female couples had a markedly higher divorce risk than other couples. Within ten years, 41 percent of female couples had divorced, compared to 27 percent of male couples and 22 percent of different-sex couples. After adjusting for age, education, and nationality, female couples were still over twice as likely to divorce as different-sex couples, and about 20 percent more likely than male couples.</p>
<p>Premarital cohabitation mattered, but only for same-sex couples. Female and male same-sex couples who had lived together for a longer time before marriage had lower divorce risks. For example, those who had lived together for seven or more years were much less likely to divorce than those who had not lived together beforehand. Among different-sex couples, however, the length of premarital cohabitation was not strongly linked to divorce once other factors were considered.</p>
<p>“We found that female couples entered marriages after shorter periods of premarital cohabitation than male couples or different-sex couples, but its role in explaining their higher divorce risk was smaller than I expected,” Ponkilainen told PsyPost. “It tells us that other factors explain the rest of their higher divorce risk, but I find it likely that these factors are not directly observable in our administrative register data, which do not include information on individuals’ values, attitudes, or subjective experiences, such as relationship quality or commitment to the partnership.”</p>
<p>Children from prior relationships also played a role. Across all couple types, having a child from a previous union was associated with a higher risk of divorce. However, the increase in risk was smaller for same-sex couples, especially female couples, than for different-sex couples. For instance, different-sex couples with a prior child were about 1.6 times more likely to divorce than those without, while the difference among female couples was closer to 1.3 times.</p>
<p>Having children together tended to reduce the divorce risk—but not equally. Both female couples and different-sex couples who had a child together were less likely to divorce than those who did not. However, this protective effect was stronger among different-sex couples.</p>
<p>The researchers had expected the opposite, predicting that shared parenthood might be particularly stabilizing for female couples, who often invest heavily in becoming parents through assisted reproduction. Yet the data indicated that having a child together did not reduce the divorce risk for female couples as much as it did for different-sex couples.</p>
<p>“The findings indicate that we cannot assume that factors that are known to protect union stability in different-sex unions would have the same impact on same-sex unions,” Ponkilainen said. “The findings also highlight the importance of studying within-group differences among same-sex couples, rather than only comparing same-sex couples to different-sex couples as a group, as there are large differences in divorce risk among same-sex couples as well. This is important in order to identify couples who might be at an increased risk of divorce and who could benefit from external support during their partnership, as well as in coping with the possible short- and long-term negative consequences of divorce.”</p>
<p>Adjusting for all three factors—cohabitation length, prior children, and shared children—narrowed the gap in divorce risk between couple types, but only modestly. These variables explained about one-fifth of the difference in divorce risk between female couples and different-sex couples. They accounted for roughly one-third of the difference between female and male same-sex couples. Even after accounting for these variables, female couples remained the most likely to divorce.</p>
<p>“The findings indicate that the risk of divorce is shaped by a complex interplay of various factors, which include both previous relationship experiences and current union characteristics,” Ponkilainen explained. “This emphasizes how individual life trajectories contribute to the resilience and vulnerability of each union over time, and how these life trajectories may differ for female couples, male couples, and different-sex couples due to different legislative and normative contexts surrounding these unions.”</p>
<p>While the study makes use of rich, population-level data, it also has some limitations. The researchers note that the Finnish data system does not include measures of gender identity or sexual orientation. This means that same-sex couples were identified based on legal sex, not self-reported identities.</p>
<p>Additionally, the study could not capture information about the quality of relationships, the reasons for union formation, or emotional commitment. These factors may vary across couple types and influence the decision to marry or stay married.</p>
<p>Finally, the findings are based on the Finnish context, where same-sex couples have had access to legal unions since 2002 and to marriage since 2017. The country also has relatively liberal family laws and a high degree of social acceptance of nontraditional family forms.</p>
<p>“The results are based on the Finnish context, and I would be cautious about generalizing them to other countries,” Ponkilainen noted. “The legal and normative context in each country affects same-sex couples’ opportunities to enter marriage and have children, and it may also impact their union stability and risk of divorce.”</p>
<p>Regarding the next steps for this line of research, Ponkilainen said that she “would be interested in further exploring the explanations for the higher divorce risk among female couples. In particular, I am curious about factors that influence who enters marriage, as well as potential differences in the degree of commitment to the partnership among couples who choose to marry. At the same time, there are several other unexplored factors to consider, as the field of study is still evolving.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.70027" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Same-Sex and Different-Sex Couples’ Divorce Risks: The Role of Cohabitation and Childbearing</a>,” was authored by Maria Ponkilainen, Elina Einiö, Mine Kühn, and Mikko Myrskylä.</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/empathy-is-the-key-to-effective-anti-racist-messaging-new-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;">Empathy is the key to effective anti-racist messaging, new study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 2nd 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Two recent experiments explored the effectiveness of different types of messages in promoting antiracist attitudes. They found that emphasizing empathy for targets of racism was more effective than messages focused on awareness of personal racial bias, the need for racial justice, or social norms about the unacceptability of racism. Participants exposed to messages emphasizing empathy for targets of racism reported significantly more egalitarianism, more positive attitudes toward Black people, and more awareness of racism. The paper was published in <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19485506251350179"><em>Social Psychological and Personality Science</em></a>.</p>
<p>Racism is the belief or practice that one race is inherently superior or inferior to another. This typically leads to prejudice, discrimination, and systemic inequality based on race. Racism can manifest at the individual level through biased attitudes and behaviors, as well as at the institutional level through laws, policies, or practices that disadvantage certain groups. Racism harms both its direct targets and society at large by fostering division, exclusion, and injustice.</p>
<p>Active efforts to oppose racism by promoting equality, fairness, and inclusion are called antiracism. Antiracism can be promoted through communication strategies that raise awareness about racism, challenge stereotypes, and encourage positive intergroup relations. Such messages can take the form of educational campaigns, media content, school programs, or organizational training. However, the effectiveness of such messages depends on how they are designed. Poorly designed antiracism messages can backfire by making people defensive and reinforcing divisions.</p>
<p>Study author Lisa Legault and her colleagues wanted to explore how effective different types of antiracism messages are in promoting antiracist outcomes. They hypothesized that messages focused on empathy and self-awareness would produce stronger antiracist outcomes than messages focusing on social norms. They conducted two studies.</p>
<p>For the first study, the researchers designed four complementary messages that were designed to promote nonprejudice and reduce racism. One of the messages focused on personal awareness of one’s own racial bias, another emphasized empathy for targets of racism. The third message was a call for social action to identify and confront racial inequality in society, while the fourth focused on social norms by stating that most people disagree with racism.</p>
<p>Participants of the first study were 686 individuals recruited via Prolific Academic and compensated $15/hour. As the study was designed to target non-Black participants’ attitudes, Black participants were removed from the sample. 51% of participants were women, 46% were men, and the remainder were nonbinary or did not report their gender.</p>
<p>Participants were randomly assigned to view one of the four message types. They would first read the message and then had to rephrase the message they read, as an extension of the message induction. After that, participants completed assessments of allophilia (i.e., affection for outgroups, Black people in this case), acknowledgement of the frequency of racism in society (e.g., “How often do you believe Black people are ignored or overlooked because of their race?”), and egalitarianism (the preference for equal intergroup relations).</p>
<p>The second study followed the methodology of the first, but study participants were a combination of college students (375 participants) and Prolific respondents (435 participants). The key outcome measure was also different. After viewing their assigned messages, study participants completed an assessment of momentary antiracist intent (adapted from a scale measuring antiracism awareness and behavior among White Americans), along with assessments of trait empathy (the Interpersonal Reactivity Index) and of the motivation to be nonprejudiced (the Motivation to be Nonprejudiced Scale). They also reported how much they liked the message they viewed and how much they trusted it.</p>
<p>Results of the first study showed that affection for Black people, egalitarianism, and acknowledgement of racism were all highest (on average) in the group that viewed the message focusing on empathy for targets of racism. Because the experimental groups were created randomly, it was expected that they would be equal at the start. Finding these differences after participants viewed the messages indicated to the researchers that the message emphasizing empathy for targets of racism was the most effective in promoting these attitudes.</p>
<p>Results of the second study confirmed these findings, with the group that viewed the message emphasizing empathy for targets of racism again showing the highest antiracism. Statistical analysis showed that this effect did not depend on one’s trait empathy or motivation to be nonprejudiced.</p>
<p>“The message of this work, therefore, is rather clear. Empathy toward those targeted by prejudice should be emphasized in communications regarding antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and it should form at least part of the foundation of education, training, and policy,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the effectiveness of different types of antiracist messages. However, it remains unknown how long the effects of these messages last. Additionally, the study focused on racism toward Black Americans. Results of studies involving other racial groups might differ.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251350179">Comparing Brief Antiracism Messages: Empathy-Focused Communication Is More Effective Than Social Norms, Calls to Action, and Self-Awareness</a>,” was authored by Lisa Legault, Riley Page, Morgan Reynolds, and Cameron Mallery-Winegard.</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>