<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/moral-absolutism-explains-support-for-bans-better-than-conservative-or-liberal-ideology/" 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;">Moral absolutism explains support for bans better than conservative or liberal ideology</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 10th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new series of studies has identified a fundamental difference in moral philosophy that helps explain why political conservatives are often more supportive of banning practices they find immoral compared to liberals with similar moral views. The research, published in the <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-54530-001?doi=1" target="_blank">Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</a></em>, suggests that conservatives are more inclined to see morality as universal and absolute, while liberals tend to view it as relative and context-dependent. This basic difference in worldview predicts an individual’s willingness to translate personal moral opposition into support for legal prohibitions.</p>
<p>The research was prompted by observations from public opinion polls. For example, among Americans who believe abortion is wrong, Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to support making it illegal in all cases. A similar pattern appears on other issues, such as recreational marijuana use. This raised a question for researchers: why would two people who see a practice as equally wrong arrive at different conclusions about whether it should be banned? </p>
<p>Past explanations, which focused on the different values liberals and conservatives prioritize, did not fully resolve the issue, as studies have shown both groups can hold their respective moral convictions with equal strength. The authors of the new paper proposed a novel theory, suggesting the answer lies not in what people believe is immoral, but in their underlying beliefs about the nature of morality itself.</p>
<p>“As a cultural and social psychologist, I learned early on that my field has long wrestled with a fundamental question: is morality entirely a product of culture, or are there certain moral truths that transcend it? I first encountered this debate as a PhD student, and it’s lingered with me ever since,” said study author <a href="http://www.namrata-goyal.com/" target="_blank">Namrata Goyal</a>, an assistant at Esade Business School.</p>
<p>“But, in recent years, as political polarization has deepened, this philosophical question has become deeply personal. I’ve often found myself in political debates with family and friends that reach an impasse, not because we disagree on evidence, but because we begin from different moral premises. Some people see morality as fluid and context-bound; others experience it as absolute, fixed, universal. I realized that differences in political opinions often aren’t political, they’re philosophical. And that realization ultimately became the spark for this research.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers conducted a series of nine studies. The first study analyzed millions of tweets to see if ideological differences appeared in everyday language. The team identified Twitter users who exclusively followed either Republican or Democratic political accounts, classifying them as conservative and liberal, respectively. They then analyzed the language in their tweets, sorting them into those containing moral content and those that did not. </p>
<p>The researchers found that conservatives used more absolute words, such as “always,” “never,” and “every,” than liberals did. This difference was about twice as large in tweets that contained moral language compared to non-moral tweets, providing initial evidence that conservatives approach moral topics with a more absolutist framework.</p>
<p>A second study broadened the scope by using a massive international dataset. Analyzing responses from the World Values Survey, which included nearly 100,000 people across 59 countries over a 30-year period, the researchers examined how people’s political orientation related to their moral philosophy. Participants were asked to choose between two statements: one reflecting moral absolutism (“There are absolutely clear guidelines about what is good and evil”) and another reflecting moral relativism (“What is good and evil depends entirely upon the circumstances”). </p>
<p>The results showed that individuals who identified as more conservative were consistently more likely to endorse the moral absolutist position, a finding that held even after accounting for factors like age, gender, religiosity, and socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>With this connection established, the researchers next explored a potential psychological mechanism behind it. They proposed that conservatives’ preference for moral absolutism might stem from a greater “need for closure,” a psychological preference for clear, unambiguous answers and a desire to avoid uncertainty. The third study tested this by surveying American participants on their political ideology, their need for closure, and their position on moral absolutism. The findings indicated that need for closure did indeed help explain the link between being politically conservative and endorsing a more absolutist view of morality.</p>
<p>To provide stronger evidence for this mechanism, a fourth study used an experimental design. Goyal and her colleagues placed some participants under time pressure when they were asked to respond to moral statements, a technique known to temporarily increase the need for closure. As predicted, participants who were rushed were more likely to agree with morally absolute statements compared to those in a control group who had no time limit. This experiment provided causal evidence that a heightened need for definitive answers pushes people toward a more absolutist moral stance.</p>
<p>The subsequent studies examined the real-world consequences of this philosophical divide, focusing on support for banning politicized practices. In a fifth study, participants rated how immoral they found 11 different practices, some typically opposed by liberals (like gun ownership), some opposed by conservatives (like abortion), and some opposed by both (like bribery). They were then asked whether they supported banning each practice. </p>
<p>The results showed that for all participants, viewing a practice as more immoral was linked to greater support for banning it. However, this connection was significantly stronger for conservatives. They were more likely to generalize their personal moral judgments into a desire for society-wide prohibition.</p>
<p>To confirm that moral absolutism was the specific factor driving this effect, a sixth study tested it against several alternative psychological explanations. The researchers measured participants’ political ideology and their support for banning only the practices they personally opposed. They also measured their tendency toward rule-based thinking, their focus on avoiding negative outcomes, and the importance they placed on different moral values like loyalty and fairness. </p>
<p>The analysis showed that moral absolutism was the primary factor that explained why conservatives were more likely than liberals to support banning practices they opposed. The other potential explanations did not show a similar explanatory power.</p>
<p>A seventh study added another layer of rigor by considering the strength of people’s attitudes. It is possible that conservatives support bans more because their opposition to certain practices is simply more intense, certain, or central to their identity. The researchers measured these dimensions of attitude strength for several contentious issues. </p>
<p>Even after statistically controlling for attitude intensity, certainty, centrality, and importance, the results remained the same. Moral absolutism continued to explain the ideological difference in support for bans on practices that people found objectionable. In other words, support for banning immoral practices appears to be driven by one’s moral philosophy rather than political ideology, with moral absolutists more likely to favor such bans.</p>
<p>“One surprising finding was that conservatives, on average, weren’t more supportive of bans than liberals,” Goyal told PsyPost. “The real divide wasn’t political, it was philosophical. Once we accounted for people’s moral philosophy, those differences largely disappeared. It was striking to see that a liberal who thinks in absolute moral terms can look very similar to a conservative moral absolutist in their willingness to restrict behaviors they see as wrong. That really drove home how deeply our underlying moral outlook shapes our judgments, often more than our politics do.”</p>
<p>The final two studies shifted from observation to intervention, testing whether people’s support for bans could be changed by nudging their moral perspective. In the eighth study, the researchers had participants read about a fictional foreign culture that was described as either morally absolutist or morally relativist. This exposure subtly influenced the participants’ own thinking. </p>
<p>The results showed that both liberals and conservatives who were exposed to the idea of moral relativism showed significantly less support for banning practices they were against, compared to those exposed to moral absolutism.</p>
<p>The ninth and final study took this experiment into the real world. The researchers created an actual petition on Change.org to ban hunting. Participants first read a series of fake social media comments about the issue that were framed in either morally absolute or morally relative terms. They were then given the opportunity to sign the petition. People who had been exposed to the morally relative comments were significantly less likely to sign the real petition than those who had read the absolutist comments. </p>
<p>“Our findings show that liberals and conservatives don’t just differ in <em>what</em> they value, but also in <em>how</em> they think those values should be applied. Liberals tend to view morality as more flexible and context-dependent, while conservatives are more likely to see it as fixed and absolute,” Goyal explained.</p>
<p>“What’s especially interesting is that people’s moral philosophy (whether they see morality as absolute or relative) actually predicts their attitudes better than political ideology does. Moral absolutists are more likely to support bans on behaviors they find morally wrong, whereas moral relativists, even when they care deeply about an issue, are less inclined to favor outright bans. In other words, it’s not just what you believe that matters, but how you think about morality itself.”</p>
<p>The research is not without its limitations. “Our research focused mainly on the liberal–conservative divide, but there are other ways to organize political beliefs,” Goyal noted. “Future work should explore how moral absolutism and relativism align with alternative ideological dimensions such as libertarianism vs authoritarianism, for example.”</p>
<p>“I’m leading a line of research on moral absolutism versus relativism, essentially, why some people see morality in black-and-white terms while others see shades of gray. My coauthors and I have found that this isn’t just about opinions; it reflects a deep psychological difference in how people view the world. Looking ahead, our goal is to understand what shapes these moral outlooks and how they influence everyday choices, from financial decisions to attitudes toward immigration and social issues. Ultimately, we hope this work can help bridge divides in increasingly polarized societies by shedding light on how people with very different moral lenses can still find common ground.”</p>
<p>The findings provide a framework for understanding one of the most persistent divides in modern politics: whether personal moral judgments should be private guides or universal rules. However, the research should not be misinterpreted as an argument for one philosophy over the other.</p>
<p>“One philosophy isn’t better than the other,” Goyal told PsyPost. “I’d hate for people to walk away thinking moral absolutism is ‘bad’ or moral relativism is ‘good.’ Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Moral absolutism can provide clarity, consistency, and a strong sense of conviction, it helps people stand firm for what they believe is right, even under pressure. Moral relativism, on the other hand, allows for openness, empathy, and flexibility, it helps people understand diverse perspectives and adapt to complex situations.”</p>
<p>“The point of the research isn’t to take sides, but to show that our moral outlook, whether absolute or relative, shapes how we approach disagreements and policy preferences. Understanding that difference can help us communicate across divides more effectively.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000464" target="_blank">Moral Absolutism Drives Support for Bans: Unpacking Ideological Differences in the Moral Philosophies of Conservatives and Liberals</a>,” was authored by Namrata Goyal, Lorenzo De Gregori, Yuqi Liu, and Krishna Savani.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-dementia-research-reveals-disturbing-effect-of-air-pollutant-on-your-brain/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New dementia research reveals disturbing effect of air pollutant on your brain</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 10th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu4132" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Science</a></em> provides evidence that long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution plays a role in triggering a form of dementia linked to the buildup of abnormal proteins in the brain. The researchers found that air pollution appears to promote the formation of harmful protein clusters associated with Lewy body dementia, potentially increasing the risk of developing the disease.</p>
<p>Fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, consists of tiny airborne particles produced by vehicle emissions, industrial activity, wildfires, and other sources. Previous research has suggested that PM2.5 exposure is associated with a higher likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of cognitive decline.</p>
<p>However, the specific link between PM2.5 and Lewy body dementia has been less clear. Lewy body dementia, which includes Parkinson’s disease with dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies, is marked by the accumulation of a protein called alpha-synuclein in brain cells. The researchers aimed to understand whether air pollution might directly contribute to the abnormal behavior of this protein, potentially helping to explain how environmental pollutants influence brain aging and disease.</p>
<p>“My interest in this topic is rooted in personal experience and my scientific background. I lived in Beijing for nine years during a period of significant air pollution. My doctoral work focused on protein aggregation, and my training was in nanoscience, which gave me a particular interest in the effects of small particulate matter. When I established my own lab in 2017, I combined these interests, making the connection between air pollution and dementia my very first project,” said study author <a href="https://chonggemao.wixsite.com/jhmi">Xiaobo Mao</a>, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.</p>
<p>“Scientifically, while large-scale studies had already shown a correlation between air pollution and dementia in general, the specific molecular mechanisms were still a ‘black box.’ Furthermore, the link between air pollution and Lewy body dementia—the second most common form of neurodegenerative dementia—was a major scientific blind spot and essentially unknown. We saw a critical need to investigate whether this widespread environmental exposure could be a risk factor for Lewy body dementia.”</p>
<p>To explore this question, the research team used a combination of large-scale human data and animal experiments. The study began by examining the medical records of more than 56 million older adults in the United States who were enrolled in Medicare between 2000 and 2014. The researchers looked specifically at first-time hospital admissions for conditions related to Lewy body dementia and then used the patients’ ZIP code data to estimate long-term exposure to PM2.5 in their neighborhoods.</p>
<p>The analysis showed that people living in areas with higher PM2.5 levels had a greater risk of being hospitalized with Lewy body dementia. Specifically, each interquartile increase in PM2.5 exposure was linked to a 17 percent increase in the risk of Parkinson’s disease with dementia and a 12 percent increase in dementia with Lewy bodies. These associations were stronger than those reported in previous studies examining all forms of dementia together. The researchers adjusted for a wide range of potential confounding factors, including socioeconomic status, regional differences, and weather patterns.</p>
<p>“In a large-scale epidemiological study of 56.5 million older Americans, we found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter was strongly associated with a higher risk of first-time hospital admissions for Lewy body dementia,” Mao told PsyPost.</p>
<p>To explore the biological basis for this connection, the team conducted a series of experiments in mice. Some mice were genetically normal, while others had been modified to lack the gene responsible for making alpha-synuclein. A third group carried a human gene mutation that causes early-onset Parkinson’s disease. The mice were exposed to PM2.5 by administering small amounts of polluted air directly into their nasal passages every other day for several months, mimicking real-world exposure scenarios.</p>
<p>Mice with normal alpha-synuclein showed clear signs of brain changes after PM2.5 exposure. These included shrinkage of brain regions involved in memory and decision-making, death of brain cells, and impairments in tasks that tested learning and memory. In contrast, mice that lacked alpha-synuclein did not show these changes, suggesting that the presence of this protein was necessary for the harmful effects of air pollution to appear.</p>
<p>Mice with the Parkinson’s-linked gene mutation were also especially vulnerable. After five months of pollution exposure, they developed widespread deposits of alpha-synuclein in their brains and began to show signs of cognitive decline. When the researchers studied the physical structure of these protein clusters, they found that the clumps were distinct from those seen in normal aging. Instead, the structures resembled the harmful forms of alpha-synuclein found in the brains of people with Lewy body dementia.</p>
<p>“A particularly striking finding came from our experiments with mice,” Mao explained. “We found that after 10 months of exposure to PM2.5, wild-type mice showed significant brain atrophy, neuronal death, and dementia-like effects. The truly surprising discovery was that in mice genetically engineered to lack the alpha-synuclein gene, these effects did not occur. This provided a direct, causal link between the pollutant, the specific protein, and the resulting brain damage. It definitively showed that alpha-synuclein is the essential mediator connecting the environmental insult to this type of neurodegeneration.”</p>
<p>To investigate whether the findings were limited to specific types of air pollution, the team tested PM2.5 samples collected from China, the United States, and Europe. Regardless of the source, exposure to these particles led to similar changes in the brains of mice, suggesting that the risk may not be restricted to a particular region.</p>
<p>The researchers went a step further by creating a synthetic version of the toxic protein strain formed after PM2.5 exposure. They mixed purified alpha-synuclein with air pollution particles in a laboratory setting and allowed the proteins to form clumps. The resulting strain, which they referred to as PM-PFF, was resistant to breakdown and highly toxic to brain cells. When injected into the brains of mice, it spread through the brain and caused behavioral symptoms similar to those seen in Lewy body dementia. In contrast, a more typical form of alpha-synuclein clumps caused less severe effects.</p>
<p>Further genetic analysis showed that the changes in gene activity in the brains of mice exposed to PM-PFF were remarkably similar to those found in people diagnosed with Lewy body dementia. The overlap was stronger than the similarities observed between mice and patients with Parkinson’s disease who had not developed dementia. This finding supports the idea that PM2.5 exposure creates a specific biological environment in the brain that mimics the pathology of Lewy body dementia more closely than it does other forms of neurodegeneration.</p>
<p>The researchers also observed signs of inflammation and immune system activation in the brains of affected mice. These immune responses matched patterns found in human patients with Lewy body dementia, suggesting that air pollution may not only trigger protein buildup but also contribute to broader disruptions in brain health.</p>
<p>“Our most novel finding is that PM2.5 exposure acts as a catalyst, causing the alpha-synuclein protein to misfold into a distinct and highly aggressive toxic ‘strain,'” Mao said. “This pollution-induced strain is more resistant to being broken down by cells, more toxic to neurons, and more effective at spreading pathology throughout the brain. This effect was consistent for samples collected from Asia, North America, and Europe.”</p>
<p>“Protecting our air is critical for protecting our brains. The most powerful implication of our work is in the realm of public health and prevention. Our findings provide strong biological evidence to support stricter air quality regulations. Reducing air pollution is not just about respiratory and cardiovascular health; it is a critical public health strategy for preserving cognitive function and reducing the societal burden of dementia.”</p>
<p>While these findings provide a compelling link between air pollution and Lewy body dementia, the authors acknowledge some limitations. In the human portion of the study, hospital admission data served as a proxy for disease onset, which means the analysis could not directly determine when symptoms began. Additionally, the researchers relied on ZIP code data to estimate pollution exposure, which does not account for individual behaviors, time spent indoors, or other factors that might influence personal exposure levels.</p>
<p>In the animal studies, the researchers used nasal administration of pollution particles rather than full-body inhalation. This method allowed for consistent and controlled delivery of PM2.5 but may differ from real-world exposure patterns. The duration of the study was also relatively short in the context of human aging, which can unfold over decades.</p>
<p>The findings suggest a need for more research to understand which components of PM2.5 are most harmful and whether reducing pollution exposure could lower the risk of Lewy body dementia. Future work may also explore how genetic risk factors interact with environmental exposures to influence disease outcomes.</p>
<p>“Our long-term goals follow two main paths,” Mao explained. “Deconstruct the Pollutant: We plan to pinpoint which specific chemical components within are responsible for creating the toxic -synuclein strain. This could lead to more targeted and effective environmental regulations. We want to understand precisely how these pollutants interact with the body to trigger disease.”</p>
<p>“Understand Personal Vulnerability: We will explore gene-environment interactions. By combining large-scale genetic data with pollution exposure data, we hope to understand why some individuals are more susceptible to the neurotoxic effects of air pollution. This will help us build a more complete picture of dementia risk and move closer to personalized prevention strategies.”</p>
<p>“Ultimately, our lab’s direction is centered on understanding why these protein aggregates form and how to solve the problems they create.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu4132" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lewy body dementia promotion by air pollutants</a>,” was authored by Xiaodi Zhang, Haiqing Liu, Xiao Wu, Longgang Jia, Kundlik Gadhave, Lena Wang, Kevin Zhang, Hanyu Li, Rong Chen, Ramhari Kumbhar, Ning Wang, Chantelle E. Terrillion, Bong Gu Kang, Bin Bai, Minhan Park, Ma. Cristine Faye Denna, Shu Zhang, Wenqiang Zheng, Denghui Ye, Xiaoli Rong, Liu Yang, Lili Niu, Han Seok Ko, Weiyi Peng, Lingtao Jin, Mingyao Ying, Liana S. Rosenthal, David W. Nauen, Alex Pantelyat, Mahima Kaur, Kezia Irene, Liuhua Shi, Rahel Feleke, Sonia García-Ruiz, Mina Ryten, Valina L. Dawson, Francesca Dominici, Rodney J. Weber, Xuan Zhang, Pengfei Liu, Ted M. Dawson, Shizhong Han, and Xiaobo Mao.</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/an-ai-chatbots-feedback-style-can-alter-your-brain-activity-during-learning/" 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;">An AI chatbot’s feedback style can alter your brain activity during learning</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 9th 2025, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study shows that the type of feedback an educational chatbot provides can significantly alter not only how well students learn but also which parts of their brains become active during the process. Research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00311-8" target="_blank">npj Science of Learning</a></em> reveals that feedback designed to make students reflect on their learning process enhances their ability to apply knowledge, while encouraging feedback is better for retaining facts.</p>
<p>Scientists are increasingly exploring how artificial intelligence can support education. Chatbots, which can offer one-on-one guidance and instant feedback, are a popular tool. However, the design of this feedback is important. Past research often focused on simple corrective feedback, like telling a student if an answer is right or wrong. </p>
<p>Jiaqi Yin and fellow researchers at East China Normal University and Zhejiang University wanted to look at different kinds of non-corrective feedback that support the learning process itself. They were interested in how feedback that promotes self-reflection (metacognitive) or provides emotional support (affective) might change learning outcomes and the underlying brain mechanisms. By using brain imaging, they hoped to gain a deeper understanding of why certain feedback strategies might be more effective than others.</p>
<p>To investigate these questions, the research team recruited ninety-three college students and divided them into three groups. Each student learned about the human cardiovascular system by interacting with a specially designed chatbot. The learning material was broken down into fifteen modules. After each module, students would assess their own understanding, and the chatbot would provide a specific type of feedback based on the group the student was assigned to.</p>
<p>One group received metacognitive feedback. This feedback consisted of questions that prompted students to reflect on their learning strategies and understanding. For example, the chatbot might ask, “Are you confident in mastering the above content?” or “What is the most challenging part?” The goal was to encourage students to actively monitor and regulate their own learning.</p>
<p>A second group received affective feedback. This feedback was designed to be encouraging and emotionally supportive. If a student indicated they understood a concept, the chatbot might say, “Great! I believe you will do better in the future learning.” If they struggled, it might offer reassurance, such as, “Don’t be discouraged; it’s normal to have difficulty understanding when you’re just starting to learn.”</p>
<p>The third group served as a control and received neutral feedback. Regardless of their self-assessment, the chatbot would simply say, “Let’s take a break first and then continue with our learning.” This provided a baseline to compare the effects of the other two more active forms of feedback.</p>
<p>Throughout the entire chatbot interaction, the students wore a device that performed functional near-infrared spectroscopy. This non-invasive brain imaging technique uses light to measure changes in blood oxygen levels in the brain’s cortex, the outer layer. An increase in oxygenated blood in a particular area suggests that region is more active. The device’s sensors were placed over the prefrontal cortex, an area involved in high-level thinking, and the right temporoparietal areas, which are related to social and emotional processing. After the learning session, all students completed a retention test to see how much information they remembered and a transfer test, which required them to apply their new knowledge to solve unfamiliar problems.</p>
<p>The behavioral results showed clear differences between the groups. Students who received metacognitive feedback performed significantly better on the transfer test than students in the other two groups. This suggests that prompting students to think about their own learning process helps them develop a deeper understanding that can be applied more flexibly. This group also showed the highest metacognitive sensitivity, meaning they were more accurate at judging whether their answers were correct or incorrect.</p>
<p>When it came to simply remembering facts, both the metacognitive and affective feedback groups outperformed the neutral feedback group. Their scores on the retention test were significantly higher. This indicates that feedback that engages students either strategically or emotionally is more effective for memory consolidation than a simple, non-engaging prompt.</p>
<p>The brain imaging data provided a window into the neural processes behind these behavioral differences. All three groups showed activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with working memory and sustained attention. This was expected, as the learning task required students to hold information in mind and focus.</p>
<p>However, each feedback type was also linked to unique patterns of brain activity. The metacognitive feedback group showed greater activation in the frontopolar area and the middle temporal gyrus. The frontopolar area is considered critical for complex reasoning, planning, and self-reflection. The middle temporal gyrus is involved in processing the meaning of words and concepts. Increased activity in these regions supports the idea that metacognitive feedback encouraged deeper, more meaningful engagement with the material.</p>
<p>The group receiving affective feedback showed higher activation in the supramarginal gyrus. This brain region is part of a network involved in understanding the thoughts and feelings of others, as well as processing emotional cues. This suggests that the encouraging words from the chatbot prompted students to engage in more social and emotional processing during their interaction. The neutral feedback group, by contrast, had higher activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex compared to the other groups, possibly indicating they devoted more mental resources to the basic task demands without the additional cognitive load of metacognitive or affective processing.</p>
<p>The researchers also found direct links between brain activity and learning outcomes. In the metacognitive feedback group, the level of activation in the frontopolar area was positively correlated with the students’ metacognitive sensitivity. This provides a strong neurological link, suggesting that the self-reflective prompts directly engaged the brain’s self-monitoring systems, which in turn improved students’ ability to assess their own knowledge.</p>
<p>To explore the link between brain activity and the difficult-to-achieve skill of knowledge transfer, the team used a machine learning model. This model analyzed complex patterns in the brain activity data to predict students’ scores on the transfer test. The model was highly accurate and identified several key brain regions as important predictors. Across all groups, activity in the frontopolar area, supramarginal gyrus, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex helped predict transfer success. This finding suggests that effective knowledge transfer relies on an interplay of metacognitive, emotional, and core cognitive processes.</p>
<p>The study’s authors acknowledge some limitations. The experiment did not account for individual student characteristics, such as motivation or preferred learning style, which could influence how they respond to feedback. The feedback was also standardized rather than personalized. Additionally, functional near-infrared spectroscopy can only measure activity in the outer regions of the brain.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the research provides important insights for designing educational technologies. The findings suggest that different types of feedback can be strategically used to achieve different learning goals. To help students develop a deep understanding and the ability to apply knowledge in new contexts, chatbots should incorporate metacognitive prompts that encourage reflection. To help students with memory and motivation, affective or encouraging feedback may be beneficial. Future research could use these findings to develop adaptive chatbots that monitor a student’s brain activity in real time and deliver the most effective type of feedback for their specific needs.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00311-8" target="_blank">Effects of different AI-driven Chatbot feedback on learning outcomes and brain activity</a>,” was authored by Jiaqi Yin, Haoxin Xu, Yafeng Pan, and Yi Hu.</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/populist-appeals-often-signal-ideology-even-when-no-policies-are-mentioned/" 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;">Populist appeals often signal ideology, even when no policies are mentioned</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 9th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Politicians who use populist language that emphasizes the will of “the people” and criticizes corrupt elites tend to be perceived as more aligned with certain policy positions—even when no explicit policies are mentioned. That’s one of the central findings of a new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2025.10018" target="_blank">Journal of Experimental Political Science</a></em>. The research provides evidence that common ways of measuring populist attitudes may also unintentionally affect perceptions of politicians’ broader ideological positions, such as conservatism or support for immigration restrictions.</p>
<p>The findings suggest that what political scientists often call “thin” populist ideology—language that pits a morally pure public against a corrupt elite—can sometimes serve as a stand-in for more substantive positions that researchers refer to as “host” ideologies. This overlap presents a challenge for research that aims to isolate the impact of populist rhetoric from the policy content that typically accompanies it.</p>
<p><a href="https://sites.google.com/asu.edu/fabianneuner" target="_blank">Fabian Guy Neuner</a>, an associate professor at Arizona State University, designed the study to address a recurring issue in political science research on populism. While many scholars adopt a definition of populism that focuses on people-centered and anti-elite appeals, these traits are often studied in combination with more detailed ideological positions such as nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment, or economic redistribution.</p>
<p>“One of the questions in my broader research agenda is why people vote for populist politicians,” Neuner told PsyPost. “My previous work in Germany and the United States has sought to unpack whether people vote for these parties and politicians ‘thin ideology’ (i.e. their people-centric, anti-elite etc.) positions or whether they are attracted to their ‘host ideology’ (i.e. the policy positions such as nativism that populist also espouse).” </p>
<p>“Our work and a number of other papers have used conjoint experiments to disentangle these two potential causal factors. This literature suggests that people are attracted to the host ideology rather than the thin ideology. Thus, while political scientists rely on the ‘thin ideology’ framework to classify parties and voters as populists, this is not the driving factor affecting peoples’ vote choice.”</p>
<p>“A growing number of papers are examining this question using a variety of different experimental treatments to operationalize ‘thin populist’ appeals. For instance, politicians might be described as being ‘for the people’ or ‘for the American people.’ My concern with some of this literature was that some of these experimental manipulations might be inadvertently also manipulating perceptions of “host ideology”, thus making it nearly impossible to causally disentangle the effects of thin and host ideology.” </p>
<p>“For instance, if a voter is drawn to a candidate saying “I am for the American people” is this because of the people-centrism element of the appeal or is it because people make inferences about the candidate’s issue positions (for instance their stance on immigration)? As these papers all use conjoint experiments, they do not include manipulation checks to verify what the treatment is doing.”</p>
<p>“When the <em>Journal of Experimental Political Science</em> issued <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/announcements/call-for-papers/call-for-papers-special-issue-on-validating-experimental-manipulations" target="_blank">a call for a special issue on validating experimental manipulations</a>, I saw an opportunity to examine this question,” Neuner said. “The paper thus had two aims. First to validate whether commonly used ‘thin populism’ treatments truly manipulate perceptions of thin ideology. And, second, whether they do so without also manipulating host ideology.” </p>
<p>“Beyond the populism case, this paper is relevant for scholars using conjoint experiments as it highlights the importance of validating experimental treatments and showcases how design choices in conjoint experiments can mask true causal factors (i.e. in this case people using the thin ideology treatment to make inferences about host ideology).”</p>
<p>To investigate, Neuner conducted a series of experiments using a method known as a conjoint analysis. This approach allows researchers to present study participants with pairs of hypothetical politicians who vary across different characteristics, including their language and message framing. Participants are then asked to compare the two figures based on how they perceive them—for example, whether they seem people-focused, anti-elite, conservative, or supportive of immigration.</p>
<p>Neuner’s study involved three large surveys. One was conducted in the United States with over 1,400 respondents in May 2024. Another, with more than 600 participants, was conducted in the United Kingdom in March 2025. These two national samples allowed Neuner to explore whether the findings would hold in different political and cultural contexts. A split-sample design was used in the U.S. study to explore how additional information—such as a candidate’s political party—might influence responses.</p>
<p>Participants read descriptions of hypothetical politicians that varied in their use of people-centric or anti-elite language. Some descriptions referred generally to “the people,” while others included more specific language, such as “the American people” or “hardworking citizens.” Similarly, anti-elite phrases ranged from vague terms like “corrupt elites” to more pointed language such as “out-of-touch bureaucrats” or “Washington insiders.” The study also included control conditions in which no populist language was used.</p>
<p>Neuner then measured how participants rated the politicians on characteristics related to populist thin ideology (such as being people-centric or anti-elite) and on host ideology (such as being conservative or likely to support reducing immigration).</p>
<p>The findings suggest that the treatments worked as intended in shifting perceptions of thin populism. Politicians who used people-centric or anti-elite language were more likely to be seen as embracing those values. This was consistent across different phrasings and across both the U.S. and U.K. samples. For instance, statements like “politicians should always listen to the people” or “many in the political class are crooked” were more often attributed to the candidates who had used populist language.</p>
<p>However, the effects on perceptions of host ideology were more mixed—and more concerning for researchers aiming to isolate populist language. In some cases, participants inferred that politicians using populist language were also more conservative or more likely to support reducing immigration, even when the descriptions made no reference to these issues. This effect was particularly noticeable when the language included explicit group labels, such as “the American people” or “honest, hardworking citizens.” In these cases, participants were more likely to assume that the politician was aligned with conservative positions.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the anti-elite messages showed different patterns. References to “corrupt elites” strongly affected perceptions of anti-elitism but did not consistently influence perceptions of policy preferences. In the U.K. sample, however, the same “corrupt elites” phrasing increased the likelihood that participants believed the candidate would support stricter immigration policies, suggesting that context may shape how these messages are received.</p>
<p>Another part of the study tested whether providing additional information—like a candidate’s political party—would change these inferences. Here, the evidence was more tentative. When participants were told a politician was a Democrat or Republican, the effect of some populist phrases on perceptions of conservatism was reduced. For example, the assumption that a candidate who referenced “the American people” was conservative weakened when the candidate’s party affiliation was also shown. Still, this pattern did not hold consistently across all outcomes.</p>
<p>Neuner also explored whether individual-level traits like partisanship or populist attitudes changed how people responded to the messages. While some variation emerged, the main findings appeared broadly consistent regardless of the participant’s political orientation.</p>
<p>“This is primarily an article about research design targeted at scholars working on populism or those who use conjoint experiments more broadly,” Neuner told PsyPost. “The take-away for those scholars should be to be careful when designing experiments and to validate their treatments.”</p>
<p>“The findings from the larger research agenda about the role of host ideology in driving support for populist politicians and parties are more relevant to the broader public. In terms of this paper, the takeaway for the average person might be to think about that what might sound “populist” (i.e. people-centric or anti-elite rhetoric) to some people may be perceived as much more connected to host ideologies such as nativism for other people.”</p>
<p>As with all experimental work, the study has its limitations. One challenge is that participants were reacting to hypothetical politicians in a survey, which may not fully reflect how people respond to real candidates in real elections. The study also focused on a limited set of phrases, which, while drawn from actual research, do not capture the full variety of populist rhetoric used in the real world.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that perceptions of ideology were measured indirectly, through comparisons and ratings, rather than by asking participants directly whether they thought a message was populist. While this avoids some of the confusion around how people define populism, it may also miss other interpretations of the messages.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study provides important insights for political scientists. It highlights the importance of validating the tools researchers use to study voter attitudes, especially when trying to tease apart the effects of different components of political communication. It also provides evidence that even small changes in wording—such as invoking “American” rather than just “people”—can affect how political messages are received.</p>
<p>Looking ahead, Neuner suggests that more work is needed to understand how thin populist rhetoric interacts with broader ideological assumptions, especially across different national contexts. He also sees a need for better tools to help researchers distinguish between the rhetorical style of populism and the policy positions that often accompany it.</p>
<p>“More broadly, my research is unpacking the drivers of populist voting and comparing the role of thin and host ideology (see e.g., <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644008.2025.2483225" target="_blank">here</a>),” Neuner explained. “In particular, this research seeks to explain why we see large effects for thin ideology (e.g., people’s populist attitudes) in observational research but not in experimental research.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2025.10018" target="_blank">Can (Thin) Populism be Manipulated without Manipulating Host Ideology – Evidence from a Conjoint Validation Approach</a>,” was published on September 11, 2025.</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/parental-autistic-traits-linked-to-early-developmental-difficulties-in-children/" 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;">Parental autistic traits linked to early developmental difficulties in children</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 9th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of the Japan Environment and Children’s Study data revealed that parents, both mothers and fathers, with higher levels of autistic traits tended to have young children (at 6 and 12 months of age) with developmental difficulties more often than their peers with lower levels of autistic traits. The paper was published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254251351942" target="_blank">International Journal of Behavioral Development</a></em>.</p>
<p>Autism, or autism spectrum disorder, is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by differences in social communication, restricted interests, and repetitive behaviors. Research consistently demonstrates that autism is highly heritable, with many genes contributing small effects. Studies of twins show higher autism concordance rates in identical twins than in fraternal twins, highlighting genetic influence.</p>
<p>However, genetics are not the only factor contributing to autism. Environmental factors, such as advanced parental age, prenatal exposures, or complications during pregnancy, may also interact with genetic predispositions to increase the likelihood that autism will develop. Nevertheless, children of autistic parents are at an increased likelihood of being diagnosed with autism themselves.</p>
<p>This connection is not limited to a formal diagnosis of autism. Parents who display traits of the broader autism phenotype, i.e., mild psychological traits related to autism not severe enough to receive a diagnosis, such as social rigidity or communication differences, are also more likely to have children with autism or with elevated levels of autistic traits.</p>
<p>Study author Kumi Hirokawa and her colleagues wanted to investigate whether parents’ level of autistic traits is associated with their children’s developmental difficulties at 6 and 12 months of age. These researchers analyzed data from Japan’s Environment and Children’s Study (JECS). JECS is a national, government-funded study that recruited pregnant Japanese women between 2011 and 2014. They were recruited from 15 regional centers in Japan: Hokkaido, Miyagi, Fukushima, Chiba, Kanagawa, Koshin, Toyama, Aichi, Kyoto, Osaka, Hyogo, Tottori, Kochi, Fukuoka, and South Kyushu and Okinawa.</p>
<p>The dataset collected in this way included data from 96,465 mothers in the second or third trimester of pregnancy and 51,898 fathers. However, after excluding participants with missing data, infants with various developmental disorders, and a number of other exclusions, a total of 31,079 mother and father pairs were available for analysis.<br>
Study authors used data on participants’ autistic trait levels (assessed using the Autism Spectrum Quotient) and their children’s developmental difficulties at 5-6 months and 11-12 months of age (the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition).</p>
<p>Results showed that girls tended to exhibit fewer difficulties in communication, problem-solving, and personal-social domains than boys. Children of mothers with pronounced autistic traits tended to have more developmental difficulties at both 6 and 12 months of age. Children of fathers with more pronounced autistic traits tended to have more developmental difficulties at 12 months of age compared to children of fathers with less pronounced autistic traits, but not at 6 months. More specifically, fathers’ autistic traits were only associated with developmental difficulties in girls at 12 months.</p>
<p>“In conclusion, sex differences were observed in ratings of developmental difficulties at 12 months of age, revealing that girls were rated less developmental difficulties compared with boys. Mothers’ BAP status [broader autism phenotype, the level of autistic traits] was strongly associated with child’s developmental difficulties at 6 and 12 months, indicating that children whose mothers had BAP were rated to have more severe developmental difficulties compared with the other groups. In addition, fathers’ BAP was significantly associated with children’s developmental difficulties at 12 months, especially for girls,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between parents’ autistic traits and children’s development. However, it should be noted that both autistic trait levels and developmental difficulties of children were reported (or self-reported) by parents, leaving room for reporting bias to have affected the results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254251351942">Associations between parents’ broader autism phenotype and children’s developmental difficulty scores at 6 and 12months: A prospective study,</a>” was authored by Kumi Hirokawa, Sachiko Baba, Satoyo Ikehara, Meishan Cui, Naomi Kitano, Hirofumi Nakayama, Keiichi Ozono, Hiroyasu Iso, and Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group.</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/a-new-study-identifies-two-key-ingredients-that-make-a-woman-a-threatening-romantic-rival/" 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;">A new study identifies two key ingredients that make a woman a threatening romantic rival</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Oct 9th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study suggests that women perceive other women as formidable romantic rivals based on a combination of two distinct factors: their apparent willingness to compete for men and their physical ability to attract them. The research, published in the journal <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-74259-001" target="_blank">Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences</a></em>, provides a new framework for understanding the complex social calculations women make when assessing competitors and potential friends.</p>
<p>Scientists have long recognized that women actively compete with one another to attract desirable partners. This competition can have significant social consequences, affecting friendships, romantic relationships, and even mental health. Research led by Laureon A. Merrie aimed to create a clearer model of this dynamic by asking a fundamental question: what specific characteristics cause one woman to see another as a threatening rival? </p>
<p>The team proposed that the perception of threat could be broken down into two components. The first is a rival’s competitive intent, or her willingness to compete, which might be signaled by behaviors like flirting. The second is her competitive capacity, or her ability to succeed, which is often signaled by physical attractiveness.</p>
<p>To test this model, the researchers conducted three separate experiments involving a total of 1,169 heterosexual female university students in the United States. In the first experiment, participants read a short story where they imagined being single at a wedding and interested in a man named Jacob. They then encountered an acquaintance named Zoe. </p>
<p>The story varied in its description of Zoe’s behavior and appearance. In some versions, Zoe showed high competitive intent by actively flirting with Jacob. In other versions, she showed low competitive intent by directing the same flirty behaviors toward her own long-term boyfriend. Separately, Zoe was described as either highly physically attractive (high competitive capacity) or not very attractive (low competitive capacity).</p>
<p>The results showed that both components independently contributed to how threatening Zoe appeared. Women who were described as actively competing for Jacob were seen as more threatening than those who were not. Likewise, women described as physically attractive were seen as more threatening than those who were not. The woman perceived as the most significant rival of all was the one who was both highly attractive and actively flirting with the desired man. </p>
<p>When it came to social consequences, however, the two factors had different effects. Participants reported they would be most likely to act aggressively toward a woman showing high competitive intent, regardless of her physical attractiveness. In contrast, participants expressed a greater desire to befriend a woman who was physically attractive.</p>
<p>The second experiment used a different scenario involving a casual party to see if the findings would hold. This study also included conditions where participants received information about only one of the two factors. For example, some participants were told Zoe was highly attractive but were given no information about her behavior. Others were told she was flirting but received no description of her appearance. This design allowed the researchers to see what assumptions women make when information is incomplete.</p>
<p>This experiment confirmed the findings from the first study. Both a woman’s apparent intent to compete and her capacity to do so increased her perceived level of threat. Again, the intent to compete was the primary driver of potential aggression from other women. The new part of this experiment revealed an interesting pattern in participants’ assumptions. When told a woman was physically attractive, participants tended to infer that she also had a high intent to compete for men. The reverse was not true; when participants were told a woman was actively flirting, they did not automatically assume she was physically attractive.</p>
<p>In the third and final experiment, the researchers explored how a woman’s efforts to enhance her appearance affect these perceptions. Participants read about meeting a woman named Zoe at a dinner party. Zoe’s appearance was described in one of three ways: low enhancement (wearing baggy sweats with no makeup), high enhancement with a style suggesting a longer-term dating strategy (a long dress and natural makeup), or high enhancement with a style suggesting a shorter-term dating strategy (a short dress and red lipstick). This study also included male participants, who rated their own attraction to the woman in each description.</p>
<p>The findings showed that women who enhanced their appearance were perceived as having both greater intent to compete and greater capacity to compete compared to the woman who did not. Consequently, they were also seen as more threatening rivals. The style of enhancement also mattered for social outcomes. Female participants reported a greater willingness to be friends with the woman whose appearance suggested a longer-term dating strategy compared to the one whose style suggested a shorter-term strategy. The study also found that women’s perceptions of threat were in line with men’s ratings of attraction. The versions of Zoe that women found most threatening were the same ones that male participants rated as most sexually and romantically appealing.</p>
<p>The research has some limitations. The studies relied on participants from a specific group, young university students in the United States, so the findings may not apply to women of different ages or in different cultures. The use of written scenarios may not fully capture the complexities of real-life social interactions. The researchers also note that in the first two experiments, the woman who was low in competitive intent was also in a committed relationship, which itself could have made her seem like a more appealing friend for reasons unrelated to competition.</p>
<p>Future research could explore these dynamics in different populations and cultural contexts. Scientists could also investigate the cues that signal competitive intent for longer-term relationships, as the scenarios in this study focused more on immediate attraction. The researchers suggest that the core components of competitive intent and capacity are likely universal in assessing rivals, but the specific behaviors and features that signal them may vary. This work helps to explain how women navigate a complex social world, weighing the potential risks of a formidable rival against the potential benefits of a powerful friend.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ebs0000372" target="_blank">Who is a Mating Rival? Women Track Other Women’s Intent and Capacity to Compete for Mates</a>,” was authored by Laureon A. Merrie, Jaimie Arona Krems, and Jennifer Byrd-Craven.</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>