<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/college-women-willing-to-pay-more-for-contraception-when-abortion-is-illegal/" 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;">College women willing to pay more for contraception when abortion is illegal</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 5th 2025, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study suggests that the legal status of abortion impacts how college women value contraceptives. Researchers found that when women imagine a scenario where abortion is illegal, they demonstrate a higher willingness to pay for emergency contraception and condoms. These findings appeared in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03181-8" target="_blank">Archives of Sexual Behavior</a></em>.</p>
<p>College is often a period characterized by increased independence and sexual exploration. This life stage carries heightened risks for sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies. The decision-making process regarding safe sex has become more complicated following recent changes in reproductive laws across the United States.</p>
<p>Researchers sought to understand the cognitive processes behind contraceptive use in this shifting legal landscape. They aimed to measure how the availability of abortion services influences the perceived value of preventative measures. The investigation was led by Jin H. Yoon from UTHealth McGovern Medical School.</p>
<p>Yoon collaborated with a team from Clemson University and the University of Houston-Clear Lake. The team employed a framework known as behavioral economics to analyze these decisions. This field combines principles from psychology and economics to explain why people make specific choices.</p>
<p>Behavioral economics often utilizes concepts like “demand” and “delay discounting” to quantify decision-making. Demand measures how much a person wants a product as its cost increases. This cost does not always refer to monetary price.</p>
<p>It can also refer to barriers such as time, effort, or inconvenience. Delay discounting looks at how a reward loses value if a person must wait to receive it. This concept helps explain impulsive behavior.</p>
<p>An individual might choose a smaller, immediate reward over a larger, delayed one. In the context of sexual health, the immediate reward might be engaging in sex right now. The delayed reward is the future benefit of remaining free from infection or pregnancy.</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 109 cisgender female college students for the study. Participants were between the ages of 18 and 30. All participants reported having heterosexual intercourse within the past year.</p>
<p>The study utilized hypothetical vignettes to assess decision-making. Participants completed tasks on a computer in a laboratory setting. They faced two distinct conditions during the assessment.</p>
<p>In one condition, they were instructed to assume that abortion was legal in their area. In the other condition, they assumed abortion was illegal. This within-subject design allowed researchers to compare how the same individual’s choices changed based on the legal context.</p>
<p>One assessment was the condom purchase task. Participants imagined they met an attractive person at a party or bar. The scenario specified they were not in a committed relationship and the potential partner was leaving town the next day.</p>
<p>They were told there was no other source of birth control available. Participants then indicated whether they would purchase a three-pack of condoms at various prices. The prices ranged from zero dollars up to 500 dollars.</p>
<p>The researchers looked for the “breakpoint” in this task. This is the price at which the participant would refuse to buy the condoms. If they reached this point, they were asked if they would have unprotected sex or abstain entirely.</p>
<p>Another assessment measured condom delay discounting. Participants imagined the same social scenario. They were asked if they would wait to obtain a condom if it delayed sex by specific amounts of time.</p>
<p>The delays ranged from one minute to two hours. Participants used a sliding scale to indicate their willingness to wait. One end of the scale represented “Definitely sex now without a condom.”</p>
<p>The other end represented “Definitely wait for condom.” This measured how much the immediate desire for sex outweighed the safety of condom use as the wait time increased. A third task focused on emergency contraception.</p>
<p>This task was novel to this specific study. Participants imagined they had engaged in unprotected sex the night before. The scenario stated they were near ovulation, meaning the risk of pregnancy was high.</p>
<p>They were asked if they would purchase the “morning-after pill” at various price points. Prices ranged from free to 10,000 dollars. This allowed the researchers to construct a demand curve for emergency contraception.</p>
<p>The results showed a clear shift in behavior based on the hypothetical legal status of abortion. When abortion was framed as illegal, the perceived value of contraceptives increased across all three tasks. This was evident in the condom purchase task.</p>
<p>Participants were willing to pay higher prices for condoms when abortion access was restricted. They were also less likely to be “zero responders.” Zero responders are individuals who refuse to buy condoms even at the lowest prices.</p>
<p>Similar patterns emerged in the delay discounting task. When abortion was imagined as illegal, participants were more willing to wait longer periods to secure a condom. The immediate gratification of sex became less dominant compared to the desire for protection.</p>
<p>The demand for the morning-after pill also saw a significant increase in the illegal abortion condition. Participants indicated a willingness to pay substantially higher amounts to prevent pregnancy. This suggests that restricted abortion access increases the motivational value of backup contraceptive methods.</p>
<p>The study also collected data on the participants’ sexual history. This included questions about past risky behaviors, such as having sex without a condom or having multiple partners. These self-reported histories correlated with the behavioral economic results.</p>
<p>Women who reported a history of higher sexual risk-taking placed a lower value on contraceptives in the tasks. They were less willing to pay for condoms or the morning-after pill. They were also more likely to choose immediate sex over waiting for a condom.</p>
<p>This correlation supports the validity of the hypothetical tasks. It suggests that the computer-based decisions reflect, to some degree, real-world behavioral tendencies. The study also assessed attitudes toward the morning-after pill.</p>
<p>Participants who held positive views about the safety and efficacy of emergency contraception showed higher demand for it. This was true regardless of the abortion legality condition. Knowledge about reproductive health played a role as well.</p>
<p>There are limitations to this research that must be considered. The tasks relied on hypothetical scenarios rather than real-world behavior. Participants stated what they would do, which may differ from their actions in an emotionally charged moment.</p>
<p>The sample consisted primarily of White college students. This demographic profile limits how well the findings apply to other groups. Factors such as income, race, and geographic location likely influence contraceptive decision-making.</p>
<p>The study also used a fixed order for the tasks. Participants always completed the “abortion legal” condition before the “abortion illegal” condition. This could potentially introduce order effects into the data.</p>
<p>The researchers note that the study took place before South Carolina enacted a six-week abortion ban. The legal landscape is shifting rapidly. Future research would benefit from examining these behaviors in states with actual, rather than hypothetical, restrictions.</p>
<p>The results align with real-world trends observed after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Other data sources have shown fluctuations in pharmacy fills for emergency contraception in states with strict abortion bans. This study provides a mechanism to explain those trends.</p>
<p>It suggests that people rationally adjust their valuation of preventative measures when the “cost” of an unintended pregnancy increases. The cost in this case is the inability to access abortion services. Behavioral economics offers a useful tool for predicting public health outcomes.</p>
<p>The development of the emergency contraceptive purchase task is a specific contribution of this work. It provides a new metric for researchers to gauge how policy changes affect health behaviors. Future studies could use this tool to assess the impact of sex education programs.</p>
<p>Understanding these decision-making processes is vital for public health officials. It highlights the link between reproductive rights and preventative health behaviors. As laws continue to evolve, monitoring these behavioral shifts will remain a priority for social scientists.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03181-8" target="_blank">Behavioral Economic Assessment of Contraceptive Use and Abortion Access Among College Cis Women in the U.S.</a>,” was authored by Jin H. Yoon, Irene Pericot‑Valverde, Constanza de Dios, Sarah Voss, Caroline Allen, Catherine Chopade, Haley Neal, Erik G. Ortiz, Kelcy R. Coleman, Vincent Dang, and Lanelle Ochiam.</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/humans-and-ai-both-rate-deliberate-thinkers-as-smarter-than-intuitive-ones/" 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;">Humans and AI both rate deliberate thinkers as smarter than intuitive ones</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 5th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new series of experiments suggests that people consistently view slow, deliberative thinking as a sign of higher intelligence and reliability compared to fast, intuitive thinking, even when both approaches yield accurate results. The findings also indicate that large language models like ChatGPT share this bias against intuition in complex reasoning contexts. This research was published in <em><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00320-8" target="_blank">Communications Psychology</a></em>.</p>
<p>Society often sends mixed messages regarding how human beings should think. Popular culture frequently celebrates the concept of a gut feeling or a sudden flash of insight that leads to success. Famous figures like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs are often cited for their reliance on intuition. At the same time, educational and professional environments typically encourage individuals to take their time and process information thoroughly.</p>
<p>Cognitive scientists classify these two modes as System 1, which is fast and intuitive, and System 2, which is slower and more deliberative. While the mechanics of these systems are well understood in the laboratory, less is known about how the average person perceives and values them in others. T</p>
<p>“There is a long-standing tension in how we talk about thinking: on the one hand, we celebrate ‘gut feelings’ and intuitive experts, and on the other hand we constantly tell people to slow down and think things through. We know a lot about how intuitive and deliberate thinking work in the lab, but we knew much less about how people evaluate these two modes of thought in others,” said study author <a href="https://www.wdeneys.org/" target="_blank">Wim De Neys</a>, CNRS Research Director at LaPsyDÉ (Laboratoire de Psychologie du Développement et de l’Éducation de l’Enfant) at Université Paris Cité.</p>
<p>“Our goal was to map people’s ‘folk theory’ of fast versus slow thinking: when you watch someone reason about a complex problem, do you trust the person who goes with their intuition or the one who takes time to deliberate—and does this change when both are equally accurate? We also wanted to know whether current AI systems, like large language models, have internalized the same human preferences.”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a total of 13 separate studies involving varying methodologies to test these questions. In the first phase, comprising seven studies, they presented participants with short written vignettes. These vignettes described an individual solving a complex reasoning problem using either a fast, intuitive approach or a slow, deliberative one. Some vignettes specified that the individual had high past accuracy, some specified low accuracy, and others gave no accuracy information.</p>
<p>Participants then rated the described reasoners on their intelligence and trustworthiness. In Study 1, the researchers recruited 239 participants to rate these vignettes. To ensure the findings were not a fluke, they replicated the procedure in Studies 2 through 7 with similar sample sizes ranging from 184 to 241 participants. These subsequent studies introduced variations to rule out alternative explanations.</p>
<p>For example, Study 3 used specific numerical scores, such as 95 percent accuracy, to ensure participants understood that the intuitive and deliberative thinkers were equally capable. Study 4 adjusted the phrasing to emphasize that the intuitive thinker did not need to spend time, rather than simply stating they did not spend time. Studies 6 and 7 expanded the demographic pool beyond English speakers, testing participants in France and India respectively.</p>
<p>Across these initial studies, a clear pattern emerged. Participants consistently rated the deliberative thinkers as superior to the intuitive ones. This preference remained strong even when the researchers explicitly stated that the intuitive thinker was just as accurate as the deliberative one. When accuracy information was left out, the preference for the deliberative thinker was even more pronounced.</p>
<p>To test the strength of this preference, the researchers included an incentivized betting task in Study 2. Participants were told they could bet on one of the profiles to solve a problem correctly. If their chosen profile succeeded, the participant received a monetary bonus. The data showed that participants were far more likely to bet their money on the deliberative thinker than the intuitive one.</p>
<p>The researchers then investigated whether artificial intelligence shares this human perspective in Studies 8 and 9. They presented the same vignettes to Large Language Models, specifically ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4. The researchers ran 240 queries with each model to simulate a sample of human participants. The AI models were asked to rate the profiles using the same scales provided to the humans.</p>
<p>The results showed that the AI models replicated the human preference pattern almost exactly. The models consistently rated the slow, deliberative reasoners as more intelligent and reliable than the intuitive ones. </p>
<p>“We expected some preference for deliberation, but we were struck by how robust it was,” De Neys told PsyPost. “It held up when we changed the wording to make intuition sound more efficient, when we gave very precise accuracy information (for example, identical 95% scores for both thinkers), and when we tested participants in different countries.”</p>
<p>The final phase of the research aimed to determine if the preference for deliberation is a result of deep reflection or a snap judgment. To test this, the researchers used time pressure and cognitive load manipulations. In Studies 10 through 13, participants had to rate the vignettes while under strict time limits or while performing a secondary task.</p>
<p>In the time-pressure condition, participants had to provide their ratings within a few seconds. In the cognitive load condition, they were required to memorize complex visual patterns, such as a grid containing multiple crosses, while evaluating the vignettes. This was designed to occupy their working memory, making it difficult to engage in slow, deliberative thinking about the rating task itself.</p>
<p>The researchers found that restricting the ability to think deeply did not eliminate the preference for deliberation. Even when participants had only a few seconds to respond or were mentally occupied with a memory task, they still favored the slow reasoner. This indicates that the belief that “deliberation is better” is itself an intuitive, automatic response. People do not need to think hard to decide that they prefer a hard thinker.</p>
<p>The findings provide evidence that humans hold a strong bias toward equating effortful thinking with quality. The alignment between human and AI responses suggests that language models have encoded this bias from their training data. </p>
<p>“When the task is an objective, complex reasoning problem, people strongly prefer the person who takes their time and deliberates over the one who follows their intuition—even if both are described as being equally accurate in general,” De Neys explained. “Deliberation is treated as a signal of intelligence and trustworthiness: people say they are more likely to follow a slow, effortful reasoner’s advice than an equally successful intuitive one.” </p>
<p>“Interestingly, large language models like ChatGPT show almost exactly the same pattern of preferences when we ask them to evaluate these scenarios. Finally, the preference for deliberation itself seems to be intuitive: people show it even when they have to respond quickly and under cognitive load.”</p>
<p>“Practically, this means that when two people are described as equally accurate problem-solvers, merely saying that one ‘thinks things through carefully’ versus ‘goes with their intuition’ has a strong impact on how good, smart, and trustworthy they are perceived to be.</p>
<p>But there are some caveats to consider. The vignettes focused specifically on objective, complex reasoning problems. It is possible that for subjective decisions, such as choosing a romantic partner or a piece of art, people might prefer intuitive thinking. In those contexts, too much analysis might be seen as cold or inauthentic.</p>
<p>The research also relied on hypothetical scenarios rather than real-world interactions where social context might play a larger role. While the betting task added a real consequence, it was still based on a static profile. In real life, repeated interactions with a successful intuitive thinker might eventually alter a person’s preference.</p>
<p>“A key point is that our study does not show that deliberation is always better than intuition in terms of actual performance,” De Neys noted. “In fact, other work suggests that, for some classic reasoning problems, the best reasoners often arrive at the correct answer intuitively.”</p>
<p>“What we measured here are people’s beliefs about good thinking—who they trust and who they see as intelligent—not the true accuracy of intuition versus deliberation. Another important caveat is that our scenarios focused on complex, objective reasoning tasks; the story may look different for more personal or value-laden decisions, where people might deliberately prefer to ‘go with their gut.'”</p>
<p>Future research could explore how these preferences play out in specific professional domains like medicine or finance. It would be useful to know if patients trust a doctor more if the doctor takes a long time to make a diagnosis. The authors also suggest studying whether people believe reasoning styles are stable traits or flexible behaviors that change with the situation. It remains to be seen if people believe a fast thinker can slow down when necessary.</p>
<p>“One next step is to look more directly at how these folk beliefs shape whose advice we follow in real-life domains, such as medical, financial, or political decision making,” De Neys explained. “On the AI side, it will be important to understand how the way we present a model’s reasoning—fast ‘intuitive’ answers versus long chain-of-thought explanations—affects public trust and willingness to use these tools.”</p>
<p>“One broader message is that even our views about thinking styles are driven by intuitions. Many people have an intuitive belief that ‘good thinking should look effortful,’ which may make us undervalue genuinely skilled intuition in experts. At the same time, this folk preference for deliberation might be helpful when it nudges us to reward people and systems that are transparent about taking time and effort to reason things through.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00320-8" target="_blank">Humans and LLMs rate deliberation as superior to intuition on complex reasoning tasks</a>,” was authored by Wim De Neys and Matthieu Raoelison.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-age-dependent-cognitive-benefits-from-probiotic-consumption/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Study finds age-dependent cognitive benefits from probiotic consumption</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 5th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new meta-analysis suggests that the consumption of probiotics may offer cognitive benefits, particularly for middle-aged and older adults. The research indicates that supplementing with these live bacteria can improve memory, processing speed, and spatial reasoning in aging populations. These findings regarding the relationship between gut health and brain function were published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-025-01660-8"><em>European Journal of Clinical Nutrition</em></a>.</p>
<p>Cognitive abilities encompass the mental processes required for learning, problem-solving, and daily functioning. As individuals age, it is common to experience a gradual decline in these faculties. This can manifest as increased difficulty with memory, lower attention spans, or reduced executive function.</p>
<p>When this decline exceeds normal age-related patterns, it may signal the onset of neurodegenerative conditions. Current projections estimate that the number of people living with dementia could reach 152 million by the year 2050. This looming public health challenge has prompted researchers to identify accessible strategies to support brain health throughout the lifespan.</p>
<p>One area of intense scientific focus is the connection between the gastrointestinal tract and the brain. This biological pathway is often referred to as the gut-brain axis. It proposes that the trillions of microorganisms living in the human digestive system can influence neurological activity.</p>
<p>Previous studies have shown that the composition of gut bacteria often changes in people with neurological disorders. For instance, specific alterations in the microbiome have been observed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Animal studies have further suggested that modifying gut bacteria can encourage the growth of new neurons.</p>
<p>Probiotics are supplements containing live beneficial bacteria intended to restore or enhance this internal ecosystem. Past reviews have attempted to summarize the effects of these supplements on the brain. However, those reviews typically focused on specific subgroups, such as people with Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment.</p>
<p>Less was known about how these effects might differ across the entire human life cycle. HanQing Guo and a team of researchers from Ningxia Medical University in China aimed to address this gap. They sought to determine if the impact of probiotics on brain function varies depending on the age of the individual.</p>
<p>To investigate this, the research team conducted a meta-analysis. This statistical approach involves pooling data from multiple independent studies to identify broader trends and stronger evidence. The investigators searched major medical databases for randomized controlled trials published up to December 2023.</p>
<p>They established strict criteria for which studies to include. Eligible trials had to involve human participants who received at least one strain of live probiotic bacteria. There also had to be a control group for comparison.</p>
<p>The researchers excluded animal studies and observational reports. They also removed studies involving patients with gastrointestinal disorders to isolate the cognitive effects. Ultimately, the team selected 21 randomized controlled trials for their final quantitative analysis.</p>
<p>These 21 studies included a diverse range of participants. The subjects ranged from premature infants to adults over the age of 90. The trials utilized various standardized neuropsychological tests to measure mental performance.</p>
<p>The researchers categorized the data into specific cognitive domains. These domains included global cognition, executive function, processing speed, memory, attention, spatial ability, and verbal language skills. This categorization allowed for a nuanced view of exactly which mental skills were affected.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed that the effects of probiotics are indeed age-dependent. The most significant and broad benefits were observed in the middle-aged and elderly population. In this group, probiotic supplementation was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall cognitive function.</p>
<p>Specific improvements were noted in delayed memory, which is the ability to recall information after a period of time. Older adults taking probiotics also showed faster processing speeds. This refers to the time it takes to perceive information and formulate a response.</p>
<p>Spatial ability also improved in the older demographic. This cognitive skill involves understanding the relationship between objects in physical space. The researchers found that the most effective interventions for this age group typically lasted about 12 weeks.</p>
<p>The effective dosage in these successful trials was often around 20 billion colony-forming units per day. This suggests that a sustained and sufficient intake is necessary to observe benefits in aging brains. The findings support the potential of probiotics as a supportive therapy for age-related cognitive decline.</p>
<p>The results were different for infants and children. The analysis showed no significant improvement in overall cognitive development for the youngest participants. However, there was a specific positive effect on executive function.</p>
<p>Executive function includes high-level skills such as planning, focusing attention, and managing multiple tasks. The researchers noted that these benefits in children appeared to require longer intervention periods. Trials showing positive results in children often involved supplementation lasting six months to three years.</p>
<p>For young adults, defined as those between 18 and 60 years old, the benefits were also narrow in scope. Probiotics did not lead to improvements in global cognition or memory for this group. The only significant change observed was an improvement in verbal ability.</p>
<p>This suggests that a healthy, fully developed brain in its prime may be less sensitive to the cognitive-enhancing effects of probiotics than an aging brain. The ceiling for improvement is likely lower in healthy young adults.</p>
<p>Across all age groups, the study found one consistent non-finding. Probiotic supplementation did not lead to significant improvements in attention span. This suggests that the biological pathways influenced by gut bacteria may not heavily impact the neural networks responsible for sustained attention.</p>
<p>The researchers proposed several biological mechanisms to explain the positive results. One primary theory involves the reduction of inflammation. Chronic inflammation is a known factor in neuronal damage and cognitive decline.</p>
<p>Probiotics may help modulate the immune system and reduce the production of inflammatory markers. This creates a healthier environment for brain cells to function. Another mechanism involves the direct production of neurotransmitters.</p>
<p>Certain strains of gut bacteria can produce chemicals like gamma-aminobutyric acid, dopamine, and serotonin. These chemical messengers are essential for mood regulation and signal transmission in the brain. By increasing the availability of these neurotransmitters, probiotics may support smoother neural communication.</p>
<p>The authors also highlighted the role of brain-derived neurotrophic factor. This is a protein that supports the survival of existing neurons and encourages the growth of new synapses. Some studies included in the analysis suggested that probiotics could increase serum levels of this vital protein.</p>
<p>Despite the positive findings, the authors acknowledge several limitations in their work. The number of high-quality trials available for analysis is still relatively small. Only 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, and some of those had small sample sizes.</p>
<p>There was also considerable variation in the types of probiotics used. The trials employed different strains of bacteria, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, as well as different dosages. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to recommend a specific “brain health” formulation.</p>
<p>The definition of cognitive health also varied across the studies. Some participants were healthy, while others had mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease. This mixture complicates the ability to apply the findings to the general population universally.</p>
<p>Some of the included studies had potential biases. For example, a few trials did not fully blind the participants or personnel to who was receiving the placebo. This could potentially influence the reported outcomes.</p>
<p>The researchers emphasize that probiotics should not be viewed as a cure-all. They are likely most effective when used as part of a broader strategy for health. This strategy should include a balanced diet and regular physical activity.</p>
<p>Future research is needed to validate these findings over longer periods. Longitudinal studies could help determine if the cognitive benefits persist after supplementation stops. Researchers also need to investigate how individual differences in genetics and existing gut flora influence the response to probiotics.</p>
<p>Personalized approaches may be the future of this field. It is possible that different individuals require different bacterial strains to achieve optimal cognitive support. Until then, this study provides promising evidence that caring for the gut may be a viable way to care for the aging brain.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-025-01660-8">Effects of probiotics on cognitive function across the human lifespan: a meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by HanQing Guo, YanHua Liang, XueMei Qin, Qing Luo, XiuMei Gong, and Qinghan Gao.</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/structured-gardening-programs-can-effectively-reduce-mental-health-symptoms/" 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;">Structured gardening programs can effectively reduce mental health symptoms</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 5th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that Social and Therapeutic Horticulture may be an effective intervention for reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety. The findings suggest that structured gardening programs led by trained practitioners can offer mental health benefits compared to control conditions. The research was published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1507354" target="_blank">Frontiers in Psychiatry</a></em>.</p>
<p>Depression and anxiety are the two most prevalent mental health conditions globally. They often occur together and place a substantial burden on healthcare systems. While treatments such as antidepressant medications and psychological therapies exist, they are not effective for everyone. Many patients face challenges with medication adherence or do not achieve full recovery through talking therapies alone. Additionally, the demand for mental health support frequently exceeds the capacity of health services, leading to long waiting lists and delays in care.</p>
<p>Public health officials and medical professionals are increasingly interested in sustainable, community-based treatment options to address this gap. Nature-based interventions have gained attention for their potential to improve well-being. Social and Therapeutic Horticulture, or STH, is a specific type of nature-based intervention that involves the use of plants and gardening activities to improve physical and psychological health. Unlike casual gardening, this therapy is facilitated by trained practitioners who tailor activities to meet specific recovery goals.</p>
<p>The researchers aimed to synthesize existing evidence to determine the effectiveness of these horticultural interventions specifically for depression and anxiety. Previous reviews have often combined various types of gardening or focused on broad well-being outcomes rather than specific clinical symptoms. The new study sought to provide a rigorous analysis of quantitative data to inform future healthcare commissioning and policy.</p>
<p>“Our <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-024-18621-8" target="_blank">previous research</a> exploring the barriers to commissioning social and therapeutic horticulture interventions in mental health care identified that the lack of evidence of its effectiveness for specific conditions (such as depression and anxiety) was a barrier to commissioning. This study was therefore undertaken to strengthen the evidence base and the justification for use of STH interventions in mental health care,” said study author <a href="https://www.essex.ac.uk/people/WOODC96807/carly-wood" target="_blank">Carly J. Wood</a>, a senior lecturer at the University of Essex.</p>
<p>To conduct the study, the investigators followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. They performed a systematic search of multiple scientific databases and grey literature to identify relevant studies published in English. The search included terms related to horticulture, gardening, depression, and anxiety.</p>
<p>The review included studies that met strict eligibility criteria. Participants had to be adults aged eighteen or older who were identified as at risk for, or having symptoms of, depression or anxiety. The interventions were required to be led by trained practitioners and focus primarily on horticultural activities. Studies also needed to report on depression or anxiety outcomes using validated measurement scales.</p>
<p>The researchers identified seventeen unique studies that fit these criteria. These included four randomized controlled trials, ten quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups, and three single-group studies. The total sample consisted of 879 participants. The studies were conducted in several countries, with the majority taking place in Korea and others in the United States, China, Sweden, and Switzerland.</p>
<p>Participants in the included studies represented a diverse range of populations. Some studies focused on individuals with clinical diagnoses of mental health conditions, such as major depressive disorder or schizophrenia. Others involved participants with physical health conditions like stroke or chronic pain, or those in adverse social circumstances, including homeless individuals and elderly people in care facilities.</p>
<p>The interventions took place in various settings. Some were conducted entirely indoors, such as in hospitals or greenhouses, while others utilized outdoor community gardens or university campuses. The activities varied but generally included tasks like sowing seeds, potting plants, digging, weeding, and arranging flowers. The duration of the programs ranged from four weeks to sixteen weeks, with session lengths varying from thirty minutes to several hours.</p>
<p>The researchers extracted data from the eligible studies and performed a random effects meta-analysis to calculate the standardized mean difference. This statistical method allows for the comparison of results across studies that use different scales to measure the same outcome.</p>
<p>For depression, the meta-analysis included eleven studies with comparator groups. The results showed a large and significant effect in favor of the horticultural therapy group. This indicates that participants who engaged in the gardening interventions experienced a greater reduction in depressive symptoms than those in the control groups. When the researchers removed one outlier study involving stroke patients, the effect size remained moderate and significant.</p>
<p>For anxiety, the meta-analysis included six studies with comparator groups. The analysis revealed a moderate and significant effect in favor of the horticultural therapy group. Participants in the intervention groups reported greater reductions in anxiety symptoms compared to those who received standard care or other comparison activities.</p>
<p>The findings provide evidence that “STH interventions can be used to support a range of different treatment approaches for depression and anxiety, with combined global data indicating that these interventions are more effective at reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety that a variety of different comparators,” Wood told PsyPost.</p>
<p>The review also examined whether the setting of the intervention influenced the results. The analysis found no significant difference in effectiveness between interventions conducted indoors and those conducted outdoors or in mixed settings. This suggests that Social and Therapeutic Horticulture can be beneficial regardless of the physical environment, provided it is led by a trained practitioner.</p>
<p>The researchers also explored the impact of symptom severity at the start of the intervention. The beneficial effects were observed in participants with both mild and moderate-to-severe symptoms of depression and anxiety. This implies that horticultural therapy may be suitable for individuals at various stages of mental ill-health.</p>
<p>Despite the positive findings, the researchers noted some limitations in the existing evidence base. The overall quality of the included studies was low, with a high risk of bias. This was often due to the inability to blind participants to the intervention, as individuals know when they are participating in gardening activities. Many studies also lacked long-term follow-up data, making it difficult to determine if the benefits persist over time.</p>
<p>There was significant heterogeneity, or variability, in the results across the studies. This variation may be due to differences in the populations studied, the specific activities involved, and the cultural contexts in which the interventions took place. For instance, the high number of studies from Korea, where gardening has strong cultural roots, might influence the generalizability of the findings to other regions.</p>
<p>Another limitation is the nature of the comparison groups. In most studies, the control group received “treatment as usual” for a primary physical or social condition rather than a standard mental health treatment. Consequently, the review could not determine how Social and Therapeutic Horticulture compares directly to established treatments for depression and anxiety, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or medication.</p>
<p>“A common misconception is that STH is the same as all other types of gardening (e.g. gardening at home, on an allotment or community facility),” Wood noted. “”However, this is not the case. STH is a therapeutic intervention led by a trained practitioner to support individuals with ill-health, disability, or disadvantage in working towards set outcomes or objectives.”</p>
<p>The researchers conclude that Social and Therapeutic Horticulture has the potential to support existing treatment approaches for depression and anxiety. The interventions appear to be effective across a range of settings and for individuals with varying levels of symptom severity. The ability to address mental health needs alongside physical and social rehabilitation makes it a versatile option for diverse patient groups.</p>
<p>Future research should prioritize rigorous randomized controlled trials that compare horticultural therapy directly to standard mental health treatments. The authors suggest that such studies would help establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. They also recommend that future investigations explore the specific mechanisms that drive the observed health improvements.</p>
<p>“To continue to build the evidence base on the effectiveness of STH for mental health, we would like to undertake research to compare its effectiveness to other modes of treatment for depression and anxiety (e.g. talking therapies) and explore whom these interventions work best for and in what circumstances,” Wood said. “This will enable the benefits of STH interventions to be maximized.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1507354" target="_blank">Effectiveness of social and therapeutic horticulture for reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by Carly J. Wood, Jo Barton, and Claire L. Wicks.</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>