<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/infants-who-display-greater-curiosity-tend-to-develop-higher-cognitive-abilities-in-childhood/" 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;">Infants who display greater curiosity tend to develop higher cognitive abilities in childhood</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 27th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A longitudinal study in the Netherlands found that infants who displayed greater curiosity at 8 months of age tended to have higher IQ scores at 3.5 years of age. However, this association was present only in infants who displayed the highest levels of curiosity (one-third of the most curious children). The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.70090"><em>Developmental Science</em></a>.</p>
<p>During infancy, cognitive abilities develop rapidly. Infants very swiftly acquire basic knowledge about the world and develop various skills, from the motor skills needed to move their bodies and walk to the language skills that allow them to communicate with their caregivers and other people.</p>
<p>However, infants show measurable differences in cognitive abilities. They differ in abilities such as information processing speed, attention control, and learning efficiency. Longitudinal research indicates that these early differences are modest but reliable predictors of later cognitive abilities. Early attention regulation and processing speed have been linked to later executive functions and general intelligence. Memory and learning capacities in infancy are associated with later language development and academic skills.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, environmental factors such as caregiver responsiveness, stimulation, nutrition, and socioeconomic conditions strongly shape developmental trajectories. Brain plasticity in early childhood allows later experiences to amplify, compensate for, or impede the development of early cognitive tendencies.</p>
<p>Study author Eline R. de Boer and her colleagues examined whether variations in infants’ curiosity predicted cognitive abilities in childhood. These authors hypothesized that infants’ curiosity is associated with their intelligence in childhood and that infants who are more curious—i.e., more sensitive to information—show higher intelligence 3 years later.</p>
<p>Study participants were 60 infants who were first enrolled in the study when they were 8 months old. The number of recruited infants was initially larger (90), but 30 were excluded or dropped out for various reasons. Fifty percent of them were girls. In 93% of cases, at least one of an infant’s caregivers had completed a form of higher education, and for 63% of the infants, both caregivers had higher education.</p>
<p>The study authors used a visual learning task to assess infants’ curiosity. In the task, a series of pictures were presented to the infant on a screen while the authors tracked where the infant looked. They combined the information about which pictures were displayed and where with information on where the infant was looking (and for how long) to derive an assessment of sensitivity to information for each infant. At 3.5 years of age, the children completed a standardized intelligence test: the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Fourth Edition—Nederlandse bewerking.</p>
<p>Results showed that infants who displayed greater sensitivity to information—i.e., who showed greater curiosity—when they were 8 months old tended to have higher intelligence scores at 3.5 years of age. Further analysis revealed that the link between curiosity in infancy and later intelligence is not linear; rather, the association is strongest in infants who displayed the highest levels of curiosity.</p>
<p>“We show that early-existing individual differences in curiosity-driven learning play an important role in cognitive development and allow predicting differences in cognitive capacity over a time span of almost 3 years, supporting the direction modern theories are taking in emphasizing the role of infant curiosity in early learning. Benefiting from this discovery, these results suggest that finding ways to stimulate curiosity might be a promising avenue for boosting exploratory behavior and supporting learning in early childhood,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to scientific knowledge about early indicators of cognitive ability. However, the association between curiosity and later intelligence was present only in the one-third of children identified as most curious. In children who showed average or below-average curiosity, curiosity was not associated with later intelligence.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.70090">Individual Differences in Infants’ Curiosity Are Linked to Cognitive Capacity in Early Childhood,</a>” was authored by Eline R. de Boer, Francesco Poli, Marlene Meyer, Rogier B. Mars, and Sabine Hunnius.</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/mothers-and-fathers-report-diverging-trends-in-relationship-conflict-during-early-childhood/" 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;">Mothers and fathers report diverging trends in relationship conflict during early childhood</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 27th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research suggests that mothers and fathers often perceive the trajectory of relationship conflict differently during the early years of parenthood. A longitudinal analysis indicates that while fathers tended to report decreasing frequencies of arguments as their child grew from infancy to preschool age, mothers reported an increase. Published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251404996" target="_blank">Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</a></em>, the findings also provide evidence that escalating conflict reported by mothers is specifically associated with lower social and emotional skills in their children.</p>
<p>Interparental conflict is a common experience in family life. Most couples encounter disagreements as they navigate their daily routines. Past research has established that high levels of hostility between parents can negatively affect a child’s development. Children exposed to frequent arguing may develop behavioral problems or struggle to regulate their own emotions.</p>
<p>Many existing studies have examined these family dynamics at a single point in time. This approach provides a snapshot of the family but misses how relationships evolve. The transition to parenthood is a major life event that requires significant adjustment. As children grow, the demands on parents change, which can alter the nature and frequency of disagreements between partners.</p>
<p>The researchers aimed to understand these shifting dynamics by tracking families over several years. They sought to determine if conflict typically increases or decreases during early childhood. They also wanted to see if changes in conflict levels predicted how well a child develops socially and emotionally.</p>
<p>“Interparental conflict is common in many families, and prior research has shown that it can negatively affect children’s development. However, most studies have examined parents’ conflict at only one point in time, even though conflict naturally changes as families go through different life stages,” said study author <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=D21trAgAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">Qiujie (Coco) Gong</a>, an assistant professor at Bowling Green State University.</p>
<p>“These changes may reflect everyday stressors, challenges related to parenting, or shifts in the couple’s relationship. Importantly, changes in conflict may signal either increasing strain within the family or resilience processes that help families adapt over time. In addition, mothers and fathers may experience and perceive conflict differently. This study was motivated by these gaps in the literature and aims to examine how mothers’ and fathers’ reports of interparental conflict change over time and how these changes are related to children’s development.”</p>
<p>The study was guided by family systems theory. This framework views the family as an interconnected unit where each relationship affects the others. A key concept within this framework is the “spillover” effect. This occurs when stress or mood from one relationship, such as the marriage, transfers into another relationship, such as parenting.</p>
<p>The researchers utilized data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort. This is a large, nationally representative dataset from the United States. The researchers focused their analysis on a final sample of 2,282 families. All selected families consisted of married parents and resident fathers who provided consistent data.</p>
<p>The data collection took place across three distinct waves. The first wave occurred when the focal child was approximately 9 months old. The second wave took place when the child was 2 years old. The final wave occurred when the child reached 4 years of age.</p>
<p>At each of these time points, both mothers and fathers independently completed questionnaires about their relationship. They were presented with a list of ten specific topics. These topics included chores, responsibilities, money, showing affection, religion, leisure time, drinking, other men or women, and in-laws.</p>
<p>Parents rated how often they had arguments about each topic. The scale ranged from “sometimes” to “never,” which the researchers reverse-coded to calculate a frequency score. Higher scores indicated a higher frequency of conflict. By collecting this data from both partners, the researchers could compare perspectives.</p>
<p>The researchers also assessed the children’s development at the third wave. When the children were 4 years old, mothers completed a survey regarding their child’s socioemotional skills. This measure included twenty-four items adapted from standardized behavior scales.</p>
<p>The survey asked about positive behaviors. For example, mothers rated how often their child volunteered to help others or comforted other children. It also asked about negative behaviors, such as whether the child seemed unhappy or prone to worry. The researchers combined these ratings to create an overall score for socioemotional skills.</p>
<p>The researchers found a clear divergence in how mothers and fathers perceived their relationship over time. Fathers reported that the frequency of conflict decreased from the time the child was 9 months old to 4 years old.</p>
<p>Mothers provided a different account of the same period. Their reports indicated that the frequency of conflict increased as the child aged. This suggests that as family life became more complex with a growing child, mothers perceived more friction than fathers did.</p>
<p>The researchers also looked at what the parents were arguing about. Fathers tended to report higher initial levels of conflict regarding money, household chores, and leisure time. Mothers were more likely to report higher conflict specifically related to child-rearing issues.</p>
<p>“One thing that surprised me was how differently mothers and fathers described changes in conflict over time,” Gong told PsyPost. “As their child grew, fathers tended to report fewer conflicts, while mothers reported more. One possible reason is that early in parenthood, fathers may notice disagreements about things like money or household tasks more, while mothers are often more focused on child-related issues.” </p>
<p>“As parenting demands increase, mothers may become more aware of conflicts across many areas of family life, while fathers may see those same conflicts as less important or brush them off. These different perspectives may help explain why mothers’ and fathers’ reports of conflict moved in opposite directions over time.”</p>
<p>The researchers then analyzed how these conflict trajectories related to the child’s outcomes at age 4. The findings revealed a significant association between the mother’s experience of conflict and the child’s development. When a mother reported that conflict was increasing over time, her child tended to exhibit lower socioemotional skills.</p>
<p>This negative association held true even after accounting for various control variables. The researchers adjusted for factors such as family socioeconomic status, the child’s sex, and the number of siblings. They also controlled for the child’s temperament at 9 months to ensure the results were not simply reflecting the child’s personality.</p>
<p>The pattern for fathers was different. The changes in conflict reported by fathers over time were not significantly associated with the child’s socioemotional skills at age 4. The decline in arguments that fathers perceived did not predict better or worse outcomes for the child.</p>
<p>However, the father’s initial perception of conflict did matter. Higher levels of conflict reported by fathers at the first wave (9 months) were associated with lower socioemotional skills in the child later on. This indicates that early hostility perceived by fathers is a risk factor, even if the trajectory of change is less predictive.</p>
<p>“This study shows that conflict between parents is not something that stays the same over time,” Gong explained. “Instead, it can change as families grow and adjust. In this sample, fathers reported fewer conflicts as their child grew from 9 months to 4 years old, while mothers reported experiencing conflicts more often during the same period. This suggests that mothers and fathers may notice or interpret conflict differently as family life changes. Importantly, when mothers reported increasing levels of conflict, their children tended to have lower social and emotional skills.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations to consider. One issue is the retention of participants. The analysis showed that families where mothers reported higher initial conflict were more likely to drop out of the study. The study also focused on the frequency of arguments. It did not capture the intensity of the conflicts or how they were resolved. </p>
<p>“One important point to keep in mind is that not all families were equally represented in this study,” Gong noted. “Families in which mothers reported higher levels of conflict were more likely to drop out over time, meaning that the results may underestimate how conflict affects families experiencing higher levels of disagreement.”</p>
<p>“As a result, the findings should be interpreted with some caution, especially when thinking about families with more intense or ongoing conflict. In addition, most participants in the study were White, with fewer families from racial and ethnic minority groups, which may further limit how broadly these findings apply.”</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the research highlights the dynamic nature of family relationships. It provides evidence that conflict is not a static feature of a marriage. The way parents perceive arguments can change significantly during the first few years of a child’s life.</p>
<p>“These findings suggest that parents may experience and interpret conflict differently, which makes open communication especially important,” Gong said. “Rather than focusing only on whether conflict happens at one moment in time, it is also helpful to pay attention to how conflict changes as family life unfolds. Working through disagreements early, instead of letting them build up over time, may help reduce potential negative effects on children’s social and emotional development.”</p>
<p>“Moving forward, I plan to continue studying how conflict between parents shapes family dynamics. I’m also interested in identifying protective factors, such as supportive relationships or effective coping strategies, that may help reduce the negative effects of interparental conflict on overall family functioning.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251404996" target="_blank">Longitudinal changes in interparental conflict and impacts on children’s socioemotional skills</a>,” was authored by Qiujie Gong and Karen Z. Kramer.</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/linking-personal-identity-to-political-issues-predicts-a-preference-for-extreme-candidates/" 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;">Linking personal identity to political issues predicts a preference for extreme candidates</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 26th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104821" target="_blank">Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</a></em> suggests that the rising popularity of extreme political candidates may be driven by how voters link their personal identities to their political opinions. The research provides evidence that when people feel an issue defines who they are as individuals, they tend to adopt more radical positions and favor politicians who do the same.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted this series of investigations to explore the psychological reasons why voters might prefer extreme candidates over moderate ones from their own party. Previous explanations have focused on structural factors like the way primary elections are organized or changes in the pool of people running for office. </p>
<p>But the authors behind the new research sought to better understand whether a voter’s internal connection to an issue is a significant factor. They focused on a concept called identity relevance, which is the degree to which an attitude signals to others and to oneself the kind of person someone is or aspires to be.</p>
<p>“Elected officials in the United States are increasingly extreme. The ideological extremity of members of Congress from both parties has steadily grown since the 1970s, reaching a 50-year high in 2022,” said study author Mohamed Hussein of Columbia University.</p>
<p>“State legislatures show similar trends. A recent analysis of more than 84,000 candidates running for state office revealed that extreme candidates are winning at higher rates than at any time in the last 30 years. We were interested in understanding why extreme candidates are increasingly elected.” </p>
<p>“So far, research in this area has focused on structural factors (e.g., the structure of primary elections),” Hussein explained. “In our work, we wanted to pivot the conversation to more psychological factors. Specifically, we tested if the identity relevance of people’s attitudes causes them to be drawn to extreme candidates. ”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a series of studies to test their hypothesis. In the first study, 399 participants who identified as Democrats read about a fictional candidate named Sam Becker who was running for a seat in the House of Representatives. Some participants read that Becker held moderate views on climate change, while others read that he held extreme views. The researchers measured how much the participants felt their own attitudes on climate change were relevant to their identity.</p>
<p>The results suggests that as identity relevance increased, the participants reported having more extreme personal views on the issue. Those with high identity relevance showed a preference for the extreme version of Sam Becker and a dislike for the moderate version. This study provides initial evidence that the more someone sees an issue as a reflection of their character, the more they favor radical politicians.</p>
<p>The second study involved 349 participants and used a more complex choice task to see if these patterns held across different topics. Participants were shown pairs of candidates with varying ages, genders, and professional backgrounds. One candidate in each pair held a moderate position on a social issue, while the other held an extreme position.</p>
<p>The researchers tested five separate issues: abortion, gun control, immigration, climate change, and transgender rights. The data suggests that across all these topics, higher identity relevance predicted a greater likelihood of choosing the extreme candidate. Additionally, participants with high identity relevance reported being more receptive to hearing the views of the extreme candidate.</p>
<p>In the third study, the researchers aimed to see if they could change a person’s identity relevance by shifting their perception of what their political party valued. They recruited 584 Democrats and asked them to read a news article about the priorities of the Democratic National Committee. One group read that the party was prioritizing corn subsidies, a topic that is generally not a core identity issue for most voters.</p>
<p>The results suggests that when participants believed their party viewed corn subsidies as a priority, they began to see the issue as more relevant to their own identity. This shift in identity relevance led them to adopt more extreme personal views on the topic. Consequently, these participants showed a higher preference for candidates who supported radical changes to agricultural subsidies.</p>
<p>This experiment also allowed the researchers to rule out other factors that might influence candidate choice. They measured whether participants felt more certain, more moral, or more knowledgeable about the issue. The analysis provides evidence that identity relevance influences candidate choice primarily through its effect on attitude extremity rather than through these other psychological states.</p>
<p>The fourth study sought to prove that this effect can occur even when people have no factual information about a topic. The researchers presented 752 participants with a fictitious ballot initiative called Prop DW. The participants were told nothing about what the proposal would actually do.</p>
<p>Some participants were told their political party had taken a position on Prop DW, while others were told the party had no stance. Even without knowing the details of the policy, those who believed their party had a stance reported that Prop DW felt more identity-relevant. These individuals developed more extreme attitudes and favored candidates who took extreme positions on the made-up issue.</p>
<p>This finding suggests that the psychological pull toward extremity is not necessarily based on a deep understanding of policy. Instead, it seems to be a reaction to the social and personal significance assigned to the topic. It also suggests that people can form strong, radical opinions on matters they do not fully understand if they feel those matters define their social group.</p>
<p>Studies five and six moved away from group dynamics to see if individual reflection could trigger the same results. The researchers used a digital tool that allowed 514 participants to have a live conversation with a large language model. In one condition, the computer program was instructed to help participants reflect on how their views on corn subsidies related to their core values and sense of self.</p>
<p>This reflection process led to a measurable increase in identity relevance. Participants who reflected on their identity reported a higher desire for clarity, which means they wanted their opinions to be certain and distinct. This desire for clarity pushed them toward more extreme views and a higher probability of choosing an extreme candidate.</p>
<p>The final study involving 807 participants replicated this effect with a more rigorous comparison group. In this version, the control group also discussed corn subsidies with the language model but was not prompted to think about their personal identity. The results provides evidence that only the participants who specifically linked the issue to their identity showed a significant shift toward extremity.</p>
<p>The researchers note that this effect was symmetric across political parties. Both Democrats and Republicans showed the same pattern of moving toward extreme candidates when an issue felt relevant to their identity. This suggests that the psychological mechanism is a general feature of human behavior rather than a trait specific to one side of the political aisle.</p>
<p>“Across six studies with over 3,000 participants, we found that the more people see their political attitudes as tied to identity, the more likely they are to choose extreme, versus moderate, candidates,” Hussein told PsyPost. “The more central fighting climate change felt to the identity of participants, the more they liked the extreme Sam and the more they disliked the moderate Sam. Put simply, identity relevance increased liking of extreme candidates but decreased liking of moderate ones.”</p>
<p>“These results were remarkably robust. Across studies we tested a range of issues including climate change, abortion, immigration, transgender rights, gun control, and corn subsidies . We even created a fictitious issue (“Prop DW”) that participants had no information about. Across issues, we found that when we framed the issue as central to their identity, people formed more extreme views on it and then preferred extreme candidates who promised bolder action. Even on a made-up issue, identity relevance pushed people toward extremes.”</p>
<p>“These results were also robust regardless of how we talked about candidate extremity,” Hussein continued. “In addition to having candidates describe themselves as extreme, we also signaled extremity in different ways. In some studies, the candidates endorsed different policies, some that were moderate and others that were extreme.” </p>
<p>“In other studies, we held the policy constant but changed the level of action that candidates supported (e.g., increasing a subsidy by a small amount compared to a large amount). Lastly, in some studies, we explicitly labeled candidates as ‘moderate’ or ‘extreme’ on an issue. Regardless of how candidate extremity was described to participants, the results held.” </p>
<p>But there are some potential misinterpretations and limitations to consider regarding this research. One limitation is that the studies were conducted within the specific political context of the United States. The American two-party system might encourage a greater need for distinct, polarized identities compared to countries with multiple competing parties.</p>
<p>Future research could explore whether these findings apply to people in other nations with different electoral structures. It would also be useful to investigate whether certain personality types are more prone to linking their identity to political issues. Some individuals may naturally seek more self-definition through their opinions than others.</p>
<p>Another direction for future study involves finding ways to decrease political tension. If identity relevance is a primary driver of the preference for extreme candidates, it suggests that finding ways to de-emphasize the personal significance of political stances might lead to more moderate dialogue. Interventions that help people feel secure in their identity without needing to hold radical opinions could potentially reduce social polarization.</p>
<p>“Politics has always been personal, but it’s becoming more identity-defining than ever,” Hussein said. “And when politics becomes identity-relevant, our research suggests that extremity gains in appeal. Illuminating this psychological process helps us understand today’s political landscape and provides a roadmap for how to change it. Our results suggest that if we can loosen the grip of identity on politics, the appeal of extreme candidates might start to wane.” </p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104821" target="_blank">Why do people choose extreme candidates? The role of identity relevance</a>,” was authored by Mohamed A. Hussein, Zakary L. Tormala, and S. Christian Wheeler.</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/musical-expertise-is-associated-with-specific-cognitive-and-personality-traits-beyond-memory-performance/" 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;">Musical expertise is associated with specific cognitive and personality traits beyond memory performance</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 26th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Experienced musicians tend to possess an advantage in short-term memory for musical patterns and a small advantage for visual information, according to a large-scale international study. The research provides evidence that the memory benefit for verbal information is much smaller than previously thought, suggesting that some earlier findings may have overrepresented this link. These results, which stem from a massive collaborative effort involving 33 laboratories, were published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251379432" target="_blank">Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science</a></em>.</p>
<p>The study was led by Massimo Grassi and a broad team of researchers who sought to address inconsistencies in past scientific literature. For many years, scientists have used musicians as a model for understanding how intense, long-term practice changes the brain and behavior. While many smaller studies suggested that musical training boosts various types of memory, these individual projects often lacked the statistical power to provide a reliable estimate of the effect.</p>
<p>The researchers aimed to establish a community-driven standard for future studies by recruiting a much larger group of participants than typical experiments in this field. They also wanted to explore whether other factors, such as general intelligence or personality traits, might explain why musicians often perform better on cognitive tests. By using a shared protocol across dozens of locations, the team intended to provide a more definitive answer regarding the scope of the musical memory advantage.</p>
<p>To achieve this goal, the research team recruited 1,200 participants across 15 different countries. This group consisted of 600 experienced musicians and 600 nonmusicians who were matched based on their age, gender, and level of general education. The musicians in the study were required to have at least 10 years of formal training and be currently active in their practice.</p>
<p>The nonmusicians had no more than two years of training and had been musically inactive for at least five years. This strict selection process ensured that the two groups represented clear ends of the musical expertise spectrum. Each participant completed the same set of tasks in a laboratory setting to maintain consistency across the 33 different research units.</p>
<p>The primary measures included three distinct short-term memory tasks involving musical, verbal, and visuospatial stimuli. In the musical task, participants listened to a melody and then judged whether a second melody was identical or different. The verbal task required participants to view a sequence of digits on a screen and recall them in the correct order.</p>
<p>For the visuospatial task, participants watched dots appear in a grid and then had to click on those positions in the sequence they were shown. Additionally, the researchers measured fluid intelligence using the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices and crystallized intelligence through a vocabulary test. They also assessed executive functions with a letter-matching task and collected data on personality and socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>The researchers found that musicians performed significantly better than nonmusicians on the music-related memory task. This difference was large, which suggests that musical expertise provides a substantial benefit when dealing with information within a person’s specific domain of skill. This finding aligns with the idea that long-term training makes individuals much more efficient at processing familiar types of data.</p>
<p>In contrast, the advantage for verbal memory was very small. This suggests that the benefits of music training do not easily transfer to the memorization of words or numbers. The researchers noted that some previous studies showing a larger verbal benefit may have used auditory tasks, where musicians could use their superior hearing skills to gain an edge.</p>
<p>For visuospatial memory, the study found a small but statistically significant advantage for the musicians. This provides evidence that musical training might have a slight positive association with memory for locations and patterns. While this effect was not as large as the music-specific memory gain, it suggests a broader cognitive difference between the two groups.</p>
<p>The statistical models used by the researchers revealed that general intelligence and executive functions were consistent predictors of memory performance across all tasks. When these factors were taken into account, the group difference for verbal memory largely disappeared. This suggests that the minor verbal advantage seen in musicians may simply reflect their slightly higher average scores on general intelligence tests.</p>
<p>Musicians also tended to score higher on the personality trait of open-mindedness. This trait describes a person’s curiosity and willingness to engage with new experiences or complex ideas. The study suggests that personality and family background are important variables that often distinguish those who pursue long-term musical training from those who do not.</p>
<p>Data from the study also indicated that musicians often come from families with a higher socioeconomic status. This factor provides evidence that access to resources and a stimulating environment may play a role in both musical achievement and cognitive development. These background variables complicate the question of whether music training directly causes better memory or if high-performing individuals are simply more likely to become musicians.</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations. Because the study was correlational, it cannot confirm that musical training is the direct cause of the memory advantages. It remains possible that children with naturally better memory or higher intelligence are more likely to enjoy music lessons and stick with them for over a decade.</p>
<p>Additionally, the study focused on young adults within Western musical cultures. The results might not apply to children, elderly individuals, or musicians trained in different cultural traditions. Future research could expand on these findings by tracking individuals over many years to see how memory changes as they begin and continue their training.</p>
<p>The team also noted that the study only measured short-term memory. Other systems, such as long-term memory or the ability to manipulate information in the mind, were not the primary focus of this specific experiment. Future collaborative projects could use similar large-scale methods to investigate these other areas of cognition.</p>
<p>The multilab approach utilized here helps correct for the publication bias that often favors small studies with unusually large effects. By pooling data from many locations, the researchers provided a more realistic and nuanced view of how expertise relates to general mental abilities. This work sets a new benchmark for transparency and reliability in the field of music psychology.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the study suggests that while musicians do have better memory, the advantage is most prominent when they are dealing with music itself. The idea that learning an instrument provides a major boost to all types of memory appears to be an oversimplification. Instead, the relationship between music and the mind is a complex interaction of training, personality, and general cognitive traits.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251379432" target="_blank">Do Musicians Have Better Short-Term Memory Than Nonmusicians? A Multilab Study</a>,” was authored by Massimo Grassi, Francesca Talamini, Gianmarco Altoè, Elvira Brattico, Anne Caclin, Barbara Carretti, Véronique Drai-Zerbib, Laura Ferreri, Filippo Gambarota, Jessica Grahn, Lucrezia Guiotto Nai Fovino, Marco Roccato, Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells, Swathi Swaminathan, Barbara Tillmann, Peter Vuust, Jonathan Wilbiks, Marcel Zentner, Karla Aguilar, Christ B. Aryanto, Frederico C. Assis Leite, Aíssa M. Baldé, Deniz Başkent, Laura Bishop, Graziela Kalsi, Fleur L. Bouwer, Axelle Calcus, Giulio Carraturo, Victor Cepero-Escribano, Antonia Čerič, Antonio Criscuolo, Léo Dairain, Simone Dalla Bella, Oscar Daniel, Anne Danielsen, Anne-Isabelle de Parcevaux, Delphine Dellacherie, Tor Endestad, Juliana L. d. B. Fialho, Caitlin Fitzpatrick, Anna Fiveash, Juliette Fortier, Noah R. Fram, Eleonora Fullone, Stefanie Gloggengießer, Lucia Gonzalez Sanchez, Reyna L. Gordon, Mathilde Groussard, Assal Habibi, Heidi M. U. Hansen, Eleanor E. Harding, Kirsty Hawkins, Steffen A. Herff, Veikka P. Holma, Kelly Jakubowski, Maria G. Jol, Aarushi Kalsi, Veronica Kandro, Rosaliina Kelo, Sonja A. Kotz, Gangothri S. Ladegam, Bruno Laeng, André Lee, Miriam Lense, César F. Lima, Simon P. Limmer, Chengran K. Liu, Paulina d. C. Martín Sánchez, Langley McEntyre, Jessica P. Michael, Daniel Mirman, Daniel Müllensiefen, Niloufar Najafi, Jaakko Nokkala, Ndassi Nzonlang, Maria Gabriela M. Oliveira, Katie Overy, Andrew J. Oxenham, Edoardo Passarotto, Marie-Elisabeth Plasse, Herve Platel, Alice Poissonnier, Neha Rajappa, Michaela Ritchie, Italo Ramon Rodrigues Menezes, Rafael Román-Caballero, Paula Roncaglia, Farrah Y. Sa’adullah, Suvi Saarikallio, Daniela Sammler, Séverine Samson, E. G. Schellenberg, Nora R. Serres, L. R. Slevc, Ragnya-Norasoa Souffiane, Florian J. Strauch, Hannah Strauss, Nicholas Tantengco, Mari Tervaniemi, Rachel Thompson, Renee Timmers, Petri Toiviainen, Laurel J. Trainor, Clara Tuske, Jed Villanueva, Claudia C. von Bastian, Kelly L. Whiteford, Emily A. Wood, Florian Worschech, and Ana Zappa.</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/sunlight-affinity-linked-to-lower-depression-rates-in-men/" 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;">Sunlight affinity linked to lower depression rates in men</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Dec 26th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An analysis of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009–2020) found that men with higher sunlight affinity tend to have fewer depressive symptoms. They also reported sleeping problems less often; however, their sleep durations tended to be shorter. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332098">PLOS ONE</a>.</p>
<p>In the context of this study, “sunlight affinity” is a novel metric proposed by the authors to measure an individual’s tendency to seek and enjoy natural sunlight. It combines psychological factors (preference for sun) and behavioral factors (actual time spent outdoors). Generally, the drive for sunlight is influenced by biological factors such as circadian rhythms, melatonin suppression, and serotonin regulation.</p>
<p>People with high sunlight affinity tend to report improved mood, energy, and alertness during bright daytime conditions. This tendency is partly genetic but is also shaped by developmental experiences, climate, and cultural habits. Conversely, low sunlight affinity may be associated with discomfort in bright light or a preference for dim environments.</p>
<p>While sunlight affinity is conceptually related to light sensitivity and seasonal affective patterns, it is not a clinical diagnosis. In environmental psychology, it helps explain preferences for outdoor activities and sunlit living or working spaces. In health contexts, moderate sunlight affinity can promote behaviors that support vitamin D synthesis and circadian stability.</p>
<p>Lead author Haifeng Liu and his colleagues investigated the associations between sunlight affinity and symptoms of depression and sleep disorders in U.S. men. They examined two dimensions of sunlight affinity: sunlight preference (how often a person chooses to stay in the sun versus the shade) and sunlight exposure duration (how much time a person spends outdoors). They noted that while recent findings indicate light therapy might help reduce depressive symptoms and improve sleep, the impact of natural sunlight exposure remains underexplored.</p>
<p>The authors analyzed data from 7,306 men who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2009 and 2020. NHANES is a continuous, nationally representative U.S. program that combines interviews, physical examinations, and laboratory tests to assess the health, nutritional status, and disease prevalence of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population.</p>
<p>The researchers selected males aged 20–59 years who provided all the necessary data. These individuals completed assessments for sunlight affinity, depressive symptoms (using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9), sleep disorder symptoms (answering, “Have you ever told a doctor or other health professional that you have trouble sleeping?”), and sleep duration. </p>
<p>Sunlight affinity was assessed by asking participants, “When you go outside on a very sunny day for more than one hour, how often do you stay in the shade?” and by asking them to report the time they spent outdoors between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM over the previous 30 days.</p>
<p>The results showed that participants with a higher preference for sunlight and longer exposure durations tended to have fewer depressive symptoms. They also reported sleep problems less often, though their total sleep time tended to be shorter.</p>
<p>“This study revealed that sunlight affinity was inversely associated with depression and trouble sleeping and positively associated with short sleep in males. Further longitudinal studies are needed to confirm causality,” the authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the links between sunlight affinity, depression, and sleep problems. However, it should be noted that the cross-sectional study design does not allow for causal inferences. Additionally, all study data were based on self-reports, leaving room for reporting bias to have affected the results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332098">Associations of sunlight affinity with depression and sleep disorders in American males: Evidence from NHANES 2009–2020,</a>” was authored by Haifeng Liu, Jia Yang, Tiejun Liu, and Weimin Zhao.</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>