<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/ultra-processed-foods-in-early-childhood-linked-to-lower-iq-scores/" 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;">Ultra-processed foods in early childhood linked to lower IQ scores</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 13th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Toddlers who consume a diet high in processed meats, sugary snacks, and soft drinks may have lower intelligence scores by the time they reach early school age. A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711452610628X" target="_blank">British Journal of Nutrition</a></em> suggests that this negative association is even stronger for children who faced physical growth delays in infancy. These findings add to the growing body of evidence linking early childhood nutrition to long-term brain development.</p>
<p>The first few years of human life represent a biological window of rapid change. The brain grows quickly during this time and builds the neural connections necessary for learning and memory. This process requires a steady supply of specific nutrients to work correctly. Without enough iron, zinc, or healthy fats, the brain might not develop to its full capacity.</p>
<p>Recent trends in global nutrition show that families are increasingly relying on ultra-processed foods. These are industrial products that often contain high levels of sugar, fat, and artificial additives but very few essential vitamins. Researchers are concerned that these foods might displace nutrient-rich options. They also worry that the additives or high sugar content could directly harm biological systems.</p>
<p>Researchers from the Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign investigated this issue. The lead author is Glaucia Treichel Heller, a researcher in the Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology in Pelotas. She worked alongside colleagues including Thaynã Ramos Flores and Pedro Hallal to analyze data from thousands of children. The team wanted to determine if eating habits established at age two could predict cognitive abilities years later.</p>
<p>The researchers used data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort. This is a large, long-term project that tracks the health of children born in the city of Pelotas, Brazil. The team analyzed information from more than 3,400 children. When the children were two years old, their parents answered questions about what the toddlers usually ate.</p>
<p>The scientists did not just look at single foods like apples or candy. Instead, they used a statistical method called principal component analysis. This technique allows researchers to find general dietary patterns based on which foods are typically eaten together. They identified two main types of eating habits in this population.</p>
<p>One pattern was labeled “healthy” by the researchers. This diet included regular consumption of beans, fruits, vegetables, and natural fruit juices. The other pattern was labeled “unhealthy.” This diet featured instant noodles, sausages, soft drinks, packaged snacks, and sweets.</p>
<p>When the children reached six or seven years of age, trained psychologists assessed their intelligence. They used a standard test called the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. This test measures different mental skills to generate an IQ score. The researchers then looked for a statistical link between the diet at age two and the test results four years later.</p>
<p>The analysis showed a clear connection between the unhealthy dietary pattern and lower cognitive scores. Children who frequently ate processed and sugary foods at age two tended to have lower IQ scores at school age. This link remained even when the researchers accounted for other factors that influence intelligence. They adjusted the data for the mother’s education, family income, and how much mental stimulation the child received at home.</p>
<p>The researchers faced a challenge in isolating the effect of diet. Many factors can shape a child’s development. For example, a family with more money might buy healthier food and also buy more books. To manage this, the team identified potential confounding factors. Thaynã Ramos Flores, one of the study authors, noted, “The covariates were identified as potential confounding factors based on a literature review and the construction of a directed acyclic graph.”</p>
<p>The team used these adjustments to ensure the results were not simply reflecting the family’s socioeconomic status. Even with these controls, the negative association between processed foods and IQ persisted. The findings suggest that diet quality itself plays a specific role.</p>
<p>The negative impact appeared to be worse for children who were already biologically vulnerable. The study looked at children who had early-life deficits. These were defined as having low weight, height, or head circumference for their age during their first two years.</p>
<p>For these children, a diet high in processed foods was linked to a drop of nearly 5 points in IQ. This is a substantial difference that could affect school performance. For children without these early physical growth problems, the decline was smaller but still present. In those cases, the reduction was about 2 points.</p>
<p>This finding points to a concept known as cumulative disadvantage. It appears that biological vulnerability and environmental exposures like poor diet interact with each other. A child who is already struggling physically may be less resilient to the harms of a poor diet.</p>
<p>The researchers also looked at the impact of the healthy dietary pattern. They did not find a statistical link between eating healthy foods and higher IQ scores. This result might seem counterintuitive, as fruits and vegetables are known to be good for the brain. However, the authors explain that this result is likely due to the specific population studied.</p>
<p>Most children in the Pelotas cohort ate beans, fruits, and vegetables regularly. Because almost everyone ate the healthy foods, there was not enough difference between the children to show a statistical effect. Flores explained, “The lack of association observed for the healthy dietary pattern can be largely explained by its lower variability.” She added that “approximately 92% of children habitually consumed four or more of the foods that characterize the healthy pattern.”</p>
<p>The study suggests potential biological mechanisms for why the unhealthy diet lowers IQ. One theory involves the gut-brain axis. The human gut contains trillions of bacteria that communicate with the brain. Diets high in sugar and processed additives can alter this bacterial community. These changes might lead to systemic inflammation that affects brain function.</p>
<p>Another possibility involves oxidative stress. Ultra-processed foods often lack the antioxidants found in fresh produce. Without these protective compounds, brain cells might be more susceptible to damage during development. The rapid growth of the brain in early childhood makes it highly sensitive to these physiological stressors.</p>
<p>There are limitations to this type of research. The study is observational, which means it cannot prove that the food directly caused the lower scores. Other factors that the researchers could not measure might explain the difference. For example, the study relied on parents to report what their children ate. Parents might not always remember or report this accurately.</p>
<p>Additionally, the study did not measure the parents’ IQ scores. Parental intelligence is a strong predictor of a child’s intelligence. However, the researchers used maternal education and home stimulation scores as proxies. These measures help account for the intellectual environment of the home.</p>
<p>The findings have implications for public health policy. The results suggest that officials need to focus on reducing the intake of processed foods in early childhood. Merely encouraging fruit and vegetable intake may not be enough if children are still consuming high amounts of processed items. This is particularly important for children who have already shown signs of growth delays.</p>
<p>Future studies could look at how these dietary habits change as children become teenagers. It would also be helpful to see if these results are similar in countries with different food cultures. The team notes that early nutrition is a specific window of opportunity for supporting brain health.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711452610628X" target="_blank">Dietary patterns at age 2 and cognitive performance at ages 6-7: an analysis of the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort (Brazil)</a>,” was authored by Glaucia Treichel Heller, Thaynã Ramos Flores, Marina Xavier Carpena, Pedro Curi Hallal, Marlos Rodrigues Domingues, and Andréa Dâmaso Bertoldi.</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/bias-against-ai-art-is-so-deep-it-changes-how-viewers-perceive-color-and-brightness/" 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;">Bias against AI art is so deep it changes how viewers perceive color and brightness</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 13th 2026, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research suggests that simply labeling an artwork as created by artificial intelligence can reduce how much people enjoy and value it. This bias appears to affect not just how viewers interpret the meaning of the art, but even how they process basic visual features like color and brightness. The findings were published in the <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-92562-001" target="_blank">Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts</a></em>.</p>
<p>Artificial intelligence has rapidly become a common tool for visual artists. Artists use technologies ranging from text-to-image generators to robotic arms to produce new forms of imagery. Despite this widespread adoption, audiences often react negatively when they learn technology was involved in the creative process.</p>
<p>Alwin de Rooij, an assistant professor at Tilburg University and associate professor at Avans University of Applied Sciences, sought to understand the consistency of this negative reaction. De Rooij aimed to determine if this bias occurs across different psychological systems involved in viewing art. The researcher also wanted to see if this negative reaction is a permanent structural phenomenon or if it varies by context.</p>
<p>“AI-generated images can now be nearly indistinguishable from art made without AI, yet both public debate and scientific studies suggest that people may respond differently once they are told AI was involved,” de Rooij told PsyPost. “These reactions resemble earlier anxieties around new technologies in art, such as the introduction of photography in the nineteenth century, which is now a fully established art form. This raised the question of how consistent bias against AI in visual art is, and whether it might already be changing.”</p>
<p>To examine this, De Rooij conducted a meta-analysis. This statistical technique combines data from multiple independent studies to find overall trends that a single experiment might miss. The researcher performed a systematic search for experiments published between January 2017 and September 2024.</p>
<p>The analysis included studies where participants viewed visual art and were told it was made by AI. These responses were compared to responses for art labeled as human-made or art presented with no label. The researcher extracted 191 distinct effect sizes from the selected studies.</p>
<p>De Rooij categorized these measurements using a framework known as the Aesthetic Triad model. This model organizes the art experience into three specific systems. The first is the sensory-motor system, which deals with basic visual processing. The second is the knowledge-meaning system, which involves interpretation and context. The third is the emotion-valuation system, which covers subjective feelings and personal preferences.</p>
<p>The investigation revealed that knowing AI was used generally diminishes the aesthetic experience. A small but significant negative effect appeared within the sensory-motor system. This system involves the initial processing of visual features such as color, shape, and spatial relationships. When viewers believed an image was AI-generated, they tended to perceive these basic qualities less favorably.</p>
<p>A moderate negative effect appeared in the knowledge-meaning system. This aspect of the aesthetic experience relates to how people interpret an artwork’s intent. It also includes judgments about the skill required to make the piece. Participants consistently attributed less profundity and creativity to works labeled as artificial intelligence.</p>
<p>The researcher also found a small negative effect in the emotion-valuation system. This system governs subjective feelings of beauty, awe, and liking. Viewers tended to report lower emotional connection when they thought AI was responsible for the work. They also rated these works as less beautiful compared to identical works labeled as human-made.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that knowing AI was involved in making an artwork can change how we experience it, even when the artwork itself is identical,” de Rooij explained. “People tend to attribute less meaning and value to art once it is labeled as AI-made, not because it looks worse, but because it is interpreted differently. In some cases, this bias even feeds into basic visual judgments, such as how colorful or vivid an image appears. This shows that bias against AI is not just an abstract opinion about technology. It can deeply shape the aesthetic experience itself.”</p>
<p>But these negative responses were not uniform across all people. The researcher identified age as a significant factor in the severity of the bias. Older participants demonstrated a stronger negative reaction to AI art. Younger audiences showed much weaker negative effects.</p>
<p>This difference suggests a possible generational shift in how people perceive technology in art. Younger viewers may be less troubled by the integration of algorithms in the creative process. The style of the artwork also influenced viewer reactions.</p>
<p>Representational art, which depicts recognizable objects, reduced the negative bias regarding meaning compared to abstract art. However, representational art worsened the bias regarding emotional connection. The setting of the study mattered as well. Experiments conducted online produced stronger evidence of bias than those conducted in laboratories or real-world galleries.</p>
<p>“Another surprising finding was how unstable the bias is,” de Rooij said. “Rather than being a fixed reaction, it varies across audiences and contexts. As mentioned earlier, the bias tends to be stronger among older populations, but the results show it is also influenced by the style of the artworks and by how and where they are presented. In some settings, the bias becomes very weak or nearly disappears. This further supports the observation that, much like earlier reactions to new technologies in art, resistance to AI may be transitional rather than permanent.”</p>
<p>A key limitation involves how previous experiments presented artificial intelligence. Many studies framed the technology as an autonomous agent that created art independently. This description often conflicts with real-world artistic practice.</p>
<p>“The practical significance of these findings need to be critically examined,” de Rooij noted. “Many of the studies included in the meta-analysis frame AI as if it were an autonomous artist, which does not reflect artistic practice, where AI is typically used as a responsive material. The AI-as-artist framing evoke dystopian imaginaries about AI replacing human artists or threatening the humanity in art. As a result, some studies may elicit stronger negative responses to AI, but in a way that has no clear real-world counterpart.”</p>
<p>Future research should investigate the role of invisible human involvement in AI art. De Rooij plans to conduct follow-up studies.</p>
<p>“The next step is to study bias against AI in art in more realistic settings, such as galleries or museums, and in ways that better reflect how artists actually use AI in their creative practice,” de Rooij said. “This is a reaction to the finding that bias against AI seemed particularly strong in online studies, which merits verification of the bias in real-world settings. This proposed follow-up research has recently received funding from the Dutch Research Council, and the first results are expected in late 2026. We are excited about moving this work forward!”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-92562-001" target="_blank">Bias against artificial intelligence in visual art: A meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by Alwin de Rooij.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/why-oversharing-might-be-the-smartest-move-for-your-career-and-relationships/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Why oversharing might be the smartest move for your career and relationships</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 21:15</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p><em><strong>PsyPost’s PodWatch highlights interesting clips from recent podcasts related to psychology and neuroscience.</strong></em></p>
<p>In a recent episode of the Hidden Brain podcast titled “<a href="https://www.hiddenbrain.org/podcast/coming-clean/">Coming Clean</a>,” released on Monday, February 9, experts discussed the surprising power of vulnerability. Between the five and fifteen-minute marks of the broadcast, host Shankar Vedantam spoke with Harvard Business School psychologist Leslie John. They examined why admitting to our failures often yields better results than hiding them.</p>
<p>John described a common psychological phenomenon she calls the “disclosure hangover.” This is the sinking feeling of regret or anxiety that settles in the morning after you share a personal, embarrassing, or vulnerable story with colleagues. While many people worry that these moments destroy their professional image, John argues that these fears are often misplaced.</p>
<p>Research conducted by John indicates that calculated vulnerability can actually boost a leader’s standing. In one study involving a Google executive, the leader recorded a video introduction where he admitted he applied for roughly twenty jobs before landing his current role. Viewers trusted him more and expressed a greater willingness to work for him compared to when he hid this past failure.</p>
<p>The most significant finding from this experiment was that the executive’s perceived competence remained stable. Employees did not think he was less capable of doing his job simply because he struggled in the past. This evidence challenges the common belief that leaders must appear perfect to command respect.</p>
<p>The episode also highlighted the experience of Dr. Anna Lembke, a psychiatrist at Stanford University who treats addiction. Lembke publicly shared her own personal struggle with a compulsive habit of reading graphic romance novels. Despite her fears that this would ruin her reputation, the admission made her appear more confident and relatable to her audience.</p>
<p>Beyond social benefits, there is a biological reason humans feel the urge to share personal details. John cited research by scientist Diana Tamir showing that self-disclosure activates the brain’s reward centers. Talking about oneself generates a neurological response similar to the pleasure derived from eating good food.</p>
<p>This biological drive aligns with a deep psychological need to be truly understood by others. The discussion noted that individuals, particularly those with low self-esteem, feel more secure when partners see them accurately rather than through an overly positive lens. Being known for who you really are provides a profound sense of relief.</p>
<p>While society often warns against sharing “too much information,” John suggests we should worry more about sharing too little. Authentic self-expression acts as a powerful tool for building trust. By letting down their guard, professionals and partners alike can foster stronger connections.</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/younger-women-find-men-with-beards-less-attractive-than-older-women-do/" 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;">Younger women find men with beards less attractive than older women do</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-025-00272-7" target="_blank">Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology</a></em> suggests that a woman’s age and reproductive status may influence her preferences for male physical traits. The research indicates that postmenopausal women perceive certain masculine characteristics, such as body shape and facial features, differently than women who are still in their reproductive years. These findings offer evidence that biological shifts associated with menopause might alter the criteria women use to evaluate potential partners.</p>
<p>Scientists have recognized that physical features act as powerful biological signals in human communication. Secondary sexual characteristics are traits that appear during puberty and visually distinguish men from women. These include features such as broad shoulders, facial hair, jawline definition, and muscle mass.</p>
<p>Evolutionary psychology suggests that these traits serve as indicators of health and genetic quality. For instance, a muscular physique or a strong jawline often signals high testosterone levels and physical strength. Women of reproductive age typically prioritize these markers because they imply that a potential partner possesses “good genes” that could be passed to offspring.</p>
<p>However, researchers have historically focused most of their attention on the preferences of young women. Less is known about how these preferences might change as women age and lose their reproductive capability. The biological transition of menopause involves significant hormonal changes, including a decrease in estrogen levels.</p>
<p>This hormonal shift may correspond to a change in mating strategies. The “Grandmother Hypothesis” proposes that older women shift their focus from reproduction to investing in their existing family line. Consequently, they may no longer prioritize high-testosterone traits, which can be associated with aggression or short-term mating.</p>
<p>Instead, older women might prioritize traits that signal cooperation, reliability, and long-term companionship. To test this theory, a team of researchers from Poland designed a study to compare the preferences of women at different stages of life. The research team included Aurelia Starzyńska and Łukasz Pawelec from the Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences and the University of Warsaw, alongside Maja Pietras from Wroclaw Medical University and the University of Wroclaw.</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 122 Polish women to participate in an online survey. The participants ranged in age from 19 to 70 years old. Based on their survey responses regarding menstrual regularity and history, the researchers categorized the women into three groups.</p>
<p>The first group was premenopausal, consisting of women with regular reproductive functions. The second group was perimenopausal, including women experiencing the onset of menopausal symptoms and irregular cycles. The third group was postmenopausal, defined as women whose menstrual cycles had ceased for at least one year.</p>
<p>To assess preferences, the researchers created a specific set of visual stimuli. They started with photographs of a single 22-year-old male model. Using photo-editing applications, they digitally manipulated the images to create distinct variations in appearance.</p>
<p>The researchers modified the model’s face to appear either more feminized, intermediate, or heavily masculinized. They also altered the model’s facial hair to show a clean-shaven look, light stubble, or a full beard.</p>
<p>Body shape was another variable manipulated in the study. The scientists adjusted the hip-to-shoulder ratio to create three silhouette types: V-shaped, H-shaped, and A-shaped. Finally, they modified the model’s musculature to display non-muscular, moderately muscular, or strongly muscular builds.</p>
<p>Participants viewed these twelve modified images and rated them on a scale from one to ten. They evaluated the man in the photos based on three specific criteria. The first criterion was physical attractiveness.</p>
<p>The second and third criteria involved personality assessments. The women rated how aggressive they perceived the man to be. They also rated the man’s perceived level of social dominance.</p>
<p>The results showed that a woman’s reproductive status does influence her perception of attractiveness. One significant finding related to the shape of the male torso. Postmenopausal women rated the V-shaped body, which is typically characterized by broad shoulders and narrow hips, as less attractive than other shapes.</p>
<p>This contrasts with general evolutionary expectations where the V-shape is a classic indicator of male fitness. The data suggests that as women exit their reproductive years, the appeal of this strong biological signal may diminish.</p>
<p>Age also played a distinct role in how women viewed facial hair. The study found that older women rated men with medium to full beards as more attractive compared to younger women. This preference for beards increased with the age of the participant.</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that beards might signal maturity and social status rather than just raw genetic fitness. Younger women in the study showed a lower preference for beards. This might occur because facial hair can mask other facial features that young women use to assess mate quality.</p>
<p>The study produced complex results regarding facial masculinity. Chronological age showed a slight positive association with finding feminized faces attractive. This aligns with the idea that older women might prefer “softer” features associated with cooperation.</p>
<p>However, when isolating the specific biological factor of menopause, the results shifted. Postmenopausal women rated feminized faces as less attractive than premenopausal women did. This indicates that the relationship between aging and facial preference is not entirely linear.</p>
<p>Perceptions of aggression also varied by group. Postmenopausal women rated men with medium muscularity as more aggressive than men with other body types. This association was not present in the younger groups.</p>
<p>The researchers propose that older women might view visible musculature as a signal of potential threat rather than protection. Younger women, who are more likely to seek a partner for reproduction, may view muscles as a positive sign of health and defense.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the study found no significant connection between the physical traits and perceived social dominance. Neither the age of the women nor their menopausal status affected how they rated a man’s dominance. This suggests that while attractiveness and aggression are linked to physical cues, dominance might be evaluated through other means not captured in static photos.</p>
<p>The study, like all research, has limitations. One issue involved the method used to find participants, known as snowball sampling. In this process, existing participants recruit future subjects from among their own acquaintances. This method may have resulted in a sample that is not fully representative of the general population.</p>
<p>Reliance on online surveys also introduces a technology bias. Older women who are less comfortable with the internet may have been excluded from the study. This could skew the results for the postmenopausal group.</p>
<p>Another limitation involved the stimuli used. The photographs were all based on a single 22-year-old male model. This young age might not be relevant or appealing to women in their 50s, 60s, or 70s. Postmenopausal women might naturally prefer older men, and evaluating a man in his early twenties could introduce an age-appropriateness bias. The researchers acknowledge that future studies should use models of various ages to ensure more accurate ratings.</p>
<p>Despite these limitations, the study provides evidence that biological changes in women influence social perception. The findings support the concept that mating psychology evolves across the lifespan. As the biological need for “good genes” fades, women appear to adjust their criteria for what makes a man attractive.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-025-00272-7" target="_blank">The Perception of Women of Different Ages of Men’s Physical attractiveness, Aggression and Social Dominance Based on Male Secondary Sexual Characteristics</a>,” was authored by Aurelia Starzyńska, Maja Pietras, and Łukasz Pawelec.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/genetic-risk-for-depression-predicts-financial-struggles-but-the-cause-isnt-what-scientists-thought/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Genetic risk for depression predicts financial struggles, but the cause isn’t what scientists thought</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/abn0001051" target="_blank">Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science</a></em> offers a nuanced look at how genetic risk for depression interacts with social and economic life circumstances to influence mental health over time. The findings indicate that while people with a higher genetic liability for depression often experience financial and educational challenges, these challenges may not be directly caused by the genetic risk itself.</p>
<p>Scientists conducted the study to better understand the developmental pathways that lead to depressive symptoms. A major theory in psychology, known as the bioecological model, proposes that genetic predispositions do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, this model suggests that a person’s genetic makeup might shape the environments they select or experience. For example, a genetic tendency toward low mood or low energy might make it harder for an individual to complete higher education or maintain steady employment.</p>
<p>If this theory holds true, those missed opportunities could lead to financial strain or a lack of social resources. These environmental stressors would then feed back into the person’s life, potentially worsening their mental health. The researchers aimed to test whether this specific chain of events is supported by data. They sought to determine if genetic risk for depression predicts changes in depressive symptoms specifically by influencing socioeconomic factors like wealth, debt, and education.</p>
<p>To investigate these questions, the researchers utilized data from two massive, long-term projects in the United States. The first dataset came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, also known as Add Health. This sample included 5,690 participants who provided DNA samples. The researchers tracked these individuals from adolescence, starting around age 16, into early adulthood, ending around age 29.</p>
<p>The second dataset served as a replication effort to see if the findings would hold up in a different group. This sample came from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, or WLS, which included 8,964 participants. Unlike the younger cohort in Add Health, the WLS participants were tracked across a decade in mid-to-late life, roughly from age 53 to 64. Using two different age groups allowed the scientists to see if these patterns persisted across the lifespan.</p>
<p>For both groups, the researchers calculated a “polygenic index” for each participant. This is a personalized score that summarizes thousands of tiny genetic variations across the entire genome that are statistically associated with depressive symptoms. A higher score indicates a higher genetic probability of experiencing depression. The researchers then measured four specific socioeconomic resources: educational attainment, total financial assets, total debt, and access to health insurance.</p>
<p>In the initial phase of the analysis, the researchers looked at the population as a whole. This is called a “between-family” analysis because it compares unrelated individuals against one another. In the Add Health sample, they found that higher genetic risk for depression was indeed associated with increases in depressive symptoms over the 12-year period.</p>
<p>The data showed that this link was partially explained by the socioeconomic variables. Participants with higher genetic risk tended to have lower educational attainment, fewer assets, more debt, and more difficulty maintaining health insurance. These difficult life circumstances, in turn, were associated with rising levels of depression.</p>
<p>The researchers then repeated this between-family analysis in the older Wisconsin cohort. The results were largely consistent. Higher genetic risk predicted increases in depression symptoms over the decade. Once again, this association appeared to be mediated by the same social factors. Specifically, participants with higher genetic risk reported lower net worth and were more likely to have gone deeply into debt or experienced healthcare difficulties.</p>
<p>These results initially seemed to support the idea that depression genes cause real-world problems that then cause more depression. However, the researchers took a significant additional step to test for causality. They performed a “within-family” analysis using siblings included in the Wisconsin study.</p>
<p>Comparing siblings provides a much stricter test of cause and effect. Siblings share roughly 50 percent of their DNA and grow up in the same household, which controls for many environmental factors like parenting style and childhood socioeconomic status. If the genetic risk for depression truly causes a person to acquire more debt or achieve less education, the sibling with the higher polygenic score should have worse economic outcomes than the sibling with the lower score.</p>
<p>When the researchers applied this sibling-comparison model, the findings changed. Within families, the sibling with higher genetic risk did report more depressive symptoms. This confirms that the genetic score is picking up on a real biological vulnerability. However, the link between the depression genetic score and the socioeconomic factors largely disappeared.</p>
<p>The sibling with higher genetic risk for depression was not significantly more likely to have lower education, less wealth, or more debt than their co-sibling. This lack of association in the sibling model suggests that the genetic risk for depression does not directly cause these negative socioeconomic outcomes. Instead, the correlation seen in the general population is likely due to other shared factors.</p>
<p>One potential explanation for the discrepancy involves a concept called pleiotropy, where the same genes influence multiple traits. The researchers conducted sensitivity analyses that accounted for genetic scores related to educational attainment. They found that once they controlled for the genetics of education, the apparent link between depression genes and socioeconomic status vanished.</p>
<p>This suggests that the same genetic variations that influence how far someone goes in school might also be correlated with depression risk. It implies that low education or financial struggle is not necessarily a downstream consequence of depression risk, but rather that both depression and socioeconomic struggles may share common genetic roots or be influenced by broader family environments.</p>
<p>The study has some limitations. Both datasets were comprised almost entirely of individuals of European ancestry. This lack of diversity means the results may not apply to people of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. Additionally, the measures of debt and insurance were limited to the questions available in these pre-existing surveys. They may not have captured the full nuance of financial stress.</p>
<p>Furthermore, while sibling models help rule out family-wide environmental factors, they cannot account for every unique experience a person has. Future research is needed to explore how these genetic risks interact with specific life events, such as trauma or job loss, which were not the primary focus of this investigation. The researchers also note that debt and medical insurance difficulties are understudied in this field and deserve more detailed attention in future work.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/abn0001051" target="_blank">Genotypic and Socioeconomic Risks for Depressive Symptoms in Two U.S. Cohorts Spanning Early to Older Adulthood</a>,” was authored by David A. Sbarra, Sam Trejo, K. Paige Harden, Jeffrey C. Oliver, and Yann C. Klimentidis.</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/the-biology-of-bonding-andrew-huberman-explains-attachment-and-desire/" 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;">The biology of bonding: Andrew Huberman explains attachment and desire</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 19:17</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p><em><strong>PsyPost’s PodWatch highlights interesting clips from recent podcasts related to psychology and neuroscience.</strong></em></p>
<p>In a recent episode of the Huberman Lab podcast, released on Thursday, February 12, Dr. Andrew Huberman explores the biological and psychological roots of human connection. The episode, titled “<a href="https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/essentials-the-science-of-love-desire-and-attachment">Essentials: The Science of Love, Desire & Attachment</a>,” examines how early life experiences and specific brain functions create the feelings of romance. Huberman breaks down the complex science behind why humans bond with certain people and how relationships either succeed or fail over time.</p>
<p>During the first five minutes of the broadcast, Huberman explains that adult romantic styles often mirror the emotional bond a person had with their caregivers as a toddler. He references the famous “Strange Situation Task” developed by psychologist Mary Ainsworth in the 1980s. In this experiment, researchers observed how children reacted when their parents left a room and subsequently returned.</p>
<p>Based on these reactions, researchers categorized children into groups such as securely attached or anxious-avoidant. Huberman notes that these early classifications are strong predictors of how individuals will behave in romantic partnerships later in life. However, he emphasizes that these emotional templates are not permanent and can change once a person understands them.</p>
<p>The discussion moves beyond psychology to look at the physical brain. Huberman clarifies that there is no single area in the brain responsible for creating the feeling of love. Instead, multiple brain regions work together in a coordinated sequence to produce the states of desire and attachment.</p>
<p>Around the ten-minute mark, the host details the specific chemical and electrical systems involved in bonding. He corrects a common misconception about dopamine, explaining that it is primarily a chemical for motivation and craving rather than just pleasure. This chemical acts as a currency in the brain that drives the pursuit of a partner.</p>
<p>A major component of connection is the neural circuit for empathy, which involves the prefrontal cortex and the insula. The insula is a region of the brain that helps people sense their own internal body state, a process known as interoception. This area allows individuals to pay attention to their own feelings while simultaneously reading the emotions of others.</p>
<p>Huberman introduces the concept of “positive delusion” as a requirement for long-term stability. This describes a mental state where a person believes that only their specific partner can make them feel a certain way. This unique biological bias helps maintain the bond between two people over time.</p>
<p>Huberman reviews research from the Gottman Lab at the University of Washington regarding relationship breakdown. The researchers identified four negative behaviors that predict failure: criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt. Stonewalling occurs when a listener withdraws from an interaction and stops responding to their partner.</p>
<p>Among these negative behaviors, contempt is identified as the most destructive force in a partnership. Huberman cites the researchers who describe contempt as the “sulfuric acid” of a relationship because it erodes the emotional bond. This hostility completely shuts down the empathy circuits required for connection.</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/evening-screen-use-may-be-more-relaxing-than-stimulating-for-teenagers/" 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;">Evening screen use may be more relaxing than stimulating for teenagers</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 18:00</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/10.1111/jsr.70288" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Sleep Research</a></em> suggests that evening screen use might not be as physically stimulating for teenagers as many parents and experts have assumed. The findings provide evidence that most digital activities actually coincide with lower heart rates compared to non-screen activities like moving around the house or playing. This indicates that the common connection between screens and poor sleep is likely driven by the timing of device use rather than a state of high physical arousal.</p>
<p>Adolescence is a time when establishing healthy sleep patterns is essential for mental health and growth, yet many young people fall short of the recommended eight to ten hours of sleep. While screen use has been linked to shorter sleep times, the specific reasons why this happens are not yet fully understood.</p>
<p>Existing research has looked at several possibilities, such as the light from screens affecting hormones or the simple fact that screens take up time that could be spent sleeping. Some experts have also worried that the excitement from social media or gaming could keep the body in an active state that prevents relaxation. The new study was designed to investigate the physical arousal theory by looking at heart rate in real-world settings rather than in a laboratory.</p>
<p>“In our previous research, we found that screen use in bed was linked with shorter sleep, largely because teens were falling asleep later. But that left an open question: were screens simply delaying bedtime, or were they physiologically stimulating adolescents in a way that made it harder to fall asleep?” said study author Kim Meredith-Jones, a research associate professor at the University of Otago.</p>
<p>“In this study, we wanted to test whether evening screen use actually increased heart rate — a marker of physiological arousal — and whether that arousal explained delays in falling asleep. In other words, is it what teens are doing on screens that matters, or just the fact that screens are replacing sleep time?”</p>
<p>By using objective tools to track both what teens do on their screens and how their hearts respond, the team hoped to fill gaps in existing knowledge. They aimed to see if different types of digital content, such as texting versus scrolling, had different effects on the heart. Understanding these connections is important for creating better guidelines for digital health in young people.</p>
<p>The research team recruited a group of 70 adolescents from Dunedin, New Zealand, who were between 11 and nearly 15 years old. This sample was designed to be diverse, featuring 31 girls and 39 boys from various backgrounds. Approximately 33 percent of the participants identified as indigenous Māori, while others came from Pacific, Asian, or European backgrounds.</p>
<p>To capture a detailed look at their evening habits, the researchers used a combination of wearable technology and video recordings over four different nights. Each participant wore a high-resolution camera attached to a chest harness starting three hours before their usual bedtime. This camera recorded exactly what they were doing and what screens they were viewing until they entered their beds.</p>
<p>Once the participants were in bed, a stationary camera continued to record their activities until they fell asleep. This allowed the researchers to see if they used devices while under the covers and exactly when they closed their eyes. The video data was then analyzed by trained coders who categorized screen use into ten specific behaviors, such as watching videos, gaming, or using social media.</p>
<p>The researchers also categorized activities as either passive or interactive. Passive activities included watching, listening, reading, or browsing, while interactive activities included gaming, communication, and multitasking. Social media use was analyzed separately to see its specific impact on heart rate compared to other activities.</p>
<p>At the same time, the participants wore a Fitbit Inspire 2 on their dominant wrist to track their heart rate every few seconds. The researchers used this information to see how the heart reacted to each specific screen activity in real time. This objective measurement provided a more accurate picture than asking the teenagers to remember how they felt or what they did.</p>
<p>To measure sleep quality and duration, each youth also wore a motion-sensing device on their other wrist for seven consecutive days. This tool, known as an accelerometer, provided data on when they actually fell asleep and how many times they woke up. The researchers then used statistical models to see if heart rate patterns during screen time could predict these sleep outcomes.</p>
<p>The data revealed that heart rates were consistently higher during periods when the teenagers were not using screens. The average heart rate during non-screen activities was approximately 93 beats per minute, which likely reflects the physical effort of moving around or doing chores. In contrast, when the participants were using their devices, their average heart rate dropped to about 83 beats per minute.</p>
<p>This suggests that screen use is often a sedentary behavior that allows the body to stay relatively calm. When the participants were in bed, the difference was less extreme, but screen use still tended to accompany lower heart rates than other in-bed activities. These findings indicate that digital engagement may function as a way for teenagers to wind down after a long day.</p>
<p>The researchers also looked at how specific types of digital content affected the heart. Social media use was associated with the lowest heart rates, especially when the teenagers were already in bed. Gaming and multitasking between different apps also showed lower heart rate readings compared to other screen-based tasks.</p>
<p>“We were surprised to find that heart rates were lower during social media use,” Meredith-Jones told PsyPost. “Previous research has suggested that social media can be stressful or emotionally intense for adolescents, so we expected to see higher arousal. Instead, our findings suggest that in this context, teens may have been using social media as a way to unwind or switch off. That said, how we define and measure ‘social media use’ matters, and we’re now working on more refined ways to capture the context and type of engagement.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, activities involving communication, such as texting or messaging, were linked to higher heart rates. This type of interaction seemed to be less conducive to relaxation than scrolling through feeds or watching videos. Even so, the heart rate differences between these various digital activities were relatively small.</p>
<p>When examining sleep patterns, the researchers found that heart rate earlier in the evening had a different relationship with sleep than heart rate closer to bedtime. Higher heart rates occurring more than two hours before bed were linked to falling asleep earlier in the night. This may be because higher activity levels in the early evening help the body build up a need for rest.</p>
<p>However, the heart rate in the two hours before bed and while in bed had the opposite effect on falling asleep. For every increase of 10 beats per minute during this window, the participants took about nine minutes longer to drift off. This provides evidence that physical excitement right before bed can delay the start of sleep.</p>
<p>Notably, while a higher heart rate made it harder to fall asleep, it did not seem to reduce the total amount of sleep the teenagers got. It also did not affect how often they woke up during the night or the general quality of their rest. The researchers noted that a person would likely need a very large increase in heart rate to see a major impact on their sleep schedule.</p>
<p>“The effects were relatively small,” Meredith-Jones explained. “For example, our data suggest heart rate would need to increase by around 30 beats per minute to delay sleep onset by about 30 minutes. The largest differences we observed between screen activities were closer to 10 beats per minute, making it unlikely that typical screen use would meaningfully delay sleep through physiological arousal alone.”</p>
<p>“The key takeaway is that most screen use in the evening did not increase heart rate. In fact, many types of screen activity were associated with lower heart rates compared to non-screen time. Although higher heart rate before bed was linked with taking longer to fall asleep, the changes in heart rate we observed during screen use were generally small. Overall, most evening screen activities appeared more relaxing than arousing.”</p>
<p>One limitation of this study is that the researchers did not have a baseline heart rate for each participant while they were completely at rest. Without this information, it is difficult to say for certain if screens were actively lowering the heart rate or if the teens were just naturally calm. Individual differences in biology could account for some of the variations seen in the data.</p>
<p>“One strength of this study was our use of wearable cameras to objectively classify screen behaviours such as gaming, social media, and communication,” Meredith-Jones noted. “This approach provides much richer and more accurate data than self-report questionnaires or simple screen-time analytics. However, a limitation is that we did not measure each participant’s true resting heart rate, so we can’t definitively say whether higher heart rates reflected arousal above baseline or just individual differences. That’s an important area for refinement in future research.”</p>
<p>It is also important to note that the findings don’t imply that screens are always helpful for sleep. Even if they are not physically arousing, using a device late at night can still lead to sleep displacement. This happens when the time spent on a screen replaces time that would otherwise be spent sleeping, leading to tiredness the next day. On the other hand, one shouldn’t assume that screens always impede sleep, either.</p>
<p>“A common assumption is that all screen use is inherently harmful for sleep,” Meredith-Jones explained. “Our findings don’t support that blanket statement. In earlier work, we found that screen use in bed was associated with shorter sleep duration, but in this study, most screen use was not physiologically stimulating. That suggests timing and context matter, and that some forms of screen use may even serve as a wind-down activity before bed.”</p>
<p>Looking ahead, “we want to better distinguish between different types of screen use, for example, interactive versus passive engagement, or emotionally charged versus neutral communication,” Meredith-Jones said. “We’re also developing improved real-world measurement tools that can capture not just how long teens use screens, but what they’re doing, how they’re engaging, and in what context. That level of detail is likely to give us much clearer answers than simple ‘screen time’ totals.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.70288" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Screens, Teens, and Sleep: Is the Impact of Nighttime Screen Use on Sleep Driven by Physiological Arousal?</a>” was authored by Kim A. Meredith-Jones, Jillian J. Haszard, Barbara C. Galland, Shay-Ruby Wickham, Bradley J. Brosnan, Takiwai Russell-Camp, and Rachael W. Taylor.</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/can-brain-stimulation-treat-psychopathy/" 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;">Can brain stimulation treat psychopathy?</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Scientists exploring new ways to address psychopathic traits have found that gentle electrical or magnetic stimulation of the brain may slightly improve empathy and prosocial behavior. A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2025.111582" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry</a></em> suggests the technology shows promise—but there is currently no direct evidence it works in people with psychopathy.</p>
<p>Psychopathy is often associated with persistent antisocial behavior and emotional differences, such as reduced empathy, guilt, and concern for others. Traditional treatments, including therapy programs and anger-management courses, have had limited success in changing these core emotional traits.</p>
<p>This has led researchers to explore whether differences in brain activity might help explain psychopathy, and whether targeting the brain directly could offer new treatment possibilities.</p>
<p>Brain imaging studies have shown that people with psychopathic traits often have unusual activity in regions linked to emotion and decision-making. These include areas involved in recognizing fear, responding to others’ pain, and regulating behavior.</p>
<p>Scientists have therefore begun testing non-invasive brain stimulation, which utilizes magnets or weak electrical currents applied to the scalp, to see whether altering brain activity can influence emotional responses.</p>
<p>Led by Célia F. Camara from the University of Essex in the U.K., the research team behind the new study wanted to know whether these brain-stimulation techniques could change traits related to psychopathy.</p>
<p>Camara and colleagues conducted a large review and statistical analysis of 64 experiments involving 122 measured effects. The studies examined several forms of stimulation, including transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation, and compared them with sham (placebo-like) conditions.</p>
<p>Most experiments were conducted with healthy adult volunteers rather than people diagnosed with psychopathy. Participants completed tasks or questionnaires measuring empathy, emotional reactions, or prosocial behavior before and after brain stimulation. The researchers then combined results across studies to see whether any consistent patterns emerged.</p>
<p>The findings demonstrated that certain types of “excitatory” brain stimulation—designed to increase activity in targeted brain regions—produced small to moderate improvements in social and emotional responses. In some cases, participants reported greater empathy, increased willingness to help others, or increased feelings of guilt. Other types of stimulation that dampen brain activity sometimes reduced these responses.</p>
<p>Overall, the analysis suggests that non-invasive brain stimulation can influence emotional and social processing in ways that are relevant to psychopathic traits. However, the results were mixed and varied widely depending on the type of stimulation, the brain area targeted, and how many sessions participants received.</p>
<p>The researchers noted that while the findings provide early proof that emotional traits can be influenced by brain stimulation, the technology is far from being a practical treatment. Notably, the review found that the only available study conducted specifically on psychopathic individuals reported null effects.</p>
<p>“The generalizability of our findings is limited by insufficient research on psychopathy-relevant samples. Responses to non-invasive brain stimulation in individuals with psychopathy may differ from those of non-psychopathic populations, as evidence indicates that individuals with psychopathy exhibit distinct neurobiological profiles compared with non-psychopathic cohorts,” Camara and colleagues cautioned.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the results open the door to new ways of understanding and potentially addressing the emotional aspects of psychopathy.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2025.111582" target="_blank" rel="noopener">On the possibility to modulate psychopathic traits via non-invasive brain stimulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by Célia F. Camara, Carmen S. Sergiou, Andrés Molero Chamizo, Alejandra Sel, Nathzidy G. Rivera Urbina, Michael A. Nitsche, and Paul H.P. Hanel.</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/childhood-trauma-and-genetics-drive-alcoholism-at-different-life-stages/" 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;">Childhood trauma and genetics drive alcoholism at different life stages</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research suggests that the path to alcohol dependence may differ depending on when the condition begins. A study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112987" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Drug and Alcohol Dependence</a></em> identifies distinct roles for genetic variations and childhood experiences in the development of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). The findings indicate that severe early-life trauma accelerates the onset of the disease, whereas specific genetic factors are more closely linked to alcoholism that develops later in adulthood. This separation of causes provides a more nuanced view of a condition that affects millions of people globally.</p>
<p>Alcohol Use Disorder is a chronic medical condition characterized by an inability to stop or control alcohol use despite adverse consequences. Researchers understand that the risk of developing this condition stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors. Genetic predisposition accounts for approximately half of the risk. The remaining risk comes from life experiences, particularly those occurring during formative years. However, the specific ways these factors interact have remained a subject of debate.</p>
<p>One specific gene of interest produces a protein called Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, or BDNF. This protein acts much like a fertilizer for the brain. It supports the survival of existing neurons and encourages the growth of new connections and synapses. This process is essential for neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections.</p>
<p>Variations in the BDNF gene can alter how the brain adapts to stress and foreign substances. Because alcohol consumption changes the brain’s structure, the gene that regulates brain plasticity is a prime suspect in the search for biological causes of addiction.</p>
<p>Yi-Wei Yeh and San-Yuan Huang, researchers from the Tri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical University in Taiwan, led the investigation. They aimed to untangle how BDNF gene variants, childhood trauma, and family dysfunction contribute to alcoholism. They specifically wanted to determine if these factors worked alone or if they amplified each other. For example, they sought to answer whether a person with a specific genetic variant would be more susceptible to the damaging effects of a difficult childhood.</p>
<p>The team recruited 1,085 participants from the Han Chinese population in Taiwan. After excluding individuals with incomplete data or DNA issues, the final analysis compared 518 patients diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder against 548 healthy control subjects.</p>
<p>The researchers categorized the patients based on when their drinking became a disorder. They defined early-onset as occurring at or before age 25 and late-onset as occurring after age 25. This distinction allowed them to see if different drivers were behind the addiction at different life stages.</p>
<p>To analyze the biological factors, the researchers collected blood samples from all participants. They extracted DNA to examine four distinct locations on the BDNF gene. These specific locations are known as single-nucleotide polymorphisms. They represent single-letter changes in the genetic code that can alter how the gene functions. The team looked for patterns in these variations to see if any were more common in the group with alcoholism.</p>
<p>Participants also completed detailed psychological assessments. The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire asked about physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as physical and emotional neglect. A second survey measured Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which covers a broader range of household challenges such as divorce or incarcerated family members. A third tool, the Family APGAR, assessed how well the participants’ families functioned in terms of emotional support, communication, and adaptability.</p>
<p>The genetic analysis revealed a specific pattern of DNA variations associated with the disorder. This pattern, known as a haplotype, appeared more frequently in patients with Alcohol Use Disorder. A deeper look at the data showed that this genetic link was specific to late-onset alcoholism. This category includes individuals who developed the condition after the age of 25. This was a somewhat unexpected finding, as earlier research has often linked strong genetic factors to early-onset disease. The authors suggest that genetic influences on brain plasticity might become more pronounced as the brain ages.</p>
<p>The results regarding childhood experiences painted a different picture. Patients with Alcohol Use Disorder reported much higher rates of childhood trauma compared to the healthy control group. This included higher scores for physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect. The study found a clear mathematical relationship between trauma and age. The more severe the childhood trauma, the younger the patient was when they developed a dependency on alcohol. This supports the theory that some individuals use alcohol to self-medicate the emotional pain of early abuse.</p>
<p>The impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) was particularly stark. The data showed a compounding risk. Individuals with one or more adverse experiences were roughly 3.5 times more likely to develop the disorder than those with none. For individuals with two or more adverse experiences, the likelihood skyrocketed. They were 48 times more likely to develop Alcohol Use Disorder. This suggests that there may be a tipping point where the cumulative burden of stress overwhelms a young person’s coping mechanisms.</p>
<p>The researchers uncovered distinct differences between men and women regarding trauma. Men with the disorder reported higher rates of physical abuse in childhood compared to female patients. Women with the disorder reported higher rates of sexual abuse compared to males. The data suggested that for women, a history of sexual abuse was associated with developing alcoholism seven to ten years earlier than those without such history. This highlights a critical need for gender-specific approaches when addressing trauma in addiction treatment.</p>
<p>Family environment played a major role across the board. Patients with the disorder consistently reported lower family functioning compared to healthy individuals. This dysfunction was present regardless of whether the alcoholism started early or late in life. It appears that a lack of family support is a general risk factor rather than a specific trigger for a certain type of the disease. A supportive family acts as a buffer against stress. When that buffer is missing, the risk of maladaptive coping strategies increases.</p>
<p>The team tested the hypothesis that trauma might change how the BDNF gene affects a person. The analysis did not support this idea. The genetic risks and the environmental risks appeared to operate independently of one another. The gene variants did not make the trauma worse, and the trauma did not activate the gene in a specific way. This suggests that while both factors lead to the same outcome, they may travel along parallel biological pathways to get there.</p>
<p>There are limitations to this study that affect how the results should be interpreted. The participants were all Han Chinese, so the genetic findings might not apply to other ethnic populations. Genetic variations often differ by ancestry, and what is true for one group may not hold for another.</p>
<p>The study also relied on adults remembering their childhoods. This retrospective approach can introduce errors, as memory is not always a perfect record of the past. Additionally, the number of female participants was relatively small compared to males, which mirrors the prevalence of the disorder but limits statistical power for that subgroup.</p>
<p>The study also noted high rates of nicotine use among the alcohol-dependent group. Approximately 85 percent of the patients used nicotine. Since smoking can also affect brain biology, it adds another layer of complexity to the genetic analysis. The researchers attempted to control for this, but it remains a variable to consider.</p>
<p>Despite these caveats, the research offers a valuable perspective for clinicians. It suggests that patients who develop alcoholism early in life are likely driven by environmental trauma. Treatment for these individuals might prioritize trauma-informed therapy and psychological processing of past events. In contrast, patients who develop the disorder later in life might be grappling with a genetic vulnerability that becomes relevant as the brain ages. This could point toward different biological targets for medication or different behavioral strategies.</p>
<p>The authors recommend that future research should focus on replicating these findings in larger and more diverse groups. They also suggest using brain imaging technologies. Seeing how these gene variants affect the physical structure of the brain could explain why they predispose older adults to addiction.</p>
<p>Understanding the distinct mechanisms of early versus late-onset alcoholism is a step toward personalized medicine in psychiatry. By identifying whether a patient is fighting a genetic predisposition or the ghosts of a traumatic past, doctors may eventually be able to tailor treatments that address the root cause of the addiction.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112987" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Childhood trauma, family functioning, and the BDNF gene may affect the development of alcohol use disorder</a>,” was authored by Yi-Wei Yeh, Catherine Shin Huey Chen, Shin-Chang Kuo, Chun-Yen Chen, Yu-Chieh Huang, Jyun-Teng Huang, You-Ping Yang, Jhih-Syuan Huang, Kuo-Hsing Ma, and San-Yuan Huang.</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-key-personality-trait-is-linked-to-the-urge-to-cheat-in-unhappy-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;">A key personality trait is linked to the urge to cheat in unhappy men</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study in <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681994.2025.2595414"><em>Sexual and Relationship Therapy</em></a> found that men are more open to casual sex and infidelity than women. The research also highlights a strong link between relationship dissatisfaction, the desire for uncommitted sex, and the intention to cheat.</p>
<p>Infidelity has long been defined as a violation of promises and commitments within a romantic relationship, reflecting a failure to uphold expectations of love, loyalty, and support. However, modern views conceptualize infidelity as physical, sexual, or emotional behaviors that violate relationship norms and cause distress and negative relationship outcomes. Exactly which behaviors constitute infidelity varies across couples, as norms regarding emotional and sexual exclusivity differ between relationships.</p>
<p>The most common forms of infidelity are sexual and emotional infidelity. Sexual infidelity usually involves physical sexual behaviors with someone other than one’s partner. Emotional infidelity consists of forming intimate emotional bonds with a person other than the partner that breach relationship rules agreed upon by the couple. Research indicates that sexual and emotional infidelity often co-occur; they are, most often, not independent phenomena.</p>
<p>A key psychological characteristic linked to infidelity is sociosexuality. Sociosexuality is the level of openness to casual sex without commitment. Individuals with higher sociosexuality are more likely to engage in both sexual and emotional infidelity, as their attitudes and desires may conflict with monogamous relationship norms.</p>
<p>Study author Paula Pricope and her colleagues wanted to investigate whether sociosexuality plays a mediating role in the relationship between relationship satisfaction and intentions towards infidelity. They also wanted to know whether these associations are the same in men and women. The authors hypothesized that men would be more inclined to engage in infidelity compared to women and that their sociosexuality would be higher (i.e., they would be more open to casual sex).</p>
<p>Study participants were 246 individuals from Romania. Their average age was 24 years. All participants were volunteers. Sixty-one percent of participants were women. Seventy-two percent were in a non-marital romantic relationship, while 28% were married. Sixty-eight percent of participants were from urban areas of Romania.</p>
<p>Participants completed assessments of intentions towards infidelity (the Intentions Towards Infidelity Scale), relationship satisfaction (the Relationship Assessment Scale), and sociosexuality (the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory – Revised).</p>
<p>Results showed that individuals reporting stronger intentions towards infidelity tended to have higher sociosexuality and be less satisfied with their relationships. In other words, individuals more willing to cheat on their partners tended to be more open to uncommitted sex and less satisfied with their relationships. Men tended to report higher sociosexuality and higher intentions towards infidelity than women.</p>
<p>The authors tested a statistical model proposing that lower relationship satisfaction leads to higher sociosexuality, which, in turn, increases intentions to cheat. The results indicated that this pathway was significant specifically for men. For male participants, lower relationship satisfaction was linked to higher sociosexuality, which then predicted higher intentions to cheat. However, this mediation pathway was not significant for women.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific understanding of infidelity. However, all study data came from self-reports, leaving room for reporting bias to have affected the results. Additionally, the design of the study does not allow for causal inferences.</p>
<p>While it is indeed possible that lower relationship satisfaction leads to increased sociosexuality and infidelity intentions, it is also possible that higher sociosexuality and infidelity intentions reduce relationship satisfaction or make it harder for a person to be satisfied with a committed relationship. Other possibilities also remain open.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2025.2595414">The roles of sociosexuality and gender in the relationship between relationship satisfaction and intentions toward infidelity: a moderated mediation model,</a>” was authored by Paula Pricope, Tudor-Daniel Huțul, Adina Karner-Huțuleac, and Andreea Huțul.</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/methamphetamine-increases-motivation-through-brain-processes-separate-from-euphoria/" 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;">Methamphetamine increases motivation through brain processes separate from euphoria</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 12th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-025-06853-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Psychopharmacology</a></em> has found that the increase in motivation people experience from methamphetamine is separate from the drug’s ability to produce a euphoric high. The findings suggest that these two common effects of stimulant drugs likely involve different underlying biological processes in the brain. This research indicates that a person might become more willing to work hard without necessarily feeling a greater sense of pleasure or well-being.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted the new study to clarify how stimulants affect human motivation and personal feelings. They intended to understand if the pleasurable high people experience while taking these drugs is the primary reason they become more willing to work for rewards. By separating these effects, the team aimed to gain insight into how drugs could potentially be used to treat motivation-related issues without causing addictive euphoria.</p>
<p>Another reason for the study was to investigate how individual differences in personality or brain chemistry change how a person responds to a stimulant. Scientists wanted to see if people who are naturally less motivated benefit more from these drugs than those who are already highly driven. The team also sought to determine if the drug makes tasks feel easier or if it simply makes the final reward seem more attractive to the user.</p>
<p>“Stimulant drugs like amphetamine are thought to produce ‘rewarding’ effects that contribute to abuse or dependence, by increasing levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Findings from animal models suggest that stimulant drugs, perhaps because of their effects on dopamine, increase motivation, or the animals’ willingness to exert effort,” explained study author Harriet de Wit, a professor at the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>“Findings from human studies suggest that stimulant drugs lead to repeated use because they produce subjective feelings of wellbeing. In the present study, we tested the effects of amphetamine in healthy volunteers, on both an effort task and self-reported euphoria.”</p>
<p>For their study, the researchers recruited a group of 96 healthy adults from the Chicago area. This group consisted of 48 men and 48 women between the ages of 18 and 35. Each volunteer underwent a rigorous screening process that included a physical exam, a heart health check, and a psychiatric interview to ensure they were healthy.</p>
<p>The study used a double-blind, placebo-controlled design to ensure the results were accurate and unbiased. This means that neither the participants nor the staff knew if a volunteer received the actual drug or an inactive pill on a given day. The participants attended two separate laboratory sessions where they received either 20 milligrams of methamphetamine or a placebo.</p>
<p>During these sessions, the participants completed a specific exercise called the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task. This task required them to choose between an easy option for a small amount of money or a more difficult option for a larger reward. The researchers used this to measure how much physical effort a person was willing to put in to get a better payoff.</p>
<p>The easy task involved pressing a specific key on a keyboard 30 times with the index finger of the dominant hand within seven seconds. Successfully completing this task always resulted in a small reward of one dollar. This served as a baseline for the minimum amount of effort a person was willing to expend for a guaranteed but small gain.</p>
<p>The hard task required participants to press a different key 100 times using the pinky finger of their non-dominant hand within 21 seconds. The rewards for this more difficult task varied from about one dollar and 24 cents to over four dollars. This task was designed to be physically taxing and required a higher level of commitment to complete.</p>
<p>Before making their choice on each trial, participants were informed of the probability that they would actually receive the money if they finished the task. These probabilities were set at 12 percent, 50 percent, or 88 percent. This added a layer of risk to the decision, as a person might work hard for a reward but still receive nothing if the odds were not in their favor.</p>
<p>Throughout the four-hour sessions, the researchers measured the participants’ personal feelings and physical reactions at regular intervals. They used standardized questionnaires to track how much the participants liked the effects of the drug and how much euphoria they felt. They also monitored physical signs such as heart rate and blood pressure to ensure the safety of the volunteers.</p>
<p>Before the main sessions, the participants completed the task during an orientation to establish their natural effort levels. The researchers then divided the group in half based on these baseline scores. This allowed the team to compare people who were naturally inclined to work hard against those who were naturally less likely to choose the difficult task.</p>
<p>The results showed that methamphetamine increased the frequency with which people chose the hard task over the easy one across the whole group. This effect was most visible when the chances of winning the reward were in the low to medium range. The drug seemed to give participants a boost in motivation when the outcome was somewhat uncertain.</p>
<p>The data provides evidence that the drug had a much stronger impact on people who were naturally less motivated. Participants in the low baseline group showed a significantly larger increase in their willingness to choose the hard task compared to those in the high baseline group. For people who were already high achievers, the drug did not seem to provide much of an additional motivational boost.</p>
<p>To understand why the drug changed behavior, the researchers used a mathematical model to analyze the decision-making process. This model helped the team separate how much a person cares about the difficulty of a task from how much they value the reward itself. It provided a more detailed look at the internal trade-offs people make when deciding to work.</p>
<p>The model showed that methamphetamine specifically reduced a person’s sensitivity to the physical cost of effort. This suggests that the drug makes hard work feel less unpleasant or demanding than it normally would. Instead of making the reward seem more exciting, the drug appears to make the work itself feel less like a burden.</p>
<p>This change in effort sensitivity was primarily found in the participants who started with low motivation levels. For these individuals, the drug appeared to lower the mental or physical barriers that usually made them avoid the difficult option. In contrast, the drug did not significantly change the effort sensitivity of those who were already highly motivated.</p>
<p>Methamphetamine did not change how sensitive people were to the probability of winning the reward. This indicates that the drug affects the drive to work rather than changing how people calculate risks or perceive the odds of success. The volunteers still understood the chances of winning, but they were more willing to try anyway despite the difficulty.</p>
<p>As the researchers expected, the drug increased feelings of happiness and euphoria in the participants. It also caused the usual physical changes associated with stimulants, such as an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. Most participants reported that they liked the effects of the drug while they were performing the tasks.</p>
<p>A major finding of the study is that the boost in mood was not related to the boost in productivity. The participants who felt the highest levels of euphoria were not the same people who showed the greatest increase in hard task choices. “This suggests that different receptor actions of amphetamine mediate willingness to exert effort and feelings of wellbeing,” de Wit explained.</p>
<p>There was no statistical correlation between how much a person liked the drug and how much more effort they were willing to exert. This provides evidence that the brain processes that create pleasure from stimulants are distinct from those that drive motivated behavior. A person can experience the motivational benefits of a stimulant without necessarily feeling the intense pleasure that often leads to drug misuse.</p>
<p>The findings highlight that “drugs have numerous behavioral and cognitive actions, which may be mediated by different neurotransmitter actions,” de Wit told PsyPost. “The purpose of research in this area is to disentangle which effects are relevant to misuse or dependence liability, and which might have clinical benefits, and what brain processes underlie the effects.”</p>
<p>The results also highlight the importance of considering a person’s starting point when predicting how they will respond to a medication. Because the drug helped the least motivated people the most, it suggests that these treatments might be most effective for those with a clear deficit in drive.</p>
<p>The study, like all research, has some limitations. The participants were all healthy young adults, so it is not clear if the results would be the same for older people or those with existing health conditions. A more diverse group of volunteers would be needed to see if these patterns apply to the general population.</p>
<p>The study only tested a single 20-milligram dose of methamphetamine given by mouth. It is possible that different doses or different ways of taking the drug might change the relationship between mood and behavior. Using a range of doses in future studies would help researchers see if there is a point where the mood and effort effects begin to overlap.</p>
<p>Another limitation is that the researchers did not directly look at the chemical changes inside the participants’ brains. While they believe dopamine is involved, they did not use brain imaging technology to confirm this directly. Future research could use specialized scans to see exactly which brain regions are active when these changes in motivation occur.</p>
<p>“The results open the door to further studies to determine what brain mechanisms underlie the two behavioral effects,” de Wit said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-025-06853-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Effects of methamphetamine on human effort task performance are unrelated to its subjective effects</a>,” was authored by Evan C. Hahn, Hanna Molla, Jessica A. Cooper, Joseph DeBrosse, and Harriet de Wit.</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>