<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/psilocybin-produces-different-behavioral-and-brain-altering-effects-depending-on-the-dose/" 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;">Psilocybin produces different behavioral and brain-altering effects depending on the dose</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 26th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Different doses of psilocybin produce distinct behavioral and brain-altering effects in mice, according to new research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251395386" target="_blank">Journal of Psychopharmacology</a></em>. The study suggests that moderate doses of the compound are linked to reduced anxiety, while higher doses tend to produce antidepressant-like effects and increase signs of new neural connections. These findings help clarify how different levels of brain receptor engagement could eventually guide more precise treatments for human psychiatric conditions.</p>
<p>Psilocybin is the primary psychoactive compound found in certain species of magic mushrooms. In the human body, it is broken down into psilocin, which activates specific serotonin receptors in the brain to produce altered states of consciousness. Recent clinical trials suggest that just one or two doses of psilocybin can provide rapid and long-lasting relief for patients with major depressive disorder.</p>
<p>Despite these encouraging clinical outcomes, the exact biological mechanisms that make psilocybin an effective antidepressant over the long term remain somewhat unclear. The drug leaves the body within hours, yet its mood-boosting effects can persist for weeks or months. </p>
<p>“Psilocybin has shown remarkably rapid and long-lasting antidepressant effects in clinical trials, but we still don’t fully understand how a drug that leaves the body within hours can produce therapeutic benefits that last for weeks or even months,” explained study author Connor Maltby, the head of Translational Medicine at <a href="https://ulysses-neuro.com/" target="_blank">Ulysses Neuroscience Ltd</a>.</p>
<p>“One major hypothesis is that psychedelics work by enhancing neuroplasticity, but the relationship between receptor activation, behavioral effects, and downstream biological changes hasn’t been clearly mapped out. We wanted to understand how the degree of engagement of the brain’s primary psychedelic target (the 5-HT 2A ) receptor relates to both behavioral outcomes and molecular markers of plasticity in specific brain regions.” </p>
<p>“This kind of mechanistic understanding is critical if we want to move beyond empirical dosing toward rational development of psychedelic-inspired treatments for neuropsychiatric disorders. In other words, we’re trying to move the field from ‘psychedelics work’ to ‘how much receptor activation is needed to produce which kind of therapeutic effect?'”</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a series of experiments using male mice. They first measured receptor occupancy, which refers to the percentage of specific serotonin receptors actively bound by the drug. The scientists injected six groups of six mice with varying doses of psilocybin, ranging from 0.1 to 10 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, alongside a placebo group. Using a safe radioactive tracer, they calculated how many serotonin receptors were occupied in the prefrontal cortex 30 minutes after the injection.</p>
<p>Next, the team evaluated a behavior known as the head twitch response. In rodents, a specific rapid head movement serves as a reliable physical indicator that a drug is causing hallucinogenic-like effects. The researchers placed groups of 12 mice into observation chambers and used high-speed cameras and artificial intelligence tracking to count the head twitches over 20 minutes.</p>
<p>The data indicates a curved relationship between the dose and the total number of head twitches, with the total count peaking at a moderate dose of 1 milligram per kilogram. However, the highest rapid rate of twitches per minute occurred at a higher dose of 3.2 milligrams per kilogram, matching a 62 percent receptor occupancy. High doses of the drug also tended to reduce the overall physical movement of the mice.</p>
<p>To test for lasting behavioral changes, the scientists administered varying doses of psilocybin to groups of eight to ten mice before placing them in an elevated maze with open and enclosed walkways. Because mice naturally prefer enclosed spaces, spending more time in the open walkways provides evidence of reduced anxiety. The moderate dose of 1.5 milligrams per kilogram increased the time mice spent in the open areas, while the high dose of 3 milligrams per kilogram did not.</p>
<p>Four hours after the maze test, the researchers used a forced swim test to measure depression-like behavior. Mice were placed in small cylinders of water for six minutes, and researchers recorded how long they spent floating passively rather than actively swimming. In this test, the high dose of psilocybin reduced the time mice spent floating, while the moderate dose showed no effect.</p>
<p>“While this was a preclinical study in mice, one encouraging finding was that the levels of 5-HT 2A receptor engagement associated with behavioral and plasticity-related effects in our experiments were broadly consistent with those linked to subjective and therapeutic effects in human imaging studies,” Maltby told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“That kind of cross-species alignment suggests that receptor occupancy may eventually serve as a useful biological framework for understanding and potentially optimising dosing in clinical settings. Rather than relying solely on subjective experience, future treatments might be guided by measurable engagement of specific neural targets.”</p>
<p>Finally, the scientists examined the brains of the mice to look for signs of neuroplasticity. They focused on microtubules, which are microscopic tube-like structures that help brain cells maintain their shape and grow new connection branches. They also measured specific proteins that indicate the presence of synapses, which are the communication junctions between brain cells.</p>
<p>Both the moderate and high doses of psilocybin changed the chemical structure of the microtubules, making them more dynamic and capable of remodeling. This increased structural flexibility occurred in both the prefrontal cortex, a brain region involved in complex thought, and the amygdala, a region tied to fear and emotional processing.</p>
<p>The researchers found that actual increases in synaptic proteins only occurred in the prefrontal cortex. Both the moderate and high doses led to higher levels of proteins associated with new cellular connections in this area. The amygdala did not show any increase in synaptic proteins, which the researchers suspect might act as a biological safety mechanism to prevent the formation of anxiety-inducing pathways.</p>
<p>“One interesting finding was that psilocybin increased markers of synaptic plasticity in the prefrontal cortex but not in the amygdala, even though both regions showed signs of increased microtubule dynamics,” Maltby said. “This suggested that different brain regions may respond to psychedelic-induced receptor activation in distinct ways, potentially supporting different therapeutic outcomes such as anxiolytic versus antidepressant effects. It highlights that the brain’s response to psychedelics may be region-specific rather than globally uniform.”</p>
<p>These findings highlight a common misconception that a stronger psychedelic experience automatically leads to better therapeutic benefits. The study provides evidence that different levels of receptor engagement trigger distinctly different biological and behavioral outcomes. Moderate doses seem better suited for reducing anxiety-like behaviors, while higher doses appear necessary for alleviating depression-like symptoms.</p>
<p>“One common misconception is that the intensity of the psychedelic experience is necessarily tied to therapeutic benefit,” Maltby told PsyPost. “Our findings support a more nuanced view, that different degrees of receptor engagement may produce distinct biological and behavioral outcomes.”</p>
<p>While animal models cannot perfectly replicate complex human emotions, they serve as an essential step in scientific discovery. A mouse cannot communicate feelings of sadness or anxiety, meaning researchers must rely on observable behaviors as stand-ins for human psychological conditions. </p>
<p>Despite this limitation, studying animals provides evidence about how drugs physically interact with a living nervous system. These experiments allow scientists to examine structural changes in brain cells and receptor activity in a highly controlled setting, which tends to guide safer and more precise clinical trials in humans.</p>
<p>“It’s important to note that behavioral assays in animals are best viewed as pharmacodynamic readouts rather than direct models of human depression or anxiety,” Maltby said. “They help us understand the biology involved, but translating those findings into clinical treatment still requires careful human studies.”</p>
<p>The scientists plan to expand this line of research by testing psilocybin in animal models that undergo chronic stress or inflammation. These environmental factors mimic the biological features of clinical depression much closer than the baseline conditions used in the current study. </p>
<p>“Ultimately, the goal is to understand whether specific levels of receptor activation can be linked to particular therapeutic outcomes, which could inform the development of next-generation psychedelic or psychedelic-derived compounds with improved safety and precision, as well as reduced psychoactivity (hallucinations),” Maltby added.</p>
<p>“A key takeaway from this work is that psychedelic compounds may promote long-lasting therapeutic effects by triggering structural and functional changes in neurons, particularly in brain regions involved in mood regulation. By linking receptor engagement to both behavioral effects and molecular markers of plasticity, we hope this study contributes to a more mechanistic understanding of how these compounds work—which will be essential for translating early clinical promise into scalable treatments for neuropsychiatric disorders.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251395386" target="_blank">An exploration of the relationships between the effects of psilocybin on behavior, 5-HT2A receptor occupancy, and neuroplastic effects in mice</a>,” was authored by Connor J. Maltby, Adam K. Klein, Enya Paschen, Jessica Pinto, Dino Dvorak, Joseph R. Hedde, Ashley N. Hanks, Massimiliano Bianchi, and Zoë A. Hughes.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-research-ai-models-tend-to-reflect-the-political-ideologies-of-their-creators/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New research: AI models tend to reflect the political ideologies of their creators</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 26th 2026, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research provides evidence that artificial intelligence systems are not the objective, neutral observers they are often assumed to be. A new study suggests that large language models tend to adopt the ideological perspectives of the companies and countries that build them. These findings were published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44387-025-00048-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">npj Artificial Intelligence</a></em>.</p>
<p>Large language models, or LLMs, are the sophisticated software programs that power tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. These systems learn to generate human-like text by analyzing massive amounts of data from the internet, books, and other digital sources. Because these programs increasingly act as gatekeepers for information, scientists wanted to understand if they present historical and political data neutrally.</p>
<p>The researchers aimed to determine if these systems exhibit political leanings and if those leanings align with the cultures where they were developed. While many users might expect technology to be free of human bias, the new study sought to test that assumption through empirical observation.</p>
<p>“As the use of LLMs is exploding, it becomes increasingly important to understand how they talk about politically sensitive topics. LLM-vendors have been trying to address concerns about undue influence on public discourse and opinion by claiming that their LLM is somehow ‘neutral,” said study author Tijl De Bie, a professor at Ghent University and head of <a href="https://aida.ugent.be/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics (AIDA) group</a>.</p>
<p>“However, ‘neutrality’ is arguably subjective: if you ask different people what ‘neutral’ means on a particular issue, you will get different answers, particularly if those people come from different cultures and backgrounds. Thus, we felt it is important to create transparency about the ideological positions reflected in the outputs different LLMs produce.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the scientists assembled a diverse panel of 19 popular large language models. The selection included prominent models from the United States, such as GPT-4 and Llama, as well as major models from China, the United Arab Emirates, and Europe. This variety allowed the team to compare how artificial intelligence varies across different geopolitical regions.</p>
<p>The researchers tested these models using a list of 3,991 politically relevant figures. They sourced these names from the Pantheon dataset, a database of historical figures. To ensure the study focused on modern political discourse, the team filtered the list to include politicians, activists, and thinkers born after 1850. This ensured that the individuals being discussed were relevant to the current world order established after the world wars.</p>
<p>The team employed a two-step prompting strategy to reveal the hidden opinions within these models. In the first stage, they asked each model to simply describe a specific political person. This mimicked how a typical person might use a search engine or chatbot to learn about a historical figure.</p>
<p>In the second stage, the researchers fed that same description back to the model. They then asked the model to rate how positively or negatively the person was portrayed in the text. They used a five-point rating scale for this assessment. This method allowed the researchers to quantify the sentiment the model held toward specific individuals without asking leading questions that might distort the results.</p>
<p>To account for linguistic differences, the scientists conducted these tests in the six official languages of the United Nations. (These languages are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.) By querying the models in different languages, the researchers could observe if the language itself influenced the ideological stance of the response.</p>
<p>The researchers also categorized the political figures using tags from the Manifesto Project. This is a coding scheme usually used to analyze political party platforms. It allowed the team to associate specific figures with abstract concepts like “market regulation,” “human rights,” or “national way of life.” This tagging process enabled a deeper statistical analysis of which values the models tended to favor.</p>
<p>The analysis offered evidence of ideological disparities that largely matched the geopolitical origin of the models. Models created in Western countries generally provided more positive portrayals of figures associated with liberal values. These models tended to favor individuals tagged with concepts such as human rights, inclusivity, and civic-mindedness.</p>
<p>In contrast, models developed in China displayed a different set of preferences. These systems were more likely to favor figures associated with state stability, economic control, and pro-China perspectives. They were notably more critical of figures who are viewed as dissidents within the Chinese political context. Models from Arabic-speaking countries showed their own distinct patterns, often favoring figures associated with free-market economics while holding different views on social issues compared to Western models.</p>
<p>The language used to prompt the model also played a role in the output. The study found that asking a question in Chinese often yielded a different ideological leaning than asking the same question in English, even when using the same model. This suggests that the cultural context embedded in a language shapes how the artificial intelligence retrieves and processes information.</p>
<p>These findings closely align with research published in <em>Nature Human Behaviour</em>. That study, authored by researchers at MIT Sloan School of Management, found that generative artificial intelligence models <a href="https://www.psypost.org/a-simple-language-switch-can-make-ai-models-behave-significantly-different/">exhibit distinct cultural tendencies</a> depending on the language in which they are prompted.</p>
<p>Specifically, the researchers observed that using Chinese leads these systems to produce responses that are more focused on relationships and context, whereas using English results in outputs that are more individualistic and analytical. Both studies suggest that artificial intelligence is not a culturally neutral tool and that the language chosen by a user can subtly influence the perspective and decision-making logic of the machine.</p>
<p>“The language in which the LLM is used matters quite a bit,” De Bie told PsyPost. “This means that the choice for a particular LLM is also the choice for a particular ideological lens.”</p>
<p>Even within the United States, De Bie and his colleagues observed significant normative differences. For example, Google’s Gemini model showed a strong preference for progressive values and environmentalism. On the other hand, the Grok model from xAI displayed tendencies toward conservative nationalism. This indicates that corporate culture, not just national culture, influences the design and behavior of these systems.</p>
<p>A similar split appeared among Chinese models. The researchers found that Alibaba’s Qwen model appeared more internationally oriented in its assessments. Baidu’s Wenxiaoyan model remained more focused on domestic Chinese perspectives and values. This highlights that models from the same country can still exhibit diversity based on their intended audience and design goals.</p>
<p>“LLMs do indeed exhibit different ideological viewpoints which, perhaps unsurprisingly, appear to align fairly strikingly with what are commonly perceived to be the ideological views of their creators,” De Bie explained. “The effects may be relatively small when considered in isolation, but given the scale at which LLMs are likely to be used in the future, the impact may be real and substantial.”</p>
<p>One potential misinterpretation of this work is the idea that one group of models is correct while the others are biased. The researchers argue that true neutrality is likely impossible to achieve. Every model must make choices about what information to prioritize.</p>
<p>Neutrality “cannot even be defined, let alone achieved,” De Bie told PsyPost. “Of course, an LLM can try to highlight different viewpoints so as to offer a more balanced perspective. But in the end it will always have to make subjective choices as to what to emphasize.”</p>
<p>Future research could expand to include more low-resource languages that are not widely represented in current data. Comparing models trained on a single language versus multilingual models could provide further insights into how language shapes bias.</p>
<p>“We are interested in helping people understand the impact of information on their beliefs and decisions,” De Bie said. “As information we consume is increasingly generated by LLMs, that means we need to understand the value systems underlying LLMs, and their persuasive capabilities. Much of our ongoing research centers around these themes.”</p>
<p>The scientists suggest that rather than trying to force artificial intelligence to be neutral, regulators should focus on transparency. It is important for users to understand that choosing a specific artificial intelligence model effectively means choosing a specific ideological lens through which to view the world.</p>
<p>“With regards to the regulatory response to this, an analogy we often make is with the press,” De Bie explained. “Journalism is not and cannot be value-neutral. The solution liberal democracies have found for that is to safeguard the freedom of the press. Perhaps we should be working towards analogical ‘freedom of AI’ regulation, using regulation that guarantees freedom while preventing AI monopolies and oligopolies, rather than trying to enforce particular ideological constraints and boundaries onto AI systems to keep tabs on their influence on public discourse and opinion.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44387-025-00048-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Large language models reflect the ideology of their creators</a>,” was authored by Maarten Buyl, Alexander Rogiers, Sander Noels, Guillaume Bied, Iris Dominguez-Catena, Edith Heiter, Iman Johary, Alexandru-Cristian Mara, Raphaël Romero, Jefrey Lijffijt, and Tijl De Bie.</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/blaming-a-partner-for-shared-pornography-use-buffers-relationship-dissatisfaction-in-women/" 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;">Blaming a partner for shared pornography use buffers relationship dissatisfaction in women</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 25th 2026, 22:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>When women who morally object to pornography watch it with their romantic partners, they often experience heightened sexual shame that lowers their overall relationship satisfaction. Blaming their partner for the viewing habit serves as a coping mechanism that softens this negative impact. These observations were recently published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2025.2598706" target="_blank">Sexual and Relationship Therapy</a></em>.</p>
<p>Access to explicit sexual media has increased heavily over the past few decades. As a result, researchers have dedicated a great deal of time to evaluating the emotional and social impacts of this consumption. Much of the past work highlights problematic viewing habits or perceived addictions among male users.</p>
<p>The perspectives of female viewers often remain overlooked in academic literature. When studies do include women, they usually focus on how women react to a male partner’s viewing habits. Kristin Doan, a researcher at Liberty University, wanted to shift this academic focus.</p>
<p>Doan and her team decided to investigate how women process their own viewing experiences. They focused heavily on mutual viewing habits. Mutual viewing occurs when romantic partners consume explicit media together.</p>
<p>Women are generally more likely to watch this kind of media with a partner than alone. Cultural narratives often impose strict rules on female sexuality, placing a heavy emphasis on morality. These societal pressures can cause women to view their own sexual behaviors as inappropriate.</p>
<p>This clash of beliefs leads to a psychological phenomenon known as moral incongruence. Moral incongruence happens when a person engages in an activity that violates their own personal values. Doing something you believe is wrong typically creates mental distress.</p>
<p>For many women, consuming explicit media triggers this exact type of conflict. The distress caused by moral incongruence often surfaces as sexual shame. Sexual shame is a deep feeling of inadequacy or unworthiness related to one’s sexual thoughts or actions.</p>
<p>Unlike standard guilt, which focuses on a specific mistake, shame attacks a person’s core identity. Explicit media often portrays unrealistic bodies and submissive female roles. Internalizing these scripts can worsen a woman’s sense of shame.</p>
<p>To handle the heavy burden of shame, people sometimes rely on psychological defense mechanisms. One common defense is externalization. Externalization involves shifting the blame for an action onto outside forces or other people.</p>
<p>In the context of shared explicit media, a woman might tell herself she is only participating because her partner suggested it. Doan and her colleagues suspected this blame-shifting might alter how mutual viewing affects romantic bonds. They designed a study to map out these psychological pathways.</p>
<p>The research team recruited 142 women through an online platform. All the participants were in committed relationships. Each woman had also viewed explicit sexual material within the previous six months.</p>
<p>The participants filled out surveys assessing their viewing habits. They reported the percentage of time they spent watching this material alone versus with their romantic partner. This allowed the researchers to quantify the extent of their mutual viewing.</p>
<p>The surveys also measured several psychological and emotional states. The participants answered questions to gauge their levels of sexual shame and their moral disapproval of pornography. To measure moral disapproval, participants rated statements like “viewing pornography violates my personal values.”</p>
<p>Other questionnaires assessed their tendency to blame others, their sexual satisfaction, and their general relationship happiness. To measure externalization, participants read hypothetical negative scenarios and chose how they would react. Choosing to blame another person in the scenario indicated a higher level of externalization.</p>
<p>To measure sexual satisfaction, participants rated their contentment with various aspects of their sex lives over the past six months. To assess sexual shame, they indicated how much they agreed with statements about feeling inadequate during past sexual experiences. These specific questions provided a close look at their emotional well-being.</p>
<p>The team ran a series of statistical analyses to see how these factors influenced one another. They specifically looked at a chain reaction of emotions. They wanted to know if mutual viewing led to shame, which might then lower sexual and relationship satisfaction.</p>
<p>For women who held low levels of moral disapproval, watching explicit media with a partner did not increase their sexual shame. Their personal values aligned with their actions. Without that internal conflict, the mutual viewing did not harm their relationship satisfaction.</p>
<p>The sequence of emotions changed for women with high levels of moral disapproval. For these individuals, a higher percentage of mutual viewing resulted in elevated sexual shame. Their participation directly clashed with their personal moral compass.</p>
<p>This elevated sexual shame then spilled over into the bedroom. Higher shame led to a drop in sexual satisfaction. This decline in sexual fulfillment eventually dragged down the women’s overall satisfaction with their relationships.</p>
<p>The researchers then looked at the role of externalization in this emotional chain. They wanted to see if shifting the blame changed the final outcome. The results pointed to externalization acting as an emotional buffer.</p>
<p>For women who strongly disapproved of the media but watched it frequently with their partners, blaming the partner offered a form of psychological protection. By assigning responsibility to someone else, they lessened the clash with their own morals. This mental maneuver prevented their sexual satisfaction from dropping as much as it otherwise would have.</p>
<p>The researchers pointed out that this blame-shifting does not necessarily prevent the initial feelings of shame. Instead, it seems to develop in response to the shame. It functions as a way to preserve a positive self-image and maintain a sense of control.</p>
<p>If a woman convinces herself the viewing was entirely her partner’s idea, she avoids taking full responsibility for the morally conflicting act. This allows her to maintain her sexual satisfaction despite participating in an activity she views as wrong. The defense mechanism effectively short-circuits the negative emotional sequence.</p>
<p>The authors emphasized that healthcare providers should recognize these specific emotional pathways. When treating women with sexual concerns, clinicians need to evaluate the patient’s personal moral beliefs. Understanding how a patient processes moral conflict is essential for providing effective care.</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledged a few limitations in their study design. The data was collected all at once rather than over a long period. This cross-sectional approach means the team cannot definitively prove that one emotion caused another.</p>
<p>The sample size of 142 women was also relatively small. A larger group of participants would provide more statistical power to detect subtle psychological patterns. For example, the results related to the protective effects of externalization were not statistically significant in every single statistical model used.</p>
<p>Because these specific effects were not statistically significant across all metrics, the conclusions require cautious interpretation. The study also relied entirely on self-reported answers. Participants might not always provide completely accurate reflections of their own deeply held shames and defense mechanisms.</p>
<p>The researchers could not compare the experiences of married women to those in dating relationships due to the small sample size. They also could not thoroughly examine how race or varying sexual attractions might alter these emotional pathways. Future investigations should expand to include non-monogamous relationships and a wider array of intersecting social identities.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2025.2598706" target="_blank">The effect of externalization on relationship satisfaction in female pornography users</a>,” was authored by K. Doan, F. Volk, N. DiLella, J. Thomas and H. Murch.</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/people-who-believe-they-contribute-to-society-are-more-likely-to-vote-and-engage-in-politics/" 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;">People who believe they contribute to society are more likely to vote and engage in politics</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 25th 2026, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Two studies using data from two different points in recent American history found that individuals who believe their contribution to society is higher are more likely to intend to vote, engage in activism, and seek election information. They were also more likely to donate to and volunteer for political causes compared to individuals who saw their contribution to society as smaller. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330385"><em>PLOS One</em></a>.</p>
<p>Political participation is the extent to which citizens engage in activities intended to influence political decision-making, such as voting, engaging in political activism, communicating with officials, or engaging in public debate. Political participation is crucial in representative democracies because it provides legitimacy to governing institutions by reflecting the will and preferences of the population.</p>
<p>High levels of participation help ensure accountability, as elected representatives are responsive to citizens who can reward or punish them through elections. Political participation also fosters civic competence, encouraging individuals to develop political knowledge and a sense of efficacy.</p>
<p>However, in spite of this, a significant number of eligible citizens do not engage in fundamental democratic processes, including voting. For example, in the most recent national elections in the United States in 2024, 90 million eligible voters did not vote. The situation is similar in many countries across the world.</p>
<p>Studies have identified many factors associated with the likelihood of political participation. For example, one key determinant of participation is socio-economic status, with individuals with higher education and income typically more likely to participate in political processes. </p>
<p>Individuals who are members of organized groups such as unions, civic associations, or political parties are more likely to vote or engage in other forms of political participation. Finally, broader factors such as trust in institutions and perceived fairness of the system also determine whether citizens feel that participation is meaningful and worthwhile.</p>
<p>Study author Ellen C. Reinhart and her colleagues wanted to investigate the degree to which self-perceived social contribution is related to measures of political participation. Measures of political participation included the intention to vote, willingness to engage in political activism, seeking and not avoiding information about an election, and donating to and volunteering for political causes.</p>
<p>The study authors reasoned that people who feel their contributions to society are meaningful and valuable are more likely to feel integrated within the broader collective and identify with it. These feelings of integration and identification will then make them more interested in influencing developments in society. These authors conducted two studies.</p>
<p>The first study was an online survey conducted between late September and early November 2024, just prior to the last US presidential elections. Participants were 1049 adults living in the U.S., selected to be roughly representative by race and ethnicity of the U.S. population and balanced across the two major political parties. 48.4% of participants were Democrat supporters, while 46.8% supported Republicans.</p>
<p>Participants completed assessments of self-perceived social contribution (e.g., “I have something valuable to give to the world”), voting intention (whether they intended to vote in the 2024 Presidential Election), willingness to engage in social activism (e.g., “With regard to this presidential election, I would be willing to…post about my candidate on social media”), and seeking vs. avoiding information about elections (e.g., “I plan to seek information about the 2024 presidential election in the near future”).</p>
<p>As their second study, these authors analyzed data from the Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) national survey. More specifically, they used data collected in 1995-1996. The data came from 2680 participants, roughly balanced by gender. Participants’ average age was 47 years.</p>
<p>The study authors used data on self-perceived social contribution, self-efficacy (e.g., “I can do just about anything I really set my mind to”), social responsibility (e.g., how obliged they feel to participate in activities such as voting, serving on a jury, or testifying in court), donating to political causes (the amount of money donated), and volunteering for political causes (the number of hours). They also used data on participants’ life satisfaction (“How would you rate your overall life these days?”) and general psychological well-being.</p>
<p>Results of the first study showed that 95% of participants reported intending to vote. Individuals who perceived their social contribution to be higher were more likely to intend to vote. They were also more likely to seek, rather than avoid, information about elections. </p>
<p>While they initially showed a higher willingness to engage in political activism, this specific link failed to reach statistical significance once the researchers factored in participants’ general belief that the political system works (internal and external political efficacy).</p>
<p>Results of the second study showed that 84% of participants did not donate to a political organization monthly and 91% did not volunteer for a political organization. Individuals who saw their contribution to society as higher tended to feel greater self-efficacy and social responsibility. They were also more likely to donate to and volunteer for political organizations.</p>
<p>Study authors tested a statistical model proposing that individuals who see their self-efficacy as higher and who feel greater social responsibility will tend to see their social contribution as higher. In turn, this would make them more likely to volunteer for and donate to political organizations. Results suggested that such a state of relations between these factors is possible. Importantly, this effect held true even when controlling for global measures of well-being, proving that social contribution drives participation beyond simply having high life satisfaction.</p>
<p>“If someone does not believe their life and daily activities provide something of value to society and are therefore also less likely to be engaged in that broader society politically, this experience may serve as another avenue in which people are further excluded and then even less likely to feel that they are a part of and can contribute to that broader collective. These results suggest that finding ways of affirming people as important, contributing members of society, based on whatever they currently do or by merely existing, could have critical consequences for the individual and well as the political system in which they inhabit,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the psychological correlates of political participation. However, it should be noted that the design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be derived from the results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330385">Perceived social contribution and its associations with political participation,</a>” was authored by Ellen C. Reinhart, Monique M. Turner, David M. Markowitz, and Dustin Carnahan.</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/ketamine-blocks-the-short-term-anxiety-and-social-withdrawal-linked-to-adolescent-social-defeat/" 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;">Ketamine blocks the short-term anxiety and social withdrawal linked to adolescent social defeat</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 25th 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 <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.115189" target="_blank">Physiology & Behavior</a></em> suggests that administering ketamine during periods of social stress in adolescence can prevent the development of anxiety and social withdrawal. These findings provide evidence that targeted medical interventions might one day help build resilience against the negative mental health impacts of bullying.</p>
<p>Exposure to stressful life events during the sensitive developmental period of adolescence is closely linked to an increased risk of psychiatric illnesses and drug use disorders. In animal models, experiencing repeated social defeat, which mimics the human experience of bullying, tends to cause short-term anxiety and depressive symptoms. It also increases an animal’s sensitivity to the rewarding effects of drugs like cocaine later in adulthood.</p>
<p>Scientists wanted to explore ways to interrupt this pathway from early stress to later psychological and addiction issues. Previous research indicated that the brain’s glutamate system, a major network of chemical messengers, is heavily involved in how the brain processes social stress and drug reward.</p>
<p>Ketamine is a fast-acting antidepressant that works by blocking specific glutamate receptors in the brain. Because of its known ability to alter these chemical pathways and relieve depressive symptoms, the scientists designed this study to see if ketamine could act as a protective shield. They aimed to determine if giving ketamine before stressful encounters could prevent both immediate anxious behaviors and long-term vulnerability to cocaine addiction.</p>
<p>“Adolescence is a critical period of development, so exposure to stress during this stage, such as bullying, can have negative consequences for mental health, such as the onset of anxiety and/or depression and increased vulnerability to drug abuse,” explained corresponding author Maria A. Aguilar, a professor at the University of Valencia and member of the <a href="https://www.uv.es/uvweb/universidad/es/directorio/grupos-investigacion-1285956741406.html?p2=2439#:~:text=Mecanismos%20neuroconductuales%20y%20endofenotipos%20de%20la%20conducta,terapias%20psicofarmacol%C3%B3gicas%20suficientemente%20efectivas%20ha%20incrementado%20el" target="_blank">Neurobehavioral Mechanisms and Endophenotypes of Addictive Behavior</a> research group.</p>
<p>“Using an animal model of social stress in adolescent mice (defeat in intermittent encounters with a more aggressive mouse), we have observed that the development of depression shortly after exposure to stress predicts greater sensitivity to cocaine in adulthood. Therefore, we hypothesize that the administration of ketamine, which has rapid antidepressant effects, could reduce the development of depression and subsequent vulnerability to cocaine.”</p>
<p>To test this, the researchers used a sample of 56 male mice. Forty of these mice were the experimental subjects, while 16 larger, more aggressive mice were used to create a stressful environment.</p>
<p>The experimental mice were divided into four groups, including a non-stressed control group of eight mice that received saltwater injections. A second group of eight mice received saltwater injections and underwent social stress. The remaining two groups, each consisting of 12 mice, received either a low or high dose of ketamine before facing stress.</p>
<p>The stress procedure involved placing an experimental mouse into the home cage of an aggressive mouse for brief encounters. This happened four times, with three days between each event. Before each encounter, the mice in the treatment groups received their assigned dose of ketamine.</p>
<p>Shortly after the final stressful event, the researchers ran a series of behavioral tests. They used an elevated maze shaped like a plus sign to measure anxiety. Mice naturally prefer dark, enclosed spaces, so spending less time in the open, wall-less arms of the maze indicates higher anxiety.</p>
<p>The scientists also used a social interaction test to see if the mice would approach or avoid a new, unfamiliar mouse. To measure symptoms resembling depression, the researchers used a splash test. This test involves spraying the mouse with a sticky sugar solution to see how quickly and often it cleans itself.</p>
<p>A lack of grooming suggests a loss of interest in normal activities, a concept known as anhedonia. They also used a tail suspension test, where mice are briefly held by their tails. This measures how long they try to escape versus how long they remain still, which models behavioral despair.</p>
<p>Three weeks later, the scientists tested the adult mice for cocaine vulnerability. In this procedure, mice receive a very small dose of cocaine in a specific, distinct compartment. Later, the mice are allowed to roam freely between that compartment and a neutral one to see if they associate the space with a drug reward.</p>
<p>The researchers found that the mice exposed to social stress without ketamine exhibited clear signs of anxiety. They spent significantly less time exploring the open arms of the elevated maze compared to the unstressed control group. These stressed mice also displayed social avoidance, choosing to stay away from an unfamiliar mouse during the social interaction test.</p>
<p>Administering ketamine before the stressful encounters provided a protective effect against these behavioral changes. The mice that received the higher dose of ketamine behaved similarly to the unstressed control group in the maze, showing that the drug prevented the stress-induced anxiety. Similarly, the higher dose of ketamine completely prevented the social avoidance behavior, prompting the stressed mice to interact normally with new peers.</p>
<p>The results from the tests measuring depressive symptoms were less definitive. In the tail suspension test, all mice exposed to stress spent less time immobile than the control mice, and ketamine did not change this outcome. In the splash test, the scientists did not observe any significant differences in grooming behavior between any of the groups.</p>
<p>In the final test evaluating long-term vulnerability to cocaine, the researchers encountered an unexpected outcome. The small dose of cocaine failed to produce a rewarding effect in any of the groups, including the stressed mice that did not receive ketamine. Because the stress itself did not induce the expected preference for the drug, the scientists could not draw conclusions about ketamine’s ability to prevent this specific long-term consequence.</p>
<p>“It is possible to increase resilience to the negative effects of exposure to social stress during adolescence on mental health,” Aguilar told PsyPost. “For example, administering ketamine to mice during episodes of stress prevents the development of symptoms of anxiety, depression (such as social avoidance) and increased vulnerability to cocaine. These results support the conduct of clinical studies to assess the potential usefulness of ketamine in preventing the negative consequences of bullying on mental health.”</p>
<p>When reading about animal studies, it is easy to misinterpret the findings. Some might assume these results are completely irrelevant to humans, while others might think ketamine is a ready-to-use treatment for bullied teenagers. The scientists note that this basic research is just a preliminary step to understand the fundamental biological mechanisms of stress and resilience.</p>
<p>“Although the results obtained indicate the usefulness of ketamine in preventing the effects of stress, it is important to bear in mind that this is basic research in mice,” Aguilar noted. “However, validated animal models have been used both to induce stress and to study its consequences.”</p>
<p>“Using these models, in our laboratory we have repeatedly observed that mice exposed to social defeat exhibit symptoms similar to anxiety and depression, as well as an increase in the rewarding effects of low doses of cocaine. In this study, we demonstrate that ketamine is effective in reversing most of these effects, so we believe it could also be useful in humans.”</p>
<p>“Research with animal models allows us to study the pathophysiology and neurobiological mechanisms of diseases, in this case stress-related mental disorders, and to test the efficacy of different treatments as a preliminary step to conducting clinical trials in humans. The high genetic, anatomical and behavioural homology between rodents and humans facilitates the extrapolation of results, but this requires caution and further validation in humans.”</p>
<p>The study also has specific limitations, such as the lack of a group of unstressed mice that received ketamine. Ketamine can have its own complex effects on the brain, making it difficult to fully separate the drug’s general effects from its stress-blocking effects without this control group.</p>
<p>Additionally, the scientists only used male mice in this experiment. Future research will aim to address these gaps by conducting similar studies using female mice, as women tend to be more vulnerable to depression and the rewarding effects of cocaine. </p>
<p>“Our long-term goal is to determine the endophenotypes of resilience to social stress in mice of both sexes, study their neurobiological basis, and identify treatments and environmental interventions that increase it,” Aguilar explained.</p>
<p>“In agreement with the results of the present study, we have previously observed an increase in stress resilience with other pharmacological treatments (for example, memantine) and environmental interventions such as physical activity. This type of study also allows us to expand our knowledge of the neurobiological basis of vulnerability and resilience to stress.”</p>
<p>“Ketamine and memantine (used in a previous study) are antagonists of the neurotransmitter glutamate. Therefore, the effectiveness of these drugs in reversing the effects of stress and increasing resilience suggests the involvement of this neurotransmission system in the consequences of stress on mental health.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.115189" target="_blank">Ketamine attenuates the effects of intermittent social defeat on anxiety, social interaction and cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in male mice</a>,” was authored by M.A. Martínez-Caballero, M.P. García-Pardo, C. Calpe-López, M.C. Arenas, C. Manzanedo, and M.A. Aguilar.</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/donald-trump-gained-2024-votes-in-areas-where-inflation-was-worse-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Donald Trump gained 2024 votes in areas where inflation was worse, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 25th 2026, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent analysis explores the relationship between objective, local price increases and shifting voter choices during the 2024 United States presidential election. The research indicates that the Republican candidate experienced slight electoral gains in counties with higher rates of inflation, particularly in lower-income areas. These findings were published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2025.103039" target="_blank">Electoral Studies</a></em>.</p>
<p>Political scientists often study a concept called economic voting. This is the idea that voters reward or punish politicians based on the financial health of the country. When the economy struggles, voters tend to cast their ballots against the political party currently in power.</p>
<p>Following the 2024 election, many journalists pointed to rising consumer prices as a primary reason for the outcome. Prior to this new analysis, researchers had only looked at survey data to explore this connection. Surveys ask individuals how they feel about the economy and who they plan to vote for.</p>
<p>Relying entirely on surveys presents a methodological challenge for researchers. A person’s political preference can influence their perception of the economy. For instance, someone planning to vote against the incumbent party might report feeling worse about the economy than someone supporting the incumbent.</p>
<p>Patrick Flavin, a political scientist at Baylor University, wanted to evaluate this economic dynamic using objective data. He sought to measure actual price increases across the country. He then wanted to see if those real-world price hikes correlated with changing vote totals.</p>
<p>Tracking inflation at the local level is surprisingly difficult in the United States. The federal government tracks national and regional price changes using the Consumer Price Index. This tool measures the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.</p>
<p>The government does not publish this specific inflation data for individual counties. Because no official county-level measure exists, researchers must find alternative ways to estimate local price shifts. Flavin needed a reliable dataset to see if local economic reality matched the national narrative.</p>
<p>To solve the data problem, Flavin turned to information provided by the Economic Policy Institute. This organization calculates a family budget metric to estimate the “income a family needs in order to attain a modest yet adequate standard of living” across the country. They break these estimated costs down for more than 3000 individual counties.</p>
<p>The institute calculates the cost of living across seven distinct spending categories. These categories include housing, food, transportation, healthcare, other necessities, childcare, and taxes. Flavin focused his analysis on the estimated costs for a household consisting of two adults and two children.</p>
<p>He compared the estimated local costs in 2023 to the estimated costs in 2024. By finding the difference between these two years, he created a working measure of county-level inflation. He calculated the percentage point change for each of the seven categories, alongside a measure of the total overall cost increase.</p>
<p>A percentage point is the simple numerical difference between two percentages. For example, moving from four percent to five percent is an increase of one percentage point. Flavin used these calculations to determine exactly how much prices rose in different parts of the country right before the election.</p>
<p>With the inflation data established, the researcher analyzed county-level voting records. He looked at the change in Donald Trump’s share of the two-party vote between the 2020 election and the 2024 election. A positive value meant the candidate gained ground, while a negative value meant he lost ground compared to his previous performance.</p>
<p>To isolate the specific impact of inflation, Flavin controlled for several other demographic variables. In statistics, controlling for a variable means using mathematical formulas to remove the influence of factors that might skew the results. For example, he accounted for the county’s unemployment rate, median age, and total population.</p>
<p>He also adjusted for the percentage of residents with a college degree and the percentage of white residents. Additionally, he included the rate of Evangelical Protestant residents in his statistical models. By neutralizing these factors, he could look more exclusively at the relationship between inflation and voting shifts.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed that overall inflation had a measurable connection to candidate performance. Across the country, Trump generally improved his vote share in counties that experienced higher overall cost increases. The researcher quantified this relationship using a statistical concept called a standard deviation.</p>
<p>A standard deviation is a number used to tell how measurements for a group are spread out from the average. A low standard deviation means the numbers are close to the average, while a high standard deviation means they are spread out over a wider range. By using this metric, statisticians can compare different types of data on a level playing field.</p>
<p>Flavin found that a one standard deviation increase in inflation predicted a 0.07 to 0.15 percentage point increase in vote share. This varied depending on the specific spending category being analyzed. Increases in the cost of childcare and taxes showed a positive correlation with improved performance for the Republican candidate.</p>
<p>However, the data revealed a different pattern for medical costs. Trump actually performed worse in counties that experienced higher inflation in the healthcare category. The researcher notes that citizens might simply trust the Democratic party more than the Republican party on the issue of healthcare.</p>
<p>Flavin also split the data into different groups to see if the trends held consistent across political boundaries. First, he looked at counties based on which candidate won them in the 2020 election. The results in this portion of the analysis were decidedly mixed.</p>
<p>In counties Trump won in 2020, he performed better where overall costs, childcare costs, and taxes were higher. In those same counties, he performed worse where transportation and healthcare costs saw higher inflation. In counties won by Joe Biden in 2020, Trump improved his margins where transportation and childcare costs rose, but lost ground where healthcare prices spiked.</p>
<p>The researcher then divided the counties based on their average income levels. He separated them into two groups, split by the median per capita income of roughly $54,000. Per capita income simply means the average amount of money earned per person in a specific geographic area.</p>
<p>In this income-based analysis, a very clear pattern emerged. The relationship between higher prices and an increased Republican vote share was much stronger in lower-income counties. In these areas, five of the eight inflation categories correlated with increased support for the challenger.</p>
<p>This pattern did not hold in wealthier areas. In higher-income counties, the Republican candidate actually lost ground in relation to three different inflation measures. The effect of inflation on voting behavior appeared heavily dependent on the local income bracket.</p>
<p>People in lower-income brackets often spend a larger percentage of their earnings on daily necessities. A sudden price increase for basic goods limits their purchasing power much faster than it does for wealthier individuals. The data suggests that this immediate financial pressure translated directly into shifting voter preferences.</p>
<p>In the United States, presidential elections are determined by the Electoral College. Because the national popular vote and several key swing states were decided by small margins, subtle local shifts hold great importance. A shift of a few percentage points in a handful of counties can alter the trajectory of a national election.</p>
<p>There are a few limits to keep in mind regarding this research. The study relied on estimates of a basic family budget rather than official federal inflation metrics. While this was a necessary workaround, it remains an approximation of the actual economic conditions in each county.</p>
<p>Additionally, the results for some specific categories were mixed and require further investigation. Future research could explore why inflation in certain sectors benefits one political party over another. Researchers might also examine how localized economic pressures interact with other voting issues, such as social policies.</p>
<p>Understanding these local dynamics could help analysts better predict how economic shifts influence close elections. The economy will likely remain a central focus for political scientists studying voter behavior in the coming years. Objective, local data provides a clearer picture of regional differences than national surveys.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2025.103039" target="_blank">Did Trump do better where inflation was worse? Evidence from county-level data</a>,” was authored by Patrick Flavin.</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/narcissists-are-persuasive-speakers-but-terrible-writers-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Narcissists are persuasive speakers but terrible writers, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 25th 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People with highly self-centered and grandiose personalities often believe they can convince anyone to do anything. A new study shows they might actually succeed at this goal when speaking out loud.</p>
<p>However, when these same individuals attempt to persuade others through writing, their arguments fall flat and fail to impress readers. These findings, published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104649" target="_blank">Journal of Research in Personality</a></em>, reveal that the persuasive abilities of self-centered individuals depend heavily on the way they communicate.</p>
<p>Researchers have spent decades evaluating grandiose narcissism as a personality trait. This trait involves a highly self-centered, dominant, and manipulative way of interacting with the world. People with high levels of this trait usually project extreme confidence, charm, and a strong desire to be the center of attention.</p>
<p>Because of these specific traits, highly self-centered individuals constantly seek out higher social status. They want to be admired and respected by others in their daily lives. To achieve this constant validation, the ability to sway other people’s opinions is a highly prized skill.</p>
<p>Joshua D. Foster, a psychology researcher at the University of South Alabama, led a team to investigate whether these individuals are actually as convincing as they claim to be. Foster and his colleagues noticed that self-centered people often make great first impressions and frequently rise to leadership roles. They seem to possess the natural charisma needed for public speaking.</p>
<p>At the same time, the research team recognized that writing requires a vastly different set of skills. When people listen to a speech, they often focus on surface-level cues like the speaker’s confidence, physical attractiveness, or vocal enthusiasm. Psychologists refer to this fast, less critical evaluation as the peripheral route to persuasion.</p>
<p>Reading a written message allows a person to slow down and process the information at their own pace. Readers tend to focus heavily on the logical flow and the actual strength of the arguments presented. This slower, more thoughtful evaluation is known as the central route to persuasion.</p>
<p>Foster and his team suspected that self-centered individuals might struggle with this central route. Crafting a strong written argument requires a person to understand their audience’s perspective and to think critically about their own ideas. Highly self-centered people often lack cognitive empathy, which is the ability to accurately perceive the thoughts and feelings of others.</p>
<p>Because they are often overconfident and resistant to criticism, these individuals might not take the time to refine their written arguments. The researchers wanted to test if this personality type naturally excels at spoken persuasion while failing at written persuasion.</p>
<p>To test their ideas, the researchers set up four separate experiments. The first experiment focused entirely on spoken communication. The research team recruited college students to deliver short speeches about how their university could improve the academic and social experiences of the student body.</p>
<p>Before speaking, the students completed a standard personality questionnaire to measure their levels of grandiose narcissism. The questionnaire asked them to choose between statements like, “I can make anybody believe anything I want them to,” and more humble alternatives. The students then delivered their persuasive speeches on camera.</p>
<p>The student speakers were instructed to make their presentations as strong as possible, and they were given a few minutes to outline their talking points. The researchers placed them in a hallway in front of a camera to record their arguments. The speakers were given unlimited time to talk, with researchers holding up signs to show how much time had passed.</p>
<p>Afterward, the speakers rated how convincing they thought their own presentations would be. A separate group of participants, referred to as targets, later watched these recorded speeches. The targets rated each video based on how convincing they found the speaker.</p>
<p>The results showed that highly self-centered speakers expressed immense confidence in their own speeches. The targets mostly agreed with them. When compared to other speakers in the group, the highly self-centered students were rated as slightly more persuasive.</p>
<p>When the researchers analyzed the viewing data, they looked at how the targets evaluated the speakers relative to each other. They found that targets rated speakers as more persuasive when those specific speakers were more self-centered than the others in their viewing group. The effect was small, but it consistently showed that self-centered speakers had a slight edge over their peers.</p>
<p>The researchers noted that these individuals tended to speak for longer periods of time than their peers. The targets seemed to view longer speeches as better speeches. This extra talking time partially explained why the self-centered speakers received higher ratings from the targets.</p>
<p>The research team then shifted their focus to written communication for the next three experiments. They recruited hundreds of adults through an online platform to write short, persuasive essays. They asked these writers to argue about the relationship between individuals and groups.</p>
<p>In one experiment, all participants argued that the individual is more important than the group. In another, some writers were randomly assigned to argue the exact opposite point. In the final experiment, the researchers told half of the writers that they were competing for a cash prize to see if competition motivated them to write better essays.</p>
<p>During the written experiments, the online participants were given at least eight minutes to complete their essays. They were allowed to take as much time as they needed to finish their writing. The researchers tracked how long each person spent typing to see if self-centered individuals put more effort into their arguments.</p>
<p>They found that highly self-centered individuals did not spend any extra time writing or revising their essays. They typed for the exact same amount of time as the other participants. They also produced essays of the same average length as everyone else.</p>
<p>Just like in the first experiment, the writers filled out personality questionnaires and rated their own work. Then, new groups of targets read the essays and rated how convincing the written arguments were.</p>
<p>Despite putting in a completely average amount of effort, the self-centered writers confidently predicted that their essays would easily persuade the readers. This time, the targets strongly disagreed.</p>
<p>Across all three writing experiments, targets rated the essays produced by highly self-centered individuals as less persuasive than the essays written by others. The essay topic did not change this outcome. Adding a competitive cash prize also did not produce a statistically significant improvement in their ratings.</p>
<p>The researchers analyzed the difference between a person’s self-confidence and their actual performance. They found that this gap was massive for the highly self-centered writers. While they thought they were crafting brilliant arguments, the readers found their writing to be unimpressive and unconvincing.</p>
<p>When readers evaluated the essays, they were likely looking for logical coherence and clear reasoning. Without the benefit of a speaker’s vocal enthusiasm or physical presence, the weak points in the arguments became incredibly obvious.</p>
<p>The researchers suspected that these writers failed to consider their audience. Because highly self-centered individuals often rely on their natural charm, they might neglect to develop the logical reasoning skills needed for writing. Without a physical presence to charm the reader, their arguments simply fell apart.</p>
<p>While these experiments provide a clear proof of concept, the researchers acknowledged a few limitations in their work. The studies used different populations and different topics for the spoken and written experiments. The college students spoke about university life, while the online adults wrote about abstract social concepts.</p>
<p>Because the methods were not identical, the researchers could not make perfectly direct comparisons between the two forms of communication. They suggest that future studies should have the same participants give speeches and write essays on the exact same topic. This setup would provide a much clearer picture of how communication style affects persuasion.</p>
<p>The team also pointed out that they only measured how convincing the targets thought the messages were. They did not measure whether the targets actually changed their personal beliefs or attitudes after listening or reading. Future experiments could track real shifts in opinion to see if these self-centered individuals can actually change minds.</p>
<p>Additionally, the targets who evaluated the speeches were relatively young college students. These young targets might have viewed the extreme confidence of the speakers as a sign of high social status. The researchers suggested that testing older adults might produce different reactions to the speeches.</p>
<p>Finally, the researchers suggested exploring how these personality types handle defending unpopular opinions. Highly self-centered individuals are prone to exaggeration and bending the truth. Testing how they use these tactics could reveal even more about the limits of their persuasive abilities.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2025.104649" target="_blank">Silver tongues, plastic pens: modality-dependent persuasiveness in narcissists</a>,” was authored by Joshua D. Foster, Joost M. Leunissen, Barbara Nevicka, and Constantine Sedikides.</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-science-behind-why-we-prefer-the-smell-of-our-own-farts/" 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 science behind why we prefer the smell of our own farts</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 25th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>It is a phenomenon that has prompted giggles in schoolyards and silent contemplation in adults, yet it remains a genuine biological curiosity: why do people tolerate, or even secretly enjoy, the smell of their own flatulence while finding the emissions of others repulsive? While often dismissed as a crude joke, this behavior strikes at the heart of human evolutionary psychology, sensory perception, and the immune system’s defense mechanisms.</p>
<p>A collection of studies published in journals such as the <em>European Journal of Social Psychology</em>, <em>Gut</em>, and <em>Perception</em> suggests that this preference is not merely a quirk of personality. Rather, it appears to be a complex interplay of the “source effect,” mere exposure, and a biological drive to avoid disease.</p>
<p><strong>The Chemistry of the Smell</strong></p>
<p>To understand what makes flatulence repulsive in the first place, researchers published a study in the journal <em>Gut</em> that analyzed the specific gases responsible for the odor. The scientists sought to identify exactly which chemicals distinguish a harmless release of air from a noxious event. They enlisted 16 healthy adults to participate in a study where their flatulence was collected quantitatively via a rectal tube.</p>
<p>To ensure adequate gas production, the participants ate 200 grams of pinto beans and ingested lactulose, a carbohydrate that ferments in the colon. The researchers collected the gas in impermeable bags and analyzed its chemical makeup. They found that while the bulk of flatulence consists of odorless gases like nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide, the smell is caused by trace amounts of sulfur-containing gases. The primary culprit identified was hydrogen sulfide, the chemical responsible for the “rotten egg” smell. Other contributors included methanethiol, which smells like decomposing vegetables, and dimethyl sulfide, which has a sweet but unpleasant odor.</p>
<p>The researchers correlated the concentrations of these gases with odor intensity ratings provided by two judges. They found that hydrogen sulfide concentration was the strongest predictor of how bad the gas smelled. This study highlights that the stimulus itself—sulfur gas—is objectively unpleasant to the human nose. </p>
<p><strong>The Source Effect and Disease Avoidance</strong></p>
<p>Research published in the <em>European Journal of Social Psychology</em> provides evidence for what scientists call the “source effect.” This concept suggests that the origin of a smell dictates our emotional reaction to it. The study indicates that people consistently rate body odors, including fecal smells and sweat, as less unpleasant when they believe the source is themselves rather than a stranger. This psychological bias likely serves an evolutionary function, protecting individuals from the pathogens carried by others while preventing them from being in a constant state of disgust toward their own bodies.</p>
<p>Scientists led by Richard Stevenson and Betty Repacholi conducted a series of five studies to explore why the source of a smell changes our hedonic, or pleasure-related, response to it. The researchers aimed to test the “disease avoidance” model of disgust. This theory posits that the emotion of disgust evolved to protect humans from pathogens. Since strangers carry foreign germs to which an individual may not have immunity, the body reacts with heightened revulsion to their biological byproducts. In contrast, one’s own microbiome is already familiar to the immune system, rendering the accompanying smells less threatening.</p>
<p>In their first study, 185 university students were presented with vignettes describing various scenarios involving malodors, such as flatulence, sweat, or smelly feet. The sources of these odors varied between the participant, a stranger, or a close loved one. The participants rated how much they would dislike the smell and how much disgust they would display. The results showed a clear hierarchy. Participants rated their own hypothetical odors as significantly less unpleasant than those of a stranger. This effect was most pronounced for fecal odors, which carry the highest disease risk, compared to non-body odors like garbage.</p>
<p>To ensure these results were not just hypothetical, the researchers conducted a second study using a “smell diary.” Sixteen participants recorded their reactions to real odors they encountered in their daily lives over five days. They rated the pleasantness of smells from themselves, such as their own sweat or flatulence, versus those from others. The data confirmed the laboratory findings. Body odors originating from the self were rated as significantly less unpleasant and less disgusting than those from other people.</p>
<p>This research indicates that our revulsion is not triggered solely by the chemical composition of the gas but by our knowledge of its origin. The closer the relationship to the source, the less disgust is felt, but even a partner’s odors are rated as more unpleasant than one’s own. This suggests that the brain modulates the intensity of disgust based on the perceived risk of infection, treating the self as the safest source.</p>
<p><strong>Familiarity Breeds Tolerance</strong></p>
<p>Another major factor in why we prefer our own scent is the “mere exposure” effect. This psychological principle states that people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. Research published in <em>Perception</em> by Simon Mingo and Richard Stevenson explored how familiarity alters the perception of odors. They hypothesized that unfamiliar odors are harder to discriminate and are perceived as more intense and “redolent,” meaning they remind the smeller of many different things, creating a sense of ambiguity that can be unsettling.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted an experiment with 49 participants who sniffed sets of familiar and unfamiliar odors. They found that unfamiliar odors were consistently judged as less pleasant and more intense. In a follow-up experiment, 36 participants were exposed to unfamiliar odors repeatedly over time. The results showed that mere exposure caused the participants to rate the once-unfamiliar odors as less redolent and more similar to familiar smells.</p>
<p>This mechanism applies directly to one’s own flatulence. Because an individual lives with their own body constantly, they are biologically habituated to their specific bacterial signature. The smell is familiar, and as the study suggests, familiar smells are processed as less intense and less ambiguous than novel ones. When a stranger passes gas, the odor profile is distinct due to their unique diet and gut microbiome. This novelty triggers the brain’s alert system, making the smell feel more intense and threatening than it arguably is.</p>
<p><strong>The Biological Self and the “Ego-Alien”</strong></p>
<p>The boundary between “self” and “other” is a central theme in understanding disgust. Research published in <em>Psychological Review</em> by Paul Rozin and April Fallon argues that disgust is primarily a defense against “oral incorporation,” or the intake of offensive objects into the body. They propose that as long as bodily products like saliva, feces, or gas are inside the body, they are viewed as part of the self and cause no disgust. However, once they leave the body, they cross a psychological boundary and become “ego-alien.”</p>
<p>Despite this transition, the researchers note that we maintain a residual tolerance for our own byproducts compared to those of others. This is partly due to the belief that “you are what you eat.” Since we know what we consumed, the output feels less dangerous. In contrast, the byproducts of others are complete unknowns. This connects back to the concept of magical contagion, where people feel that the “essence” of a person is contained in their residues. If the source is a stranger, their essence is viewed as a contaminant. If the source is the self, the contamination threat is nullified.</p>
<p>This theory was supported by a classic study published in the <em>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</em>. Researchers Donald McBurney, John Levine, and Patricia Cavanaugh collected body odor samples from 11 male graduate students who wore t-shirts for 48 hours without deodorant. Later, these students were asked to rate the unpleasantness of various shirts, including their own.</p>
<p>The study found that while participants could not reliably identify their own shirt by smell alone, they consistently rated their own odor as less unpleasant than the odors of others. This aligns with the adage that “your own doesn’t stink,” providing early empirical evidence that the self-reference bias shields us from our own biological scents.</p>
<p><strong>Learning to Like the Smell</strong></p>
<p>The preference for specific odors is not just innate but learned through emotional association. Research published in the <em>International Journal of Comparative Psychology</em> by Rachel Herz and colleagues demonstrated that hedonic perception—whether we like or dislike a smell—can be changed through emotional conditioning. In their experiment, 32 female participants were exposed to a novel odor while playing a computer game.</p>
<p>One group played a rigged game that was frustrating and impossible to win, while another group played a game that was entertaining and resulted in a cash prize. Later, when asked to rate the odor, the participants who had a positive experience rated the smell significantly more pleasant than those who had the frustrating experience. This suggests that if an odor is paired with a positive emotional state, we learn to like it.</p>
<p>In the context of flatulence, the act of passing gas is often associated with the relief of physical pressure and discomfort. This physiological relief is a positive sensation. Over a lifetime, the brain pairs the specific scent of one’s own gas with this feeling of relief. This Pavlovian conditioning may contribute to why the smell is tolerated or even interpreted positively. On the other hand, the smell of another person’s gas is usually associated with social awkwardness, intrusion, or the fear of germs, reinforcing a negative response.</p>
<p><strong>The Brain on Bad Smells</strong></p>
<p>Modern neuroscience offers a glimpse into how the brain processes these unpleasant odors. A study published in <em>NeuroImage</em> by Jean-Pierre Royet and colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to observe brain activity in 28 subjects as they smelled pleasant and unpleasant odors. The researchers found that unpleasant odors elicited significantly more activity in the amygdala and the piriform cortex than pleasant odors.</p>
<p>The amygdala is the part of the brain responsible for processing fear and intense emotion. This finding implies that bad smells trigger a primal survival response that is more intense than the relaxation response triggered by good smells. The study also found that when subjects were asked to actively make a judgment about how pleasant a smell was, the orbitofrontal cortex—a region involved in decision-making and value assignment—became active.</p>
<p>This suggests that our reaction to flatulence involves two distinct neural pathways. The first is an immediate, automatic reaction from the amygdala detecting a potential threat (the sulfurous odor). The second is a conscious evaluation by the orbitofrontal cortex, which contextualizes the smell. If the cortex recognizes the source as “me,” it likely dampens the amygdala’s alarm response. If the source is “them,” the alarm bells continue to ring, resulting in the feeling of disgust.</p>
<p><strong>Gender and Individual Differences</strong></p>
<p>The fMRI study by Royet also revealed distinct differences in how men and women process these odors. Women showed stronger activation in the left orbitofrontal cortex during hedonic judgments than men. This correlates with behavioral research suggesting that women generally have a more acute sense of smell and are better at identifying odors. This heightened sensitivity might make women more prone to the source effect, reacting more strongly to the odors of strangers due to a more active evaluation system in the brain.</p>
<p>Additionally, the research by Stevenson and Repacholi found that people with higher “disgust sensitivity”—a personality trait measuring how easily one is grossed out—showed a larger gap between how they rated their own smells versus those of others. This indicates that the more afraid a person is of germs or contamination, the more forgiveness they grant themselves compared to the harsh judgment they pass on strangers.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion and Future Directions</strong></p>
<p>The scientific consensus suggests that liking the smell of one’s own flatulence is a functional cognitive illusion. It is a byproduct of habituation, where the constant presence of our own microbiome renders the scent familiar and non-threatening. It is reinforced by positive associations with physical relief. Most importantly, it is a mechanism of disease avoidance. By finding the odors of others repulsive, humans are biologically discouraged from coming into contact with foreign pathogens that could cause illness.</p>
<p>While these studies provide a robust framework, there are limitations. Many of the studies relied on small sample sizes or self-reported data, which can be subject to bias. For instance, the “smell diary” relies on participants being honest about their hygiene and body functions. Furthermore, much of the research focuses on Western populations, leaving open the question of whether cultural differences in hygiene and diet might alter the magnitude of the source effect.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Herz, R. S., Beland, S. L., & Hellerstein, M. (2004). Changing Odor Hedonic Perception Through Emotional Associations in Humans. <em>International Journal of Comparative Psychology</em>, 17, 315-338.</li>
<li>McBurney, D. H., Levine, J. M., & Cavanaugh, P. H. (1976). Psychophysical and Social Ratings of Human Body Odor. <em>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</em>, 3, 135-139.</li>
<li>Mingo, S. A., & Stevenson, R. J. (2007). Phenomenological differences between familiar and unfamiliar odours. <em>Perception</em>, 36, 931-947.</li>
<li>Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a Disease-Avoidance Mechanism. <em>Psychological Bulletin</em>, 135(2), 303–321.</li>
<li>Royet, J.-P., Plailly, J., Delon-Martin, C., Kareken, D. A., & Segebarth, C. (2003). fMRI of emotional responses to odors: influence of hedonic valence and judgment, handedness, and gender. <em>NeuroImage</em>, 20, 713–728.</li>
<li>Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A Perspective on Disgust. <em>Psychological Review</em>, 94(1), 23-41.</li>
<li>Stevenson, R. J., & Repacholi, B. M. (2005). Does the source of an interpersonal odour affect disgust? A disease risk model and its alternatives. <em>European Journal of Social Psychology</em>, 35, 375–401.</li>
<li>Suarez, F. L., Springfield, J., & Levitt, M. D. (1998). Identification of gases responsible for the odour of human flatus and evaluation of a device purported to reduce this odour. <em>Gut</em>, 43, 100–104.</li>
</ul></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>