<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/xs-feed-algorithm-shifts-users-political-opinions-to-the-right-new-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;">X’s feed algorithm shifts users’ political opinions to the right, new study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 3rd 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Social media algorithms are not politically neutral and can actively shape a person’s political opinions. A recent study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2" target="_blank">Nature</a></em> provides evidence that switching on the algorithmic feed on the platform X shifted users’ political views toward the right. Turning the algorithm off did not reverse this effect, which suggests that algorithms can leave a lasting footprint on a person’s information environment.</p>
<p>X, formerly known as Twitter, is a major platform for political news and public conversation. The platform offers two primary ways to view content. The chronological feed simply displays posts from accounts a user actively follows in the exact order they were posted, with the newest at the top.</p>
<p>The algorithmic feed relies on complex mathematical rules to suggest and order content. It shows posts from unknown accounts and prioritizes items designed to keep the user engaged, such as posts with many likes and comments. The scientists behind the new study wanted to understand if these customized feeds actually change how people view the world.</p>
<p>Past studies on other social networks found that temporarily turning off the feed algorithm did not change political attitudes. The researchers suspected this happened because initial exposure to an algorithm leaves a permanent mark on user behavior. They also wanted to conduct an independent study without the direct involvement of a tech company. This independence allowed them to see exactly how the algorithm influences real users on X. </p>
<p>“Feed algorithms decide what billions of people see on social media every day. Whether they also shape what people think is one of the most important open questions in the social sciences,” said study author <a href="https://philinew.github.io/" target="_blank">Philine Widmer</a>, an assistant professor at the Paris School of Economics.</p>
<p>“A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp9364" target="_blank">major prior study</a>, conducted in collaboration with Meta during the 2020 US election, found that turning off the algorithm had no measurable effect on political attitudes. So, perhaps algorithms do not matter for politics? Our study suggests that the picture is more nuanced.” </p>
<p>“Earlier work had only tested one direction: switching the algorithm off for users who had been exposed to it, potentially for years. But what happens when the algorithm is switched on? And could exposure to algorithmic content leave a lasting imprint that persists even after the algorithm is removed? These questions had not been tested quantitatively.”</p>
<p>Widmer and her colleagues specifically focused on concrete policy preferences and views on current events rather than just looking at general political party loyalty. To test this, they conducted a field experiment over seven weeks in the summer of 2023.</p>
<p>They recruited 4,965 active X users based in the United States. All participants completed a survey at the beginning of the study to gather baseline data on their political affiliations, social media habits, and overall well-being. The study sample was diverse, though slightly leaning toward a well-educated demographic.</p>
<p>About forty-six percent of the participants identified as Democrats, while twenty-one percent identified as Republicans. Participants were randomly assigned to use either the algorithmic feed or the chronological feed for the entire seven weeks. They received financial compensation for adhering to their assigned feed setting.</p>
<p>At the end of the study, participants completed a final survey to measure any shifts in their views on specific policies and current news events. The final survey included questions about the criminal investigations into Donald Trump and the ongoing war in Ukraine. The researchers also measured affective polarization. Affective polarization is a term used to describe how much people dislike or distrust those who belong to an opposing political party. </p>
<p>In addition to the surveys, the scientists collected data on the exact accounts the participants chose to follow during the study. A smaller group of users also installed a browser extension on their computers.</p>
<p>This extension allowed the researchers to safely record the exact posts shown in those users’ feeds without relying on the platform to share internal data. Switching users from a chronological feed to an algorithmic feed increased their overall engagement with the platform. For example, posts shown in the algorithmic feed received substantially more likes, reposts, and comments than those in the chronological feed.</p>
<p>Exposure to this highly engaging feed shifted users’ political opinions to be measurably more conservative. Users who switched to the algorithmic feed began to prioritize issues typically favored by Republicans, such as immigration and inflation, over issues favored by Democrats. </p>
<p>These users also grew more critical of the criminal investigations into Donald Trump, which were prominently discussed in the news at the time. They tended to view the investigations as unacceptable or contrary to the rule of law. Their views on the war in Ukraine also shifted toward relatively more pro-Kremlin positions.</p>
<p>“The main takeaway is that social media feed algorithms are not politically neutral,” Widmer told PsyPost. “In our experiment with U.S.-based X users in summer 2023, switching on X’s algorithmic feed shifted political opinions to the right.”</p>
<p>“In terms of standardized effect sizes, our estimates for political opinions range from about 0.08 to 0.12 standard deviations, i.e., small effects by Cohen’s conventions. However, it is worth noting that these effects emerged after just seven weeks. People have been exposed to algorithmic feeds for years. As researchers, for practical and funding reasons, we rarely get the chance to observe people for more than a couple of weeks. Over this relatively short time frame, we found shifts in opinions on current political issues.”</p>
<p>The browser data helped explain the specific mechanics behind this shift. Using language processing tools to analyze the collected posts, the researchers found that X’s algorithm actively promoted conservative content and posts by political activists. Specifically, posts annotated as conservative were more likely to appear in the algorithmic feed than liberal posts. </p>
<p>At the same time, the algorithm buried or demoted posts from traditional news media outlets. Posts from news organizations appeared significantly less often in the algorithmic feed compared to the chronological feed. </p>
<p>Surprisingly, switching from the algorithmic feed back to the chronological feed had almost zero impact on political opinions.</p>
<p>“The most striking finding for us was the asymmetry,” Widmer said. “We expected the algorithm to have some effect on political attitudes, but we did not expect the effects to be so clearly one-directional: switching the algorithm on shifted opinions, but switching it off did not reverse them. This asymmetry had not been documented before.”</p>
<p>The researchers suggest this one-sided effect happens because of newly followed accounts. The algorithm placed highly engaging right-wing activists directly in front of users, and people began to follow those specific profiles. When participants switched back to the chronological setting, their feeds still displayed posts from the accounts they actively followed.</p>
<p>Because the users had already followed new conservative activists while the algorithm was active, their chronological feed remained filled with that perspective. The changes to their daily information diet stuck, leaving a lasting impact on what they saw each day. </p>
<p>“Our proposed mechanism is, thus, that users continue to follow the accounts the algorithm exposed them to, even when the algorithm is turned off,” Widmer told PsyPost. “Hence, the algorithm can leave a lasting footprint on users’ information environment.”</p>
<p>“For readers, this means that what you see on social media is not a neutral reflection of the world or even of the accounts you choose to follow. Algorithms actively shape your information diet, and those changes can stick, i.e., they are not easily reversible.”</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations to consider. The study was conducted specifically on X in the summer of 2023 with users based in the United States. “We would not want readers to assume that every algorithm on every platform produces the same effects, or that the same effects would necessarily be found in different periods or in different contexts,” Widmer said. Different algorithms are built with different goals, and the effects might differ during other time periods or under different corporate ownership.</p>
<p>The study also focused on active users who log in regularly. The impact is likely smaller for people who only use the platform occasionally and experience less exposure to the content. Ideally, future research should observe people for several months or years to see if prolonged exposure eventually alters deeper identities.</p>
<p>“This study was conducted entirely independently of X, funded by public research funds (the Swiss National Science Foundation),” Widmer noted. “We had no cooperation with the platform and no access to internal data.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2" target="_blank">The political effects of X’s feed algorithm</a>,” was authored by Germain Gauthier, Roland Hodler, Philine Widmer, and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya.</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/self-interest-not-spontaneous-generosity-drives-equality-among-hadza-hunter-gatherers/" 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;">Self-interest, not spontaneous generosity, drives equality among Hadza hunter-gatherers</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 3rd 2026, 06:00</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/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf328" target="_blank">PNAS Nexus</a></em> suggests that the famous equality seen in some hunter-gatherer societies might be driven more by self-interest than by a natural desire to be generous. When researchers allowed participants to both give and take food from others in a game, they found that equality was usually achieved only when people took from those who had more. This provides evidence that active demands for a fair share, rather than spontaneous charity, help maintain balanced resources in these communities.</p>
<p>The Hadza are an indigenous group living near Lake Eyasi in northwestern Tanzania. Many Hadza still rely on hunting and gathering for a large portion of their food. Like many foraging societies, they are known for their high levels of equality and their practice of widely sharing food across their camps.</p>
<p>Egalitarianism in these groups means they operate without formal leaders and actively resist major differences in wealth or status. For decades, scientists have debated what motivates this widespread resource sharing. Some have argued that humans have an evolved, internal preference to treat others equally and generously.</p>
<p>Other experts suggest that equality is maintained through social pressure. In this view, individuals actively demand food from anyone who has a surplus. Previous economic experiments tested these ideas by giving participants a set amount of resources and asking if they wanted to share.</p>
<p>However, those past games rarely matched the high levels of equality seen in actual Hadza daily life. The design of those earlier games only allowed people to give resources away. This setup does not accurately reflect how food distribution works in the real world.In reality, sharing among the Hadza often involves people asking for or taking food from others. </p>
<p>“Food sharing among many hunter-gatherers is equitable, but alongside ‘giving’ it often also involves ‘taking’ or asking other people for food. In the ethnographic literature this is sometimes called ‘<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1525/aa.1993.95.4.02a00050" target="_blank">demand sharing</a>.’ Previous economic giving experiments like the ultimatum game and the dictator game allowed people to reallocate resource endowments through giving, but seldom allowed people to ‘take’ from others,” explained study author Duncan Stibbard Hawkes, an assistant professor at Baylor University and editor-in-chief of <em><a href="https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/journal/hgr" target="_blank">Hunter-Gatherer Research</a></em>.</p>
<p>To better understand these dynamics, researchers designed a new experiment that allowed participants to both give and take resources. They wanted to see if realistic levels of equality would emerge when people had the option to take from a peer.</p>
<p>To test these ideas, the researchers conducted a game with 117 Hadza adults from nine different camps. During private interviews away from the main camp, each participant was shown a photograph of themselves and a face down photograph of an anonymous campmate. The use of real photographs helped ensure participants understood they were interacting with actual people from their own community.</p>
<p>Participants were randomly assigned to one of two unequal starting conditions using a coin flip. In the advantageous condition, the participant started with eight tokens and the anonymous campmate started with four. In the disadvantageous condition, the participant received four tokens and the campmate received eight.</p>
<p>The tokens represented dried banana chips, a highly valued food item that provides a significant source of calories. Before the final payout, participants were told they could move the tokens however they wished. They could give tokens to their campmate, take tokens away from their campmate, or leave the distribution exactly as it was.</p>
<p>“We used photographs to show participants that they were giving and taking from other people in the same camps,” Stibbard Hawkes explained. “I think this was the first study to do this. We think this, alongside allowing participants to both ‘give’ and ‘take’ made the game more realistic than many previous economic experiments conducted in the region.”</p>
<p>The researchers found that participants kept more resources for themselves across both conditions. Overall, participants chose to give to the other player in about 31 percent of decisions, while they took from the other player in about 43 percent of decisions. The most frequent choice overall was for the player to leave no tokens at all for the anonymous campmate.</p>
<p>When participants started with more resources than their campmate, only about 41 percent chose to give some away. About 30 percent of people in this advantageous position actually took tokens from their campmate to increase their own wealth. Equality was rarely reached when people started with a surplus.</p>
<p>Behavior shifted when participants started with a disadvantageous distribution. In this scenario, nearly 59 percent of participants chose to take resources from the other player. When people took tokens to fix a personal disadvantage, the final distributions closely resembled the high levels of equality seen in real Hadza food sharing.</p>
<p>“Our primary manipulation strongly influenced game decisions,” Stibbard Hawkes told PsyPost. “In terms of the actual decision task, participants in the advantageous and disadvantageous inequality conditions were essentially playing the same game as each other: choosing the allocation patterns of 12 tokens, a fairly standard dictator game design. However the framing of this study – either advantageous and disadvantageous inequality, had a strong effect on decisions. So this primary manipulation was highly significant and exemplifies the importance of ‘framing’ in economic experiments of this type.”</p>
<p>These findings suggest that equality in these communities does not primarily come from unsolicited generosity. Instead, it tends to arise because individuals who have less actively demand or take from those who have more. The researchers noted that this behavior aligns closely with real ethnographic observations of daily camp life.</p>
<p>“Descriptions of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism sometimes gives the impression that these societies are atypically generous and public-spirited because they have not been corrupted by ‘modernity’ — this is the plot of a film called The Gods Must Be Crazy, where a coke bottle lands in the Kalahari desert and causes all sorts of trouble,” Stibbard Hawkes told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“Pushback against this ‘noble savage myth’ has led some researchers (like Graeber and Wengrow) to dismiss the idea of egalitarian societies entirely. But in fact, Hadza food sharing is very egalitarian and people give a lot of the food they procure away. Forager food sharing absolutely results in more equitable ‘egalitarian’ outcomes than we see in many market-oriented societies.”</p>
<p>“What I want to stress is that this isn’t because hunter-gatherers are any more or less generous than any other group of humans,” Stibbard Hawkes explained. “Some people were generous in these games, some weren’t. Instead, people secure equality for themselves by exerting pressure for others to share – taking as well as giving. Here, taking was key. This matches ethnographic accounts, which I have discussed more in another recent article, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X25103932" target="_blank">here</a>.”</p>
<p>The scientists also observed distinct demographic differences in how people played the game. Men and younger individuals were more likely to give away resources when they started with an advantage. Women and older individuals tended to keep more for themselves across both conditions, which matches patterns seen in traditional foraging labor divisions.</p>
<p>The researchers also examined how exposure to outside cultures influenced decision making. Participants completed a survey measuring their experiences with formal schooling, wage labor, and national Swahili culture. Those with higher exposure to outside cultures were moderately less likely to fix disadvantageous inequality.</p>
<p>“In other words, they were more tolerant of others having more than them – which makes sense given that traditionally the Hadza do not keep much personal property,” Stibbard Hawkes said. “However, this effect was only modest.”</p>
<p>This increased tolerance for inequality might reflect a shift in traditional sharing practices. As people interact more with market economies, they often begin to accumulate more personal property. This suggests that changing economic landscapes can slowly alter how small communities enforce equality.</p>
<p>Readers might be tempted to interpret these findings as evidence that hunter-gatherer equality is a myth. The scientists emphasize that this is a misinterpretation. Egalitarianism in these societies is very real and results in highly equitable living conditions, but it requires active effort.</p>
<p>“I’ve seen coverage of my recent work claiming that ‘egalitarianism isn’t real’ or hunter gatherers ‘aren’t actually egalitarian,'” Stibbard Hawkes said. “This isn’t what I’m saying! I think hunter-gatherers are (relatively) very egalitarian.” </p>
<p>“However, egalitarianism isn’t because everyone is exceptionally generous or noble. People often have to secure a fairer share for themselves. Often hunter-gatherer egalitarianism can be very stressful and there can be friction, complaining and grumbling – as there often is when people in any society seek more equitable outcomes for themselves. But egalitarianism is real, we just often misunderstand it.”</p>
<p>The study does have some limitations that provide avenues for future research. Because the experiment was anonymous to protect privacy, it removed the public scrutiny and social pressure that normally guide food sharing in a real camp. Future studies could explore how the watchful eyes of third parties influence these sharing decisions.</p>
<p>Additionally, the game relied on a specific currency, dried banana chips, which might hold different value than freshly hunted meat or gathered berries. Scientists plan to continue this research by directly comparing individuals’ choices in experimental games with their actual sharing habits over time. They also hope to study how ongoing integration into cash markets might continue to shift traditional sharing practices.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf328" target="_blank">The “I” in egalitarianism: Hadza hunter-gatherers averse to inequality primarily when personally unfavorable</a>,” was authored by Kristopher M Smith, Duncan N E Stibbard−Hawkes, Eugen Dimant, Ibrahim A Mabulla, Cristina Bicchieri, Coren L Apicella.</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/entitled-and-exploitative-people-are-more-likely-to-treat-others-as-objects-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;">Entitled and exploitative people are more likely to treat others as objects, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 2nd 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study in Poland found that people who are agreeable, intellectually curious, and who endorse positive norms of reciprocity were less likely to objectify others. In contrast, those prone to exploiting others and individuals with greater feelings of entitlement were more likely to objectify others. The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp/195599"><em>Current Issues in Personality Psychology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Objectification of people is the act of treating a person primarily as an object rather than as a full human being with thoughts, feelings, and autonomy. It involves reducing someone to their body, appearance, usefulness, or a single trait (or set of traits) while ignoring their individuality. Objectification is most commonly discussed in relation to sexual objectification, but it can also occur in workplaces, politics, or everyday social interactions.</p>
<p>People objectify others for several reasons, including social norms that emphasize status, beauty, or productivity over inner qualities. Media and advertising frequently reinforce objectification by portraying people as products to be evaluated or consumed. Psychologically, objectification can simplify social perception by reducing complex individuals into easier categories. It may also serve power dynamics, as seeing someone as an object can make it easier to control, exploit, or dismiss them.</p>
<p>Study author Kinga Lachowicz-Tabaczek and her colleagues wanted to identify personality characteristics associated with a general tendency to objectify other people. They defined objectification as a tendency to perceive others, regardless of the context, in a reduced, instrumental, and dehumanized way. “Instrumental” here means perceiving individuals only as useful objects, while “dehumanized” means perceiving them as non-subjects, devoid of subjectivity and uniqueness.</p>
<p>Study participants were 372 Polish adults from the Ariadna Research Panel, an online survey platform that allows researchers to collect data primarily in the fields of market research and social sciences. Participants’ average age was 34 years. Of the participants, 222 were women.</p>
<p>Participants completed an online survey containing assessments of the general tendency to objectify people (a modified Objectification Scale), the Big Five personality traits (the International Personality Item Pool – Big Five Factor Markers – 20), the Dark Triad personality traits (the Dirty Dozen scale), vulnerable narcissism (the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale), psychological entitlement (the Psychological Entitlement Scale), interpersonal exploitativeness (the Interpersonal Exploitativeness Scale), and norms of reciprocity (the positive and negative reciprocity norms subscales of the Personal Norm of Reciprocity Questionnaire).</p>
<p>Results showed that people with more pronounced traits of agreeableness, as well as those who endorsed positive reciprocity norms, were less likely to objectify others. Individuals who were more intellectually curious (the trait of intellect) were also less prone to objectifying others, though this association was relatively weak. Agreeableness is a personality trait reflecting compassion, trust, and concern for others, while the endorsement of positive reciprocity norms refers to the belief that people should return kindness and benefits received from others with similar positive actions.</p>
<p>On the other hand, individuals who were more exploitative, felt more entitled, and had more pronounced dark personality traits were more likely to objectify others. Exploitativeness refers to a tendency to take advantage of others for personal gain, while entitlement is the belief that one deserves special treatment, privileges, or rewards regardless of merit or effort.</p>
<p>The dark personality traits assessed in this study were narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism—collectively known as the Dark Triad—as well as vulnerable narcissism. Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, a strong need for admiration, and a sense of superiority over others. Machiavellianism involves manipulativeness, strategic calculation, and a focus on self-interest with little regard for morality. Psychopathy is marked by impulsivity, callousness, low empathy, and a lack of remorse for harmful behavior.</p>
<p>Participants more prone to objectifying others were also more likely to endorse negative reciprocity norms. Negative reciprocity norms are beliefs that people should retaliate or return harm when they are treated unfairly or wronged by others. Additionally, men were slightly more prone to objectifying others than women.</p>
<p>Further statistical analyses found that it was only agreeableness, endorsement of positive reciprocity norms, intellect, exploitativeness, entitlement, and gender that contributed independently to predicting the proneness to objectify others. When all traits were analyzed together, the remaining dark personality traits (like psychopathy and Machiavellianism) did not improve the prediction, suggesting that exploitativeness and entitlement are the core drivers of this behavior.</p>
<p>“Our findings suggest that a propensity for objectification is predicted by an unwillingness to maintain positive relationships with others, lower intellectual openness, higher entitlement and exploitativeness, and low tendency to positively respond to others’ favors,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the psychological underpinnings of the proneness to objectify others. However, it should be noted that the correlational design of the study does not allow any causal inferences to be made from these results.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp/195599">Who tends to perceive other people as useful objects? The relationship between the general tendency to objectify other people and basic and dark personality traits,</a>” was authored by Kinga Lachowicz-Tabaczek, Beata E. Andrzejewska, Anna Juszkiewicz, and Jolanta Babiak.</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/brain-scans-of-buddhist-monks-reveal-how-different-meditation-styles-alter-consciousness/" 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;">Brain scans of Buddhist monks reveal how different meditation styles alter consciousness</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 2nd 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study reveals that different styles of meditation produce distinct, measurable changes in the background noise and structural complexity of human brain waves. By scanning the brains of expert Buddhist monks, researchers demonstrated that meditative states make brain activity more flexible and less bound to past patterns. These results were published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niaf047" target="_blank">Neuroscience of Consciousness</a></em>.</p>
<p>Meditation involves a variety of mental strategies aimed at directing attention and cultivating physical and mental well-being. Over the years, brain imaging tools have helped map the specific brain regions that activate during these practices. Researchers are still trying to understand the precise physical mechanisms that allow these mental states to alter human consciousness.</p>
<p>Annalisa Pascarella, a researcher at the National Research Council in Italy, led a team to investigate the brain activity of highly experienced meditators. The team wanted to measure mathematical concepts like criticality and complexity in the human brain. Criticality describes a system resting perfectly on the boundary between strict order and total chaos.</p>
<p>A brain operating near this tipping point is thought to be highly efficient, balancing stability with the flexibility needed to process new information. Complexity refers to how rich, diverse, and unpredictable brain signals are over time. Highly complex brain signals often correspond to rich, varied states of consciousness.</p>
<p>Previous research on meditation has produced contradictory results regarding these specific mathematical measures. Many past experiments grouped all meditation styles together or used tools that could not track very fast brain changes. Pascarella and her colleagues sought to correct this by comparing two distinct forms of meditation using highly sensitive equipment.</p>
<p>The research team recruited twelve professional monks from a Buddhist monastery in Italy. These participants had engaged in extensive mental training, boasting an average of over fifteen thousand hours of meditation experience. The researchers focused on two specific techniques known as Samatha and Vipassana.</p>
<p>Samatha is a form of focused attention meditation where the practitioner concentrates entirely on a single object, such as their own breathing. Vipassana is an open monitoring technique that serves a different purpose. In Vipassana, the practitioner maintains a broad awareness of any passing thoughts or sensations without judging or focusing on any single one.</p>
<p>To see what was happening inside the participants’ heads, the researchers used magnetoencephalography. This technology measures the tiny magnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the brain. Magnetoencephalography provides a high-resolution timeline of brain activity, capturing rapid changes that other scanning methods might miss.</p>
<p>The monks sat in the scanner with their eyes closed and completed six-minute blocks of both Samatha and Vipassana meditation. They also rested quietly for three-minute intervals between the meditation sessions. This allowed the researchers to compare the brain’s resting state to its active meditative states.</p>
<p>When analyzing the data, the team looked closely at different types of brain waves. Brain waves are rhythmic electrical pulses, but the brain also produces a steady stream of background electrical noise. In the past, scientists sometimes struggled to separate the rhythmic waves from this non-rhythmic background noise.</p>
<p>This background noise is often described mathematically as an aperiodic slope. The steepness of this slope is thought to reflect the balance between brain cells that stimulate activity and those that inhibit it. Pascarella and her team used advanced software to strip away this background noise and look purely at the rhythmic brain waves.</p>
<p>The results of this separation were unexpected. Before removing the background noise, it appeared that high-frequency brain waves, known as gamma waves, increased during meditation. This would match what many older studies had reported about the meditative brain.</p>
<p>However, once the aperiodic background noise was factored out, the actual rhythmic gamma waves decreased during both types of meditation. The researchers concluded that the previously reported increases were likely an illusion caused by a shift in the brain’s overall background noise, rather than a true increase in rhythmic gamma activity. The steepness of the background noise curve flattened out, which points to a higher ratio of neural excitation to inhibition.</p>
<p>This drop in true gamma waves might reflect the calming of networks that normally process external distractions. The researchers noticed these decreases mainly in areas like the frontal and parietal lobes, which handle attention and physical movement. By reducing rhythmic activity in these areas, the brain might be shifting away from active mental engagement toward a state of integrated awareness.</p>
<p>The changes observed during meditation were mapped to specific networks within the brain. The researchers noted strong effects in a system usually active when the mind is wandering or daydreaming. Altering the activity in this network is likely what allows experienced meditators to silence internal chatter and maintain focus.</p>
<p>Beyond the wave frequencies, the researchers examined the complexity of the brain signals. They applied several mathematical tests to see how much a brain signal repeated itself. They found that brain activity became much more complex and less predictable during both Samatha and Vipassana meditation compared to the resting state.</p>
<p>They also measured how tightly a current brain signal is linked to past brain signals, a concept known as a temporal correlation. During both types of meditation, these temporal correlations dropped. This means the brain’s activity became less restricted by its recent past, creating a more adaptable and flexible mental environment.</p>
<p>The researchers also investigated whether a monk’s total hours of lifetime practice influenced their brain patterns. They discovered a trend suggesting that the most experienced monks exhibited brain dynamics during meditation that looked very similar to their resting states. This hints that thousands of hours of practice might permanently alter the brain’s baseline resting behavior.</p>
<p>To test how reliably these mathematical features could identify a meditative state, the researchers employed machine learning. They trained a computer algorithm to review all the brain data and guess whether a participant was resting or meditating. The algorithm successfully identified the correct brain state with a high degree of accuracy.</p>
<p>The algorithm ranked the drop in temporal correlations as the most helpful clue for distinguishing a meditating brain from a resting brain. This suggests that the brain’s release from past structural patterns is a defining feature of advanced meditation. The computer program also confirmed that these changes were distributed widely across the outer layers of the brain.</p>
<p>The team also measured the brain’s distance from the critical tipping point between order and chaos. They found a notable difference between the two meditation styles in this metric. During Vipassana, the brain moved closer to this critical boundary.</p>
<p>By contrast, Samatha meditation did not push the brain closer to this critical tipping point. The researchers suspect this reflects the different cognitive goals of the two practices. Vipassana requires an open, highly sensitive awareness of the present moment, which matches the flexible nature of a critical state.</p>
<p>Samatha requires deep, stable concentration, which may require the brain to stay firmly within a more ordered state. These findings show that the brain adapts its fundamental operating rules to match the specific demands of different contemplative practices. Different meditation styles physically alter the brain’s relationship with order and chaos in unique ways.</p>
<p>The study authors acknowledge a few limitations in their work. The pool of participants was small, which is a common problem when studying individuals with thousands of hours of highly specialized training. The results did not show a statistically significant correlation for some of the age-related observations after mathematical corrections were applied.</p>
<p>Additionally, the study lacked a control group of people with no meditation experience. This makes it difficult to know if the observed brain changes are unique to experts or if they would also happen in beginners. The researchers hope to address these gaps in future experiments with larger and more diverse groups of people.</p>
<p>Future research will likely involve building computer models to simulate these precise brain states. The team suggests that exploring other definitions of chaos could yield even deeper insights into human consciousness. Such work could eventually help medical professionals tailor specific meditation techniques to treat distinct psychological conditions.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niaf047" target="_blank">Meditation induces shifts in neural oscillations, brain complexity, and critical dynamics: novel insights from MEG</a>,” was authored by Annalisa Pascarella, Philipp Thölke, David Meunier, Jordan O’Byrne, Tarek Lajnef, Antonino Raffone, Roberto Guidotti, Vittorio Pizzella, Laura Marzetti, and Karim Jerbi.</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/republican-rhetoric-on-mass-shootings-does-not-change-public-opinion-on-gun-reform/" 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;">Republican rhetoric on mass shootings does not change public opinion on gun reform</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 2nd 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1231807" target="_blank">Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law</a></em> suggests that changing how politicians talk about mass shootings has little impact on the public’s views regarding gun control. While political statements often sway voter opinions on other issues, Americans appear to have deeply entrenched views on firearm policies that are not easily moved by alternative political rhetoric. </p>
<p>In recent years, the United States has experienced more than 600 mass shootings annually. The immense scale of this public health crisis has pressured some lawmakers to reconsider how they respond to these tragedies in the public sphere.</p>
<p>Republican lawmakers regularly offer “thoughts and prayers” to victims of gun violence. This specific phrasing became highly unpopular over time as the frequency of mass shootings increased. Following events like the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in the summer of 2022, some politicians began adjusting their public messages to avoid severe public backlash.</p>
<p>“This project was first conceived when I was a <a href="https://as.cornell.edu/research/klarman-fellowships" target="_blank">Klarman postdoctoral fellow</a> at Cornell University. My co-authors and I were discussing a recent shooting on a university campus and wondered how politicians would respond to yet another mass shooting event,” explained <a href="http://www.anil-menon.com/" target="_blank">Anil Menon</a>, who is now an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Merced.</p>
<p>“We correctly anticipated that some would convey ‘thoughts and prayers’ in response to the event and delay in the pursuit of meaningful policy action pertaining to gun reform. However, we also noticed that this response, typical in the 2010s, had received significant pushback in recent years and had been complemented with the two other rhetorical strategies we considered in the paper. </p>
<p>“One we called the pivot (placing the blame for mass shootings at the feet of mental illness and criminality) and the other, voiced by only a handful, asking for the adoption of red-flag (GVRO) laws. The research team was interested in understanding whether and how such rhetorical responses by party leaders might shape public opinion in the aftermath of a mass shooting. Thus, this study was conceived.”</p>
<p>To test this idea, the scientists conducted a national online survey in the fall of 2024. They recruited 3,000 American adults to participate in a randomized experiment. The researchers used a polling firm to ensure the group of participants accurately represented the demographics of the general public.</p>
<p>The researchers divided the participants into five different groups. Each group experienced a slightly different scenario before answering questions about their political views. Four of the five groups read a short description of a fictional mass shooting.</p>
<p>Out of those four groups, three also read an extra sentence describing a specific response from a Republican politician. One group read that the politician offered condolences to the victims. Another group read that the politician blamed the violence on mental illness and violent criminals. The third group read that the politician expressed support for “red flag” laws.</p>
<p>The fourth group read about the mass shooting but did not see any political response at all. The fifth group acted as a baseline for the experiment. These individuals did not read any story and proceeded directly to the survey questions.</p>
<p>All participants then answered questions about their support for six specific gun reform policies. These included establishing an age limit for owning a gun, requiring a license to purchase a firearm, and requiring owners to lock up their weapons when not in use. The researchers also asked about banning bump stocks, which are attachments that allow firearms to shoot ammunition very rapidly. Finally, the survey asked about two variations of “red flag” laws.</p>
<p>The data suggests that the different types of political rhetoric did not move public opinion on firearm reform. Reading about a politician offering condolences, blaming mental illness, or supporting “red flag” laws produced no statistically significant shifts in how participants viewed the six gun policies. The participants’ opinions remained stable regardless of the political messaging they consumed.</p>
<p>This lack of movement held true across the board, even when Republican voters read statements from Republican politicians. The scientists also found no evidence that the statements changed how participants viewed the root causes of gun violence. The messaging did not alter beliefs about whether mental illness, violent criminals, or access to guns were the primary contributors to these tragedies.</p>
<p>“The complete absence of any treatment effect in this context did surprise us,” Menon told PsyPost. “However, it is understandable in the context of heightened political polarization, which characterizes present day American society.”</p>
<p>The researchers noted a substantial level of baseline support for gun reform across the entire sample. More than half of the participants in the baseline group supported all six proposed policies. For instance, 77 percent of baseline participants supported “red flag” laws, and 56 percent supported banning bump stocks.</p>
<p>Even among Republican participants, a majority supported almost all the gun reform measures. The only exception was the bump stock ban, which fell slightly short of majority support among conservative voters. Despite this broad desire for reform, more than 80 percent of baseline respondents also viewed mental illness and violent criminals as significant contributors to gun violence.</p>
<p>“I want to reiterate that it is important to highlight how a majority of the American public want meaningful gun reform and support a whole slew of gun reform policies,” Menon said. “Researchers have repeatedly found this pattern across several studies going back over 10 years. This fact might not be obvious in a political climate where gun reform seems a faraway dream. As has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/republicans-gun-control.html" target="_blank">highlighted elsewhere</a>, political calculus prevents Republican politicians from pursuing such policies.”</p>
<p>The scientists propose that the lack of federal legislation stems from elected officials prioritizing party loyalty over the specific policy preferences of their voters. Lawmakers often use their votes to signal their political identity. In a polarized landscape, politicians may feel that protecting a broad reputation as defenders of gun rights is safer than passing the specific reforms their constituents actually want.</p>
<p>The scientists acknowledge some limitations to their experimental design. In a survey setting, participants only see a political message once. In real life, voters interact with political arguments repeatedly through cable television networks and social media feeds. This repeated exposure over a long period might shape public views in ways a single survey experiment cannot completely replicate.</p>
<p>Future research should explore how public attitudes interact with the legal and institutional barriers that prevent popular gun reforms from becoming law. The United States has specific constitutional protections and state-level powers that make it easier for minority interests to block legislation. The scientists suggest looking closer at the specific conditions that encourage politicians to align with public opinion on controversial issues.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1231807" target="_blank">‘Thoughts and Prayers’: The (Non) Effect of Partisan Responses to Mass Shootings on Public Opinion</a>,” was authored by Anil Menon, <a href="https://www.isabelmperera.com/" target="_blank">Isabel M. Perera</a>, and <a href="https://publicpolicy.cornell.edu/people/colleen-barry/" target="_blank">Colleen L. Barry</a>.</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>