<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/trying-harder-on-an-intelligence-test-does-not-actually-improve-your-score-2026-03-26/" 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;">Trying harder on an intelligence test does not actually improve your score</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 27th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Asking people to exert more effort on a test of mental ability does not actually improve their score. A recent study published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.65550/001c.142071"><em>Intelligence & Cognitive Abilities</em></a> found that while financial rewards successfully motivate people to try harder, this increased motivation fails to produce higher scores on cognitive tests. The results challenge the popular idea that intelligence metrics heavily reflect a person’s willingness to engage with the material rather than their actual cognitive limits.</p>
<p>For decades, researchers have debated the exact relationship between personal motivation and measured cognitive performance. Some prominent social theories have proposed that a considerable portion of the differences seen in intelligence scores can be attributed to how hard individuals try during the examination. Under this framework, two people with identical baseline intelligence might receive wildly different scores simply because one cared more about the outcome and focused harder.</p>
<p>A well-known analysis from over a decade ago supported this perspective, claiming that offering small monetary rewards could boost test performance by a huge amount. This idea suggested that basic intelligence tests might be measuring motivation just as much as they measure mental capacity. That early analysis eventually fell apart under scrutiny because some of the specific research papers included in the review contained fraudulent data and were retracted by their publishers.</p>
<p>Other observational studies on effort relied on asking participants how hard they tried only after the test was already complete. This approach introduces a serious flaw known as reverse causation. When people feel they are doing well on a task, they tend to report trying harder. Ultimately, the good performance causes the feeling of high effort, rather than the effort causing the good performance.</p>
<p>Timothy Bates, a psychology researcher at the University of Edinburgh, designed a series of new experiments to solve this measurement problem. Bates wanted to isolate the true directional effect of effort on mental performance. To do this, he needed to manipulate exactly how much effort participants were willing to exert. He also needed to measure that intention before the volunteers actually started the test.</p>
<p>This experimental strategy relies on introducing an outside influence, in this case a financial reward, to randomly adjust the participants’ motivation levels. By tying a monetary bonus to a specific goal, a researcher can push one group of people to try harder than another group. If effort truly causes an increase in intelligence scores, the group offered the money should exhibit a clear spike in their performance. This model allows scientists to rule out unseen variables and focus entirely on the direct path from increased effort to the final test score.</p>
<p>In the first phase of the research, Bates developed a survey to measure effort ahead of time. He asked nearly 400 adult volunteers to rate their intended effort before taking a timed reasoning and grammar test. In this test, participants had ninety seconds to evaluate simple sentences and determine if they were logically true or false. Because he captured their intentions early, participants could not modify their answers based on how easy or difficult they found the questions to be.</p>
<p>Bates confirmed that his new prospective measure aligned with established behavior metrics. He found that people who promised to try hard on his survey also had strong track records of reliably completing other online tasks. When he looked at the test results, he noticed an early hint of his eventual conclusion. The amount of effort participants promised to give had no real link to the scores they ended up achieving on the logic test.</p>
<p>The second phase scaled up the experiment to test for a direct causal relationship. Bates recruited 500 adults to take a visual spatial test. This specific assessment required the participants to imagine folding a piece of paper in their minds. The volunteers first completed a baseline version of the paper-folding test before filling out the new survey asking them to state their intended effort for a second round of questions.</p>
<p>At this stage, half of the participants were randomly selected to receive a special proposition. They were offered a financial bonus of two British pounds if they managed to improve their score by at least one point compared to their first attempt. Everyone else proceeded in the standard testing group without the offer of a bonus.</p>
<p>The financial incentive worked exactly as intended. Participants in the reward group reported a clear increase in their willingness to work hard on the second test. Despite this boosted motivation, their actual performance on the spatial reasoning questions remained unchanged. The causal effect of the increased effort on their cognitive scores was near zero, and the minor variations in performance between the groups were not statistically significant.</p>
<p>To verify these results, Bates conducted a third experiment with more than 1,200 adult participants. This final test used a completely different set of survey questions to measure intended effort. Bates borrowed an effort scale originally developed for a large international mathematics and science study. Using a secondary tool ensured the results were not just a quirk of his own survey design.</p>
<p>The volunteers again responded to the promise of a financial reward by increasing their planned effort. Just as in the second experiment, this surge in motivation failed to translate into better test scores on the paper-folding task. Across multiple independent samples and different measurement surveys, the results rejected the idea that trying harder leads to a higher cognitive score.</p>
<p>The combined outcomes of these experiments suggest that basic mental abilities are fairly insulated from short-term acts of willpower. While a person can choose to direct their attention to a specific task, they cannot force their underlying cognitive processing to operate beyond its established limits. By analogy, a person might focus their eyes intensely on a distant object, but that concentration cannot alter the fundamental sensitivity of their visual system if the object is too far away to see.</p>
<p>This research reinforces the general validity of standard cognitive testing. Because the tests are not easily skewed by shifting levels of motivation, they remain an accurate reflection of a person’s baseline reasoning skills. Educators and psychologists who rely on these metrics can be fairly confident that the scores represent actual ability rather than mere compliance or enthusiasm on the day of the test.</p>
<p>The findings do not imply that hard work and perseverance are useless traits in general. Diligence and goal setting remain highly effective strategies for long-term success, especially when mastering new skills, learning information over time, or completing lengthy projects. Effort remains incredibly helpful for overcoming frustration and maintaining focus. The current findings specifically address short-term attempts to temporarily elevate brain power during a standalone assessment.</p>
<p>Future investigations should continue exploring the exact properties of these newly validated pre-test surveys to ensure they accurately capture participant intentions. In the meantime, educators seeking to improve student outcomes might shift their focus toward proven instructional techniques. Methods like systematic time spent on a task and spaced repetition over weeks and months reliably help students learn. These strategies offer a more realistic path to academic improvement than expecting a sudden burst of effort to raise a student’s basic cognitive ability.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.65550/001c.142071">Is Trying Harder Enough? Causal Analysis of the Effort-IQ Relationship Suggests Not</a>,” was authored by Timothy Bates.</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/massive-analysis-of-longitudinal-data-links-social-media-to-poorer-youth-mental-health/" 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;">Massive analysis of longitudinal data links social media to poorer youth mental health</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 27th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Spending time on digital media, particularly social media, tends to be consistently linked with poorer developmental outcomes in children and teens. A massive review of existing research suggests that while video games might offer a slight boost to certain mental skills, heavy digital media use generally corresponds with increased depression, behavioral problems, and substance use. The findings were published in <em><a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2845518" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JAMA Pediatrics</a></em>.</p>
<p>Digital media has become deeply embedded in the daily lives of children, with use rising steadily across all age groups from infancy through adolescence. Much of the debate surrounding this topic relies on cross-sectional research. A cross-sectional study looks at data from a single point in time, which makes it impossible to tell if screen time causes problems or is merely associated with them.</p>
<p>To get a clearer picture, the authors of the new study wanted to focus entirely on longitudinal studies. Longitudinal research tracks the same individuals over a period of time, observing their habits before any health outcomes are measured.</p>
<p>“The debate around children’s digital media use has been fierce, but most of the evidence fuelling it comes from studies that only capture a single snapshot in time — they can’t tell us whether screen time is actually causing problems, or just associated with them. We wanted to change that,” said study author Sam Teague, a senior research fellow at James Cook University and head of the <a href="https://www.jcu.edu.au/jcu-digital-wellbeing-group" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JCU Digital Wellbeing Group</a>.</p>
<p>“By focusing exclusively on longitudinal studies, where children’s media use was tracked before any health outcomes were measured, we could start to map the direction of these relationships. We also deliberately cast a wide net — looking across all types of digital media use and all outcomes, positive and negative — to give a comprehensive picture rather than a narrow slice of the story.”</p>
<p>Previous research reviews have often been highly fragmented. Many past studies aggregated all digital engagement into broad measures of screen time, failing to distinguish between watching television and interacting on social platforms. Other reviews focused too narrowly on specific outcomes, like academic performance, without considering a child’s broader physical or emotional development. The researchers hoped to address these gaps by looking at a wide variety of specific media types and outcomes.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which is a method of combining and analyzing data from multiple independent studies to find common trends. They searched major academic databases for longitudinal observational research published between January 2000 and August 2024. The final analysis included 153 studies representing 115 unique groups of people.</p>
<p>Altogether, the data encompassed roughly 360,000 participants from across the globe, with individual study sample sizes ranging from 26 to 54,908 children. The ages of the participants spanned from two to 19 years old. The gender breakdown was nearly even, with 53.8 percent girls and 46.2 percent boys. Most of the included studies were conducted in Europe and North America, with smaller numbers from Asia, Australia, and Latin America.</p>
<p>The researchers extracted data on how often children used different types of digital media. They categorized the exposures into social media, video games, and other media like messaging platforms, educational applications, or general internet use. They then compared these habits against 26 developmental subdomains. These subdomains were grouped into four broad categories that included social-emotional, cognitive, physical, and motor development. Study durations ranged from a single day to 22 years, with an average follow-up period of about two and a half years.</p>
<p>The researchers found that social media use was consistently associated with multiple social-emotional difficulties. Higher social media engagement provided evidence of increased depression, anxiety, behavioral problems, self-injurious thoughts, and problematic internet use. It was also linked to lower academic achievement, less positive development, and a poorer sense of self-perception.</p>
<p>In the physical health domain, social media use tended to correspond with higher rates of substance use. This association included alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, with no major differences across the type of substance.</p>
<p>Video game use showed a slightly different pattern in the data. Playing video games was associated with increased aggression and externalizing behaviors, which are outward actions like rule-breaking or hostility.</p>
<p>At the same time, the data showed a small positive association between gaming and better attention and executive functioning. Executive functioning refers to mental skills that include working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control. Other media use, such as messaging applications and general digital device use, was associated with depression and poorer general health.</p>
<p>“The clearest finding is that digital media use — and social media in particular — is consistently linked to poorer outcomes for children and young people,” Teague told PsyPost. “Social media stood out: it was associated with worse outcomes across every domain we looked at, from mental health and social development through to physical health. The one bright spot was video gaming, which showed a small link to better executive functioning — things like attention and mental organization.”</p>
<p>The researchers also ran moderation analyses to see if factors like age, gender, or the year of the study influenced the results. They found that associations between social media and depression were stronger in early adolescence than in school-aged children.</p>
<p>Additionally, studies conducted after 2012, a time when smartphones became widespread, showed stronger links between social media and substance use. The researchers noted that effects may continue to change as digital platforms evolve and become more immersive.</p>
<p>Across the board, the negative associations between digital media use and child development were small to moderate in size. In practical terms, the researchers explain that these statistical effects are similar to the impacts of other common lifestyle factors, such as eating a poor diet or getting too little physical activity. Yet, even modest effects can add up over time. Teague said that the sheer volume of data showing the exact same results elevates the importance of these subtle shifts.</p>
<p>“The key word is consistent: across more than 100 studies involving around 360,000 children worldwide, the pattern kept showing up,” Teague told PsyPost. “This isn’t a problem that individual families can solve on their own by simply setting better rules around screen time. The scale of the evidence points to a need for action from policymakers and technology companies to make online environments genuinely safer for children.”</p>
<p>Teague was particularly surprised by the distinct mismatch between the positive experiences families frequently describe and the lack of supporting evidence found in the data.</p>
<p>“Families often describe digital media as a source of creativity and stronger friendships,” Teague explained. “But those benefits simply don’t appear in the longitudinal literature,” she said. “We looked hard for them. For example, we analyzed whether social media or gaming were linked to improvements in peer relationships, and found no such link.”</p>
<p>“And areas like creativity, empathy, and imagination haven’t been rigorously studied in this way at all. That absence of evidence matters. It doesn’t mean the benefits aren’t real, but it does mean we can’t confirm them. More research tracking these potential positives is genuinely needed.”</p>
<p>A primary limitation of the research is that it cannot definitively prove causation. While longitudinal studies provide stronger evidence than snapshots in time, other underlying factors could still explain the associations. Additionally, the vast majority of the studies were from upper-middle-income countries, limiting the ability to apply these findings to more diverse global populations.</p>
<p>“The most important one is that we can’t prove causation,” Teague noted. “Longitudinal studies give us stronger grounds than a single snapshot — we’re looking at media use before outcomes emerge — but other explanations remain possible. For instance, children already struggling with their mental health may engage with social media differently.”</p>
<p>“Or there may be underlying factors, like a difficult home environment, that drive both higher social media use and poorer mental health simultaneously. We pooled studies that controlled for some of these factors, which helps, but it wasn’t consistent across all the research. Future studies really need to control for baseline health to give us a firmer causal story.”</p>
<p>Moving forward, the researchers hope to understand how children’s digital habits will shift as countries begin implementing age-based restrictions on social media platforms. “With social media bans for children now in place in Australia and spreading globally, I want to understand how children’s digital habits shift in response — and in particular, what role AI will play as other platforms become harder to access,” Teague said.</p>
<p>The researchers also plan to look closer at early childhood habits. “We see children exceeding screen time recommendations at every age, which suggests the window for intervention may be earlier than we think,” Teague explained. “If we can understand how media habits formed in the early years track through to adolescence, we can better support families in building healthier habits from the start.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2845518" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Digital Media Use and Child Health and Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</a>,” was authored by Samantha Teague, Klaire Somoray, Adrian Shatte, and colleagues.</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/women-in-romantic-relationships-report-higher-sexual-satisfaction-than-men/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Women in romantic relationships report higher sexual satisfaction than men</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 27th 2026, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03317-w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Archives of Sexual Behavior</a></em> provides evidence that women in romantic relationships tend to be slightly more satisfied with their sex lives than men. These findings challenge common societal assumptions that women experience less sexual satisfaction due to various physical and social obstacles. The research suggests that within the context of established partnerships, women’s subjective enjoyment of intimacy remains highly positive.</p>
<p>Scientists designed this research to clear up years of inconsistent findings regarding gender and sexual satisfaction. Many cultural depictions and biological perspectives propose that women face unique barriers to enjoying intimacy. For instance, anatomical differences can lead to a higher likelihood of physical pain or infections for women during intercourse.</p>
<p>Social norms also tend to prioritize male pleasure or subject women to harsh judgments about their sexuality. This concept is known as the sexual double standard, where women face harsher social penalties for engaging in casual sex than men do. Because of these distinct challenges, many people assume that women naturally have less satisfying sexual experiences than men.</p>
<p>But scientists suspected that the safety of a committed romantic relationship might change this dynamic. In an established partnership, couples often build trust and communicate better about their specific desires. Women tend to feel safer and face less stigma when having sex with a steady partner compared to a casual encounter.</p>
<p>The orgasm gap is another factor that influences how people view sexual satisfaction. The orgasm gap refers to the well documented phenomenon where men consistently experience more orgasms during partnered sex than women do. To find a definitive answer on whether these hurdles actually reduce overall satisfaction, scientists combined massive amounts of data to compare partnered men and women directly.</p>
<p>“I’ve always been interested in how broader social beliefs regarding intimacy may impact intimacy within romantic relationships, even if there is no empirical research to support such beliefs. For example, most people likely believe that men have greater sexual satisfaction than women based on gender norms surrounding sex, but I noticed within the research that there were inconsistent findings regarding gender differences in sexual satisfaction,” said study author <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashlyn-brady-a44b0878/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ashlyn Brady</a>, an assistant professor of psychology at Sweet Briar College.</p>
<p>“That is, some research has shown that men report greater sexual satisfaction than women, while other studies revealed that women report greater sexual satisfaction than men, and other research has not observed any gender differences in sexual satisfaction. Because of this, I hoped to conduct a study to resolve these inconsistent results in past research.”</p>
<p>For their study, the scientists used a statistical technique called integrative data analysis. This approach pools raw participant data from multiple independent studies to create one large and highly diverse dataset. By combining these studies into a single pool, scientists gain a much clearer and more powerful look at subtle trends that a small study might miss.</p>
<p>Because the independent studies originally used different questionnaires, the researchers had to harmonize the survey items. Harmonization involves taking slightly different questions from various surveys and adjusting them mathematically so they measure the exact same concept on the same scale. This allowed the researchers to seamlessly merge responses from completely different sets of participants.</p>
<p>The scientists conducted two separate analyses using data from five Western countries. The first analysis included 11,841 participants from 29 different cross-sectional studies. In these studies, participants answered broad survey questions about how satisfied they felt with their sex lives in general.</p>
<p>The second analysis focused on daily experiences and included 1,827 participants from eight different studies. These participants completed a total of 18,321 daily survey reports over a period of two to four weeks. This allowed the researchers to track momentary satisfaction with specific sexual encounters as they happened day by day.</p>
<p>Across both the general surveys and the daily diaries, the researchers found that partnered women reported slightly higher levels of sexual satisfaction than partnered men. The researchers conducted extra statistical tests to see if other relationship factors could explain this small gap. They checked whether women were simply happier with their overall romantic relationship, but general relationship satisfaction did not explain the difference in sexual satisfaction.</p>
<p>The scientists also looked at the frequency of sexual encounters. They wanted to see if having less sex somehow made women more satisfied, but the data showed that sexual frequency did not change the results. The researchers also ruled out the possibility that women were just reporting higher satisfaction because they were factoring in their partner’s enjoyment.</p>
<p>“The main finding that women reported greater sexual satisfaction than men in romantic relationships was extremely surprising!” Brady told PsyPost. “Although some research has shown that women reported greater sexual satisfaction than men or that there were no observed gender differences in sexual satisfaction, a vast majority of past research has found that men report greater sexual satisfaction than women.”</p>
<p>“Because of this, I was not expecting that our results would reveal women to report greater sexual satisfaction than men. But when I think about it more I can understand why these findings make sense, although such reasons need to be explored more in future research.”</p>
<p>The researchers did find a few minor variables that changed the overall pattern. In the cross-sectional surveys, the slight gender gap showing women reporting higher sexual satisfaction than men was mostly seen in older adults. In the daily diary studies, this specific difference in satisfaction was more apparent among couples who had been together for longer periods of time.</p>
<p>Previous research published in <em>The Journal of Sex Research</em> hints at why the context of a committed partnership might be important for women’s sexual well-being. In a survey of over a thousand women, Val Wongsomboon and her colleagues found that <a href="https://www.psypost.org/women-tend-to-have-better-sexual-outcomes-in-committed-relationships-but-theres-an-important-caveat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">women generally report more frequent orgasms and higher sexual satisfaction in committed relationships</a> compared to casual encounters. This aligns with the current study’s premise that established relationships create a supportive, communicative environment that helps minimize the obstacles women face during sex.</p>
<p>However, Wongsomboon and her colleagues also uncovered an exception to this trend based on individual attitudes. Women who were highly open to short-term, casual intimacy experienced similar levels of physical and emotional satisfaction regardless of whether they were in a relationship or having a casual hookup. This suggests that while a committed romantic context tends to boost sexual satisfaction for many women, a person’s specific comfort with casual sex also shapes their overall enjoyment.</p>
<p>“I hope people take away that social norms and expectations may not always reflect actual experiences among people within society,” Brady said. “Although there are many valid reasons why men may be more sexually satisfied than women, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they always are.”</p>
<p>While the study relies on a massive amount of data, the researchers note a few potential misinterpretations. The difference in satisfaction between men and women was actually very small. Because the sample size was so incredibly large, even tiny differences appeared statistically significant.</p>
<p>“It’s important to keep in mind that the observed effect was small, and thus the real-life implications of the findings may more so reflect there being no gender differences in sexual satisfaction,” Brady said. “However, even that finding is important given the previous emphasis within research and among lay people that men have greater sexual satisfaction than women.”</p>
<p>The scientists also emphasize that these findings do not mean women experience a perfect sex life without obstacles. Women still report higher rates of pain during sex and fewer orgasms than men. Instead, the data suggests that despite these physical and social hurdles, women still evaluate their overall sexual experiences in a highly positive light.</p>
<p>“More and more research has highlighted that gender differences in sexual experiences (e.g., sexual satisfaction, sexual desire) are either very small or nonexistent,” Brady said. “Men and women may be more similar in their sexual experiences than expected!”</p>
<p>The study also faced certain limitations, such as relying heavily on participants in their twenties and thirties from Western cultures. Future research should explore how these patterns might shift in different age brackets or in non-Western countries. The scientists also hope to look closer at diverse sexual orientations and gender identities to see if these specific gender differences hold true across all types of couples.</p>
<p>Finally, the researchers want to explore exactly why men’s satisfaction might fall slightly below women’s over time.</p>
<p>“I hope to further this line of research by exploring why women reported greater sexual satisfaction than men in the context of romantic relationships,” Brady told PsyPost. “We explored a few potential reasons within this study, but none of them explained the observed results. For example, in future research it may be fruitful to consider whether men’s greater desire for sexual novelty informs their decreased sexual satisfaction over time within romantic relationships.”</p>
<p>“Similarly, perhaps women reported greater sexual satisfaction within romantic relationships because women tend to have worse sexual experiences in casual sexual encounters than men. Thus, women’s sexual satisfaction in romantic relationships may be amplified if they are comparing it to prior sexual experiences that were significantly worse. These are just a few possible reasons that need to be explored in future research.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03317-w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Women Are Slightly More Sexually Satisfied in Their Romantic Relationships Than Men: An Integrative Data Analytic Approach</a>,” was authored by Ashlyn Brady, Levi R. Baker, Jessica A. Maxwell, Sara B. Algoe, Carolyn Birnie-Porter, Marlee Brownstein, Kathleen L. Carswell, Emily J. Cross, Anik Debrot, Eli J. Finkel, Cheryl Harasymchuk, Emily A. Impett, James J. Kim, Chelom E. Leavitt, Geoff MacDonald, Michael R. Maniaci, Kristen P. Mark, James K. McNulty, Andrea L. Meltzer, Amy Muise, Nickola C. Overall, Yoobin Park, Harry T. Reis, and Francesca Righetti.</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/most-americans-dont-fear-an-ai-apocalypse-according-to-new-research/" 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;">Most Americans don’t fear an AI apocalypse, according to new research</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 26th 2026, 22:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An online study examining attitudes towards AI indicated that most people tend to hold optimistic views toward AI and tend to disagree with extreme negative attitudes. Moreover, people with higher social health, higher agreeableness, lower neuroticism and loneliness, as well as those more familiar with technology, tended to have more favorable views about the large-scale impact of AI. The paper was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-025-00512-3"><em>Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science</em></a>.</p>
<p>As the rapid development of artificial intelligence systems (AI) is visibly transforming how people work and lead their lives, extensive debates are ongoing about what the large-scale impact of AI technologies on the human culture and society will be. Researchers and policymakers debate whether AI will primarily bring major benefits or create serious risks.</p>
<p>One concept in these discussions is P(Doom) – an expectation that advanced AI could cause human extinction or an irreversible collapse of civilization. Different experts assign very different probabilities to P(Doom), ranging from extremely low to relatively high. Some researchers argue that if AI systems become more intelligent than humans and are not properly aligned with human goals, they could create catastrophic outcomes. Others believe that such scenarios are unlikely and that AI will remain under human control through regulation, engineering safeguards, and institutional oversight.</p>
<p>AI optimism is the view that artificial intelligence will largely benefit humanity by accelerating scientific discovery, improving healthcare, increasing productivity, and solving global problems. Optimists point to the historical pattern in which new technologies ultimately increased human prosperity despite temporary disruptions. At the same time, even optimistic perspectives usually acknowledge that AI may bring challenges such as job displacement, misinformation, or concentration of power.</p>
<p>Study authors Rose E. Guingrich and Michael S. A. Graziano wanted to explore the prevalence of P(Doom) concerns in the USA and who holds them. They wanted to investigate how people perceive AI’s impact on themselves and on society, and how are individual psychological characteristics associated with these views.</p>
<p>Study participants were 402 U.S. residents recruited through Prolific in June 2023. 49% of the participants were women. Their age ranged between 18 and 65 years, with most being between 25 and 44. Study authors paid each of them $12 for their participation.</p>
<p>Study participants were randomly divided into two groups. One group was assigned to interact with one of the three popular chatbots (ChatGPT, Replika or Anima) for at least 10 minutes immediately prior to answering the survey questions. Participants from the other group directly proceeded to the survey.</p>
<p>The study survey contained assessments of AI sentiments and p(doom) views (a scale created by study authors), interest and experience with new technologies (the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale), personality (the Ten Item Personality Inventory), sociability (the Self-Perception Profile for Adults), social competence (the Perceived Social Competence Scale), self-esteem (the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), and loneliness (the UCLA Loneliness Scale). The survey also asked whether the participant had any mental health diagnosis, about demographic data, and participants’ interest in engaging with a chatbot or a human (“I am interested in talking to a chatbot right now” and “I am interested in talking to another person right now”).</p>
<p>Results showed that the participants’ answers tended to be divided. However, the majority of study participants disagreed with p(doom) statements like “I worry that AI is very bad” or “I worry that AI will take over the world”.</p>
<p>Participants also tended to disagree with the statement that “AI agents like chatbots, digital voice assistants, or robots would make good social companions.”, although the ratings were much more evenly distributed. Participants were also divided about whether AI should have moral rights. Study participants generally tended to show somewhat higher agreement with statements describing positive views of the AI.</p>
<p>Further analyses revealed that individuals with higher reported social health (i.e., social competence, sociability, and self-esteem) and agreeableness tended to be more positive about AI. The same was the case with individuals more familiar with technology. On the other hand, individuals with more pronounced neuroticism and loneliness tended to have less favorable views toward the large-scale impact of AI.</p>
<p>“Our research suggests that at this moment in time, in a representative online US sample, extreme, negative p(doom) attitudes are not the norm. The public is generally positive toward AI, in terms of its impact on their personal lives and on society,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study sheds light on current attitudes people in the U.S. have about AI. However, as the field of AI continues to evolve rapidly, these views may change as a reflection of new experiences.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41347-025-00512-3">P(doom) Versus AI Optimism: Attitudes Toward Artificial Intelligence and the Factors That Shape Them</a>,” was authored by Rose E. Guingrich and Michael S. A. Graziano.</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-reveal-how-problematic-smartphone-use-relates-to-emotion-regulation-2026-03-26/" 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;">Excessive smartphone habits tied to emotional dysregulation in the brain</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 26th 2026, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Young adults who struggle to manage their smartphone habits display altered brain connectivity patterns related to emotional processing and self-control. A newly released study maps how these neural differences correspond to difficulties in regulating negative feelings. The research was published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04008-4">BMC Psychology</a>.</em></p>
<p>Problematic smartphone use refers to tech habits that negatively affect traditional daily functioning. While it is not formally classified as a clinical addiction, the behavior shares similar psychological traits with addictive disorders. These include withdrawal symptoms, a buildup of tolerance, and a heavy reliance on digital devices to soothe bad moods.</p>
<p>The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep within the brain that takes on a primary role in generating and processing emotions. In healthy individuals, the amygdala works in tandem with other brain networks to recognize threats and modulate emotional responses. Past neuroimaging studies indicate that people with anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder often exhibit unusual brain activity in this exact region.</p>
<p>Yu-Lu Wang, a researcher at Qiqihar Medical University and the Zhenjiang Mental Health Center in China, led the investigation alongside several colleagues. The research team wanted to map the exact functional connectivity networks stemming from the amygdala in problematic smartphone users. They aimed to see how these localized brain network patterns related to everyday emotional struggles.</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 72 healthy college students between the ages of 18 and 25. Based on a standard psychological assessment of smartphone application dependence, 37 students were categorized as problematic smartphone users. The remaining 35 students showed no signs of digital dependency and served as a healthy control group.</p>
<p>All participants completed a secondary questionnaire designed to gauge their ability to manage negative emotions. This assessment tracks several dimensions of emotional struggle, such as an inability to control impulses when upset or a lack of emotional clarity. Participants then underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. This noninvasive scanning technique tracks spontaneous fluctuations in blood oxygen levels across the brain while a person lies awake and at rest.</p>
<p>By analyzing this resting-state data, investigators can observe which areas of the brain activate in synchrony. When different regions show synchronized blood flow over time, neuroscientists consider them to be functionally connected. The investigators specifically looked at how both the left and right sides of the amygdala communicated with the rest of the brain. To ensure accuracy, the raw scan data underwent preprocessing to remove motion artifacts and physiological noise.</p>
<p>The scans revealed distinct differences in how the amygdala connects to other regions in the problematic smartphone use group. For the right amygdala, problematic users showed stronger functional connections to the right temporal pole. This particular brain region is heavily involved in social cognition and processing emotional memories. Stronger connectivity here might reflect the high degree of sensitivity these individuals exhibit toward social stimuli, such as social media notifications.</p>
<p>At the same time, the right amygdala exhibited weaker connections to the right thalamus, the left precuneus, and the left cerebellum. The precuneus serves as a central node in what neuroscientists call the default mode network. This widespread neural network is highly active when a person is resting, daydreaming, or reflecting on their internal state. The researchers note that weaker connectivity in this node might reflect a reduced capacity for self-regulation and introspection.</p>
<p>Neural differences also appeared when analyzing the left amygdala. Problematic users demonstrated enhanced functional connections to areas of the brain involved in cognitive control, attention allocation, and sensory integration. Specifically, the scans showed increased linkage between the left amygdala and the right inferior frontal gyrus, an area deeply involved in response inhibition.</p>
<p>Like the right side, the left amygdala also showed weaker communication with the cerebellum. Historically associated mostly with physical coordination, the cerebellum is increasingly recognized for its role in non-motor functions. This includes assisting higher-level cognitive operations and deep emotional regulation strategies.</p>
<p>The team then compared these functional brain scan results to the participants’ questionnaire scores. They found that less communication between the amygdala and the cerebellum correlated securely with higher degrees of smartphone dependence. Conversely, increased connectivity between the left amygdala and certain brain areas governing attention correlated with greater reported difficulties in managing emotional responses.</p>
<p>While the correlation between the superior parietal lobule and the emotion regulation scale was not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple variables, the broader pattern of connectivity aligned with the study’s overall hypotheses. The research team proposes that these altered brain patterns reflect a distinct imbalance in the nervous system. The observed neural profile suggests an overactivation of emotional centers paired with weakened cognitive regulatory systems.</p>
<p>This internal brain state might make it harder for affected individuals to process negative feelings organically. Difficulty in handling stress or sadness internally might drive people to reach for their smartphones to seek a quick psychological distraction. Over time, relying on this immediate digital relief could reinforce behavioral dependence, locking individuals into an unhelpful emotional cycle.</p>
<p>The observational study comes with a few basic limitations. Its cross-sectional design means the scientists captured a single moment in time, restricting their ability to determine true causality. It remains objectively unclear whether extreme smartphone use actually alters amygdala connectivity over time. Alternatively, pre-existing structural brain patterns might make some people more naturally susceptible to technological overuse.</p>
<p>The findings were also based on a relatively small sample size focused entirely on individuals in early adulthood. Because the human brain is still physically maturing through the mid-20s, especially in prefrontal regions governing impulse control, these findings might not completely apply to older adults. Future longitudinal studies tracking individuals over several years are needed to clarify the developmental timeline of these brain networks.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04008-4">The relationship between abnormalities in amygdala functional connectivity and emotion regulation difficulties in problematic smartphone users</a>,” was authored by Yu-Lu Wang, Heng-Yu Bi, Kai-Mo Ding, Jun Zhu, Bei Zhao, Dan-Wei Zhang, Xian-Lu Chang, Guo-Hai Li, Yue Pan, Li Zhu, Qiang Hu, Cheng-Chong Li, and Zi-Liang Wang.</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/addiction-is-linked-to-inconsistent-decision-making-not-ignoring-consequences/" 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;">Addiction is linked to inconsistent decision-making, not ignoring consequences</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 26th 2026, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who regularly use drugs may not simply ignore negative consequences—but may instead struggle to consistently act on them, according to new research published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-03830-z"><em>Translational Psychiatry</em></a>.</p>
<p>Traditionally, scientists have argued that individuals with more severe substance use become less sensitive to negative consequences such as health problems or financial loss. However, real-world decisions are rarely that simple. People often face competing costs—for example, the discomfort of withdrawal or loneliness if they stop using versus the long-term harm of continuing. These decisions also take place in environments that can be stable or constantly changing, adding another layer of complexity.</p>
<p>Hence, the researchers behind this study wanted to move beyond simplified models of decision-making. Instead of focusing only on rewards or single types of cost, they examined how people compare multiple costs and how their decisions shift depending on the stability of their environment.</p>
<p>Led by Sonia G. Ruiz, the Yale University team recruited 137 adults aged 18 to 65 from the community, 75% of whom had a history of regular substance use. To measure substance use severity, the researchers calculated each participant’s cumulative lifetime “years of regular use” (defined as using a substance three or more times a week). </p>
<p>Participants then completed a computer-based task designed to mimic real-world decision-making under uncertainty. In each of 200 rounds, they chose between two options—represented as cards—that could result in losing random, small amounts of money ranging from one to five dollars. The goal was to minimize losses by learning which option was safer.</p>
<p>The task included two different conditions. In the “stable” condition, the likelihood of losing money stayed the same over time, meaning participants could rely on consistent patterns. In the “volatile” condition, the probabilities frequently changed, requiring participants to adapt quickly and pay more attention to recent outcomes. Participants were not told when these changes occurred, forcing them to learn through experience.</p>
<p>As expected, most participants gradually improved their choices by learning from feedback. They were more likely to stick with an option after it helped them avoid losing money (a $0 loss), especially in the stable condition where patterns were easier to detect. This showed that, overall, people could use past outcomes to guide future decisions.</p>
<p>However, a different pattern emerged among individuals with more years of regular substance use. These participants were significantly less likely to repeat a choice that had just helped them avoid a loss. In other words, even when they made a beneficial decision, they often failed to stick with it. Instead of adopting a successful strategy, they tended to switch their choices regardless of whether they had just avoided or incurred a loss, suggesting a broader inconsistency in how they used feedback.</p>
<p>This inconsistency was particularly pronounced in the stable condition, where the best strategy was to recognize and stick with the safer option. Instead, individuals with more extensive substance use histories displayed more erratic behavior, switching choices even when the environment did not warrant it.</p>
<p>To better understand why, researchers used advanced computational models (a Hierarchical Gaussian Filter) to analyze decision-making processes. The analysis revealed that individuals with more years of substance use were less consistent in using “expected value”—the mathematical balance of probabilities and loss magnitudes—to guide their choices. Clinically, this suggests that people with severe substance use histories are not necessarily oblivious to consequences; rather, their brains struggle to consistently apply what they have learned about those consequences to future decisions.</p>
<p>“These results contribute to our conceptualization of substance use severity by suggesting that inconsistency in using cost information, rather than insensitivity to costs, may inform choices to continue using substances despite incurring negative consequences,” Ruiz and colleagues concluded.</p>
<p>The researchers caution that the study has limitations. For instance, the task involved monetary losses rather than real-life substance-related decisions (like drug cues), which may not fully capture the emotional and social pressures people face. Additionally, the study measured cumulative years of use as an indicator of severity, but did not separate current substance users from past users.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-026-03830-z">The relationship between regular substance use and cost comparisons in stable and volatile learning contexts</a>,” was authored by Sonia G. Ruiz, Samuel Paskewitz, and Arielle Baskin-Sommers.</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/asking-complex-questions-improves-creative-project-scores-but-hurts-multiple-choice-exam-grades/" 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;">Asking complex questions improves creative project scores but hurts multiple-choice exam grades</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 26th 2026, 16:00</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/10.1038/s41539-026-00402-0" target="_blank">npj Science of Learning</a></em> suggests that as students acquire knowledge, their ability to ask complex, subject-specific questions improves, which boosts their performance on creative open-ended projects. However, this same high-level questioning ability tends to negatively impact their scores on standard multiple-choice exams. The findings provide evidence that while deep inquiry aids creative learning, it might conflict with traditional testing methods that require a single correct answer.</p>
<p>Asking questions is a basic human cognitive tool used to identify and fill gaps in our understanding. It helps us reduce uncertainty about the world around us. The researchers conducted the study to understand how acquiring knowledge over time changes the way people form these questions.</p>
<p>While asking questions is a fundamental part of learning, little was known about how the originality and complexity of these questions evolve in a real-world classroom setting. Tuval Raz and Yoed N. Kenett, scientists at the Technion Israel Institute of Technology, designed the research to explore this progression. They also wanted to see whether a student’s natural ability to ask good questions predicts their academic success on different types of assignments.</p>
<p>“In our lab, we research question asking and what makes a certain question more efficient at gathering information. The logical next step was to leave the lab and explore questions ‘in the wild’ and whether being a ‘better’ asker is advantageous for academic outcomes. This is especially pertinent as we usually encourage questions in classrooms, without fully understanding their influence on academic success,” explained Raz, a PhD student and member of <a href="https://cognitive-complexity.net.technion.ac.il" target="_blank">The Cognitive Complexity Lab</a>.</p>
<p>Specifically, the researchers looked at the difference between assessments that have one correct answer and those that allow for multiple creative solutions. To test their ideas, the scientists followed 68 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory psychology course. The study took place over a single spring semester, with data collected during the first week and again during the final week of classes.</p>
<p>This schedule allowed the researchers to track changes as the students learned new course material. During both testing periods, the students completed tasks designed to measure their question-asking abilities. One task measured general inquiry by asking students to generate unusual questions about common objects, like a pencil, sock, pillow, or clock, within a two-minute window.</p>
<p>A second task measured subject-specific inquiry by having students generate questions specifically about psychology and scientific experiments. During the first testing session, the students also completed a scientific creative thinking test. For this assessment, the students read hypothetical scenarios and generated related research questions, hypotheses, and experimental designs.</p>
<p>The researchers scored the generated questions based on three distinct metrics. The first metric was fluency, which simply counted the total number of questions a student produced within the time limit. The second metric was originality, which used artificial intelligence models trained on human ratings to evaluate the creativity and uniqueness of the questions.</p>
<p>The final metric was complexity, which the scientists evaluated using a concept known as Bloom’s taxonomy. This is an educational framework that ranks cognitive tasks from basic factual recall at the lowest level to creating and synthesizing new ideas at the highest level. These levels include remembering facts, understanding ideas, applying information, analyzing connections, evaluating decisions, and creating new work. Using this scale, a basic question asking for a definition would score lower, while a question requiring deep analysis would score higher.</p>
<p>At the end of the semester, the researchers compared the students’ question-asking scores against two different final academic assessments. The first was an open-ended group research project that required students to propose and conduct a small scientific experiment. Open-ended tasks reward what psychologists call divergent thinking, which is the ability to generate multiple different ideas or solutions to a single problem.</p>
<p>The second assessment was a closed-ended multiple-choice final exam covering the course material. Closed-ended tests reward convergent thinking, which is the ability to quickly narrow down information to find the single correct answer.</p>
<p>When analyzing the data, the researchers noticed a shift in how the students asked questions over the semester. As the students learned more about psychology, their subject-specific questions became more numerous, original, and complex. On the other hand, their general question-asking abilities either stayed the same or declined in originality.</p>
<p>The study also revealed specific links between questioning skills and academic performance. Groups of students who generated highly original and complex subject-specific questions at the end of the semester tended to earn higher grades on the open-ended research project. Generating a large quantity of questions was associated with lower project grades, suggesting that quality mattered more than sheer volume.</p>
<p>The researchers noted that the timing of complex questions also played a major role in student success. High complexity at the beginning of the course, before students had mastered foundational concepts, actually predicted lower scores on the group project. The scientists suspect that generating complicated questions too early might overwhelm the students.</p>
<p>“We were especially surprised to see that more complex questions in the beginning of the semester predicted poorer final test performance, whereas complexity at the end of the semester was beneficial,” Raz told PsyPost. “We understand this to mean that before acquiring relevant knowledge, high complexity is a sign of overcomplication. Conversely, complexity at the end of the semester is a sign of material mastery and is thus beneficial.”</p>
<p>When it came to the multiple-choice exam, the results showed an opposite trend. Students who asked more complex and original questions tended to receive lower grades on the closed-ended test. The researchers suggest that the creative, exploring mindset required for complex questioning does not align well with exams that demand rapid and precise factual recall.</p>
<p>This highlights a potential mismatch in modern education. Schools often teach and encourage skills related to dealing with uncertainty and creative inquiry. Yet, they frequently test students using standard exams that reward an entirely different set of rigid memory skills.</p>
<p>“Although question asking is generally viewed as something we encourage, our findings show that it may harm us in the long run,” Raz said. “This is especially true regarding closed-ended standardized tests — which are the norm in academia. Perhaps we should shift to more open-ended grading and tasks.”</p>
<p>While the findings provide evidence that questioning skills shape educational outcomes, there are some limitations to consider. The sample size was relatively small, and the research was restricted to a single psychology course. This means the results might not automatically apply to other academic disciplines or age groups.</p>
<p>Another detail to keep in mind is the difference in how the final assignments were graded. The open-ended project was completed and scored as a group, while the multiple-choice test was an individual metric. This difference in grading structures could potentially influence the comparisons between the two types of assessments.</p>
<p>In the future, the scientists plan to continue their longitudinal tracking of student inquiry skills over time. “We hope to further explore longitudinal research on question asking and are now in the midst of running a manipulation study aimed at enhancing academic outcomes through question asking,” Raz said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00402-0" target="_blank">Knowledge reshapes inquiry by changing question asking ability and impacting academic assessment</a>,” was authored by Tuval Raz and Yoed N. Kenett.</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/psilocybin-alters-time-perception-by-disrupting-working-memory-and-attention-2026-03-20/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">A new study measures the temporal distortions caused by psychedelics</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 26th 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study found that psilocybin, the active compound in magic mushrooms, changes how people perceive time by causing them to underestimate the duration of visual events and feel as though time is passing more slowly. Published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251389552">Journal of Psychopharmacology</a>, the research suggests that these temporal distortions are likely driven by temporary disruptions to attention and memory rather than a change in a hypothetical internal biological clock. These results help clarify the psychological mechanisms behind psychedelic experiences and offer insights into how the human brain tracks the passage of seconds.</p>
<p>Research into psychedelic substances has expanded rapidly in recent years, with a major focus on their potential to treat various mental health conditions. As part of this renewed interest, researchers are examining how these compounds alter basic cognitive functions. One of the most commonly reported effects of psychedelics is a profound distortion of time perception. People using these substances frequently report that time seems to stand still, stretch out, or lose its traditional physical meaning entirely.</p>
<p>Human brains track time across many different scales. We rely on circadian rhythms to manage our daily sleep cycles, and we require rapid neural mechanisms to process sensory information in fractions of a millisecond. The current study focuses on interval timing, which is the ability to perceive and track time in the range of seconds to minutes.</p>
<p>Psychologists often explain interval timing using a mental model that includes an internal pacemaker. This theoretical pacemaker emits steady pulses. When a person needs to estimate a duration, an internal switch allows these pulses to flow into an accumulator. The brain then compares this accumulation of pulses to memories of past durations to make a judgment.</p>
<p>Under normal circumstances, this system allows a person to accurately estimate how long a traffic light takes to change or how long a piece of fruit has been in a microwave. Certain drugs can alter this system. Stimulants that release dopamine tend to make the internal clock tick faster, making people feel like more time has passed than reality dictates. The serotonergic system, which psychedelics target, has a less defined role in this process.</p>
<p>Previous research on psilocybin and interval timing has yielded mixed results. Past experiments usually asked participants to reproduce a specific time interval by pressing a button for a certain duration or tapping their fingers at a steady pace. Those motor tasks require physical coordination, which can also be altered by psychedelics. </p>
<p>Lead author Petr Scholle, a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health in the Czech Republic, and his colleagues wanted to see if they could measure time distortion without relying on a participant’s ability to execute physical movements. They also wanted to test whether the distortion applies to visual observation, since past studies mostly used auditory cues. By altering the type of task and the sensory input, the researchers designed the study to test whether psilocybin causes a universal shift in time perception.</p>
<p>To investigate this, the research team recruited twenty-four healthy volunteers for a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. On two separate occasions, participants received either a placebo or an active dose of psilocybin adjusted for their body weight. Neither the participants nor the researchers in the room knew which capsule was being administered on a given day.</p>
<p>The researchers waited four hours after the participants ingested the capsules before conducting the timing task. This waiting period ensured that the most intense visual and cognitive effects of the drug had started to fade. The team wanted to make sure participants could still clearly see a computer screen and understand the instructions of the task.</p>
<p>During the experiment, participants sat in front of a computer and completed a temporal bisection task. First, they went through a training phase where they learned to identify a blue circle shown on the screen for exactly one second as a short duration. They also learned to identify a blue circle shown for exactly three seconds as a long duration.</p>
<p>After the training, the actual test began. The researchers presented the blue circle for various random intervals ranging from one to three seconds. For each presentation, the participants had to use a computer mouse to categorize the circle as either short or long. By gathering responses over many trials, the researchers calculated specific metrics about how the participants judged the time intervals.</p>
<p>One key metric the researchers looked at was the bisection point. This is the exact duration at which a participant is equally likely to categorize the stimulus as short or long. In a person with perfectly accurate time perception, this point would land exactly at two seconds, right in the middle of the one-second and three-second anchors.</p>
<p>Another metric was the just noticeable difference. This value represents the smallest change in duration that a participant can accurately detect. A smaller value indicates high precision, while a larger value suggests that the person’s perception of time is blurry and less consistent.</p>
<p>The researchers observed a shift in the bisection point when participants were under the influence of psilocybin. The participants needed the circle to remain on the screen for a longer duration before they were willing to categorize it as long. Essentially, they underestimated how much time had passed during the trials.</p>
<p>If a circle remained on the screen for two seconds, participants taking psilocybin behaved as if less than two seconds had elapsed. This shift indicates that the internal experience of time had slowed down relative to the actual ticking of a clock. To feel that a normal amount of time had passed, the participants required more actual time to tick by.</p>
<p>Additionally, the participants showed an increase in their just noticeable difference metric while taking psilocybin. Their responses became highly variable, meaning they lost precision in their ability to tell similar time intervals apart. This loss of accuracy was notable for actual durations that lasted longer than two seconds.</p>
<p>At the end of the session, the researchers administered questionnaires to ask participants about their subjective experiences. Participants rated the extent to which they felt time was passing much slower than usual or quicker than usual. The self-reported answers heavily favored the sensation of time slowing down, matching the physical task results.</p>
<p>When the researchers compared the subjective survey answers with the computer task data, they found a clear relationship. The participants who reported the most intense alterations in their perception of time on the questionnaires also tended to have the largest shifts in their bisection point.</p>
<p>The study authors suggest that these time distortions are likely not the result of the drug directly changing the speed of an internal mental pacemaker. Instead, they propose looking at the results through a framework where the brain constantly predicts the world based on prior knowledge and incoming sensory data. When a person is trying to track a duration of several seconds, their brain has to hold onto that incoming sensory information to categorize it.</p>
<p>The researchers propose that the psychedelic state introduces cognitive noise into this system, specifically impairing working memory and attention. For longer intervals in the range of a few seconds, this noise becomes overwhelming. The brain struggles to hold onto the accumulated time pulses, which leads the participant to make early judgments and underestimate the true passage of time.</p>
<p>The study has several limitations that the authors noted. The experiment included a relatively small number of participants, and the timing of the surveys presented a methodological challenge. The questionnaires were given at the very end of the session, meaning participants had to recall their overall experience rather than reporting how they felt during the exact moment of the computer task.</p>
<p>The timing task was also conducted four hours after the substance was ingested, during the waning phase of the experience. Conducting the test during the peak of the drug’s effects might yield different results, though intense visual distortions could make the computer task impossible to complete. The researchers did not explicitly check whether participants were silently counting the seconds in their heads, despite instructing them not to do so.</p>
<p>Future research could explore these temporal effects using different doses of psychedelics or a continuous sliding scale for the surveys to gather more precise subjective feedback. The researchers hope to test specific chemical blockers in the brain to see exactly which serotonin receptors are responsible for the breakdown in time perception. This could help isolate the exact cognitive processes that fail when time seems to stand still.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251389552" target="_blank">The effects of psilocybin on time perception in humans: A comparative analysis of subjective and objective measures</a>,” was authored by Petr Scholle, Štěpán Wenke, Tereza Nekovářová, Yulia Zaytseva, Filip Tylš, Martin Brunovský, Jiří Horáček, Veronika Andrashko, Vlastimil Koudelka, Michaela Viktorinová, Vojtěch Viktorin, Kateřina Hájková, Martin Kuchař, and Tomáš Páleníček.</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/metacognitive-training-reduces-hostility-between-left-wing-and-right-wing-voters/" 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;">Metacognitive training reduces hostility between left-wing and right-wing voters</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 26th 2026, 12:00</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/10.1111/pops.70118" target="_blank">Political Psychology</a></em> suggests that a brief psychological intervention can reduce hostile attitudes between opposing political groups. By exposing people to surprising facts that challenge their political stereotypes, scientists found that individuals on both the political left and right became more open-minded toward their rivals. The findings provide evidence that simple exercises in rethinking our own certainty might help ease rising political tensions.</p>
<p>In many democratic societies around the world, political polarization and intolerance have escalated. This growing divide is often accompanied by acts of violence and hostility directed at individuals based on their political affiliations. Opposing groups tend to dehumanize each other, viewing their rivals as severe threats to democracy itself.</p>
<p>In Germany, this hostility is particularly intense between two major political factions. Members of the left-leaning Green Party and the right-wing Alternative for Germany party are the most frequent targets of politically motivated hostility and violence. The Alternative for Germany party advocates for strict immigration policies and is monitored by some intelligence agencies as a suspected extremist group.</p>
<p>The Green Party focuses on environmental protection and social liberalism, placing it squarely on the other end of the political spectrum. The researchers wanted to explore ways to reduce this specific brand of mutual hatred. They had <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000791" target="_blank">previously used a technique called metacognitive training</a> to ease tensions between different religious groups and between opposing political parties in the United States.</p>
<p>Metacognitive training is an approach originally developed to help treat mental health conditions by planting seeds of doubt in overly rigid or false beliefs. The scientists wanted to see if adapting this method could also soften extreme political hostilities in Germany. </p>
<p>“We had previously conducted studies on rising tensions between different religious affiliations as well as between Democrats and Republicans, and we were able to reduce hostility in those contexts using the same methods. This study was therefore a natural next step,” said study author Steffen Moritz, the head of <a href="https://ag-neuropsychologie.de/english-home/" target="_blank">the Neuropsychology and Psychotherapy Research Unit</a> at University Medical Center Hamburg.</p>
<p>For the new study, the researchers recruited 1,025 adult German citizens for an online study. The sample included a diverse range of ages and education levels. About 69 percent of the participants identified as left-wing voters, while 13 percent identified as right-wing voters. The scientists first measured the participants’ baseline political views before introducing any new information.</p>
<p>Participants completed a survey assessing their level of political hostility toward the Green Party and the Alternative for Germany party. They answered questions on a four-point scale about their lack of compassion for political opponents and their endorsement of violence against rival party members. The participants also rated how democratic or authoritarian they considered each political party to be.</p>
<p>Next, the participants completed the metacognitive training intervention. The researchers presented them with twelve seemingly simple questions designed to trigger common stereotypes about the opposing political faction. For instance, questions were crafted to make left-wing voters assume the worst about right-wing politicians, and vice versa.</p>
<p>After answering each question, participants had to rate how confident they were in their answer on a scale ranging from guessing to being completely sure. Then, the survey revealed the correct answers. These correct answers provided factual information that directly contradicted the common stereotypes the participants had just relied on.</p>
<p>This process of realizing one is highly confident but factually wrong is meant to induce a sense of doubt and surprise. After seeing the correct answers, the participants took the political hostility survey a second time. The researchers then compared the before and after scores to look for measurable changes in attitude.</p>
<p>The findings suggest that this brief intervention successfully reduced hostility between the two political camps. Left-wing voters showed an improved attitude toward the right-wing party. In the exact same way, right-wing voters showed less hostility toward the left-wing party.</p>
<p>“I would have expected less change toward the right-wing party AfD than toward the Green Party, as the former is ostracized in Germany by some as a Nazi party,” Moritz told PsyPost. “In Germany, the word ‘Nazi’ effectively ends any discussion and, with it, openness to change and rethink political positions. We therefore debated for a long time whether to do this at all.”</p>
<p>In addition to reducing general hostility, the intervention changed how participants viewed the opposing party’s commitment to democracy. Both left-wing and right-wing voters rated their political rivals as more democratic after completing the training. This effect was especially noticeable among right-wing voters, who significantly improved their democratic appraisal of the Green Party.</p>
<p>The scientists noted that the intervention was most effective for a very specific group of people. Participants who answered incorrectly but reported the highest level of confidence in their wrong answers showed the greatest improvement in their attitudes. This suggests that the experience of being completely certain but demonstrably wrong helps unfreeze rigid political beliefs.</p>
<p>“It is possible to communicate outside one’s own bubble and attenuate even hostile attitudes using a very simple technique that involves humor and surprise,” Moritz said. “Importantly, one should not try to educate only one side; bridges can only be built addressing both sides.”</p>
<p>While the findings provide evidence for optimism, the researchers highlighted a potential misinterpretation to avoid. They noted that while this training was adapted from a clinical psychiatric treatment, political extremism is not a mental disorder.</p>
<p>“Delusions and political extremism share an important feature—overconfidence—but the latter should not be mistaken for a mental disorder,” Moritz explained. “In this study, we used MCT off-label, so to speak.”</p>
<p>The study also has a few limitations that provide direction for future research. The experiment did not include a control group of participants who took the survey without receiving the intervention. Without a control group, it is difficult to completely rule out the possibility that attitudes naturally drifted toward the middle during the survey process.</p>
<p>The sample was also somewhat unbalanced, featuring far more left-leaning voters than right-leaning voters. The researchers suggest that future studies should track changes over a longer period to see how long the peaceful effects might last. They also recommend measuring actual behaviors, such as voting or donating to political causes, rather than relying strictly on self-reported feelings.</p>
<p>Finally, the scientists raised an ethical consideration for future applications of this work. Reducing hostility is generally positive, but researchers must ensure that interventions do not inadvertently evoke sympathy for groups that actually engage in unlawful or violent acts. Ultimately, the scientists hope to test this intervention in real world settings.</p>
<p>“We need follow-up studies and more real-life adaptations, for example, in schools,” Moritz said. “We have to get out of the ivory tower with this.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70118" target="_blank">Bridging the divide: Using metacognitive training to reduce hostility between the political left and right</a>,” was authored by Steffen Moritz, Lisa Borgmann, Tanja M. Fritz, Anja S. Göritz, and Klaus Michael Reininger.</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>