<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/hostile-sexism-is-linked-to-higher-rates-of-social-sabotage-and-gossip-among-young-adults/" 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;">Hostile sexism is linked to higher rates of social sabotage and gossip among young adults</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 4th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261430507" target="_blank">Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</a></em> provides evidence that young adults who hold hostile sexist beliefs are more likely to engage in behaviors designed to damage the social relationships of their peers. The findings suggest that challenging traditional gender norms among youth might not only reduce prejudiced bias but also improve the way young people treat one another.</p>
<p>Scientists typically study aggressive behavior by looking at predictors linked to small social circles, like family or school environments. This approach tends to overlook how broader societal beliefs, such as expectations about gender and power, influence human interactions. To address this gap, scientists wanted to examine the relationship between sexist attitudes and a specific type of social harm known as relational aggression.</p>
<p>Relational aggression involves actions intended to hurt someone by damaging their friendships, reputation, or sense of social inclusion. These attacks can involve spreading malicious gossip, intentionally leaving someone out of group activities, or giving a peer the silent treatment.</p>
<p>Relational aggression generally takes two distinct forms. Proactive relational aggression is calculated and used to achieve a specific goal, like gaining social status or forcing someone to comply with a demand. Reactive relational aggression happens in the moment as an angry, hostile response to a perceived threat or insult.</p>
<p>Sexism can also be divided into two forms. Hostile sexism is an openly negative attitude that views women as subordinate and seeks to control those who challenge male dominance. Benevolent sexism involves protective and paternalistic attitudes toward women, provided they adhere to traditional, domestic roles.</p>
<p>The researchers wanted to see if holding sexist beliefs could influence how young adults manipulate their social circles. They hypothesized that individuals invested in maintaining a strict gender divide might use relational aggression to police their peers and protect their own social standing. Relational aggression could serve as a tool to punish those who step outside expected gender norms.</p>
<p>“We wanted to explore the intersection between behavioral research and research on gender-related attitudes, since gender norms affect the way aggressive behaviors are perceived and enacted,” said study author Marion Chatelois, a PhD candidate at the University of Quebec in Montreal.</p>
<p>To explore these connections, the researchers analyzed data from an ongoing long term study in Quebec, Canada, that tracks the social development of youth. The current study included 571 participants between the ages of 17 and 22. A large portion of these participants had a history of childhood behavioral issues, which allowed the researchers to study a group prone to aggressive behaviors.</p>
<p>The sample was almost evenly split between men and women. Individuals identifying as gender minorities were excluded from the final analysis because their numbers were too small for statistical comparison. The majority of the participants identified as White and heterosexual.</p>
<p>Participants completed surveys designed to measure their use of relational aggression and their ambivalent sexist attitudes. Research assistants read the questionnaire items aloud to the participants either in person or over a video call, and they recorded the responses. The participants received an 80 Canadian dollar compensation for their time.</p>
<p>The researchers also accounted for whether the participants had a history of childhood behavioral issues. This statistical control helped them isolate the specific impact of sexism on current behaviors. They then used complex statistical models to look for associations between the survey responses.</p>
<p>The data showed that participants who scored higher in hostile sexism were more likely to use both proactive and reactive relational aggression. This suggests that young adults who hold hostile views about gender roles might use behaviors that allow them to control their relationships with their peers to maintain their dominance. They might spread rumors or exclude peers as a way to defend their own place within a strict gendered hierarchy.</p>
<p>Individuals invested in maintaining a gendered hierarchy might feel threatened by those who do not conform. They appear to use relational aggression as a low risk tool to punish those who break the rules and protect their own status. Because this type of aggression is often viewed as less serious than physical violence, it offers an easy way to assert dominance.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that a person’s gender influenced these behavioral patterns. Specifically, the link between hostile sexism and reactive relational aggression was stronger for men than for women. Men who endorsed hostile sexist beliefs could be especially prone to using social attacks when feeling angered or threatened.</p>
<p>“Young adults who hold more hostile sexist attitudes are more likely to use relational aggression, i.e. to try and harm their peers’ social relationships,” Chatelois told PsyPost. “They may use relational aggression to protect their social status in a gendered hierarchy, to police those who do not conform to sexist norms, and to defend themselves against perceived threats to their gender identity.”</p>
<p>“Therefore, preventing sexist attitudes among youth through challenging traditional gender norms can not only prevent the development of harmful prejudiced biases, but also improve the way young people treat each other.”</p>
<p>Benevolent sexism was not associated with either form of relational aggression. Because benevolent sexism involves a protective attitude, it might not trigger the same hostile or calculating social attacks. This form of sexism views the social system as fair, which might conflict with the need to aggressively manipulate others.</p>
<p>“Benevolent sexism, although not associated with relational aggression in our study, is not a harmless or ‘positive’ form of sexism,” Chatelois noted. “It indirectly justifies violence through victim blaming and failing to recognize violence. Hostile and benevolent sexism are mutually reinforcing attitudes that both support a patriarchal system that reduces people to specific restrictive gendered roles and exerts social control over women.”</p>
<p>The study offers a new perspective on peer aggression, but like all research, it has some limitations to consider. The data collected was from a single point in time, which means the researchers cannot prove that sexist beliefs cause relational aggression. They can only conclude that the two concepts are statistically linked.</p>
<p>Since the study relied on self reported behaviors, future research could benefit from including observations from friends or peers to get a more accurate picture of the participants’ social actions. The researchers also plan to explore how the desire to be popular interacts with gender stereotypes to influence how young adults treat each other.</p>
<p>“Our research team wants to keep working on the influence of hierarchical beliefs and patriarchal gender norms on aggressive behaviors,” Chatelois said. “Notably, Boutin, Martin-Storey and colleagues are working on the joint influence of sexism, gender stereotypes and the desire to be popular on relational aggression use.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261430507" target="_blank">Is sexism associated with the use of relational aggression by young adults? The moderating effect of gender</a>,” was authored by Marion Chatelois, Stéphanie Boutin, Alexa Martin-Storey, Michèle Déry, and Mélanie Lapalme.</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-triggers-lasting-changes-in-personal-values-for-healthy-volunteers/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Can a psychedelic journey change what you value most?</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 4th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A single dose of psilocybin can lead to lasting shifts in a person’s life values, such as an increased appreciation for life and greater self-acceptance. These lasting changes appear to be driven by specific acute effects of the drug, particularly feelings of profound unity and euphoria. The findings were recently published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251408769">Journal of Psychopharmacology</a>.</p>
<p>Psilocybin is the active chemical found in certain species of mushrooms. It is a classic psychedelic drug that temporarily alters human perception and mood. The chemical works largely by binding to specific serotonin receptors in the brain. Serotonin is a chemical messenger involved in many neural functions, including mood regulation.</p>
<p>Researchers have conducted early clinical trials to test whether this chemical can help treat mental health conditions. Some trials have explored its use for major depressive disorder, anxiety associated with advanced cancers, and alcohol use disorder. Early trial results indicate that the drug might facilitate changes in beliefs and subjective well-being. These outcomes have sparked renewed interest in psychedelic therapies.</p>
<p>Researchers suspect that these positive psychological shifts rely heavily on the quality of a person’s initial experience while under the influence of the drug. People who report feelings of spiritual connection or a sense of ego dissolution often show the greatest long-term psychological changes. Ego dissolution refers to a temporary loss of one’s sense of self and a feeling of deep connection with the surrounding world. This temporary state may create opportunities for emotional healing.</p>
<p>Understanding these value shifts is important for the treatment of severe mood disorders. People suffering from depression often lose their sense of purpose and struggle with low self-worth. If a medical intervention can consistently boost self-acceptance and life appreciation, it could act as a potent therapeutic tool. Clinicians need to understand exactly how these drugs provoke such changes.</p>
<p>Jess Kerr-Gaffney, a scientist at King’s College London, led a team to investigate how different doses of the drug affect healthy volunteers. Co-authors included James Rucker and a team of clinical researchers from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience in London. They wanted to see if the drug changed core personality traits, psychological symptoms, and personal values. They also sought to understand if certain features of the acute psychedelic state could explain any observed changes.</p>
<p>The academic team conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. They recruited eighty-nine healthy adult participants who had no current or past psychiatric disorders. Each participant was assigned to receive either twenty-five milligrams of psilocybin, ten milligrams of psilocybin, or an inactive placebo. The study drug was given in identical capsules to prevent participants from knowing which dose they received.</p>
<p>Participants took the capsules in a controlled, supervised clinical setting. A trained therapist and a chaperone monitored each person for several hours while the drug took effect. The therapeutic team was available to provide emotional support and discuss the experience afterward. Once the immediate effects wore off, the participants were allowed to return home.</p>
<p>The research team evaluated the volunteers at regular intervals, checking in at day eight and day eighty-five after the dosing session. They used standardized questionnaires to measure changes in five common personality traits, such as extraversion and openness. They also looked for changes in common psychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and obsessive thinking.</p>
<p>To assess shifts in personal values, the team utilized a specialized survey originally designed to measure life changes after near-death experiences. This questionnaire evaluates self-acceptance, concern for others, appreciation for life, and spiritual focus. The researchers also measured the participants’ immediate psychedelic experience using a separate survey given shortly after the drug’s effects subsided.</p>
<p>The study results revealed that psilocybin did not alter basic personality traits or psychiatric symptoms in this specific group. The lack of change in psychological symptoms was anticipated, as the volunteers were healthy individuals without psychiatric diagnoses. Personality traits are generally stable over a lifespan, making them difficult to alter with a single experimental intervention. The outcomes matched these expectations.</p>
<p>The researchers did observe distinct shifts in personal values among those who received either dose of the active drug compared to the placebo group. Participants reported an increased appreciation for life and higher levels of self-acceptance. They also demonstrated a stronger quest for meaning and an elevated concern for others. These shifts were absent in the control group.</p>
<p>These life value shifts remained present at both the one-week and twelve-week follow-up points. The volunteers in the ten-milligram group also reported a decreased focus on worldly achievements, such as wealth or career success. Participants in the highest dose group showed an initial increase in their concern for social and planetary issues, though this did not persist until the final follow-up.</p>
<p>By analyzing the survey data, the research team found that a specific facet of the psychedelic experience governed these changes in values. The researchers refer to this state as oceanic boundlessness. This psychological term describes feelings of deep euphoria, spiritual awakening, and a sense of oneness with the universe. It is a hallmark of strong psychedelic reactions.</p>
<p>The participants who experienced the highest degrees of oceanic boundlessness were the ones who reported the greatest positive shifts in their life values. The acute feeling of unity and spiritual insight acted as a bridge between the physical drug administration and the subsequent changes in daily perspective. To a lesser degree, some participants who experienced auditory alterations while on the drug also showed short-term increases in social and planetary concerns.</p>
<p>The researchers also tested the participants’ cognitive flexibility, which is the mental ability to switch seamlessly between thinking about two different concepts. Some earlier studies suggested that psychedelics improve this flexibility, allowing people to break out of rigid thought patterns. The team used a rule-learning computer task to test this mental agility one week after the dosing session.</p>
<p>The team found no statistical differences in cognitive flexibility between the psilocybin groups and the placebo group. The healthy volunteers may have already possessed high cognitive flexibility before the experiment even began. This high baseline could have prevented the researchers from detecting any additional improvements. The measurement tool may also lack the sensitivity needed to capture subtle psychological shifts.</p>
<p>The scientists noted several limitations in their experimental design. The use of an inactive placebo means that participants likely knew whether they had received the psychoactive drug or not. These subjective effects can lead to a phenomenon known as functional unblinding. When participants realize they received the drug, their expectations might influence how they answer the follow-up surveys.</p>
<p>Many of the volunteers in this trial also had prior experience with psychedelic substances in their personal lives. Their previous use might have shaped their expectations and their baseline personality traits. The participants in this study scored higher on the personality trait of openness than the reading public average before the trial even started. This indicates a pre-existing bias toward novel experiences.</p>
<p>The questionnaires used to measure personal values relied entirely on self-reporting. Participants had to think back and estimate how much their beliefs had changed since the dosing session in the clinic. This reliance on memory introduces the potential for recall bias, as people might unintentionally exaggerate their personal growth. Future studies could incorporate interviews with family members to verify these purported behavioral shifts.</p>
<p>Future research will need to include larger groups of participants to verify these outcomes. The authors recommend using an active placebo, such as a very low drug dose or a different psychoactive compound, to maintain the blinding process in future trials. Testing these life value changes in patient populations, rather than healthy volunteers, could reveal how these value shifts aid in the psychological healing process.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811251408769" target="_blank">Effects of psilocybin on personality, psychiatric symptoms, and values: Exploring mediating effects of the acute psychedelic experience</a>,” was authored by Jess Kerr-Gaffney, Samuel Myrtle, Famia Askari, Catherine Bird, Nadav Liam Modlin, Allan H. Young, and James Rucker.</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/family-dynamics-predict-whether-parents-and-children-agree-on-choosing-a-romantic-partner/" 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;">Family dynamics predict whether parents and children agree on choosing a romantic partner</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 4th 2026, 06:00</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/10.1177/02654075261428328" target="_blank">Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</a></em> shows that parents and their adult children frequently share similar preferences for the traits they desire in the younger generation’s future spouses. The study suggests that these shared values, particularly an emphasis on financial stability, are strongly linked to the type of parenting children experienced while growing up.</p>
<p>Choosing a life partner involves balancing personal romantic desires with family expectations, which tends to lead to tension between parents and their offspring. Evolutionary theories indicate that adult children prefer to prioritize traits related to physical vitality and health, which signal good genetic quality to ensure successful reproduction.</p>
<p>At the same time, parents often prefer potential in-laws who possess resources like financial stability and a solid family background. These practical considerations help ensure long-term security and support for future grandchildren. In collectivistic cultures like China, family harmony and respect for parents play a large role in major life decisions, making these family dynamics especially relevant.</p>
<p>“This study was partly motivated by real-life experiences among myself and friends around me. When Chinese emerging adults consider their long-term partners, expectations and agreement from parents and families are often part of the criteria during decision-making process,” said study author <a href="https://fed.um.edu.mo/lu-ran-zhang/" target="_blank">Lu Ran Zhang</a>, an UM Macao Fellow at the University of Macau.</p>
<p>“Sometimes parents and children are aligned in their opinions, but other times disagreements emerge, creating tension and uncertainty around mate choice. These everyday experiences made me curious about why some families reach consensus while others do not.”</p>
<p>“When reviewing the literature, I noticed that research on mate preferences has typically focused on either parents or adult children separately, reporting only average associations. We wanted to examine real parent–child dyads to capture distinct patterns of agreement and disagreement. A person-centered approach allowed us to identify these profiles and explore how they are associated with parenting styles and parent–child relationship quality.”</p>
<p>To explore this topic, the scientists recruited 299 Chinese parent-child pairs. The younger participants were unmarried heterosexual adults aged 18 to 29, consisting of 183 sons and 116 daughters. They participated alongside either their mother or their father, who ranged in age from 35 to 64 years old, providing a detailed look at two distinct generations.</p>
<p>Both generations completed a series of online questionnaires designed to measure their relational priorities. Adult children reported their preferences for a future mate across three specific categories, often referred to as the three Gs: good genes, good resources, and good person traits. Good genes refer to physical attractiveness and health, good resources involve earning capacity and financial stability, and good person traits refer to personal qualities like kindness and reliability.</p>
<p>Parents completed the exact same assessment, but they rated the importance of these traits for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law. The participants also answered questions about the parenting styles used in their household and the overall quality of their relationship, measuring feelings of closeness and conflict. The researchers specifically measured authoritative parenting, which balances warmth with clear guidance, and authoritarian parenting, which relies on strict rules and absolute control.</p>
<p>Using a statistical technique that groups people based on shared characteristics, the researchers identified five distinct profiles of parent-child pairs. Three of these profiles showed general agreement between parents and children, making up the vast majority of the total sample. This high rate of agreement suggests a strong cultural emphasis on family harmony and shared values in Chinese households.</p>
<p>The largest group was the “Congruent-Resource Emphasis” profile, which included nearly 39 percent of the surveyed pairs. In this group, both generations placed an exceptionally high value on financial resources and earning capacity, along with average expectations for physical health and personality. The researchers found that pairs in this group tended to experience lower relationship quality and higher levels of strict, authoritarian parenting.</p>
<p>The second most common group was the “Congruent-Resource De-emphasis” profile, making up about 20 percent of the participants. Both parents and children in this group prioritized personality traits and physical health but placed significantly less importance on financial resources. These adult children tended to report having experienced higher levels of warm, authoritative parenting.</p>
<p>Another 15 percent of pairs fell into the ‘Congruent-Low Standards’ profile. Both generations in this group shared lower-than-average expectations for resources and physical traits but maintained average expectations for personality characteristics. This profile was linked to the highest levels of relationship quality and the lowest levels of strict, controlling parenting.</p>
<p>“One thing that genuinely surprised me was how much alignment we observed between parents and adult children,” Zhang said. “Based on common assumptions, it is easy to think of mate choice as a domain where ‘traditional’ parents and younger generations are often in conflict, especially in everyday family conversations.”</p>
<p>“However, our findings showed that patterns of agreement were more common than strong conflict. This was not only consistent with the emphasis on harmony in Chinese families, but it also aligns with emerging evidence from Western samples showing substantial parent–child overlap in mate preferences. Together, these results suggest that intergenerational conflict around mate choice may be more nuanced and less pervasive than cultural stereotypes or common sense would suggest.”</p>
<p>The final two profiles highlighted specific areas of family disagreement. Nearly 18 percent of pairs belonged to the “Incongruent-Child Gene Emphasis” profile. In this group, children prioritized physical attractiveness much more than their parents did, while parents placed equal importance on both physical traits and financial resources.</p>
<p>The smallest group, the “Incongruent-Parent Idealist” profile, accounted for about 9 percent of the sample. Here, parents held incredibly high standards for physical and financial traits, while their children cared very little about these factors. This profile was associated with the lowest relationship quality and the highest levels of strict, authoritarian parenting.</p>
<p>“One key takeaway is that parents and adult children are not uniformly in conflict when it comes to mate preferences,” Zhang told PsyPost. “In fact, in our Chinese sample, most parent–child dyads showed some degree of alignment, particularly regarding practical qualities such as resources and personal character.”</p>
<p>“At the same time, when differences did emerge, such as adult children prioritizing genetic or physical traits more than their parents. These patterns were meaningfully linked to how parents and children relate to each other. Warm, autonomy-supportive parenting and higher-quality parent–child relationships were associated with more flexible and constructive patterns of agreement and disagreement, rather than simple obedience or conflict.”</p>
<p>The researchers warn against assuming that parental influence is inherently positive or negative, pointing out that their results describe observational patterns rather than offering prescriptive guidance. In fact, they highlighted that clashing ideals do not automatically signal family trouble. “One important point is that disagreement between parents and adult children about mate preferences is not necessarily dysfunctional,” Zhang explained.</p>
<p>“In some profiles, differences coexisted with relatively high-quality relationships, suggesting that autonomy and relational closeness can coexist,” the researchers continued. Because of this, the way a family handles differing opinions carries weight. “Rather than focusing on whether parents and children agree, our findings suggest it may be more productive to focus on how families communicate, negotiate, and maintain respect when differences arise.”</p>
<p>The study also relies on data collected at a single point in time, which means the scientists cannot determine whether parenting styles directly caused the specific preference profiles. The data are also culturally specific to Chinese families, where family interdependence is highly valued. The researchers note that these preference profiles might look very different in more individualistic cultures, where personal choice is heavily prioritized.</p>
<p>To build on these initial findings, the scientists plan to track families over an extended period. “Our next step is to examine how these parent-child mate preference profiles evolve over time using longitudinal data,” Zhang noted. “This would help clarify whether family relationships shape preference alignment, or whether emerging disagreements feed back into relationship quality.”</p>
<p>They also hope to broaden the scope of their future investigations. “We are also interested in extending this work to other cultural contexts and incorporating additional family members, such as both parents or romantic partners,” Zhang added.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261428328" target="_blank">Mate preference profiles in parent-child dyads: Implications of parenting styles and parent-child relationship</a>,” was authored by Lu Ran Zhang and Wei-Wen Chen.</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/job-seekers-mask-their-emotions-and-act-more-analytical-when-evaluated-by-artifi-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;">Job seekers mask their emotions and act more analytical when evaluated by artificial intelligence</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 3rd 2026, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>When people know an artificial intelligence program is evaluating them for a job or college program, they alter their behavior to appear more analytical and less emotional. These strategic changes could lead to inaccurate evaluations and alter who ultimately gets selected for important positions. The initial findings were recently published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2425439122">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>.</p>
<p>With the rapid advancement of computing technology, organizations increasingly use automated tools to sort through applicants. Hiring managers and university admissions officers adopt these automated systems to increase efficiency and handle large volumes of candidates. Often, these programs take the form of video interview software, personality assessments, or automated resume screeners.</p>
<p>At the same time, governments are passing new laws requiring transparency in hiring and admissions. For example, the Artificial Intelligence Act in the European Union mandates that organizations disclose whenever they use algorithmic systems in high-stakes situations. Similar local laws, such as one recently enacted in New York City, also require employers to tell job seekers when automated tools are active.</p>
<p>Because of these transparency rules, candidates are often fully aware that a machine is judging their performance. Researchers wanted to know if this knowledge changes how applicants behave during tests and interviews. People naturally try to manage the impression they make on others, especially when the outcome involves a major life event like a new job or a degree program.</p>
<p>When dealing with human evaluators, applicants often guess what the judge wants to see and act accordingly. The study authors suspected that applicants apply the exact same strategy to automated systems. They hypothesized that people hold common assumptions about how computers operate and process information.</p>
<p>Specifically, people tend to view machines as purely rational processors of numbers and facts, completely lacking emotional intelligence or intuition. In psychology, these common assumptions are known as lay beliefs. The research team predicted that the lay belief about machine rationality would lead applicants to highlight their logical and analytical traits. They termed this anticipated change in self-presentation “the AI assessment effect.”</p>
<p>Jonas Goergen, a researcher at the Institute of Behavioral Science and Technology at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, led the investigation. He collaborated with Emanuel de Bellis, also at the University of St. Gallen, and Anne-Kathrin Klesse at the Rotterdam School of Management in the Netherlands. Together, they conducted an extensive series of experiments to see how machine evaluators influence human self-presentation.</p>
<p>The research team designed twelve separate experiments involving more than 13,000 participants. Before running the formal experiments, they analyzed data from an employment software company called Equalture. They surveyed over 1,400 job applicants who had completed a game-based skills assessment. The candidates who strongly suspected algorithmic involvement in the hiring process reported making the strongest adjustments to their own behavior.</p>
<p>After observing this real-world trend, the authors launched a pilot field study. They posted initial job advertisements for an event planner on the freelancing platform Upwork. They divided the postings into two groups and invited freelancers to apply. Half of the applicants were told a human would review their application, while the other half were told a machine would verify their skills.</p>
<p>Applicants then wrote self-descriptions as part of the screening process. They rated themselves on a numerical scale from strongly intuitive to strongly analytical. The applicants who thought a machine was reading their files described themselves as much more analytical than those who thought a human was reading the same text.</p>
<p>To establish clear causality, the team moved to a controlled experimental setting. In one experiment, participants imagined applying for admission to a fictional college called Horizon University. They were randomly assigned to face either a human or a machine reviewer. The participants then answered survey questions about how they mentally approach tasks.</p>
<p>Under the automated reviewer condition, participants reported approaching tasks in a much more analytical and logical manner while suppressing their intuitive side. The researchers asked follow-up questions to understand why this happened. They found that the shift was entirely driven by the participants’ foundational belief that the machine program prioritized analytical traits over emotional ones.</p>
<p>The researchers wanted to know if certain types of people were more prone to this behavior shift. In a survey of a representative slice of the United States population, they tested various personality and demographic factors. They found that the tendency to act more analytical in front of a computer was stronger among younger cohorts. Additionally, participants who expressed a high fear of negative evaluation were especially likely to change their self-presentation.</p>
<p>Another experiment tested whether the shift in behavior held true in a more realistic decision-making task involving a clear reward. The researchers invited participants to apply for an exclusive research pool, which offered genuine financial incentives. To gain entry, participants had to rank a list of eight personal attributes to describe themselves. Half of the attributes represented logical traits, and the other half represented intuitive ones.</p>
<p>When the participants thought a machine was checking their ranks, they consistently pushed the logical attributes to the top of the list. They assigned the lowest ranks to intuitive characteristics. When participants thought a human was looking at the exact same screen, the rankings were much more balanced across both categories.</p>
<p>The team also tested what happens when people participate in both types of evaluations over time. In a multi-stage experiment, participants answered questions about their true baseline behavior in a standard survey context with no assessment at all. Days later, they went through a simulated application process.</p>
<p>Being evaluated by a machine caused participants to deviate sharply from their baseline true selves. The gap between their honest baseline and their machine-assessed persona was large. The researchers noted that this level of distortion could easily change which candidates pass a hiring threshold. </p>
<p>In their mathematical simulation, more than a quarter of the people who met a strict logical cutoff score under machine assessment would fail to meet that same cutoff if assessed by a human.</p>
<p>To verify the underlying psychological mechanism, the researchers manipulated the participants’ assumptions directly. In two experimental variations, they asked participants to actively imagine a computer program capable of deep emotional and intuitive understanding. They instructed the participants to write out reasons why a machine might be good at reading feelings.</p>
<p>When participants were prompted to view the machine as emotionally capable, the behavior shift completely disappeared. They stopped exaggerating their logical skills. In some cases, they actually presented themselves as less analytical and more intuitive than a human-assessed control group.</p>
<p>The researchers also tested a hybrid approach, which is common in modern corporate hiring. They told participants that a computer would perform the first round of screening, but a human manager would make the final hiring decision. This combination reduced the behavior change, but applicants still exaggerated their logical traits to a noticeable degree.</p>
<p>These shifts in applicant behavior could create severe problems for the testing validity of automated hiring systems. If candidates present an artificial version of themselves, organizations will not get an accurate measure of their actual skills. The researchers suggest that employers should be aware of this effect and take immediate steps to address it. A company looking for a highly empathetic social worker, for instance, might end up hiring an overly analytical person who was merely trying to appease a software program.</p>
<p>The research team noted that future work should look at varied contexts outside of business hiring. For instance, automated evaluations are sometimes used to determine who is granted access to public services or loan approvals. It remains to be seen if applicants for government benefits would alter their behavior in the exact same way.</p>
<p>Most of the current experiments focused exclusively on the spectrum between logic and intuition. The researchers explained that other personality dimensions might also be affected by automated screening. Preliminary data from their exploratory models hinted that applicants might also downplay their creativity and risk-taking when faced with a machine auditor. Participants also seemed to adjust their ethical and social considerations.</p>
<p>Additionally, new technological advances might change how people react to automated assessment systems over time. The sudden rise of advanced generative conversational chatbots could alter the public perception of what machines can understand. Future studies will need to track whether candidates respond differently to software programs that appear more conversational and human-like.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2425439122" target="_blank">AI assessment changes human behavior</a>,” was authored by Jonas Goergen, Emanuel de Bellis, and Anne-Kathrin Klesse.</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/your-body-exhibits-subtle-physiological-changes-when-you-engage-in-self-deception/" 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;">Your body exhibits subtle physiological changes when you engage in self-deception</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 3rd 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 the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.70273" target="_blank">Psychophysiology</a></em> suggests that when people are unsure about their own performance but try to boast about it, their bodies still show subtle signs of lying. The research provides evidence that uncertainty pushes individuals into a middle ground between honesty and deception. This middle ground allows individuals to boost their self-esteem while experiencing less physiological stress than an outright lie.</p>
<p>Humans often navigate complex social situations by deciding whether to be honest or to bend the truth for personal gain. Telling a clear lie usually triggers physical changes like increased sweating, while being completely honest tends to keep the body in a calmer state. Both of these actions depend on a person knowing the actual facts of a situation.</p>
<p>Yet, everyday life is full of ambiguous situations where people do not have all the facts. Scientists wanted to understand what happens to a person’s body and confidence when they lack clear information but still try to present themselves in the best possible light. They aimed to see if people respond to uncertainty by acting as if they are telling the truth, or if their bodies react as though they are actively deceiving someone.</p>
<p>“In our lab, we always like to remind ourselves that humans are social creatures, defined by a strong desire to belong and be acknowledged by others. We decided to delve into this topic because we were interested in exploring how individuals use deception to enhance how others perceive their persona,” explained study authors Giulia Romano Cappi and Olga Dal Monte of the University of Turin.</p>
<p>The researchers recruited 32 healthy volunteers in Italy. The sample included 17 females and 15 males, ranging in age from 19 to 32 years old. In the laboratory setting, each participant sat at a computer across from an actor who was introduced as an expert in lie detection.</p>
<p>During the experiment, participants completed a series of logical puzzles on the computer. After finishing, they guessed how well they did, choosing whether they performed among the worst or among the best. The computer then provided them with randomly generated feedback about their score.</p>
<p>This feedback created three different conditions for the experiment. In the truth condition, the computer told participants they definitely scored among the best. In the deception condition, the computer told them they definitely scored among the worst.</p>
<p>A third scenario served as the uncertainty condition. Here, the feedback was vague, stating the participant probably performed among the best or probably performed among the worst. This left the participants without a definitive answer about their actual abilities.</p>
<p>Regardless of the feedback they received, participants were instructed to convince the lie detection expert that they had achieved a top score. They were required to answer yes to a series of questions from the expert, culminating in a final question about whether they believed they were among the top performers. To increase motivation, scientists told the participants that their persuasiveness and task speed could earn them a prize.</p>
<p>Throughout this interaction, researchers tracked the participants using specialized sensors. They measured skin conductance, which tracks minute changes in sweat gland activity to determine physiological arousal and stress. After each round, participants rated their own confidence in how well they convinced the expert on a scale from 0 to 100.</p>
<p>The scientists also used sensors on the face to monitor the tiny electrical signals from specific muscles. They tracked the muscle above the eyebrow used for frowning and the muscle in the cheek used for smiling. This allowed the researchers to see if participants were trying to hide their facial expressions while talking to the expert.</p>
<p>For their analysis, scientists specifically focused on the trials where participants initially guessed they had performed well before receiving any feedback. This allowed the researchers to observe behaviors related to self-enhancement. Self-enhancement is the natural human tendency to overestimate personal qualities to gain social approval.</p>
<p>The data revealed differences across the three scenarios. When participants knew they performed poorly but had to claim a top score, they reported the lowest confidence in their ability to persuade the expert. When they received positive confirmation of their top score, their confidence was at its highest.</p>
<p>In situations of uncertainty, participants’ confidence levels fell squarely in the middle. They felt more persuasive than when they were telling an outright lie, but less persuasive than when they were telling the absolute truth. This suggests that the lack of clear facts allowed them to partially believe their own exaggerated claims.</p>
<p>The physiological data mirrored these confidence ratings. The scientists found that active deception caused a significant spike in sweat gland activity, indicating heightened physiological arousal. Telling the truth was linked to a much calmer physical state with lower skin conductance.</p>
<p>When participants were uncertain about their actual performance, their sweat gland activity again landed between the two extremes. The body showed minor signs of stress that were higher than in the truth condition but lower than in the deception condition. The physiological evidence indicates that traces of deception still exist on an unconscious level even when a person does not know the whole truth.</p>
<p>“In this study, we combined behavioral and physiological measures to investigate a novel and controversial phenomenon, namely self-deception, within a socially interactive paradigm,” the researchers told PsyPost. “Our results show that both behavioral and physiological responses associated with self-deception occupy an intermediate position between those observed in truth-telling and deliberate deception, thereby offering new insights into the mechanisms underlying self-deceptive processes.”</p>
<p>“Moreover, the observed dissociation between explicit and implicit responses provides valuable evidence regarding the complex and still debated relationship between physiological and psychological processes in the context of truthful, deceptive, and self-deceptive tendencies.”</p>
<p>The facial muscle sensors did not show any significant differences across the three scenarios. Participants did not show increased frowning or smiling activity when lying compared to telling the truth. The scientists suspect this happened because the task did not trigger strong positive or negative emotional expressions that would engage those specific muscles.</p>
<p>The researchers propose that truth and deception do not exist as a simple binary choice. Instead, they operate on a continuous spectrum. When placed in an ambiguous situation, a person might engage in a partial lie to protect their self-image.</p>
<p>These findings provide evidence that uncertainty can foster a form of self-deception, allowing people to boost their own confidence while minimizing the physical stress typically associated with lying. </p>
<p>“There is no black and white when talking about deception,” the researchers said. “At times, to preserve their perceived image, individuals lie to themselves before lying to others.”</p>
<p>The study does have a few limitations to consider. The sample size was relatively small, which means the observed statistical effects were modest. Future studies should recruit larger and more diverse groups of people to see if these patterns hold true across different ages and cultures. </p>
<p>The current study also only looked at university students from Italy. Different cultural attitudes toward boasting and lying could potentially alter how the body responds to ambiguous situations.</p>
<p>“Individual differences can be a limitation here. Each one of us can have a different approach to deception,” the researchers noted. “Some may justify lying to others, while others may be stricter about it. These differences is something to keep in mind.”</p>
<p>Looking ahead, the scientists hope to explore the other side of these complex social interactions. “When talking about deception, we often focus on the liar,” they said. “It would be interesting to shift the focus to the person who has been lied to and perhaps see whether and how the detection of deception changes based on the level of awareness in the liar.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.70273" target="_blank">The Body Knows What the Mind Does Not: Uncertainty Affects Physiological Markers of Deception</a>,” was authored by Giulia Romano Cappi, Ilaria Mirlisenna, Alessandro Mazza, and Olga Dal Monte.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/the-exact-political-location-where-conspiracy-theories-thrive-2026-03-19/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">The exact political location where conspiracy theories thrive</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 3rd 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who are most likely to believe in conspiracy theories tend to share a specific blend of political views, pairing a desire for left-wing economic policies with conservative cultural values. A recent analysis published in the journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13085">Political Psychology</a> maps the ideological coordinates of conspiracy thinking across Europe, revealing that it thrives in a very precise corner of the political landscape. The results point out that those who long for economic equality but demand strict cultural conformity are especially prone to believe that secret plots control global events.</p>
<p>Conspiracy theories attract a diverse cast of characters, ranging from wellness influencers to alienated workers and political radicals. While psychologists have spent years studying the personality traits that make someone susceptible to such beliefs, less attention has been paid to the actual political demands of these individuals. Florian Buchmayr, a sociologist at the University of Bremen in Germany, wanted to understand what specific policy preferences unite people who see hidden agendas behind major events. Buchmayr and his co-author André Krouwel set out to map the political profiles of conspiracy believers beyond simple liberal or conservative labels.</p>
<p>Asking someone to place themselves on a basic scale from left to right rarely captures their actual policy preferences. Early studies suggested that conspiracy thinking was simply a trait of the political extremes, appearing equally on the far-left and the far-right. Other analyses pointed to a heavier concentration on the political right. The inconsistency in these past results likely stems from how political ideology was measured, prompting the researchers to take a multidimensional approach.</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from the European Voter Election Studies Survey, encompassing tens of thousands of respondents across 13 countries. The survey measured general conspiracy mentality, which is a person’s underlying tendency to assume that clandestine organizations coordinate major events. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with statements suggesting that secret organizations greatly influence political decisions, or that seemingly unconnected events are often the result of covert activities.</p>
<p>To map the political landscape, the researchers measured attitudes across three distinct dimensions of public debate. The first was economic redistribution, focusing on whether taxes should be raised on the wealthy to help the poor and whether corporations prioritize profits over fair wages. The second dimension was migration, assessing whether respondents felt that immigrants enriched their country culturally or if there were too many foreign nationals present. The third dimension focused on authoritarianism, measuring the desire for strong leadership and the belief that governments should uphold traditional moral standards.</p>
<p>By analyzing these dimensions, the researchers could sort individuals into 27 unique attitude profiles. They discovered that one specific profile stood out distinctly from the rest. Individuals who combined left-wing economic views with conservative cultural and anti-migration views registered the highest levels of conspiracy thinking.</p>
<p>The researchers labeled this ideological blend the national-authoritarian solidarity profile. People in this group desire strong state intervention to protect workers and redistribute wealth. At the same time, they want these economic benefits restricted to a culturally uniform, native population.</p>
<p>The authors suggest this group bemoans a lost paradise, idealizing a vision of a post-war society marked by low economic inequality and high cultural homogeneity. For these individuals, conspiracy theories may serve as a psychological tool to make sense of unsettling modernization processes that have disrupted their ideal world. Blaming hidden forces allows them to explain away cultural shifts that they view as destructive.</p>
<p>The study also identified the demographic least likely to harbor these ideas. That distinction belongs to individuals who hold right-wing views on the economy but progressive views on cultural issues. These individuals favor free markets and low taxes while embracing immigration and rejecting authoritarian leadership, making them highly resistant to grand conspiracy narratives.</p>
<p>There is an apparent paradox in the link between conspiracy thinking and authoritarianism. Conspiracy theorists frequently present themselves as rebels fighting against a malevolent elite or an oppressive government. Yet, the survey data shows they have a strong preference for strict authority and obedience.</p>
<p>The researchers explain this dynamic by referencing older theories regarding authoritarian personalities. These individuals often act rebellious toward current democratic institutions because they view those systems as weak or corrupted by hidden plots. Their ultimate goal is not a society free of rules, but rather submission to a new leader who possesses the strength to crush the conspirators.</p>
<p>Societal class and education levels did not alter this fundamental pattern in the data. While people with lower incomes and less formal education are generally more prone to conspiracy beliefs, the specific pairing of left-wing economics and right-wing culture remained consistent across the socioeconomic spectrum. The conspiratorial mindset acts like a gravitational pull, dragging individuals from various demographic backgrounds toward the exact same ideological center.</p>
<p>A wealthy individual with a college degree who believes in conspiracy theories will hold much more economically progressive and culturally conservative views than their wealthy peers who reject such theories. The same holds true for working-class populations. Regardless of their starting point, belief in secret plots aligns with a very specific set of policy demands.</p>
<p>The political landscape of Western Europe offers very few mainstream parties that cater to this specific mix of requests. Traditional left-wing parties typically embrace progressive cultural values, while traditional conservative parties lean toward free-market economics. This dynamic leaves the national-authoritarian solidarity group feeling politically homeless.</p>
<p>Because they lack mainstream representation, these individuals display high levels of distrust in political institutions. When they do cast a ballot, the data shows they disproportionately vote for radical right-wing populist parties. These parties have recognized the appeal of marrying hazy promises of economic protection with aggressive rhetoric against immigration.</p>
<p>Right-wing populist leaders frequently use conspiracy narratives to mobilize this exact base of voters. By portraying cultural changes and economic struggles as the deliberate work of a shadowy elite, these politicians speak directly to the defining anxieties of this demographic. Voting for these parties acts as an expression of their anti-establishment worldview.</p>
<p>The authors point out that the study relies on observational survey data, which cannot establish a strict timeline of cause and effect. Holding specific attitudes about taxes and immigration does not automatically cause someone to adopt a conspiracy mentality. It is equally possible that viewing the world through a lens of secret plots shapes a person’s policy preferences over time.</p>
<p>Future research could examine how these ideological pairings function outside of Europe, particularly in heavily polarized two-party systems like the United States. Tracking these attitude profiles across different election cycles could also clarify whether events like economic recessions push more citizens toward this conspiratorial center. Understanding where conspiracy beliefs are anchored offers a much clearer view of modern electoral dynamics.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13085" target="_blank">The epicenter of conspiracy belief: The economically left-leaning and culturally regressive spot in the political landscape</a>,” was authored by Florian Buchmayr and André Krouwel.</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/when-made-to-feel-sad-men-with-psychopathic-traits-shift-their-visual-focus-to-anger/" 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;">When made to feel sad, men with psychopathic traits shift their visual focus to anger</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 3rd 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study involving incarcerated men found that those with pronounced psychopathic traits tend to subconsciously divert their attention away from sad faces when they are experimentally induced to feel sad. In the same situation, their attention toward angry faces increased. The paper was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/20438087251367157"><em>Journal of Experimental Psychopathology</em></a>.</p>
<p>Psychopathy is a stable pattern of personality characteristics involving low empathy, shallow emotions, and a tendency toward manipulative or antisocial behavior. Core features of psychopathy include callousness, lack of guilt or remorse, superficial charm, and impulsivity.</p>
<p>While psychopathy is associated with an increased risk of antisocial and criminal behavior, it does not inevitably lead to criminality. As a trait, psychopathy can be present in both clinical and non-clinical populations, with subclinical levels sometimes providing advantages in competitive or high-risk environments.</p>
<p>Individuals high in psychopathy tend to show specificities in emotional processing, particularly a reduced responsiveness to others’ distress. For decades, the dominant scientific theory has been the Emotion Deficit Perspective (EDP), which posits that people with psychopathy are simply born “numb” to emotions like sadness or fear, making them unresponsive to emotional cues.</p>
<p>However, an alternative theory, the Negative Preception Hypothesis (NPH), argues that people with psychopathic traits do feel negative emotions, but they have developed a maladaptive coping mechanism to subconsciously “tune out” or look away from things that make them feel vulnerable.</p>
<p>Study author Nastassia R. E. Riser and her colleagues designed an experiment to test these two competing theories. They aimed to examine how the attentional bias of psychopathic individuals changes when they are induced to feel sad. If the “numbness” theory (EDP) was correct, the participants’ attention would be unaffected by the mood induction. If the coping mechanism theory (NPH) was correct, their visual attention would actively shift away from the sadness.</p>
<p>Study participants were 94 men recruited from a jail in the mid-western United States. They were required to be between 18 and 45 years of age, with an estimated IQ of at least 70, and with no history of traumatic brain injury.</p>
<p>Researchers first assessed the participants’ psychopathic traits using a semi-structured interview (the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised). Participants then completed an assessment of their current emotional state (the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) before moving on to an affective dot-probe task.</p>
<p>In the dot-probe task, participants were shown faces of African American and European American men and women with emotional (sad, happy, angry) or neutral expressions. In each rapid trial, one neutral face and one emotional face flashed on the screen simultaneously. A fraction of a second later, the faces disappeared, and an asterisk appeared in the exact location where one of the faces had been. Participants had to report the asterisk as quickly as possible by pressing a button.</p>
<p>The premise of the task is that participants will react faster to an asterisk that appears in the location they were already looking at. This measures subconscious “attentional bias”—revealing whether a person’s brain naturally gravitates toward looking at an emotional face or actively avoids it by looking at the neutral face instead.</p>
<p>After completing the baseline dot-probe task, the researchers induced a sad mood by instructing the participants to recall and verbally describe a time they had felt very sad. Immediately following this sadness induction, participants completed the emotional state assessment and the dot-probe task a second time.</p>
<p>The results strongly supported the Negative Preception Hypothesis. First, the self-reported assessments proved that the men with higher psychopathic traits did feel sadness when provoked, contradicting the idea that they are entirely numb to negative emotion.</p>
<p>Second, the dot-probe task revealed a dynamic shift in attention. Before the sadness induction, psychopathic trait levels did not affect where the men looked. However, after the sadness induction, individuals with more pronounced psychopathic traits subconsciously directed their visual attention away from the sad faces. Even more surprisingly, while they avoided the sad faces, their attention toward the angry faces significantly increased.</p>
<p>“Current results suggest that, under some conditions, psychopathy ratings are related to dynamic attentional biases that are substantially impacted by a sadness induction,” the study authors concluded. “Taken together, current findings provide evidence that individuals high in psychopathy are responsive to some emotion inductions and suggest they may be better characterized by anomalous emotion regulation than by a stable lack of emotional response.”</p>
<p>In other words, psychopathy may not be characterized by an innate inability to feel sadness, but rather by an automatic, subconscious defense mechanism that actively suppresses sadness and hyper-focuses on anger or threats instead.</p>
<p>The study contributes heavily to the scientific understanding of the emotional functioning of psychopathic individuals, potentially opening new avenues for therapeutic intervention. However, the study was based on pictures of emotional faces, not on reactions to real individuals actually displaying emotions. </p>
<p>Also, the sadness induction likely resulted in only mild sadness; in situations where people are exposed to more substantial displays of emotion, the results might differ. Finally, the study was limited to incarcerated men, so it is unknown if these results generalize to women or non-criminal populations.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/20438087251367157">Psychopathy and Emotion Regulation: Evidence for Dynamic Attentional Biases in Incarcerated Men,</a>” was authored by Nastassia R. E. Riser, Courtney N. Beussink, Steven A. Miller, and David S. Kosson.</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>