<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/how-social-anxiety-and-screen-time-comparison-fuel-digital-addiction-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;">Anxious young adults are more likely to develop digital addictions</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 6th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Young adults who experience social anxiety might face a higher risk of developing a psychological dependence on digital networking platforms. A new study reveals that this relationship is partly explained by a psychological habit of comparing oneself to others online. The research was published in the journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2026.108658">Addictive Behaviors</a>.</p>
<p>While accessing social networks is a common daily habit, prolonged engagement can lead to a condition resembling a substance use disorder. Medical guidelines do not currently classify social media obsession as a formal mental illness, but psychologists recognize clear addictive patterns. Individuals might become excessively preoccupied with their feeds and experience an intense urge to log on throughout the day. This behavior can escalate until it regularly interferes with academic studies, career goals, and personal well-being.</p>
<p>This pattern of digital behavior is thought to be especially common during late adolescence and the early twenties. Psychologists refer to this stage of life as emerging adulthood. During these years, individuals usually experience an increase in personal independence and focus heavily on developing their own identities. Navigating romantic and platonic relationships becomes a high priority, making digital communication tools highly appealing.</p>
<p>Some individuals enter this life stage with an intense fear of being negatively evaluated by their peers, a condition known as social anxiety. Navigating physical spaces can be draining for young adults dealing with this persistent fear of judgment. Seeking an alternative, socially anxious people often turn to digital environments to fulfill their desire for human connection. The internet offers a controlled space where users can passively browse content without the immediate pressure of an actual conversation.</p>
<p>Psychological theories propose that this turn to the internet functions as a coping mechanism. People try to compensate for the relationship needs they are not meeting in the physical world by immersing themselves in digital spaces. While this strategy might soothe negative emotions in the short term, it can build a lasting vulnerability. A reliance on digital safety nets can make the eventual return to in-person socializing feel even more difficult.</p>
<p>The architecture of digital networks also encourages a pervasive psychological habit known as social comparison. The act involves evaluating personal worth, success, or social standing by measuring oneself against other people. Because timelines and feeds display a highly curated stream of personal updates and photographs, they offer endless opportunities for users to rank themselves against friends and strangers. Entering this environment can be complicated for socially anxious users, who often harbor persistent uncertainties about their own identities.</p>
<p>Observing others online can involve contrasting oneself with someone who appears incredibly successful, which researchers call an upward comparison. This can trigger feelings of inadequacy and drive a person to spend hours trying to learn the secrets of popularity. Alternatively, a person might look at someone they perceive to be struggling, a habit known as downward comparison. Exploring downward comparisons can provide a temporary boost to self-esteem, which serves as a highly rewarding psychological experience that encourages a person to stay glued to their screen.</p>
<p>Previous investigations regularly noted strong correlations between anxious traits and phone use at single points in time, but tracking individuals over several months offers a better view of how these habits unfold. Researchers Randolph C. H. Chan and Marcus Shengkai Lam designed a project to map this progression. They are researchers based in the Department of Social Work at The Chinese University of Hong Kong.</p>
<p>The research team recruited a final sample of 330 young adults residing in Hong Kong. The volunteers ranged in age from 18 to 25 years old. Women made up about three quarters of the participant pool, and the vast majority of the young adults were currently enrolled as students. The researchers offered a modest financial voucher to compensate participants for their effort.</p>
<p>The participants initially completed an online questionnaire measuring multiple aspects of their mental health and technology habits. Three months later, the research team reached out to the exact same group of individuals for a follow-up assessment. A total of 243 participants returned to provide updated information about their habits. The investigators chose the three-month gap because it mirrors the length of a typical university semester, helping to stabilize the daily schedules of the student participants. </p>
<p>To gauge emotional health, the surveys asked participants to rate statements regarding their personal difficulties talking with other people. The team also asked the volunteers to indicate how frequently they measured their own abilities and lifestyles against the people they saw online. To measure problematic internet use, the survey asked if the participants spent large amounts of time thinking about their digital profiles or if they experienced frustration when trying to log off.</p>
<p>The investigators used statistical models to track how changes in one behavior predicted changes in another over time. Drop-out rates between the two periods did not highlight statistically significant differences in mental health, though a larger percentage of men left the study compared to women. They tested several mathematical possibilities, including models looking at whether internet reliance actually causes social anxiety rather than the reverse. The model where anxiety leads to comparison, which in turn leads to addictive behaviors, fit the data best.</p>
<p>The initial surveys pointed to a high rate of problematic technology use among the young adults. Applying standard scoring thresholds to the questionnaires, the researchers determined that thirty percent of the participants reported symptoms consistent with a high risk of digital addiction.</p>
<p>When comparing the data across the three-month interval, the researchers observed a clear predictive pattern. Participants who reported high levels of fear regarding social interactions at the beginning of the study were highly likely to show an increase in addictive digital behaviors by the time the semester ended. This finding suggests a self-reinforcing timeline where avoiding direct conversation drives people toward a heavier reliance on technology.</p>
<p>The research team also identified an underlying mechanism that helped explain exactly how this progression happens. High initial scores in anxiety reliably predicted an increase in the habit of comparing oneself to others on digital feeds. In turn, high rates of online comparison predicted the development of addictive symptoms three months later. It appears that socially anxious individuals look to technology to clarify their own social standing, and that quest for clarity traps them in a cycle of endless scrolling.</p>
<p>This stepping stone effect varied depending on the gender of the user. The pathway bridging anxiety, comparison, and eventual addiction was clear in the female group of volunteers. Researchers speculate that women often engage with communication technology in ways that heavily emphasize relational aspects of their identity. Because they might focus more on group dynamics, female users might be especially sensitive to comparison features.</p>
<p>By contrast, the results pointing to this specific psychological pathway were not statistically significant for the men in the sample. The authors note that the low number of male volunteers might have limited the mathematical power needed to detect subtle relationships in the data. Future research will need to enroll larger numbers of men to fully understand their digital habits.</p>
<p>The investigators highlighted several other limitations that should inform how the public interprets the findings. The reliance on female university students means the conclusions might not apply to working professionals or older adults. Additionally, the questionnaires focused entirely on general network use. The tools did not differentiate between text-based messaging applications and highly visual photography platforms, which could influence users in very different ways.</p>
<p>The questionnaires also asked solely about the general act of sizing up other users, failing to distinguish between upward and downward comparisons. It remains unclear if striving for popularity or seeking out less fortunate peers drives the addictive response. It is also highly likely that other psychological forces, such as a fear of missing out on events, play a role in linking anxiety to extended screen time.</p>
<p>The findings offer practical guidance for multiple groups navigating the digital age. Mental health professionals treating anxiety should routinely ask their clients about screen time and help patients break the habit of digital comparisons. At the same time, the researchers suggest that technology developers carry an ethical responsibility to build healthier products. Redesigning applications to limit endless feeds and discourage heavy social ranking could help protect the mental health of vulnerable users.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2026.108658" target="_blank">Social anxiety as a predisposing factor for social media addiction: A two-wave longitudinal investigation of social comparison as an underlying mechanism</a>,” was authored by Randolph C. H. Chan and Marcus Shengkai Lam.</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/how-stimulating-the-vagus-nerve-could-protect-the-brain-from-alzheimers-disease/" 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;">How stimulating the vagus nerve could protect the brain from Alzheimer’s disease</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 6th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Most people think of Alzheimer’s disease as an illness of aging. But in fact, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0b013e32835a3432">brain changes that characterize it</a> begin much earlier – sometime around the third decade of life.</p>
<p>In the earliest of these changes, a tangled version of a <a href="https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2025/09/rethinking-alzheimers-tau-protein.html">protein called tau</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/NEN.0b013e318232a379">starts building up</a> in a tiny region deep in the brain involved in sleep, attention and alertness, called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0360-9">locus coeruleus</a>. Tau later spreads to the rest of the brain.</p>
<p>Developing tau tangles doesn’t mean a person has Alzheimer’s disease – in fact, it happens to nearly everyone to varying degrees. But because these changes start in the locus coeruleus, some brain researchers – myself included – see this area as a <a href="https://reporter.nih.gov/search/QN_fZSDgU0a82pVdEmNIJw/project-details/10373349">canary in the coal mine</a> for developing Alzheimer’s disease.</p>
<p>We are exploring whether stopping or slowing down tau tangles in this brain region, or otherwise maintaining its health, may be a way to interrupt how the disease ultimately unfolds and to prevent other aspects of cognitive aging.</p>
<p>Emerging <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=E6pZe0sAAAAJ&hl=en">research from my lab</a> and others is investigating the idea that a therapy called <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/vagus-nerve-stimulation/about/pac-20384565">vagus nerve stimulation</a>, which is already widely used for other health conditions, could be one way of keeping the locus coeruleus functioning properly.</p>
<h2>The locus coeruleus and Alzheimer’s disease</h2>
<p>The locus coeruleus sits in the brain stem, the lowest part of the brain. Its name, “blue spot,” comes from a <a href="https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.202928">pigment called neuromelanin</a> that its cells produce.</p>
<p>The locus coeruleus plays a crucial role in multiple aspects of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0360-9">basic human functioning</a>. It makes virtually all of the brain’s norepinephrine, a chemical critical for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00902-8">sleep</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.011">alertness</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(00)26013-5">focus</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616515114">learning</a> and even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.13447">immune function</a>. And it receives inputs from nerves originating throughout the brain and body – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07707.x">including from the vagus nerve</a>, which carries information to and from the heart, lungs and other organs.</p>
<p>My research explores <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2025.03.005">this brain region’s structure</a>, how <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2025.07.010">nerve cells pass messages within it</a> and how it <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-025-01582-0">connects with other brain regions</a>. I also investigate how those features change throughout life and affect thinking and memory.</p>
<p>Studies suggest that starting in middle age, nerve cells in the locus coeruleus may get <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-023-02041-y">damaged by tau buildup</a>, and that damage may correlate with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2025.07.010">declines in memory</a>. Tau buildup, cell death and loss of function in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12656">locus coeruleus precedes</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28986-2">predicts Alzheimer’s diagnosis and symptoms</a>.</p>
<p>This has led researchers to hypothesize that <a href="https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2023.127">keeping the locus coeruleus healthy</a> could be a way to protect the rest of the brain, too.</p>
<h2>Vagus nerve stimulation and brain health</h2>
<p>The vagus nerve carries information between the brain and organs in the chest and abdomen, such as the heart and intestines, helping the brain monitor and regulate many of the body’s essential organs. It is responsible for sending <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22279-vagus-nerve">rest and digest</a> messages throughout the brain and body, stimulating digestion and promoting cellular repair.</p>
<p>In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers discovered that stimulating the vagus nerve can <a href="https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.7.JNS11977">help ease epilepsy</a>. They also found that doing so often also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1586/14737175.7.12.1763">had other benefits</a>, such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.11.016">improving mood and thinking</a>.</p>
<p>Today, vagus nerve stimulation is approved by the Food and Drug Administration not just for <a href="https://www.epilepsy.com/treatment/devices/vagus-nerve-stimulation-therapy">treating epilepsy</a>, but also for <a href="https://americanheadachesociety.org/research/library/vagus-nerve-stimulation-for-migraine-and-cluster-headache">migraine</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.13528">depression</a>, as well as to aid with <a href="https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.389365">stroke rehabilitation</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.12629">Vagus nerve stimulation</a> for epilepsy and depression generally involves implanting an electrical stimulator in the left side of a patient’s chest, where the vagus nerve passes. Noninvasive devices for treating headaches deliver gentle pulses of electricity to certain places on the neck or ear where the vagus nerve is very close to the surface of the skin.</p>
<p>Even before the discovery of locus coeruleus’s link to Alzheimer’s disease, researchers hypothesized that vagus nerve stimulation might help mood and thinking in people with the condition. That’s because vagus nerve stimulation might work in part by raising brain levels of norepinephrine – and people with Alzheimer’s have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/alzrt175">too little norepinephrine in their brains</a>.</p>
<h2>Keeping the pace</h2>
<p>Neuroscientists still don’t know exactly how or why vagus nerve stimulation might be beneficial for the brain, but one leading theory is that it helps <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2016.12.005">regulate the activity of nerve cells</a> in the locus coeruleus, enabling it to function properly.</p>
<p>Too much locus coeruleus activity could potentially make people too alert, causing them to feel stressed or even panicked. In fact, a hyperactive locus coeruleus fuels some <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.08.021">symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder</a>. Conversely, too little <a href="https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI">could cause depression</a> or memory problems.</p>
<p>Some forms of vagus nerve stimulation <a href="https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.15633">neither turn up nor turn down</a> locus coeruleus activity. Instead, they seem to affect the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2016.12.005">timing and pace of firing in its neurons</a>. Other forms of vagus nerve stimulation seem to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2019.112975">increase norepinephrine in the brains of rats</a>, and researchers hypothesize that this may also be how vagus nerve stimulation <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.790943">treats epilepsy</a>.</p>
<p>These different findings have led researchers to suggest that vagus nerve stimulation could act as an effective regulator for the locus coeruleus, enabling it to establish just the right level of activity for optimal functioning.</p>
<h2>Can vagus nerve stimulation counter memory loss?</h2>
<p>Intriguing hints are emerging that vagus nerve stimulation may help the aging brain.</p>
<p>A handful of studies have found that vagus nerve stimulation can <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.866434">prevent memory from worsening</a>, or even improve it, in people with <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/17990-mild-cognitive-impairment">mild cognitive impairment</a> or in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. One trial of 52 people ages 55 to 75 who were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment reported meaningful improvements in memory and overall cognition <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2022.09.003">after getting vagus nerve stimulation</a> for an hour per day, five days a week for about six months.</p>
<p>Research in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.02.023">healthy adults around age 60</a> – and in <a href="http://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.790793">healthy adults age 18 to 25</a> – has even reported improvements in different aspects of memory after just one session of vagus nerve stimulation.</p>
<p>This work is still very preliminary, but it offers hope for a new way of keeping some of the distressing symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease and aging at bay.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/269465/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vagus-nerve-stimulation-shows-promise-as-a-way-to-counter-alzheimers-disease-and-age-related-memory-loss-269465">original article</a>.</em></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/intelligent-people-are-better-judges-of-the-intelligence-of-others/" 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;">Intelligent people are better judges of the intelligence of others</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 6th 2026, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study in Germany found that intelligent individuals tend to be more accurate judges of other people’s intelligence. Better judges of the intelligence of others also included people with stronger emotion perception abilities and those who were more satisfied with their lives. The paper was published in the journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101994"><em>Intelligence</em></a>.</p>
<p>Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand, reason, and solve problems. It involves using knowledge effectively in new situations and includes the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.</p>
<p>Psychologists view it as a combination of abilities such as memory, attention, verbal skill, and logical thinking. Some theories describe intelligence as a single general ability, while others see it as a set of multiple distinct abilities.</p>
<p>On average, people are able to estimate the intelligence of others even after very short encounters. This ability is important because intelligence plays a critical role in a person’s ability to adapt to their environment and navigate social exchanges. However, individuals differ in their ability to accurately judge the intelligence of others. While some can recognize the intelligence level of another person quite accurately, the assessments of others are not so good.</p>
<p>Study author Christoph Heine and his colleagues investigated individual differences in the ability to judge others’ intelligence based on short video clips. They hypothesized that intelligent individuals would be better able to accurately judge the intelligence of other people. </p>
<p>They also expected that females would be better judges of intelligence than males, and that the ability to judge the intelligence of others would be positively associated with emotion perception abilities, empathy, openness, subjective well-being, and social curiosity.</p>
<p>The study participants consisted of 198 individuals, 72% of whom were university students. One hundred and forty of the participants were women, and the participants’ average age was 29 years.</p>
<p>Participants viewed 50 one-minute videos showing “target” persons with different, previously verified levels of intelligence. The individuals shown in the videos performed tasks such as reading a weather report aloud, describing a recent enjoyable experience, explaining the meaning of the term “symmetry”, or engaging in a short roleplay. After each video, the study participants judged the intelligence of the target person on a five-point scale.</p>
<p>The study authors assessed the actual intelligence of the study participants using three different tests that covered various forms of cognitive ability. (These same tests had been used to assess the verified intelligence of the target people in the videos). The study participants also completed assessments measuring their emotion perception abilities, empathy, personality traits, and subjective well-being.</p>
<p>Results showed that intelligence judgment accuracy varied significantly across participants, proving that people do indeed differ systematically in their ability to act as a “good judge” of intelligence.</p>
<p>As hypothesized, more intelligent individuals tended to be significantly more accurate in judging the intelligence of the people in the videos. Similarly, participants with better emotion perception abilities and those who reported being more satisfied with their lives also tended to be more accurate judges.</p>
<p>The researchers noted that these “good judges” achieved higher accuracy because they relied heavily on valid behavioral cues—specifically, how clearly the target articulated their words, and the actual content and vocabulary of their speech.</p>
<p>However, several of the researchers’ other hypotheses were not supported by the data. The study found that gender, empathy, openness, and social curiosity did not make a person a more accurate judge of intelligence.</p>
<p>“These findings underscore the importance of perceivers’ cognitive and socio-emotional abilities in social evaluation, and support the idea that being a good judge of intelligence is linked to psychological adjustment,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the ways people judge the intelligence of others. However, it remains unclear whether watching short videos is an ecologically valid way to assess a person’s ability to judge intelligence in real-world, dynamic social interactions.</p>
<p>Additionally, the majority of the participants in the study were university students, many of whom were psychology majors. Their familiarity with psychological concepts might have aided them in detecting intelligence cues in the videos. Given this, findings regarding the general population may differ.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101994">The good judge of intelligence,</a>” was authored by Christoph Heine, Johannes Zimmermann, Daniel Leising, and Michael Dufner.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/people-consistently-devalue-creative-writing-generated-by-artificial-intelligence/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">People consistently devalue creative writing generated 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 5th 2026, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study published in the <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001889" target="_blank">Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</a></em> suggests that people consistently judge creative writing more harshly if they believe it was created by artificial intelligence. This bias appears incredibly difficult to overcome, pointing to a persistent human preference for art created by people.</p>
<p>Generative artificial intelligence refers to computer programs capable of producing new text, images, or music by predicting patterns from massive amounts of data. Tools like ChatGPT and Claude can now write essays, poems, and stories that read very much like they were written by a real person. As these technologies become more common, scientists wanted to understand how people react to computer-generated art.</p>
<p>“We started this project in early 2023, shortly after the launch of ChatGPT. From my early interactions with the technology, it was clear to me that this tool was capable of creative production, and I was very curious about whether and how humans would react to AI-produced creative goods,” explained study author Manav Raj, an assistant professor in management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>Prior research hints that people might not be able to tell the difference between human and computer writing if they are kept in the dark. However, the researchers conducted this specific study to see what happens when audiences are explicitly told that a machine wrote the text. They wanted to see if this knowledge changes how people enjoy the art and whether anything can soften that negative reaction.</p>
<p>To explore these questions, the scientists carried out sixteen separate experiments involving a total of 27,491 participants. In the first group of five experiments, researchers tested whether the actual content of the writing changed how people reacted to the artificial intelligence label. They had participants read poems and short stories generated by ChatGPT and rated them on quality, creativity, and enjoyment.</p>
<p>Some participants were told a machine wrote the text, while others were told a human wrote it. The researchers varied the writing style, testing first-person versus third-person perspectives, poetry versus prose, and different emotional tones. They even tested stories featuring human characters versus aliens, animals, and robots.</p>
<p>Across all these variations and thousands of participants, readers consistently gave lower ratings to the text when they thought a machine wrote it. Changing the story details did not consistently lessen this penalty. This initial phase provided evidence that the bias is largely independent of the specific content of the writing.</p>
<p>In the second phase of the research, the scientists conducted an experiment with 3,590 participants to see if the evaluation context mattered. They asked one group to judge the text as a piece of art. They asked another group to judge it based on objective qualities like coherence and logic.</p>
<p>Changing the instructions in this way did not soften the negative reaction. Participants in both groups still devalued the writing when they believed it came from a computer. This suggests that the bias applies whether people are reading for pleasure or for practical evaluation.</p>
<p>Next, the researchers ran five more experiments to see if changing people’s perceptions of the computer program would help. In these studies, they asked participants to read articles about the impressive cognitive or emotional capabilities of machines before reading the generated stories. In some versions, the scientists also tried humanizing the software by giving it a name and a gender.</p>
<p>None of these strategies reliably reduced the negative bias. Even when the computer program was described as highly capable or given human traits, participants still rated the writing lower upon learning its origin. The negative reaction proved remarkably persistent across these diverse approaches.</p>
<p>“The surprise to us was how persistent the effect was,” Raj told PsyPost. “We really tried at different points to “break” it and to find circumstances where we could get the AI disclosure discount to go away. Despite our attempts that built on existing literature on algorithmic aversion, we found this result was really sticky.”</p>
<p>In a fourth pair of experiments, the scientists explored whether knowing a computer wrote a story simply makes people feel ambivalent. Ambivalence means having mixed feelings, where someone might see both positive and negative qualities in the exact same thing at the exact same time. Testing 423 and 1,280 participants respectively across two studies, the researchers sought to measure this specific emotional state.</p>
<p>They found that knowing about the computer involvement did not create mixed feelings. It simply made the participants’ judgments more negative overall. The disclosure did not create a complex emotional response, but rather a straightforward decrease in appreciation.</p>
<p>Finally, the researchers ran three experiments to test a concept involving a human in the loop. They wanted to know if framing the writing process as a collaboration between a person and a machine would be viewed more favorably. They tested this with machine-generated stories and with actual award-winning short stories written by humans.</p>
<p>When participants were told a person used a computer program as a tool to write the story, they still judged the work just as harshly as if the machine had written it alone. </p>
<p>Throughout the studies, researchers collected data on various potential mechanisms, like perceived humanness, effort, and emotional depth. They consistently found that perceived authenticity was the strongest factor explaining the lowered ratings. People simply view machine-generated text as less authentic than human creations, which explains the negative ratings. </p>
<p>“Our main finding is that, at least at this point, humans have a persistent, negative reaction to knowing that creative goods (or at least creative writing) are produced with the help of AI,” Raj said. “While everything with AI is a moving target right now, this lasted over many, many studies and a roughly two-year period of data collection.”</p>
<p>While these findings provide evidence of a strong bias, there are a few potential limitations to keep in mind. The participants were recruited from an online platform that tends to attract people who are somewhat tech-savvy. This means the results might not perfectly represent the entire global population. </p>
<p>The observed biases could also manifest differently in visual arts, music, or other physical products. It is entirely possible that attitudes will shift as society becomes more accustomed to this technology. Future research could explore whether this negative bias fades over time as machine-generated text becomes an everyday reality.</p>
<p>“One thing I’d note is that our study does not speak to the quality of AI-generated creative goods at all,” Raj explained. “In all cases, we held the writing sample constant and just manipulated whether participants believed it was written by AI. Accordingly, the quality and nature of the creative goods are an open question.”</p>
<p>“This last point is a question that I’d be interested in studying future. While we are using AI for creative purposes and innovation, we do not yet know what it means for the characteristics of creative goods (other than some research that suggests we have a hard time telling apart AI-generated vs. human-generated creative goods in some settings). I’m very interested in pushing further in this domain.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001889" target="_blank">The Artificial Intelligence Disclosure Penalty: Humans Persistently Devalue AI-Generated Creative Writing</a>,” was authored by Manav Raj, Justin M. Berg, Rob Seamans.</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-slows-down-human-reaction-times-and-impairs-executive-function-during-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;">Psilocybin slows down human reaction times and impairs executive function during the acute phase of use</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 5th 2026, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>The acute influence of psilocybin slows down human reaction times and mildly impairs parts of cognition that coordinate behavior. These short-term effects scale with the dose of the drug, highlighting a need for supervision and safety measures while the substance is active in the body. The findings were recently published in the journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-024-06742-2">Psychopharmacology</a>.</p>
<p>Psychedelic substances are increasingly being evaluated for their therapeutic potential in treating conditions like anxiety and depression. As these drugs move toward broader clinical acceptance, researchers are attempting to understand exactly how they alter immediate thinking processes. Cognitive functions, specifically executive functions, are essential mental skills that help people plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks. </p>
<p>Executive functions act as a sort of traffic control system for the brain, coordinating basic abilities to achieve a specific goal. Impairments in this system are common across various psychiatric conditions. Observing how psychedelics temporarily alter these domains helps scientists gauge basic safety and the potential side effects of future clinical treatments. </p>
<p>P. Yousefi, a researcher at Leiden University, and Morten P. Lietz, a researcher at the University of Freiburg, led a group to quantify the acute cognitive effects of psilocybin. The acute phase refers to the timeframe when a person is actively experiencing the direct physiological and psychological effects of the drug. The research team wanted to observe how executive functions respond to different doses of psilocybin and how the timing of the drug administration affects mental performance. </p>
<p>To evaluate these details, the research group conducted a systematic review and a multilevel meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical method that combines data from multiple independent studies to identify broader, more reliable trends. The researchers pooled data from 13 empirical studies that included a total of 42 separate measurements of cognitive performance. </p>
<p>These individual studies assessed different components of executive function. The researchers evaluated tasks that measure conflict monitoring, which is the brain’s ability to process contradictory information. A common way to test this is the Stroop task, where a participant might see the word “green” printed in red ink and must state the color of the ink rather than read the word. </p>
<p>They also evaluated working memory, which is often tested by asking participants to remember a sequence of numbers or locations that updates continuously as the test goes on. Finally, the analysis included studies of response inhibition, which is the ability to suppress a habitual reaction. Attention spans and cognitive flexibility were also evaluated. </p>
<p>By combining the gathered data, the scientists evaluated how psilocybin affected two main outcomes during these cognitive tests. They looked at reaction time, which is how fast a participant responds to a prompt. They also measured accuracy, which is the percentage of correct answers provided during a given testing session. </p>
<p>The team categorized the data by the dose given to volunteers, treating anything under five milligrams as a microdose and anything over 30 milligrams as a high dose. They also grouped the data by the specific cognitive function being tested. Finally, they evaluated the timing of the test relative to when the drug typically peaks in the bloodstream, usually between 90 and 180 minutes after ingestion. </p>
<p>The results showed that participants took longer to respond to cognitive tasks when taking the drug compared to when they operated under an inactive placebo. The researchers found a linear relationship between the dose of the drug and the delay in reaction time. Microdoses produced a minor slowing effect that was barely measurable, while low and medium doses created mild to moderate delays. </p>
<p>The highest doses produced the most extreme delays in processing speed. A notable finding from the pooled data was that working memory seemed slightly more resilient to these delays than basic attention, showing severe slowing only at higher doses. In contrast, basic attention tasks suffered delays even at the lower dose ranges. </p>
<p>Changes in accuracy were less pronounced. While there was a slight trend toward decreased accuracy across the studies, the results were not statistically significant. This means the observed drop in correct answers was small enough that it could have been driven by statistical noise or random chance rather than the drug itself. </p>
<p>The slowing of reaction times occurred across the board. The researchers did not find that psilocybin impaired one specific area of executive function substantially more than another. The delays were relatively uniform whether the participant was suppressing a reflex, updating their memory, or switching between conflicting rules. </p>
<p>The timing of the tests within the acute window also did not change the outcome. Reaction times were consistently delayed both during the peak window of the drug’s effect and in the adjacent hours before and after the peak. This finding establishes that cognitive slowing is a persistent feature of the entire acute psychedelic experience. </p>
<p>The analysts explored how task design affected these outcomes. Some cognitive tests try to isolate pure mental tasks by subtracting baseline reaction speeds from the final score, while others rely on raw scores that require a broad mix of sensory, motor, and attention skills. The analysis revealed that general tests requiring multiple cognitive skills showed stronger delays compared to tasks designed to isolate a pure mental process. </p>
<p>The authors propose a few explanations for this uniform pattern of delayed reactions. First, psilocybin might influence basic sensory and motor systems directly. It could cause a lag in how the visual cortex processes incoming light and how the motor cortex commands the hand to press a button, which would slow down performance on any physical test. </p>
<p>Second, the drug is known to alter baseline attention. Attention acts as a foundational building block for all higher level mental operations. If an individual struggles to focus on simple instructions, they will logically execute demanding rules at a slower pace. </p>
<p>A third mechanism involves dual task interference. When people navigate the intense subjective experience of a psychedelic trip, their brain is heavily engaged in processing emotional and sensory distortions. Asking a participant to simultaneously perform a laboratory test splits their mental resources, leading to cognitive fatigue and slower execution speeds. </p>
<p>There are a few caveats to consider regarding the underlying data. The researchers noted a moderate to high risk of bias across the studies they analyzed. This was primarily driven by the difficulty of blinding participants to whether they received a psychedelic or a placebo, as the physical effects of the active drug are highly noticeable. </p>
<p>The team also detected clear signs of publication bias in the data concerning reaction times. Publication bias occurs when studies with dramatic results are more likely to be published than those showing minor effects. As a result, the existing scientific literature might slightly overestimate the true extent of how much psilocybin slows down cognitive processing. </p>
<p>The available data focuses exclusively on the acute phase of the drug. Very few studies have tracked cognitive performance days, weeks, or months after the drug leaves the body. Some recent standalone studies have hinted at potential long-term cognitive benefits following psychedelic use, but the mechanisms bridging an acute impairment and a long-term benefit remain unexplored. </p>
<p>Future research might benefit from transitioning to tasks that better mimic real-world activities. Traditional laboratory tests can feel detached and abstract, which might reduce participant motivation while they are actively experiencing an altered state. Testing attention and memory in more natural settings could help separate a true cognitive impairment from a simple lack of motivation to complete a boring computer test. </p>
<p>Because psilocybin consistently slows reaction times during its active phase, the researchers emphasize the need for robust supervision in medical settings. Patients should avoid situations that require rapid processing speeds, such as driving or operating heavy machinery, until the immediate effects of the drug have fully resolved. Clinical guidelines should ensure patients remain in secure environments for the duration of the drug’s active window. </p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-024-06742-2" target="_blank">Acute effects of psilocybin on attention and executive functioning in healthy volunteers: a systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by P. Yousefi, Morten P. Lietz, F. J. O’Higgins, R. C. A. Rippe, G. Hasler, M. van Elk, and S. Enriquez-Geppert.</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/psychological-traits-of-scientists-predict-their-theories-and-research-methods-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;">Psychological traits of scientists predict their theories and research methods</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 5th 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>The way psychological scientists think on a personal level is tied to the theoretical camps they join and the research tools they prefer. These personal intellectual habits help explain why deep disagreements persist in science even when researchers look at identical data. The research was published in the journal<em> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02153-1">Nature Human Behaviour</a>.</em></p>
<p>The traditional view of science assumes that accumulating data eventually settles academic debates. According to this perspective, disagreements between researchers are usually driven by differences in what they know. When evidence mounts against an outdated idea, the scientific community theoretically discards it for a more accurate model.</p>
<p>However, deep divisions still exist in fields like psychology. Researchers routinely argue over whether to focus on biological mechanisms or social settings when explaining human actions. Because access to the same methods and data does not always guarantee agreement, some academics suspect that these separate camps endure for reasons unrelated to raw facts.</p>
<p>A research team wanted to see if these persistent academic splits might actually reflect underlying mental habits. They designed a study to test whether a scientist’s personal ways of thinking steer them toward specific theories or research tools. They evaluated how these private traits relate to a laboratory environment.</p>
<p>Justin Sulik, a researcher at LMU Munich, led the investigation. Sulik worked with Nakwon Rim and James Evans of the University of Chicago, Elizabeth Pontikes of the University of California, Davis, and Gary Lupyan of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.</p>
<p>The team surveyed nearly 8,000 scientists working in psychology and related fields. They asked the participants to explain their stances on 16 debated topics. These topics included whether human behavior is best explained by rules of rational self-interest, whether brain biology is essential for understanding the mind, and whether cognition relies heavily on social environments.</p>
<p>The survey then measured several established cognitive traits among the participants. One trait was tolerance of ambiguity, which refers to how comfortable a person is with uncertainty and poorly structured problems. Another was the need for cognitive structure, which measures a preference for logical planning and predictable routines.</p>
<p>The survey also tested for differences in visual and verbal thinking styles. The researchers separated visual imagination into two categories. Spatial imagery involves the ability to mentally rotate three-dimensional geometric figures, while object imagery involves picturing highly vivid, detailed scenes.</p>
<p>The results showed that researchers’ basic mental dispositions are associated with their positions on broad scientific debates. Scientists who scored high in tolerance for ambiguity tended to reject the idea that humans always act with rational self-interest. They also favored holistic explanations of behavior that highly prize a subject’s cultural context.</p>
<p>Conversely, scientists with a high need for cognitive structure leaned in a different direction. They were more likely to believe that theoretical concepts like working memory correspond to real, physical things in the human brain. They also preferred rule-based, logical explanations for human behavior.</p>
<p>The physical tools scientists use in the lab were also linked to their abstract beliefs. People who used brain imaging techniques were less likely to believe that social environments are important for explaining human action. Researchers who reported strong spatial imagination skills were more likely to use mathematical modeling in their daily work.</p>
<p>The scientists pointed out that these methodological correlations are highly revealing. It might simply be practically difficult to study a large interacting social group while using a brain scanner. However, the users of those machines also held broad philosophical beliefs that social contexts simply do not matter much for understanding cognition.</p>
<p>To map out these worldviews, the researchers grouped the controversial themes into five underlying belief systems. These latent mathematical factors were labeled as essential, biological, logical, contextual, and objective. A scientist scoring high on the essential factor generally believes that human capacities are mostly innate and that personality remains stable over a lifetime.</p>
<p>Tolerance of ambiguity was a psychological trait associated with all five of these scientific belief systems. People who were highly tolerant of ambiguity were less likely to view the human brain as a computer. They were also less likely to prioritize evolutionary explanations for behavior, favoring contextual social explanations instead.</p>
<p>The research team also wanted to see if survey responses translated to actual scientific output. They received permission from a portion of the participants to securely link their survey answers with their professional publication records.</p>
<p>The team utilized machine learning technology to analyze the text of the scientists’ published abstracts and article titles. The computer algorithms measured how closely the words and phrasing matched among different authors. They also built algorithms to map out who these scientists collaborated with and which older papers they cited as foundational literature.</p>
<p>The algorithms revealed that cognitive traits are associated with differences in real-world publishing activity. This remained true even when controlling for a researcher’s specific subfield and preferred tools. Two psychologists who study the exact same topic using identical methods are still more likely to cite the same reference materials if they happen to share similar internal thinking styles.</p>
<p>The authors note that these patterns reveal the difficulty of translating ideas between differing scientific camps. The problem is not just about abstract logic, but is deeply tied to individual human cognition. Researchers simply have different internal thresholds for what kind of explanation feels satisfying and closest to the truth.</p>
<p>There are a few cautions to keep in mind when interpreting the results. The mathematical effect sizes in the study were relatively small. This means that while the mathematical trends are consistent across thousands of people, a single scientist’s cognitive traits will not dictate every research choice they make.</p>
<p>The survey also had a low response rate of three percent, which is standard for mass email surveys but means the participants skewed toward scientists who publish frequently. Additionally, the researchers only examined psychologists. They hope to expand this framework to other scientific disciplines to see if similar patterns emerge in fields like physics or sociology.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the researchers suggest that science might benefit from actively managing diverse cognitive styles in research groups. A broad mix of natural problem-solving approaches could help bridge deep theoretical divides that data alone has failed to resolve. In the paper, the authors conclude that “science is a human enterprise, and understanding the development of scientific knowledge depends on an account of the thought processes of humans.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02153-1" target="_blank">Differences in psychologists’ cognitive traits are associated with scientific divides</a>,” was authored by Justin Sulik, Nakwon Rim, Elizabeth Pontikes, James Evans, and Gary Lupyan.</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/falling-back-makes-us-more-miserable-than-springing-forward-new-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">“Falling back” makes us more miserable than “springing forward,” new study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 5th 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study using U.S. online and social media posts found that people’s moods tend to worsen during the biannual transitions to Daylight Saving Time (in the spring) and Standard Time (in the fall). This worsening of mood is more pronounced after the change to Standard Time in the fall. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342789"><em>PLOS One</em></a>.</p>
<p>Seasonal time change is the practice of adjusting clocks twice a year. In spring, clocks are moved forward by one hour to Daylight Saving Time, usually in March. This shift is described as “losing” an hour of sleep. In fall, clocks are moved back by one hour to Standard Time, typically in October or November. This is known as “gaining” an extra hour of sleep.</p>
<p>The purpose of these changes is to make better use of daylight during longer days. In spring, evenings become lighter, while mornings are darker. In fall, mornings become lighter, while evenings get darker earlier. These changes can temporarily affect sleep patterns and daily routines.</p>
<p>However, research shows that time changes are associated with negative public sentiment. The shifts also disrupt sleep patterns, increase risks of accidents and health issues, and may impair cognitive functioning. There is an ongoing debate about whether to adopt permanent Daylight Saving Time or permanent Standard Time, as each has different implications for sleep, health, and daily life.</p>
<p>Daylight Saving Time is currently used in most of the United States and Canada, in parts of Australia and New Zealand, as well as in most European countries. Many countries near the equator have stopped using it or never adopted it because daylight variation there is minimal throughout the year. Similarly, Russia and Turkey have stopped changing clocks.</p>
<p>Study author Ben Ellman and his colleagues conducted a study using social media to measure how public sentiment changes around the dates of these time shifts. They hypothesized that there would be more negative sentiment immediately following the clock shifts, and that this negative sentiment would be stronger in the fall.</p>
<p>The authors collected daily data on social media mentions and sentiment about time changes within a 20-day span surrounding these events. The dataset used for analysis was collected using the Quid (formerly Netbase) Social Media Listening platform.</p>
<p>The researchers defined a set of primary terms to use in their social media search, including DST, #DST, Daylight savings, extra hour, gain an hour, lose an hour, standard time, and #Timechange. Analyzing posts made between 2019 and 2023, the study authors collected a total of 821,140 mentions.</p>
<p>The researchers did not just look at the U.S. as a whole; they specifically looked for posts originating from cities located within 100 miles of U.S. time zone borders. By comparing the sentiment in a city just west of a time zone border on the day of the time change with a city just east of the border on the day prior, the researchers were able to isolate the “shock” of the time change itself, holding variables like weather and daylight schedules relatively constant.</p>
<p>The authors used Quid’s Natural Language Processor to examine the tone and context of the posts. Each post was assigned a sentiment value between -100 and 100, depending on whether it expressed a positive or a negative mood. They also had Quid’s processor categorize mentions by unique terms that drive the sentiment of each primary term.</p>
<p>Results showed that in the national dataset, the mean number of daily mentions of terms related to time change was 32,271, with huge variations from day to day. The highest numbers of daily mentions occurred in the Eastern and Pacific regions of the U.S. Overall, the average national sentiment while under Daylight Saving Time (positive: 5.65) was better than under Standard Time (negative: -13.02).</p>
<p>Ultimately, the results revealed negative shocks to sentiment after both time changes. However, the outcomes following the transitions differed. The researchers found that while the negative mood drop following the spring change to Daylight Saving Time attenuated (recovered) relatively quickly, the negative sentiment following the fall change to Standard Time persisted for a longer period.</p>
<p>“These findings provide evidence that individuals have a more negative reaction to the societal time change to Standard Time in the fall than they do to DST in the spring. This work highlights the potential that the reaction to societal time changes varies depending on whether moving to or away from DST or Standard Time,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study adds to the scientific knowledge regarding how people react to time changes. However, the authors note that sentiment towards time changes depends on complex behavioral responses and demographic characteristics that were not observed in this study. Because people differ in their social media use patterns, these differences in reactions might not be completely or adequately reflected in social media posts alone.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342789">Social media analysis reflects the negative sentiments experienced at both time changes with somewhat more depressive impact in early fall</a>,” was authored by Ben Ellman, Michael L. Smith, Carson Reeling, and Nicole J. Olynk Widmar.</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>