<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/even-light-drinking-combined-with-aging-is-linked-to-reduced-brain-blood-flow-and-thinner-tissue/" 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;">Even light drinking combined with aging is linked to reduced brain blood flow and thinner tissue</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 23rd 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 journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2026.03.006" target="_blank">Alcohol</a></em> provides evidence that even low-level drinking may have negative consequences for brain health over a person’s lifespan. The findings suggest that the total amount of alcohol consumed over a lifetime, especially as a person ages, tends to be linked to reduced blood flow and thinner tissue in certain areas of the brain. These structural and functional brain differences indicate that the concept of low-risk drinking guidelines might need to be reevaluated.</p>
<p>For many years, public health guidelines suggested that consuming small amounts of alcohol carried minimal health risks. Today, more recent large-scale research provides evidence that the risks for various diseases begin to rise with any level of alcohol intake. </p>
<p>“There is increasing evidence that any alcohol consumption, even for what is currently considered ‘light drinking’ elevates risk for at least six different types of cancer, according to the World Health Organization,” said study author Timothy C. Durazzo, a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine and a clinical neuropsychologist at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. </p>
<p>“However, there has been little research devoted to studying the effect of low-level alcohol consumption on the human brain,” Durazzo explained. “We believed it was important to investigate the potential associations of low-level drink and measures of regional brain structure and blood flow (perfusion) in human adults.”</p>
<p>To explore these relationships, the researchers recruited healthy adults between the ages of 22 and 70. “Study participants were healthy, non-smoking adults, with no history of major medical or psychological conditions, who consumed less than or equal to 60 standard drink equivalents per month over the 1 year preceding study,” Durazzo noted. In the United States, a standard drink is defined as containing 14 grams of pure alcohol, which is roughly equivalent to a typical beer or a single glass of wine. </p>
<p>The researchers analyzed a total of 45 participants for brain volume and thickness measurements. A smaller group of 27 participants from this same pool underwent specialized scans to measure brain perfusion, which is the active delivery of blood to the brain’s tissues. </p>
<p>The scientists used detailed questionnaires to calculate each person’s average drinks per month over the past year, the past three years, and their entire lifetime. The participants then underwent magnetic resonance imaging scans. </p>
<p>These brain scans allowed the scientists to measure the physical volume and thickness of the cerebral cortex, which is the outer layer of the brain involved in high-level thinking and processing. For the perfusion group, the scans also tracked how much blood was actively flowing through various brain regions. </p>
<p>“The main findings were that a greater number of drinks consumed over lifetime, in combination with a higher age, were associated with decreased blood flow across the cortex (the outermost, folded layer of gray matter) as well as decreased thickness across the cortex,” Durazzo explained. Greater lifetime average drinking was associated with lower blood flow in 68 percent of the brain regions measured. These regions were spread out across multiple lobes of the brain. </p>
<p>The scientists found that the mathematical combination of advancing age and the total number of lifetime drinks was strongly linked to lower blood flow. This interaction was seen in nearly half of the measured brain regions, particularly in the frontal, parietal, and occipital lobes. “We did not expect the strength of the associations between greater number of drinks consumed over lifetime and higher age with decreased cortical blood flow to be as high as we observed,” Durazzo said. </p>
<p>Similar patterns were observed in the physical structure of the brain. Higher numbers of lifetime drinks were linked to a thinner cerebral cortex in multiple brain regions. When looking at the combination of age and total lifetime drinks, the scientists observed a thinner cortex mostly in the frontal and parietal lobes. </p>
<p>The frontal and parietal lobes are responsible for executive functions and sensory processing. Executive functions include mental skills like planning, focusing attention, and regulating emotions. The researchers suggest that these specific brain regions might be particularly vulnerable to the cellular wear and tear caused by alcohol consumption over time.</p>
<p>Cortical thickness is thought to reflect the density of brain cells, meaning a thinner cortex could indicate subtle cellular changes. The researchers suggest that oxidative stress might play a role in these changes. Oxidative stress is an imbalance in the body where unstable molecules cause damage to cells and tissues. </p>
<p>Alcohol consumption increases oxidative stress, and aging also tends to increase this cellular burden. This combined increase in cellular stress might explain why the interaction of age and lifetime drinking is linked to reduced brain tissue and lower blood flow. While the study provides new insights into low-level drinking, it has some limitations. </p>
<p>“The number of participants, particularly for the blood flow measures, was very modest (number of participants = 27 for blood flow measures and 45 for brain structural measures),” Durazzo pointed out. Because there were few female participants, the researchers could not look for differences based on biological sex. In addition, the scientists did not measure the actual speed of the blood flowing through the arteries. </p>
<p>Unmeasured lifestyle factors, such as diet and exercise habits, might also influence brain health and could explain some of the differences seen among participants. “We need to emphasize that the results from our study must be considered preliminary until they are replicated in a study with a larger number of participants,” Durazzo said. </p>
<p>Future research will need to replicate these findings in larger, more diverse groups of people. The researchers also want to look at how this combination of age and lifetime drinking affects everyday functioning. “It is unclear how our findings for cortical blood flow and thickness relate to important functions like balance and coordination,” Durazzo noted. </p>
<p>“Next steps are to investigate the associations of low-level drinking with measures of balance, coordination and dexterity,” Durazzo said. Understanding these functional outcomes will help clarify the real-world consequences of low-risk drinking guidelines.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2026.03.006" target="_blank">The interaction of age and total lifetime drinks is associated with regional cortical perfusion and thickness in healthy adults with low-level alcohol consumption</a>,” was authored by Timothy C. Durazzo, Brian D.P. Joseff, M. Windy McNerney, Keith Humphreys, and Dieter J. Meyerhoff.</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-will-follow-harmful-orders-regardless-of-an-authority-figure-s-gender/" 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;">Female leaders command equal obedience in a modern replication of the Milgram experiment</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 23rd 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>In a replication of a famous psychology experiment, researchers found that people are just as likely to follow harmful orders from a female authority figure as they are from a male one. The research suggests that the power of professional rank can override common stereotypes about leadership. The findings were recently published in the journal <i><a href="https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000575">Social Psychology</a></i>.</p>
<p>The original obedience experiments took place in the early 1960s. Participants believed they were delivering increasingly powerful electric shocks to an unseen person who was failing a memory test. Even when the subject cried out in pain, the scientist in charge commanded the participant to continue. A majority of people pushed the voltage dial all the way to its maximum setting simply because they were told to do so.</p>
<p>Those historic trials involved three primary characters. The actual participant played the role of the teacher. An actor working with the science team played the learner. A researcher served in the role of the experimenter. Over the decades, many academic teams have recreated parts of the scenario to understand the specific triggers for human obedience.</p>
<p>Past replications have manipulated the demographics of both the teacher pressing the buttons and the learner receiving the hypothetical shocks. Neither of those variables generally changes the rate of obedience. People are willing to punish male and female learners at similar rates. The physical sex of the participant issuing the punishment also has no effect on the outcome. </p>
<p>Lead author Tomasz Grzyb and his colleagues noticed an overlooked element in the existing literature. No study had directly investigated whether the physical sex of the authority figure might influence compliance. The team wanted to know if a male scientist or a female scientist would elicit different responses from participants. Theoretical models of social influence suggested it could go in either direction.</p>
<p>One theory notes that men often hold higher perceived status in general public settings. Based on standard social stereotypes, a man might naturally command more respect and push people to blindly follow rules. A competing theory suggests that women are often perceived as warmer and more approachable. This approachability could theoretically make participants like the scientist more, increasing their willingness to cooperate with the shocking procedure.</p>
<p>To test the dynamics, Grzyb and his team recruited 80 volunteers for a laboratory test. The modern setup utilized a modified framework designed to protect the psychological wellbeing of the participants. Instead of allowing the voltage to climb to extreme simulated levels, the modern version halts the test at a minor threshold. This limits exposure to stress while allowing scientists to measure a person’s willingness to harm another. </p>
<p>The participants arrived at a designated facility to engage in memory research. A scientist posing as a psychology professor greeted them in the room. Half of the volunteers were introduced to a male professor. The other half met a female professor. </p>
<p>The real participant was assigned to act as the teacher. The fake learner was escorted into an adjacent room where they communicated through a two-way audio system. The teacher read a list of paired syllables through the microphone. When the learner provided an incorrect answer, the teacher had to press a switch on a mechanical generator.</p>
<p>Each error required the teacher to move up to the next voltage setting. The switches were explicitly labeled with warnings describing the severity of the damage. As the shocks escalated, the actor in the other room responded with increasingly loud vocal expressions of pain. If a teacher paused or refused to flip the switch, the standing professor issued standard verbal prods to force compliance.</p>
<p>The trial ended for a specific volunteer if they refused to proceed after four consecutive verbal commands. It also concluded if they successfully reached the tenth button on the generator. The experimenters recorded how many individuals went all the way to the end. The final data revealed that the scientist’s physical gender altered almost nothing about the human behavior in the room.</p>
<p>Exactly 88 percent of the group complied with every instruction from the female professor. By comparison, 90 percent of the volunteers followed every command from the male professor. The variance between these two outcomes was not statistically significant. The specific demographic identity of the scientist had no real impact on whether the volunteer chose to inflict pain.</p>
<p>The team also measured secondary factors. They counted how many times the scientists had to issue a stern verbal prompt. They specifically tracked the exact voltage level where the few disobedient individuals chose to rebel. Neither of these metrics displayed a difference based on the gender of the authority figure.</p>
<p>The small laboratory study carried a few methodological limitations. The staggeringly high compliance rate meant few participants provided an example of rebellion. The researchers suspected this dynamic might hide subtle psychological shifts regarding sexism and authority. To gather more varied data, the researchers launched a second project using a digital surveying platform.</p>
<p>This online operation recruited nearly 800 Polish internet users. They were asked to read and imagine a scenario identical to the shock generator room. Half the group imagined receiving their orders from a female professor, while the other half imagined a male professor. The subjects had to indicate precisely when they would abandon the operation and refuse to press any more buttons. </p>
<p>The digital simulation also allowed the team to administer a psychological questionnaire. The survey measured ambivalent sexism, recording a participant’s belief in traditional gender stereotypes. The scientists suspected that people who scored high on the sexism scale might balk when ordered around by a female leader. This hypothesis assumes that systemic biases make people resentful of women occupying dominant academic positions.</p>
<p>Once again, the gender of the imagined scientist did nothing to shift the average obedience mark. Participants were entirely willing to shock the imaginary victim regardless of who was running the show. The sexism survey produced an unexpected set of insights. Participants exhibiting higher levels of systemic sexism actually reported an elevated willingness to hurt the learner.</p>
<p>This increased obedience happened equally across both the male and female scientist conditions. The authors suggest this result ties into a massive psychological concept known as authoritarianism. Sexism is frequently correlated with an overarching psychological respect for strict social hierarchies. People who heavily favor traditional societal structures are generally more prone to accepting orders without asking questions.</p>
<p>The researchers theorize that a general adherence to hierarchy might overpower specific gender biases. If someone strongly respects the title of university professor, they might entirely disregard the biological sex of the person running the laboratory. An established professional role offers a unique form of status that neutralizes standard assumptions. They argue that when authority is embedded within a clearly defined social role, the physical traits of the person commanding the room fade away.</p>
<p>The authors mention a few caveats regarding their work. Evaluating human compliance through hypothetical online scenarios lacks the visceral tension of an in-person confrontation. What people claim they will do on the internet rarely maps perfectly to their real-world actions. The team still notes that the combination of physical and digital trials provides a strong initial foundation for researching this variable.</p>
<p>Regional differences also offer an avenue for future investigation. These trials took place in Poland. National economic data points out that Poland has a slightly lower gender wage gap than the European Union average. A deeply ingrained cultural acceptance of women in professional management positions might be skewing the results toward equality. </p>
<p>Conducting analogous investigations in nations with steeper divides might reveal a different pattern of willingness to rebel. Future attempts could also test completely different types of authority figures. A corporate executive or a military officer might prompt entirely distinct reactions compared to a mild-mannered academic. The team recommends explicitly measuring authoritarianism alongside other personality traits in future lab simulations. </p>
<p>Reporting on scenarios where variables fail to alter human behavior holds immense scientific utility. It prevents future investigators from relying on untested assumptions regarding male dominance in leadership roles. Based on these two experiments, an individual’s capability to demand compliance appears totally unbounded by physical characteristics. Indeed, the researchers conclude that pathological authority “knows no gender.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000575">Authority Knows No Gender – Gender Effects in Exerting Obedience in Milgram’s Experiment</a>,” was authored by Tomasz Grzyb, Dariusz Dolinski, and Katarzyna Cantarero.</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/neuroscientists-identify-brain-regions-that-drive-curiosity-for-what-might-have-been/" 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;">Neuroscientists identify brain regions that drive curiosity for what might have been</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 23rd 2026, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A study published in the journal <em><a href="https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/21/1/nsag012/8529764" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience</a></em> provides evidence that the brain’s reward system drives a powerful urge to seek information about “what might have been,” even when that information causes emotional pain. The findings suggest that the human brain treats the satisfaction of curiosity as an internal reward that can outweigh the negative feelings of regret. This research helps explain why people often feel an uncontrollable need to explore alternative realities, such as checking the price of a house they did not buy or a stock they did not invest in.</p>
<p>Humans possess a unique ability to reflect on their decisions and imagine different outcomes. Scientists refer to this as counterfactual thinking. While this ability helps people learn from their mistakes, it often leads to regret when a person discovers that an unchosen option was better than the one they picked. The researchers conducted this study to understand why people are so driven to seek out this information even when it serves no practical purpose and is likely to make them feel worse.</p>
<p>“After making a choice, people often reflect on the outcome of their choice as well as possible alternative outcomes (i.e., counterfactual reality), even though it induces negative emotions (e.g., regret). The main motivation behind our study is to examine the mechanisms behind humans’ desires to find out counterfactual alternatives–‘counterfactual curiosity,'” said study author <a href="https://uni-tuebingen.de/en/199450" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michiko Sakaki</a>, a tenure-track professor at the Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology at the University of Tübingen.</p>
<p>Curiosity is often seen as a positive force that encourages learning and growth. However, it can also manifest as a strong motivational urge that people find difficult to resist. This urge is sometimes called incentive salience, which is a term for the “wanting” or “craving” sensation that draws a person toward a reward. The scientists wanted to investigate if the brain regions that handle physical rewards, such as food or money, are the same ones that generate the urge to satisfy counterfactual curiosity.</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers recruited 41 participants from the University of Reading. After removing data from individuals who moved too much during the scans or provided incomplete ratings, the final group consisted of 38 participants. This group included 12 men and 26 women with an average age of approximately 21 years. Most of these participants were university students from various academic levels.</p>
<p>The participants performed a specific task while inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner, often called an fMRI. An fMRI is a machine that measures changes in blood flow within the brain. This allows scientists to see which specific brain areas are becoming active during different activities. This method is a standard tool for mapping how the human mind processes emotions and decisions.</p>
<p>The task used in the study was a modified version of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. In this game, a participant sees a virtual balloon and must decide how many pumps to give it. Each pump increases the number of points the participant can earn for that round. However, every balloon has a hidden “pop point” that is randomly determined for each trial. If the participant chooses a number of pumps that exceeds this limit, the balloon explodes and they earn zero points.</p>
<p>If the balloon remains intact, the trial is called a “bank” trial because the participant successfully banked their points. After each round, the participants rated their current emotional state on a scale ranging from a sad face to a happy face. This initial rating provided a baseline for how they felt about the immediate outcome of their choice.</p>
<p>Following this, the participants entered a choice phase. They were asked if they wanted to see the actual limit of the balloon for that specific round. Seeing this limit would tell them exactly how many more pumps they could have made to earn more points. To get this information, the participant had to agree to a “cost,” which was a waiting period of up to six seconds at the end of the trial.</p>
<p>The researchers emphasize that this information had no practical use. Because the pop point for each balloon was completely random for every trial, knowing the previous balloon’s limit could not help the participant predict the next one. After the participants either saw the limit or chose not to see it, they provided a second emotional rating. This helped the researchers measure how their feelings changed after receiving the counterfactual information.</p>
<p>The behavioral results showed that participants chose to see the balloon’s limit in 52 percent of the bank trials. They were more likely to seek this information when the point value of each pump was high and the waiting cost was low. As the researchers expected, looking at the information frequently led to negative emotions. When participants saw that they could have earned significantly more points, their happiness decreased and they experienced feelings consistent with regret.</p>
<p>The study provides evidence that this “useless” information also influenced future behavior. When participants discovered a large missed opportunity, they tended to pump the balloon more times in the following round. This suggests that the brain uses counterfactual information to adjust behavior, even when that information is not logically relevant to future success. The emotional impact of regret seems to push the individual to take more risks in an attempt to avoid missing out again.</p>
<p>“Behaviorally, we found robust effects of counterfactual curiosity that are consistent with previous studies,” Sakaki told PsyPost. “For example, participants sought counterfactual information more when the counterfactual reality was expected to be better than the reality. Participants also felt significantly more negative after seeking counterfactual information than after not seeking the information.”</p>
<p>The brain imaging results focused on a group of structures called the striatum. The striatum is located deep within the brain and is known to be essential for processing motivation and rewards. The researchers specifically examined two parts of the striatum: the caudate and the nucleus accumbens. They also looked at the substantia nigra and the ventral tegmental area, which are regions that produce dopamine. Dopamine is a chemical that helps the brain signal the desire for a reward.</p>
<p>During the choice phase, the caudate and the dopamine-producing regions showed higher levels of activity when participants decided to seek the counterfactual information. This activity occurred even after the scientists accounted for the waiting time and the point values. The findings suggest that these brain regions generate a “wanting” signal for information. The brain appears to treat the satisfaction of curiosity as an internal reward that is processed similarly to money or food.</p>
<p>Once the participants actually viewed the information, the brain activity shifted. The caudate and the nucleus accumbens showed increased activity in response to the size of the missed opportunity. Larger gaps between the participant’s choice and the balloon’s actual limit triggered stronger responses in these areas. This suggests that the striatum is involved in both the initial urge to know the truth and the later processing of the regret that the truth brings.</p>
<p>“External motivators, such as money and food, are known to change our behavior due to the reward network in the brain,” Sakaki explained. “In our study, we found that the same brain region is also relevant to our choice to seek information out of counterfactual curiosity.”</p>
<p>The researchers noted some limitations and directions for future study. The study primarily focused on young adults in a university setting, so it is not yet certain if these findings apply to older populations. Additionally, the brain regions studied did not show perfectly consistent activity across all phases of the experiment. For instance, the nucleus accumbens was highly active when feedback was revealed but did not show the same level of activity during the initial choice to seek that feedback.</p>
<p>Future research could investigate how these brain circuits function in people with different personality traits or psychological conditions. The scientists also suggest that further work is needed to understand the specific roles of each sub-region within the striatum. It remains to be seen if these same brain patterns appear in real-world situations where the stakes involve significant life choices rather than small game points. The long-term goal is “to understand lifelong development and its implications,” Sakaki said.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsag012" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Role of the striatum in counterfactual information seeking</a>,” was authored by Johnny King L. Lau, Michiko Sakaki, Lily FitzGibbon, Jasmine A. L. Raw, and Kou Murayama.</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-gap-between-seeing-and-seeking-adult-content-predicts-mental-health-risks/" 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 age you start regularly watching adult content predicts your future mental health</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 22nd 2026, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Understanding how people develop habits around viewing adult content can help identify potential psychological risks later in life. Researchers identified three distinct patterns of how adults start viewing sexually explicit material, revealing that establishing a regular habit at a young age is linked to higher rates of mental health struggles. The findings were published in the journal <i><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2026.108905">Computers in Human Behavior</a></i>.</p>
<p>Viewing adult entertainment is a highly common behavior across varied age groups. Many adolescents see sexually explicit images or videos unintentionally, perhaps through internet advertisements or links shared by peers. Researchers separate this initial exposure from the point at which an individual decides to seek out the material on a regular schedule.</p>
<p>In the field of addiction science, healthcare professionals observe that starting to drink alcohol or gamble at a young age is associated with a higher likelihood of developing a behavioral disorder in adulthood. Psychology researchers wanted to see if the timeline of viewing adult content followed a similar pattern. They hypothesized that a shorter gap between initial exposure and regular viewing might correlate with negative psychological outcomes.</p>
<p>Problematic viewing habits often involve feeling a loss of control, craving the material, experiencing disruptions in daily life, and using the media to avoid negative emotions. Repeated struggles to control the viewing habit can eventually interfere with an individual’s work commitments and personal relationships. Psychologists refer to these symptoms as signs of distress or behavioral impairment.</p>
<p>Bailey M. Way, a psychology researcher at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, led a team to investigate this timeline. Way and colleagues noted that many existing studies only gathered data on the age of first exposure. By asking individuals about both their first exposure and their first regular engagement, the team hoped to paint a more nuanced picture of behavioral development.</p>
<p>The investigators relied on survey data from 1,316 American adults. The sample matched demographic norms for the United States, accurately reflecting the broader population in terms of age, gender, geographic region, race, and household income. Participants answered questions about when they first saw sexually explicit material and when they began viewing it frequently.</p>
<p>The survey also asked respondents about their current viewing habits, including how often they watch and the duration of their typical sessions. Additional questionnaires screened the adults for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. The team also evaluated habits related to alcohol use, cannabis consumption, and gambling.</p>
<p>Using a mathematical sorting method, the researchers grouped participants based on common developmental timelines. The statistical model grouped the adults into three distinct categories. The authors named these groups Early Engagers, Casual Engagers, and Late Engagers.</p>
<p>Early Engagers made up the largest portion of the sample, accounting for nearly 67 percent of respondents. These individuals typically saw adult material for the first time around age 14 and began a regular viewing habit by age 18. This group reported the highest current viewing frequency and the longest viewing sessions.</p>
<p>This early onset group also explored more intense or niche material compared to the other groups. They reported higher rates of viewing nonmainstream categories, ranging from violent material to extreme fetishes. The researchers suggested that early viewers might seek out more extreme content over time to achieve the same level of arousal.</p>
<p>The transition into more intense material mimics patterns seen in chemical tolerance. As a person becomes desensitized to standard visual stimuli, they sometimes require stronger or more unusual imagery to achieve the desired psychological effect. This behavioral escalation often serves as a red flag for clinicians attempting to diagnose an occupational or psychological impairment.</p>
<p>Mentally and emotionally, Early Engagers reported the highest rates of psychological distress. They scored higher on screening tools for depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts than the other groups. The same group also endorsed more symptoms related to problematic drinking, cannabis use, and gambling.</p>
<p>Casual Engagers mapped out a completely different timeline. They represented just 7 percent of the participants and did not see sexually explicit material until an average age of 28. They established a regular viewing routine around age 36.</p>
<p>Current viewing among Casual Engagers was the lowest of all three groups, yet they reported symptoms of depression and anxiety at levels comparable to the Early Engagers. They also reported feeling distressed regarding their limited viewing habits. The researchers noted that these individuals ranked highly on measures of religious devotion and frequent church attendance.</p>
<p>The research team observed that identifying as deeply religious often correlates with lower overall viewing rates but higher feelings of guilt. Casual Engagers answered specific survey questions indicating that faith played a central role in their daily routines. They reported attending religious services regularly and ranked spirituality as highly important to their personal identities.</p>
<p>The psychological burden seen in Casual Engagers likely stems from a concept known as moral incongruence. This phenomenon occurs when a person’s behavior contradicts their deeply held personal or religious values. The internal conflict can cause an individual to view a relatively rare behavior as a severe personal failure, generating intense anxiety.</p>
<p>The third group, Late Engagers, shared an early exposure timeline with the first group, seeing adult content around age 14. Unlike the first group, they did not transition into regular viewing habits until an average age of 38. This group exhibited the lowest average levels of depression, anxiety, and general distress.</p>
<p>The contrast between the groups highlights that casual exposure alone is not the primary factor linked with later distress. Instead, the rapid transition from accidental exposure to a dedicated habit seems to carry the strongest association with psychological struggles. The results mirror observations in substance use research, where early and frequent engagement suggests a vulnerability to addiction.</p>
<p>Demographic background also shaped group membership. Men were more likely than women to fall into either the early or late onset groups. Heterosexual respondents and white participants were highly represented among the Late Engagers.</p>
<p>Conversely, individuals identifying with diverse sexual orientations were highly represented among the early onset group. The researchers suggest this demographic overlap might relate to young people exploring their evolving sexual identities online. Finding representation and answering questions about sexuality on the internet is a common experience for many diverse youths.</p>
<p>The observational nature of the survey means the results cannot prove that early viewing causes mental illness. It is entirely possible that young people experiencing early symptoms of depression or anxiety use adult entertainment as a coping mechanism. If sexually explicit media is used to regulate negative emotions, the behavior may become entrenched as a lifelong habit.</p>
<p>Generational differences in technology access also influenced the development of these three profiles. Older adults in the sample grew up without home internet or smartphones, making regular engagement difficult during their teenage years. Younger participants had readier access to online media, which could explain the accelerated timeline of the first group.</p>
<p>The study relied entirely on retrospective memory, asking adults to remember specific ages from decades past. Human memory regarding childhood events is often imprecise and subject to individual bias. A cross-sectional survey like this also captures only a single moment in a person’s life, rather than tracking their psychological health as it develops.</p>
<p>To build on these observations, researchers plan to conduct long-term studies that follow young people over many years. Tracking actual behavior as it happens provides a more accurate dataset than relying on childhood memories. In the meantime, the investigators advise mental health professionals to ask clients about both their age of first exposure and their timeline of regular use when assessing behavioral risks.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2026.108905">Early exposure and emerging risk: A latent profile analysis of pornography use trajectories and their psychological correlates</a>,” was authored by Bailey M. Way, Todd L. Jennings, Joshua B. Grubbs, Kris Gunawan, and Shane W. Kraus.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/women-perceive-ai-as-riskier-than-men-do-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;">Women perceive AI as riskier than men do, 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 22nd 2026, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An online survey found that women consistently perceive AI to be riskier than men. The key drivers behind this view are women’s higher general risk aversion and their greater exposure to AI-related risks. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf399"><em>PNAS Nexus</em></a>.</p>
<p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is a broad term for computer systems that can perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as recognizing patterns, making predictions, understanding language, or supporting decisions. AI is used in companies to automate routine work, analyze large amounts of data, improve customer service, and support faster decision-making. For example, firms use AI in chatbots, fraud detection, demand forecasting, recommendation systems, quality control, document processing, and an increasing number of other areas.</p>
<p>The main benefits of AI for companies include greater efficiency, lower costs, faster processing, improved consistency, and the ability to extract useful insights from complex data. AI can also help companies become more competitive by improving products, responding more quickly to customers, and identifying opportunities earlier.</p>
<p>However, AI also brings risks, including inaccurate outputs, biased decisions, privacy problems, security vulnerabilities, and overreliance on automated recommendations. Another important risk is that employees or managers may trust AI too much even when it makes confident but incorrect judgments. Companies also face legal and reputational risks if AI is used in ways that are unfair, nontransparent, or harmful to customers or workers.</p>
<p>Study authors Sophie Borwein and her colleagues note that existing evidence suggests that men are better positioned than women to benefit from the more widespread use of AI, in spite of the fact that women are rapidly overtaking men in post-secondary educational attainment. They believe that this is because men dominate technology-oriented fields and occupations. These authors conducted an online survey hypothesizing that women perceive AI to be riskier than men. They believed that this happens because women are more averse to risk than men and are also more exposed to AI-related economic displacement.</p>
<p>Study participants included 3,049 American and Canadian residents. The participants were recruited through YouGov’s opt-in panel. The survey contained assessments of individual risk orientation, perceived riskiness of AI, and exposure to technological change. Risk orientation was assessed by asking participants whether they would prefer a guaranteed win of $1,000 or a 50% chance of winning $2,000. The study authors considered education level and occupational field to be proxies for exposure to AI-related risk.</p>
<p>Participants also completed an experiment in which study authors manipulated the perceived riskiness of AI by having participants read a scenario about a company adopting generative AI. The researchers varied the probability that the adoption would have a net positive effect on the company’s workforce.</p>
<p>As expected, results showed that women tended to perceive AI as riskier than men did. The study authors concluded that the key drivers of this gap are women’s higher risk aversion and their greater exposure to AI-related risks.</p>
<p>The results of the experiment showed that, as the probability of net positive effects of AI on the workforce decreased, women’s support for the adoption of AI fell more sharply than men’s. Women also tended to express greater uncertainty about the benefits of AI and more frequently expressed views that AI provides little to no benefit in their open-ended answers.</p>
<p>“Our research suggests that the adoption of AI could exacerbate existing gender inequalities if women remain more skeptical and less supportive than men. These emerging patterns of differential adoption of AI technologies may create new forms of occupational segregation that will persist regardless of whether AI ultimately delivers its promised benefits or creates unforeseen consequences,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific knowledge about attitudes toward AI use. However, it should be noted that AI technology is advancing rapidly, and people’s attitudes toward AI are evolving quickly alongside these changes. As AI further develops and the general population gains more experience with it, attitudes may change in line with these experiences.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf399">Explaining women’s skepticism toward artificial intelligence: The role of risk orientation and risk exposure,</a>” was authored by Sophie Borwein, Beatrice Magistro, R. Michael Alvarez, Bart Bonikowski, and Peter J. Loewen.</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/better-mental-health-naturally-curbs-alcohol-consumption-over-time/" 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;">Do we drink because we feel down, or feel down because we drink? A new study has the answer</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 22nd 2026, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study shows that better emotional well-being safely predicts lower alcohol consumption over time for average adults. Published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119765"><em>Journal of Affective Disorders</em></a>, the research suggests that boosting psychological health naturally curbs how much people drink. The findings hint that doctors might reduce moderate alcohol habits simply by focusing on a patient’s emotional stability.</p>
<p>The historical connection between psychological wellness and drinking habits has puzzled scientists for decades. Professionals know that stress and high alcohol intake frequently co-occur in the background. The major challenge has been figuring out which behavioral factor actively drives the other. People often question whether individuals drink more because they feel down, or if they feel down because the alcohol disrupts their daily life. </p>
<p>Alternatively, both forces could continually feed into each other at the exact same time. Prior researchers categorized this chronological uncertainty as a major gap in public health knowledge. Finding the true starting point of this cycle could change how medical workers approach preventative care. Most historical investigations observed people already in clinical treatment for severe addiction. </p>
<p>In those extreme treatment instances, heavy alcohol misuse reliably worsens symptoms of depression. The behavioral dynamics moving within an average community sample might naturally operate quite differently than in a secure hospital setting. The varied conclusions in past literature stem largely from a few consistent methodological differences. Scientists often use varied screening tools to separately measure both alcohol intake and emotional states. </p>
<p>This lack of routine standardization makes comparing separate studies incredibly difficult. Different research teams also apply very different mathematical formulas when evaluating their collected data. Some investigators adjust for a wide variety of social factors, while others leave the raw data completely untouched. These layered discrepancies naturally lead to conflicting academic narratives. </p>
<p>Lead author Henriette Markwart and her research team at University Medicine Greifswald investigated this exact puzzle. Markwart focused on everyday adults rather than patients undergoing active addiction recovery. Her team suspected that for the average person, emotional status dictates habit formation rather than the reverse. To verify this, they sought to track natural behavioral shifts over an entire year. </p>
<p>The researchers proactively approached residents waiting at a local registry office in Greifswald, Germany. A registry office is a municipal building where all residents must officially record their home address whenever they move. In European countries like Germany, updating a local address is a universal legal requirement rather than an optional postal service. </p>
<p>This unique public setting helps researchers avoid the biases commonly found in hospital-based recruitment or voluntary internet surveys. The final study group consisted of 816 adults between the ages of 18 and 64. Every participant recruited had consumed at least some alcohol over the past twelve months. </p>
<p>This research project initially originated as a broader effort evaluating targeted alcohol prevention programs. For this specific analysis, Markwart and her team isolated the control group participants. They did this specifically to avoid measuring the artificial impacts of the active intervention program itself. Analyzing only the control group provided an unspoiled view of natural habits unfolding over time without outside coaching. </p>
<p>The team collected data at four distinct times: a baseline start, a three-month mark, a six-month mark, and a twelve-month follow-up. This extended tracking timeline was an intentional design choice. A single snapshot survey can only show that two behaviors exist at the same exact time. It entirely fails to answer the ultimate chronological timeline question. </p>
<p>A multi-step tracking study effectively acts like a stop-motion film. It allows scientists to see which factor moves first and how that movement eventually pushes the second factor along. After the initial encounter, study assistants contacted the participants through structured telephone interviews. If a participant did not answer the phone after ten tries, the researchers sent an equivalent questionnaire via email or regular postal mail. </p>
<p>Assessors conducting the telephone interviews did not know which overall group any given participant belonged to in the initial trial. Blind assessments like these strictly prevent researchers from accidentally prompting participants toward expected answers. To encourage consistent participation throughout the lengthy timeline, the individuals received a small financial voucher for completing each step of the process. </p>
<p>To track alcohol intake, the survey initially asked people how often they drank over the previous thirty days. It also asked how many drinks they usually consumed on the days they actively decided to drink. The scientists multiplied the frequency by the standard quantity to mathematically estimate total monthly consumption. This overarching measurement strategy is known as a quantity-frequency index. </p>
<p>The calculation provides a standardized estimate of overall intake, rather than relying on a vague feeling of how much a person drinks. One standard drink was strictly defined as a regular glass of beer, a small glass of wine, or a single standard shot of liquor. To measure psychological status, the participants completed a brief five-item health inventory instead of a lengthy evaluation. </p>
<p>This short survey asked exactly how often individuals felt nervous, downbeat, calm, sad, or happy during the past thirty days. The researchers combined the individual answers into a single numerical score ranging from zero to one hundred. A higher final score represented better overall emotional stability. This tool quickly translates temporary, subjective feelings into a structured, easily measurable format. </p>
<p>The research team used a statistical tool known as latent change score modeling. This mathematical approach tests different assumptions about how two changing variables interact over an extended timeline. The model systematically relies on previous measurements to mathematically predict future health outcomes. </p>
<p>The researchers programmed four distinct mathematical test paths to see which one mirrored reality the best. The first modeled path assumed that mental well-being and drinking habits change entirely independently of each other. The second path assumed that earlier alcohol use dictates later emotional shifts in the general public. </p>
<p>The third path assumed that earlier psychological status alters future drinking habits. The fourth reciprocal path assumed that both factors constantly influence each other back and forth simultaneously. After processing the numbers, the third test path fit the collected data perfectly. </p>
<p>The researchers found that higher mental well-being scores at an earlier assessment closely corresponded with smaller increases or actual reductions in drinking later on. Feeling psychologically stable appeared to protect individuals from drinking heavily in the future. Better mental health actively spilled over into healthier monthly beverage choices. The results consistently pointed in a single direction across the entire observation window. </p>
<p>The reverse expectation failed to materialize in this public group. A person’s alcohol intake in one month was not statistically significant as an indicator of their psychological scores in the following months. Finding this one-way street originally surprised experts who typically expected a continual two-way relationship. Among the average public, emotional health acts as a reliable precursor to drinking frequencies. </p>
<p>Over the entire twelve-month period, the average alcohol consumption for the whole group actually increased slightly. Those who reported strong emotional health experienced a notably slower increase in their drinking compared to those feeling heavy distress. Their positive psychological state basically acted as a mental buffer against the general upward momentum in alcohol use. </p>
<p>This specific dynamic suggests that enhancing emotional resilience in community health programs might serve as an invisible brake on casual drinking habits. The scientific team did note a few limiting factors inside their methodology. The study group drank relatively low amounts of alcohol on average compared to specialized clinical groups. This distinct low baseline might have organically shaped the final trajectory outcomes. </p>
<p>Separating people with severe alcohol dependence completely ensures the findings apply mostly to casual consumers instead of hospital patients. Relying entirely on self-reported questionnaires also carries inherent social risks regarding absolute honesty. People often understate undesirable choices, meaning the true average alcohol intake might have been much higher than officially recorded. Missing data created another very minor obstacle for the technical analysis. </p>
<p>About one-quarter of the participants did not complete the initial mental health survey owing to an unforeseen software glitch. To resolve this, the researchers efficiently used predictive mathematical algorithms designed to fill in those specific gaps based on the remaining survey answers. Converting abstract drink estimates into a monthly mathematical sum can also lack exact precision depending on individual participant memory. </p>
<p>The short five-question emotional inventory works exceptionally well as a quick screening tool. It does not formally diagnose major depression or anxiety disorders in a clinical capacity. Despite these minor limitations, the overall research offers a fresh look at how emotional balance seamlessly guides lifestyle choices. Future studies could easily expand individual health feedback systems to incorporate both emotional support and habit tracking. </p>
<p>Public health advocates now have solid evidence that treating the mind indirectly shields the overall body from excess intake. Understanding the correct chronological order of these lifestyle habits allows for highly targeted medical interventions in the future. Health care providers assessing an individual’s emotional state might actually be intercepting an early warning sign for increased drinking.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119765">Alcohol consumption and mental health in a dynamic longitudinal relationship in a general population sample: A bivariate latent change score model</a>,” was authored by Henriette Markwart, Andreas Staudt, Jennis Freyer-Adam, Christian Meyer, Anne Möhring, Diana Gürtler, Hans-Jürgen Rumpf, Ulrich John, and Sophie Baumann.</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/psychologists-pinpoint-the-conversational-mechanisms-that-help-humans-bond-with-ai/" 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;">Psychologists pinpoint the conversational mechanisms that help humans bond with AI</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 22nd 2026, 14:00</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/10.1177/02654075261438164" target="_blank">Journal of Social and Personal Relationships</a></em> suggests that people can form meaningful social connections with artificial intelligence chatbots when the programs respond in a warm and empathetic way. The findings indicate that the feeling of being understood and validated by a chatbot tends to drive this sense of closeness.</p>
<p>Artificial intelligence chatbots are computer programs designed to simulate human conversation. Originally, people used these tools mostly for customer service or answering basic queries. Now, modern text generators are increasingly serving as companions, offering emotional support and mental health interventions.</p>
<p>Because people are beginning to treat these programs as social partners, scientists wanted to understand what exactly creates a sense of connection between a human and a machine. Historically, psychologists have observed that people tend to treat computers as social actors, applying human rules to interactions with machines. With the rise of highly advanced language models, this tendency has only grown stronger.</p>
<p>“AI chatbots are increasingly used not just to get information or complete tasks, but also in a social and relational way. People often share personal experiences and ask for advice about their lives, engaging with these systems almost as if they were interacting with another person,” said <a href="https://alessiatelari.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Alessia Telari</a>, a postdoctoral researcher at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, who conducted the research as part of her PhD at the University of Milano-Bicocca.</p>
<p>“This shift made us curious about what drives that sense of connection. Drawing on theories of human relationships, we wondered whether the same dynamics might apply here, whether the way a chatbot responds to users’ self-disclosure plays a key role in making the interaction feel meaningful.”</p>
<p>The scientists wondered whether the specific topics people discuss or the exact way the chatbot replies plays a bigger role in building rapport. In human interactions, intimacy usually develops when one person shares personal information and the other responds with understanding, validation, and care. This concept is known in psychology as perceived partner responsiveness.</p>
<h2>Testing the impact of a warm and empathetic chatbot</h2>
<p>The researchers designed their studies to see if this same psychological mechanism applies when the partner is artificial. To test this, the researchers conducted two distinct experiments. In the first study, 163 participants from Italy engaged in an eight-minute, unstructured text conversation with a chatbot powered by a popular language model.</p>
<p>The scientists manipulated the software through specific background instructions to respond in one of three ways. The first version used a relational style, designed to be warm, empathetic, and human-like. The second version used a non-relational style, acting factual and task-oriented while avoiding emotional language. The third version was a standard default setting meant to act as a control group.</p>
<p>Participants were free to talk about any topic they chose during the eight-minute window. After the chat ended, they filled out a detailed questionnaire evaluating the program on various social metrics. These metrics included mind attribution, which measures how much agency and emotional capacity a person believes an entity possesses.</p>
<p>The researchers also measured perceived empathy, interaction satisfaction, and the participants’ own sense of interpersonal closeness. The relational chatbot produced significantly higher ratings across almost all of these categories compared to both the default and non-relational versions. People who interacted with the warm chatbot felt it possessed a greater capacity to experience emotions.</p>
<p>They also reported higher satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Specifically, participants felt a greater sense of belonging and meaningful existence after talking to the empathetic chatbot. The researchers noted that the default setting performed very similarly to the factual, non-relational setting.</p>
<h2>The role of deep conversations and perceived responsiveness</h2>
<p>The second experiment included 158 Italian participants and introduced a more structured conversation to test the impact of conversational depth. The researchers wanted to see if deep conversations prompted different reactions than casual ones. They programmed the chatbot to ask either superficial small talk questions or deep, personal questions designed to build closeness.</p>
<p>These deeper prompts were adapted from a well-known psychological exercise used to generate intimacy between human strangers. The researchers also kept the relational and non-relational response styles from the first experiment, dropping the default setting to focus on the two extremes. Participants interacted with the chatbot until the program signaled the end of the conversation.</p>
<p>The scientists found that people were quite willing to open up and share personal details when the chatbot asked deeper questions. This self-disclosure, in turn, led participants to perceive the chatbot as more responsive to their individual needs. Even with the deeper questions, the specific tone of the chatbot remained the dominant factor in building a bond.</p>
<p>When the program used a warm, relational response style, participants reported the highest levels of satisfaction and closeness. The scientists noted that the depth of the topic only increased closeness indirectly. By sharing more personal details, users gave the chatbot more opportunities to be supportive.</p>
<p>When the chatbot replied supportively to these personal disclosures, the users felt a stronger connection. Perceived responsiveness acted as the primary bridge linking the user’s personal sharing to their feeling of social connection.</p>
<p>“When chatbots respond in a warm and empathetic way, people tend to experience the interaction very differently: the chatbot feels more human-like, the conversation is more enjoyable, and most importantly, people feel more socially connected to it,” Telari told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“What seems to matter is a very familiar human process: when we share something personal and feel understood, validated, and cared for, we develop a sense of connection. Our findings suggest that mechanisms similar to those observed in human relationships may also emerge when the interaction partner is an AI.”</p>
<h2>Designing emotionally supportive technology and future directions</h2>
<p>These findings offer practical insights for the people who design and program interactive technology. In settings like peer support, education, or companionship for the elderly, a relational response style may help users feel acknowledged. The researchers note that they do not suggest these programs should replace human support networks.</p>
<p>Instead, the research highlights how small design choices can shape a user’s emotional experience. When a program validates a user’s feelings, the user is much more likely to want to interact with the software again in the future.</p>
<p>“Over time, many publicly available chatbots have shifted toward a more relational and human-like way of communicating, potentially leading users to feel socially connected to them,” Telari said. “Thus, as these technologies become more integrated into daily life, understanding these psychological mechanisms becomes increasingly important.”</p>
<p>While the research provides evidence that humans can feel connected to machines, there are some limitations to keep in mind. The experiments relied on brief, single interactions. A single eight-minute chat might not reflect how a relationship with an artificial intelligence develops over a longer period. The participants were mostly young adults from Italy, which limits how well these findings apply to other age groups or cultural backgrounds.</p>
<p>“We also focused on text-based interactions, which are common but only one way people engage with these chatbots,” Telari noted. “Future research should look at more naturalistic, long-term, and diverse interactions to better understand how these processes unfold in everyday life.”</p>
<p>“A key next step is to understand how these dynamics evolve over time and what their psychological consequences might be,” Telari added. “Ultimately, my long-term goal is to better understand when, how, and for whom interacting with these systems can be beneficial in supporting our social needs and when it might instead have unintended negative effects that risk undermining them.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261438164" target="_blank">Can humans feel connected to AI? Perceived responsiveness drives social connection with AI chatbots</a>,” was authored by Alessia Telari, Alessandro Gabbiadini, and Paolo Riva.</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/dark-personalities-drive-covert-aggression-while-being-nice-fails-to-stop-it/" 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;">Manipulative people use both kindness and gossip as separate tools to control their social circles</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Apr 22nd 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People who manipulate social circles through gossip or exclusion are largely driven by dark personality traits, and possessing positive traits generally fails to stop this behavior. Researchers found that while acting kindly toward others can slightly reduce the likelihood of engaging in social sabotage, it does not erase the influence of underlying malevolence. The findings were recently published in the journal <i><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113209">Personality and Individual Differences</a></i>.</p>
<p>Relational aggression involves intentionally harming someone’s relationships or social standing instead of using physical violence. Examples include spreading malicious rumors, giving the silent treatment, or organizing a group to purposely exclude a specific person. Because it is subtle, individuals seeking to avoid open conflict often prefer it over direct confrontation. This dynamic frequently plays out in adult environments like workplaces, community groups, and extended friend circles.</p>
<p>Victims of this type of aggression frequently face serious mental health consequences. Being targeted can lead to increased depression, hopelessness, and extreme loneliness. The individuals who dish out this aggression also experience difficulties. Perpetrators frequently report their own struggles with anxiety, risky habits, and trouble managing their emotions.</p>
<p>To understand what drives people to use these behavioral tactics, lead researcher Brittany Patafio from Deakin University in Australia and her colleagues examined the balance between dark and light personality traits. They wanted to know if having a positive worldview might protect someone from acting aggressively in their social life. This theoretical avenue remains relatively underexplored in behavioral science.</p>
<p>Psychologists group malevolent traits into a cluster known as the dark triad. This includes psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Narcissism is generally split into grandiose and vulnerable categories. Grandiose narcissists have an inflated sense of superiority and entitlement, while vulnerable narcissists are deeply insecure, introverted, and highly sensitive to criticism.</p>
<p>People high in Machiavellianism focus on manipulating others for personal gain while trying to maintain a favorable public reputation. They view interpersonal exchanges as strategic games to be won. Psychopathy is characterized by a tendency to act in antisocial ways without feeling remorse or empathy for victims, alongside a lack of general impulse control. Previous research indicates that people exhibiting these dark traits frequently engage in social sabotage.</p>
<p>On the other end of the psychological spectrum, researchers study a light triad of benevolent traits. These include faith in humanity, humanism, and Kantianism. Having faith in humanity means believing that people are fundamentally good at their core. Humanism involves valuing the dignity and natural worth of other individuals. </p>
<p>Kantianism, named after the philosopher Immanuel Kant, indicates a preference for treating people as independent individuals with their own lives, rather than using them purely as tools to get what you want. Along with these personality components, the researchers considered general prosocial behavior. This category encompasses daily actions intended to promote the welfare of others, like sharing resources, helping neighbors, and cooperating on tasks.</p>
<p>Theoretical models of aggression suggest that individuals often act out because they misinterpret social cues. For example, if a peer makes an ambiguous comment during a meeting, an aggressive person might interpret it as a deliberate insult and decide to retaliate. This chain of cognitive events involves encoding cues, interpreting them, and selecting a response based on internal rules. </p>
<p>Patafio and her team proposed that people equipped with light personality traits might experience this cognitive sequence differently. They theorized that benevolent individuals might not interpret ambiguous situations as threatening in the first place. This innate perception would make them less likely to feel a defensive need to use social manipulation.</p>
<p>To test these ideas, the research team recruited slightly more than two thousand adults living in Australia. The participants ranged in age from eighteen to eighty-two, and about two-thirds of the group identified as women. To capture a wide range of social experiences, the team gathered volunteers through university networks and paid advertisements on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. </p>
<p>Each participant completed a detailed online survey. The questionnaire asked them to rate how accurately different statements described their own habits and beliefs. To measure relational aggression, participants responded to prompts asking if they spread rumors just to be mean or purposely ignored people to punish them. </p>
<p>Other survey sections assessed their dark and light personality traits. Participants rated their agreement with statements like preferring honesty over charm to measure their Kantianism. They also answered questions about their general kindness, such as whether they regularly offer assistance to peers in need. </p>
<p>The data revealed that personality traits explained more than a third of the differences in how often people used social sabotage. Dark personality traits accounted for the vast majority of this effect. All the malevolent traits positively predicted engagement in aggressive behavior. </p>
<p>Psychopathy and vulnerable narcissism emerged as the strongest statistical predictors. The researchers suspect that people who readily act out without guilt use gossip to gain social control. Similarly, highly sensitive vulnerable narcissists might use subtle exclusion as a covert way to defend themselves against perceived rejections. Grandiose narcissism also predicted social aggression, but to a much lesser extent. </p>
<p>On the benevolent side, the results challenged the researchers’ initial expectations. The team anticipated that all the light traits would negatively predict aggression, meaning that higher benevolence would equate to less sabotage. The actual data showed that believing people are fundamentally good or seeing the inherent worth of others had no statistical bearing on aggressive habits. </p>
<p>Only Kantianism and general prosocial actions reliably indicated lower levels of social aggression. The researchers noted an important distinction between simple thoughts and concrete actions. Merely thinking highly of humanity does not stop a person from spreading rumors. Actively trying to help people or strictly adhering to moral rules about how individuals should be treated does seem to keep aggressive behaviors in check. </p>
<p>The team also explored how dark traits compromise the benefits of helpful behavior. Sometimes individuals perform kind acts for entirely selfish reasons, like trying to earn a promotion or projecting a flawless image to peers. The authors found that people who scored high on malevolent traits continued to engage in high levels of relational aggression even if they reported high levels of prosocial behavior. </p>
<p>For these highly manipulative individuals, acting kindly does not replace acting aggressively. Instead, helping and harming both serve as separate tools in their social repertoire. They might cooperate when it suits their needs and sabotage their peers when that seems more advantageous. For people with extremely low levels of dark traits, helping behaviors appeared to genuinely substitute for aggressive tactics. </p>
<p>The study has a few notable limitations to consider. Because the researchers gathered the data at a single point in time, the results cannot prove that possessing certain traits directly causes a person to act aggressively in the future. They can only map out the strong associations between existing mindsets and ongoing behaviors. </p>
<p>The research team also relied entirely on self-reported surveys for their data. When people are asked to catalog their own antisocial choices, they sometimes misrepresent themselves to appear more socially acceptable. Despite the survey being entirely anonymous, some participants might have felt uncomfortable agreeing with statements about manipulating their friends. </p>
<p>The Australian adults in this specific sample reported exceptionally low baseline levels of social aggression and high levels of benevolent traits. The researchers pointed out that a group displaying higher baseline hostility might yield slightly different psychological patterns.</p>
<p>Patafio and her colleagues suggest that future studies should track individuals over several years. Tracking traits and behaviors over long stretches of time would help scientists identify which beliefs emerge first in young adults. This would clarify the developmental pathways that either amplify or limit covert hostility. Ultimately, understanding how dark traits drive these behaviors could aid in the creation of better educational programs aimed at stopping interpersonal abuse before it permanently damages communities.</p>
<p>These distinct psychological findings open new avenues for understanding social behavior. The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113209">Dark and light personalities: A utilitarian perspective on their impact on relational aggression</a>,” was authored by Brittany Patafio, David Skvarc, Richelle Mayshak, Travis Harries, Ashlee Curtis, Michelle Benstead, Alexa Hayley, Dominic G. McNeil, Hannah Bereznicki, and Shannon Hyder.</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/DY9DKf?signature=018b8cbbc88d9e8cfaad18cbd390691eacade4e6f93e24e02ae01614222f75b8'>unsubscribe from this feed</a></a></small></s></p>