<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/real-world-evidence-shows-generative-ai-is-making-human-creative-output-more-uniform/" 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;">Real-world evidence shows generative AI is making human creative output more uniform</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 14th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Using artificial intelligence for creative tasks tends to make human output more uniform on a collective level. A <a href="https://osf.io/rz5s4_v1" target="_blank">recent preprint study</a> provides evidence that while these tools might boost individual performance, they contribute to an overall reduction in the diversity of ideas across different users. This widespread reliance on automated assistance could lead to a narrower range of concepts in collaborative environments.</p>
<p>Generative artificial intelligence refers to computer programs capable of creating new text, images, or other media based on user instructions. The most common of these tools rely on large language models. Developers build these models by feeding them billions of sentences from the internet, allowing the software to recognize patterns and predict how words should follow one another. </p>
<p>Since many users interact with similar systems trained on overlapping data, scientists have raised concerns about how this technology shapes human thought. Researchers <a href="https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/staff/alwinderooij" target="_blank">Alwin de Rooij</a>, assistant professor in creativity research at Tilburg University and associate professor at Avans University of Applied Sciences, and <a href="https://www.au.dk/en/mmb@cc.au.dk/" target="_blank">Michael Mose Biskjaer</a>, associate professor in design creativity and innovation at Aarhus University, designed a new study to assess these concerns. They noticed that previous research often focused on how these tools help individuals work faster or overcome temporary mental blocks. </p>
<p>They wanted to know if this individual assistance comes at a collective cost. “There are growing concerns that using Generative AI may lead people toward similar creative ideas,” the authors explained. “While AI can enhance creativity at the individual level, these benefits might come at a cost for creativity at a collective, or even societal, level.” </p>
<p>The authors sought to answer whether generative software makes people think alike. “We sought to address this by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 empirical studies,” they noted. “More concretely, we wanted to examine whether and to what extent generative AI use is associated with convergence at the level of creative output, such as people’s ideas, designs, and creative writing.”</p>
<p>A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple independent studies to find common patterns or overall trends. By pooling data from various experiments, scientists can draw more robust conclusions than they could from a single test. The authors searched academic databases for studies published between 2022 and early 2026. </p>
<p>This time frame covers the period following the public release of popular chatbots, capturing the first wave of empirical research on this topic. The researchers selected 18 eligible articles containing 19 distinct experimental studies. These studies provided a total of 61 individual effect sizes, which are mathematical values indicating the strength of a specific phenomenon. </p>
<p>To be included in the analysis, the original experiments had to compare humans working with generative software against humans working alone. The original studies measured homogenization using several techniques. Many relied on advanced text analysis tools that translate written responses into mathematical coordinates. </p>
<p>This process allows computers to measure the semantic distance between words, essentially calculating how closely related different ideas are to one another. Other studies used human experts to rate the variety of meanings produced by participants. The analysis revealed a statistically significant homogenization effect associated with the use of artificial intelligence. </p>
<p>When people co-created with these systems, their final products tended to be more similar to the work of other users. “The meta-analysis shows that using generative AI can indeed lead people to think alike,” the authors noted. “Across individuals, AI use tends to make ideas, designs, and creative texts more similar to one another.” </p>
<p>“This suggests that AI may contribute to a form of homogenization of creative thought at the collective level,” they continued. “Importantly, this does not necessarily reflect a failure of human-AI co-creation but may instead be an inherent feature of how these systems currently support creative work at scale.” </p>
<p>The scientists also evaluated whether the type of task influenced the degree of uniformity. They categorized the experiments into four groups, which included divergent thinking, idea generation, writing, and visual art. Divergent thinking tasks are highly open-ended exercises, such as asking someone to list creative uses for a paperclip. </p>
<p>Idea generation tasks provide more specific constraints, such as asking for solutions to improve public transportation. The analysis showed that the homogenization effect was strongest in the idea generation tasks. Because these exercises require specific solutions to defined problems, users likely rely more heavily on the predictable suggestions provided by the computer algorithms. </p>
<p>The researchers did not find strong statistical evidence for differences among the other three categories, suggesting that open-ended tasks lead to less convergence. They also checked if these patterns only happen in highly controlled laboratory settings. The authors compared traditional laboratory experiments with real-world scenarios, such as analyzing published essays and visual artworks created before and after the widespread adoption of automated writing tools. </p>
<p>The analysis of these real-world conditions showed a small but significant reduction in idea diversity. “In many ways, the findings resemble classic fixation effects from the psychology literature, where exposure to examples constrains later thinking, but here they appear amplified by the scale and synchronicity of generative AI model use,” the researchers stated. “This homogenization effect was observed not only in controlled lab studies but also in real-world quasi-experiments. This suggests that it is not merely a lab-based phenomenon, but a practical concern affecting concrete creative processes and practices.”</p>
<p>De Rooij and Biskjaer also investigated whether this narrowing of ideas persists after a person stops using the software. They isolated a subset of studies that tested participants on new creative tasks after their initial interaction with the computer models. The results suggest that the homogenization effect carries over into these subsequent activities. </p>
<p>“The findings also provide preliminary evidence that homogenization effects may persist beyond moments of direct AI use,” the researchers told PsyPost. “In other words, interacting with these generative AI systems may shape how people think and generate ideas even after the interaction has ended. This potential ‘rub-off’ effect on creative cognition warrants further research and is something we would like to explore in more depth.”</p>
<p>These results closely align with <a href="https://www.psypost.org/scientists-tested-the-creativity-of-ai-models-and-the-results-were-surprisingly-homogeneous/" target="_blank">another recent study</a> published in the journal <em>PNAS Nexus</em>. Scientists Emily Wenger and Yoed N. Kenett tested how large language models affect human creativity by evaluating 22 different commercial chatbots. They recruited 102 human participants to complete a series of verbal creativity tests, including the alternative uses task, and then asked the chatbots to complete the exact same assignments. </p>
<p>Wenger and Kenett found that individual language models performed at or slightly above the level of the average human on most exercises. When viewed in isolation, a single chatbot provided highly original and creative responses. However, when the scientists compared all the responses from the different models, a stark pattern of similarity emerged. </p>
<p>Across all tasks, the computer programs produced answers that were significantly more alike than the answers provided by the human participants. Both sets of researchers point to similar underlying mechanisms for this phenomenon. Because the major technology companies train their models on massive, overlapping datasets scraped from the internet, the programs naturally gravitate toward the most statistically common word associations. </p>
<p>When thousands of people use these tools to generate ideas, the software acts as a semantic anchor. The models pull human users toward a shared set of typical concepts, reducing the overall variety of ideas. Wenger and Kenett attempted to fix this issue by adjusting the internal settings of the chatbots to force more random text generation, but this caused the models to produce nonsensical sentences. </p>
<p>Readers should avoid interpreting these findings as proof that human beings are becoming entirely uncreative. De Rooij and Biskjaer note that the reduction in collective diversity does not equal a total loss of individual ability. “A key point is that our findings do not show that using AI reduces creativity,” the researchers emphasized. </p>
<p>“Rather, they point to a shift in where and how creative diversity occurs, and where it may be constrained,” the authors said. “Individual output can improve in creative quality while becoming more similar across people. While these effects are often subtle in single instances, they may become meaningful when considered at the scale at which generative AI is now being used.” </p>
<p>The authors point out some limitations to their current analysis. The review primarily focuses on text-based tools and large language models, meaning the findings might not apply to other types of computer systems. For instance, adaptive machine learning programs or tools used for music composition were not adequately represented in the available data. </p>
<p>This restricts how broadly the scientific community can apply these conclusions across different artistic domains. Additionally, the analyses regarding long-term persistence and real-world applications relied on relatively small groups of studies. The limited data makes these specific conclusions tentative and open to revision. </p>
<p>Future research should explore different forms of human and machine collaboration over extended periods of time. “An important next step is rethinking how generative AI systems are designed and used in creative contexts to mitigate homogenization effects,” the authors noted. “This includes exploring alternative workflows, interaction designs, and creative strategies that sustain diversity rather than encourage early convergence.”</p>
<p>“One step in this direction has already been taken by mapping creative strategies for working with generative AI and machine learning, based on analyses of AI art practices,” they added, referencing a recently published article outlining this approach. “We believe these strategies can transfer to other creative domains.”</p>
<p>The preprint study, “<a href="https://osf.io/rz5s4_v1" target="_blank">Does Generative AI Make Us Think Alike? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Homogenization Effects in Human-AI Co-Creation</a>,” was authored by Alwin de Rooij and Michael Mose Biskjaer.</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/americans-systematically-overestimate-how-many-social-media-users-contribute-to-harmful-online-behavior/" 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;">Americans systematically overestimate how many social media users contribute to harmful online behavior</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 14th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A set of three studies in the U.S. revealed that Americans believe that 43% of Reddit users post severely toxic comments, while 47% of Facebook users share false news online. However, in reality, such content is produced by only 3-8.5% of users. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf310"><em>PNAS Nexus</em></a>.</p>
<p>Social media contains many posts sharing misleading or completely untrue content. There are also users who post toxic comments to other people’s posts. These are comments that are insulting, hateful, or aggressive. These two types of behavior—sharing false news and posting toxic comments—are an important issue because they hurt real people, damage reputations, and create fear or anger.</p>
<p>False news can spread very quickly because people often share dramatic information before checking whether it is true. Toxic comments can make online spaces hostile and discourage reasonable discussion. This behavior can also deepen conflicts between groups, because people begin to see others as enemies rather than as human beings.</p>
<p>What is interesting is that studies indicate that both of these types of behaviors are produced by a very small minority of users who are highly active and post prolifically. A recent study found that 1% of conflict-seeking Reddit communities produced 74% of all conflict content across the platform. Similarly, another study found that 60% of hateful speech on Twitter came from a small community of users. These findings reflect what seems to be a broader pattern across social media platforms—the majority of problematic content is produced by a small, but vocal, minority of users.</p>
<p>Study author Angela Y. Lee and her colleagues investigated Americans’ beliefs about how many social media users contribute to harmful content and examined the consequences of such beliefs. They hypothesized that people would overestimate the prevalence of harmful users on social media. In turn, this misperception might foster excessive cynicism about their fellow citizens. These authors suggest that when people believe that many of their fellow Americans are posting harmful content, they may develop more negative views of society and perceive greater moral decline than actually exists.</p>
<p>To explore this further, study authors conducted three surveys of U.S.-American adults via CloudResearch Connect, matched to national quotas on age, gender, race, and ethnicity. The total number of participants across the three surveys was 1,090.</p>
<p>The first study asked participants to read about two research studies that identified how many Reddit accounts had posted toxic content and how many Facebook users had posted false news on the platform. Participants then provided their estimates regarding how many social media users produced such content.</p>
<p>In study 2, participants read about a Google system used to detect toxic language. They also viewed 20 comments from actual Reddit users, half of which were severely toxic, and half were not. They were then asked to identify the comments the Google system would classify as toxic.</p>
<p>Study 3 was an experiment where participants in one condition read a text explaining how scientists found that most people never share toxic content online. This was the misperception correction condition. The other experimental condition was a control condition, where they read about how Reddit was founded. The text the control group read did not mention online toxicity. After this, participants in both conditions completed measures of social media use, cynicism, generalized trust, perceptions of moral decline, and beliefs about the kinds of content that should go viral on social media.</p>
<p>Results showed that, on average, participants believed that 43% of all Reddit users posted severely toxic comments and that 47% of Facebook users shared false news online. In reality, platform-level data shows that most of these forms of harmful content come from 3-8.5% of users—a small, but highly active, group.</p>
<p>The experiment revealed that participants in the misperception correction condition tended to see their fellow U.S. citizens as being in less moral decline compared to participants in the control condition. They also felt more positive and were more likely to understand that others do not desire harmful online content. However, there were no differences between the two groups in cynicism and generalized trust in human nature.</p>
<p>“Our results reveal people do not realize that most harmful content on social media is produced by a small, prolific group of users. Instead, they believe that the amount of harmful content on social media is the result of many users participating in harmful behaviors,” study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific knowledge about Americans’ perceptions of social media and their users. However, it should be noted that the study only involved U.S. participants and focused on only two types of harmful behaviors on two platforms. Because of this, the findings may not fully generalize to other countries, other cultures, and other social media platforms.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf310">Americans overestimate how many social media users post harmful content,</a>” was authored by Angela Y. Lee, Eric Neumann, Jamil Zaki, and Jeffrey Hancock.</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/scientists-discover-a-new-gut-brain-heart-connection-that-regulates-blood-pressure/" 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;">Scientists discover a new gut-brain-heart connection that regulates blood pressure</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 14th 2026, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Recent research published in <em><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.125.326990" target="_blank">Circulation Research</a></em> provides evidence that a specific molecule produced by gut bacteria can protect the heart from stiffness and dysfunction by communicating directly with the brain. The study suggests that restoring this bacterial by-product might offer a new way to approach high blood pressure and related heart conditions.</p>
<p>Hypertension and related cardiovascular conditions involve a complex interaction among the digestive, nervous, and cardiovascular systems. High blood pressure tends to force the heart muscle to become stiff and lose its ability to relax properly between beats, a condition known as diastolic dysfunction. This stiffness represents a major physiological cause of heart failure, but the biological signals that initiate this structural change remain poorly understood. </p>
<p>To understand this process, researchers aimed to identify the chemical messengers that link these physiological systems. “Hypertension is a systemic condition driven by complex interactions between the gut, brain, kidneys, and cardiovascular system,” said study author <a href="https://sawamiphak.mdc-berlin.de/" target="_blank">Suphansa Sawamiphak</a>, a principal investigator at the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association in Berlin, Germany. </p>
<p>“While we knew that high blood pressure is associated with gut dysbiosis and often compromises the heart’s ability to relax, the precise molecular signals linking these systems were missing. We wanted to bridge this gap and identify the specific microbial metabolites that mediate this interorgan communication during hypertensive stress.”</p>
<p>To study this biological connection, the scientists used a specialized zebrafish model. Zebrafish larvae are largely transparent, allowing researchers to observe their beating hearts and circulating blood in real time using high-speed microscopes. The team induced high blood pressure in the larvae by rearing them in water with progressively lower salt concentrations over five days. This low-ion environment forced the fish to activate internal hormonal mechanisms to retain sodium, which in turn increased their blood pressure and caused their heart muscles to stiffen.</p>
<p>The researchers first analyzed the gut bacteria of the zebrafish after the five-day hypertensive challenge. By sequencing the genetic material of the bacteria in the digestive tracts of ten treated groups and eleven control groups, they found a marked decrease in overall bacterial diversity. The stressed fish lost specific bacteria responsible for breaking down tryptophan, an amino acid found in food, into indole molecules.</p>
<p>The team then tested whether the presence of gut bacteria was necessary to protect the heart. They raised groups of eight to twelve germ-free zebrafish, meaning the fish completely lacked any gut microbes. When exposed to the same low-salt stress, these germ-free fish exhibited more severe blood pressure spikes and worsened heart stiffness compared to fish with normal gut bacteria. This finding provides evidence that a healthy microbial community helps shield the cardiovascular system from damage.</p>
<p>Next, the researchers examined the specific chemical by-products produced by the gut bacteria. Using mass spectrometry, a specialized laboratory technique that measures the mass and concentration of different molecules, they analyzed the intestines of the fish. They found that the stressed fish had significantly lower levels of indole-3 acetic acid, a specific byproduct of tryptophan metabolism, compared to healthy fish.</p>
<p>This depletion of beneficial molecules has a cascading effect on the body’s stress response. “Our gut microbiome actively protects the heart during hypertensive challenges by producing specific molecules, notably Indole-3 Acetic Acid (IAA), derived from dietary tryptophan,” Sawamiphak explained. “When high blood pressure disrupts the microbiome, the resulting loss of IAA removes a brake on the brain’s stress signaling, specifically within hypocretin-producing neurons. This missing brake leads to sympathetic overdrive, compromising the heart muscle’s ability to properly relax between beats (diastolic dysfunction).”</p>
<p>To see if replacing this missing molecule could help, the scientists administered indole-3 acetic acid directly into the digestive tracts of the fish. Fish that received this supplement maintained normal blood pressure and healthy heart function, even when exposed to the low-salt stress. The treatment prevented the individual heart muscle cells from enlarging and kept the main pumping chambers of the heart relaxing normally between beats. </p>
<p>The researchers then looked at the brain to understand how a gut molecule could protect the heart. They focused on hypocretin neurons, a specialized group of brain cells in the hypothalamus that help regulate involuntary functions like heart rate and blood vessel constriction. Using special fluorescent markers that light up when neurons are active, they observed that the hypocretin neurons became highly overactive during the hypertensive stress. Giving the fish indole-3 acetic acid quieted these brain cells back to normal baseline levels.</p>
<p>Further experiments revealed exactly how the molecule influenced the brain. The scientists found that hypocretin neurons possess a specific chemical sensor called the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. When they injected indole-3 acetic acid directly into the brain cavities of the fish, it activated this receptor and protected the heart from stiffening. If they blocked the receptor with a chemical inhibitor, the protective effects completely disappeared. </p>
<p>By preventing the hypocretin neurons from becoming overactive, the indole-3 acetic acid stopped an excessive cascade of nervous system signals from reaching the heart. Using a technique called calcium imaging to monitor nerve activity in live fish, the team saw that the treatment calmed the sympathetic nervous system, which is the network responsible for the body’s physical responses to stress. The treatment also lowered the systemic levels of hormones that constrict blood vessels, acting on multiple fronts to protect the cardiovascular system.</p>
<p>To determine if these findings translate to humans, the researchers analyzed blood samples from a cohort of 194 individuals under the age of fifty. This group included 97 patients with high blood pressure and 97 healthy individuals, matched for age, sex, and body mass index. The scientists found that the patients with hypertension had significantly lower levels of indole-3 acetic acid in their blood. </p>
<p>This clinical data strongly mirrored the physiological changes observed in the animal models. “We were struck by how potently a single microbial metabolite, IAA, could act centrally in the brain to simultaneously prevent both neurogenic (sympathetic overdrive) and hormonal (renin-angiotensin system) drivers of hypertension,” Sawamiphak said. “Furthermore, finding that this specific depletion of circulating IAA is strongly conserved in a human hypertensive cohort, with a particularly pronounced sex-specific reduction in female patients, was a remarkable validation of our zebrafish model.”</p>
<p>While the study provides substantial evidence for a gut-brain-heart connection, it has some limitations. Zebrafish models offer a simplified view of biology and do not capture the full complexity of human aging or metabolic diseases that often accompany heart problems. The human data used in the study is observational, meaning it shows a link between low indole-3 acetic acid and high blood pressure but does not prove that one causes the other in people. </p>
<p>The authors caution against viewing these results as an immediate clinical treatment. “It is important not to misinterpret these findings as evidence that simply taking an over-the-counter IAA or tryptophan supplement is a standalone cure for high blood pressure,” Sawamiphak noted. “While we established a direct cause-and-effect mechanism in our animal models, the human data we analyzed is currently correlational. Hypertension is a highly complex, multifactorial disease, and IAA deficiency represents one component of a much broader systemic dysregulation.”</p>
<p>Future studies are needed to determine if restoring this molecule can safely and effectively treat or prevent heart disease in human patients. “Our immediate next step is to understand exactly how microbial metabolites like IAA regulate neuronal activity at a molecular level,” Sawamiphak said. “Beyond IAA, we are also examining a broader range of microbial metabolites that shift during disease states, particularly those known to regulate the immune system.”</p>
<p>The long-term objective is to map out these complex biological interactions to pave the way for medical advancements. “Ultimately, our overarching goal is to decode this complex, system-wide communication network between the gut, the brain, the immune system, and the heart,” Sawamiphak explained. </p>
<p>“While our laboratory focuses on fundamental biological discovery rather than conducting human clinical trials, pinpointing these precise disease mechanisms and molecular targets provides the essential foundation. It allows clinical researchers to eventually develop targeted therapies, such as postbiotics that deliver the exact missing beneficial molecules, to restore balance in cardiovascular and metabolic diseases.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.125.326990" target="_blank">Indole-3 Acetate Limits Dysbiosis-Driven Diastolic Failure via Hcrt Neurons</a>,” was authored by Bhakti I. Zakarauskas-Seth, Giovanni Forcari, Harithaa Anandakumar, Ilan Kotlar-Goldaper, Clara M. Barraud, Nina Jovanovic, Ulrike Brüning, Jennifer A. Kirwan, Nicola Wilck, Sofia K. Forslund, Dominik N. Müller, Alessandro Filosa, and Suphansa Sawamiphak.</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/study-reveals-the-key-ingredients-for-successful-social-media-mental-health-interventions/" 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;">Study reveals the key ingredients for successful social media mental health interventions</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 13th 2026, 20:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials testing the effects of social-media-based mental health interventions found that they lead to moderate-high reductions in stress symptoms and low-moderate reductions in depression and anxiety symptom severity. The interventions were more effective when participants were more than 70% female, when the programs were human-guided, social-oriented, and when effects were compared to groups that received care as usual. The paper was published in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/67953"><em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em></a>.</p>
<p>More than 1 in 8 adults and adolescents worldwide live with a mental disorder. The two most common types of mental health disorders are anxiety disorders and depression. However, estimates state that only a small fraction of individuals suffering from mental health disorders receive a treatment that results in the remission of symptoms. That is why scientists are looking for new ways to provide mental health treatments at scale to people who need them.</p>
<p>One prospective type of treatment that can be delivered at scale are online mental health interventions, particularly interventions delivered through social-media-based programs. These interventions represent organized efforts to provide psychological support, education, coping skills, or behavior-change strategies through platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Reddit, or other online communities.</p>
<p>They include therapist-led groups, peer-support communities, psychoeducational posts, chat-based guidance, mood tracking, crisis resources, or structured activities based on approaches such as cognitive-behavioral therapy or mindfulness. These programs can make support more accessible because many people already use social media regularly and may find it easier to engage online than in traditional services. However, their quality, privacy protections, safety procedures, and effectiveness vary, with studies reporting inconsistent results about their effectiveness.</p>
<p>Study author Qiyang Zhang and her colleagues wanted to integrate the findings of rigorously designed randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of social-media-based mental health interventions in reducing mental health symptoms. They were interested in the overall impact of these treatments on symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, negative affect, and psychological distress. These researchers also wanted to know how much these effects depend on the methodological specificities of studies and programs, such as program duration, program focus, or the control group the treatment was compared with.</p>
<p>They conducted a meta-analysis. The first author of this study conducted a search of databases of published scientific reports that included the Education Resources Information Center, PsychINFO, Scopus, PsychArticles, Communication and Mass Media Complete, PubMed, and Proquest databases. She also searched for studies through Paperfetcher across journals in the field the study authors considered reputable, and examined the reference lists of the papers they found.</p>
<p>Study authors looked for studies that reported results of randomized controlled trials with at least 30 participants per experimental condition. The intervention examined in the study needed to be delivered through social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and WeChat), and the difference in mental health symptoms between groups undergoing different treatments needed to be small at the start. Additionally, the interventions needed to be delivered by nonresearchers to better reflect how these programs would function in the real world. </p>
<p>They also required the difference between the number of participants who did not finish the study (the attrition rate) in the compared treatment conditions to be less than 15%. In this way, they wanted to reduce the risk that the observed treatment differences were caused by different dropout rates. For example, if participants who benefited least, or those who experienced the strongest effects or adverse experiences, left one condition more often than the other, the remaining participants could become systematically different, biasing the results.</p>
<p>In the end, after screening over 11,000 published studies, 17 studies met all the criteria the study authors defined. These studies reported the effects of 22 distinct intervention programs, comprising 5,624 total participants. Of these programs, 7 were conducted on adolescents, 7 on people in early adulthood, 7 included middle adulthood participants, while 1 study was of older individuals.</p>
<p>Twelve studies had more than 70% female participants. In 9 studies, participants were recruited based on a specific clinical condition.</p>
<p>Overall, the results showed that the examined studies had a low-moderate beneficial effect on mental health symptoms. The symptom reduction was the strongest for stress symptoms and it was moderate-high in size. Effects on reducing anxiety and depression symptoms were low-moderate.</p>
<p>Further analyses found that the examined social-media-based interventions tended to be more effective when the studies were conducted on groups that were more than 70% female, when the programs were human-guided (i.e., guided by humans including therapists, coaches, or research assistants), social-oriented (i.e., programs that provide mainly social interaction, emotional support, or companionship), and when control groups were people who received care as usual (i.e., where control group participants received standard care as opposed to waitlist groups). Interestingly, the researchers found that a participant’s age did not significantly affect the outcomes of the intervention. </p>
<p>“This meta-analysis synthesized the best evidence on this topic and found that, overall, high-quality social-media-based RCTs [randomized controlled trials] were effective in reducing depression, anxiety, stress, negative affect, and psychological distress. Given the benefits of scalability and cost-effectiveness of social-media-based approaches, mental health services should consider integrating online interventions into routine practice,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>The study contributes to the scientific understanding of the mental health effects of social-media-based mental health interventions. However, the study authors note that the statistical power of their review was limited by the small sample size of available, high-quality studies. Furthermore, the reported effects are not generalizable to all social-media-based mental health interventions. In each case, the effects of a specific intervention depend on its particular characteristics and on its appropriateness for the mental health condition or difficulties that individuals undergoing the intervention are experiencing.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/67953">Social-Media-Based Mental Health Interventions: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials,</a>” was authored by Qiyang Zhang, Zixuan Huang, Yuan Sui, Fu-Hung Lin, Hongjie Guan, Li Li, Ke Wang, and Amanda Neitzel.</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-childhood-class-alters-the-genetic-pathways-of-political-ideology/" 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;">Class background influences whether genetic predisposition for intelligence drives you left or right</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 13th 2026, 18:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A person’s economic political views are shaped by their genetic predisposition for cognitive performance interacting with their childhood social class. People with a higher genetic likelihood for cognitive performance tend to adopt left-wing policies if they grew up poor, and right-wing policies if they grew up wealthy. The research was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13023"><i>Political Psychology</i></a>.</p>
<p>Understanding differences in economic policy preferences is a primary goal of political science. Traditional models in political economics assume that individuals will support policies that benefit them financially. In a strictly theoretical system where flat taxes are redistributed equally, anyone earning below the average income should want complete redistribution, while anyone earning above the average should oppose it. While real political systems are messier, the fundamental dynamic generally holds.</p>
<p>Low-income earners tend to benefit from proportional taxation and redistribution, while high-income earners bear the costs. In recent years, researchers have found that genetics also influence political behavior. Studies using various methods have documented genetic overlaps with political preferences. This overlap means that ideological preferences partially share the same genetic architecture as other measurable traits.</p>
<p>Since our distant ancestors did not have modern tax systems or mass political parties, evolutionary forces could not have shaped economic ideology directly. Genetic effects on these preferences must operate through intermediate traits, which scientists call endophenotypes. Some researchers proposed that cognitive performance might act as one of these intermediate traits. </p>
<p>The results of previous studies on cognitive performance and economic ideology, however, have been wildly inconsistent. Some studies showed a positive link between cognitive ability and economic conservatism. Other studies found a negative link, and some found no connection at all. </p>
<p>Rafael Ahlskog, a researcher at the Department of Government at Uppsala University in Sweden, thought these contradictory results could be reconciled. He proposed a gene-environment interaction. This occurs when a specific genetic factor behaves differently depending on the environment surrounding the individual. </p>
<p>Ahlskog theorized that cognitive performance does not push a person toward a specific political ideology on its own. Instead, cognitive capacity helps people analyze complicated policy packages and accurately deduce their own class interests. Modern economies feature vast arrays of diverse taxes, regulations, and benefit programs. Evaluating how these policies interact requires analytical effort. </p>
<p>By applying these conceptual frameworks, the study connects the theories of classical economics with modern genetics. People who find it easy to perform the mental calculations required to navigate tax proposals will optimize their policy preferences. Those who find it more difficult might answer policy questions more randomly, or they might rely on social cues not strictly tied to their personal class background. </p>
<p>In addition to this, political science maintains a long-standing theory regarding the impressionable years in human development. This theory states that environmental influences on attitudes are most potent during late adolescence and early adulthood. After this period, political preferences tend to stick. Based on this, Ahlskog suggested that the perception of one’s class interest is shaped primarily by the relative economic standing of their parents during these formative years. </p>
<p>To test these ideas, Ahlskog analyzed data from a large sample of fraternal twins from the Swedish Twin Registry born between 1943 and 1958. Fraternal twins are siblings born at the same time who share, on average, half of their genetic sequence. Using within-family differences among fraternal twins provides an excellent natural experiment for behavioral researchers. </p>
<p>Researchers value within-family sibling designs because comparing two people from the broader population introduces confounding variables. Between two random strangers, a genetic correlation might be skewed by regional ancestry differences or by the environmental impacts of their parents’ genes. Fraternal twins share the exact same family environment, and their genetic differences result purely from the random shuffling of DNA during conception. </p>
<p>Because of this randomization, systematic downstream differences in sibling behavior have a causal interpretation. Researchers can confidently conclude that the genetic difference caused the behavioral difference, rather than an unmeasured environmental factor. </p>
<p>To conduct the analysis, Ahlskog utilized variation in a genetic measure called a polygenic index. A polygenic index is an individual-level predictor of a specific trait that is based entirely on a person’s DNA. Geneticists build these indices by identifying thousands of tiny DNA variations known as single nucleotide polymorphisms that correlate with a target trait. The index used in this study summarized each twin’s genetic propensity for cognitive performance based on previous large-scale genomic discoveries. </p>
<p>He combined this genetic data with the twins’ responses to an extensive survey conducted by the Swedish Twin Registry between 2009 and 2010. The survey included a detailed battery of over thirty political preference questions. Participants rated policy proposals on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Ahlskog isolated twelve items specifically dealing with economic ideology, such as opinions on taxation, welfare distribution, the public sector, and government regulation. </p>
<p>To measure family socioeconomic standing, Ahlskog utilized Swedish registry data covering the twins’ parents. He calculated a relative affluence score by comparing the parents’ income and education levels to other adults in their specific local parishes. This provided a localized measure of class background. Sociologists have found that people typically compare their economic status to their immediate neighbors rather than the national average. </p>
<p>When looking at the average effect across the entire sample, the genetic measure for cognitive performance had no impact on economic conservatism. The effect size appeared as practically zero. Without looking deeper, this might seem like a simple lack of an effect. </p>
<p>When Ahlskog factored in the family’s socioeconomic background, the average null effect broke apart to reveal two distinct, opposing trends. Among children raised in relatively poorer families, a higher genetic index for cognitive performance caused more left-wing economic views. These individuals favored higher taxation and wealth redistribution. </p>
<p>Among children from affluent backgrounds, the effect reversed entirely. A higher genetic index among these privileged individuals caused more right-wing views. They favored market reliance and reduced welfare spending. The genetic factor altered how individuals optimized their political views based entirely on their childhood class. </p>
<p>In the scientific taxonomy of gene-environment interactions, researchers often distinguish between dimmer effects and lens effects. A dimmer effect happens when a change in the environment alters the magnitude of a genetic influence, making it stronger or weaker. A lens effect happens when the environment actually changes the direction of the genetic influence. Ahlskog’s findings represent a rare, robust example of a lens effect for a socially relevant behavior. </p>
<p>The researcher also controlled for the twins’ adult income and education levels. The environmental interaction held up even when accounting for later-life resources. This suggests the genetic influence operates specifically on the early-life formation of class identity, not simply on a voter’s current bank account balance. </p>
<p>As a placebo test to verify his theory, Ahlskog applied the same analytical models to social ideology. Social ideology involves cultural and moral issues, such as immigration, criminal justice policy, and animal rights. Unlike economic ideology, there is no direct personal financial benefit to optimizing social preferences based on household class. </p>
<p>In this test, he found that a higher genetic index was naturally associated with lower social conservatism across the board. The effects operated in parallel for both the rich and the poor. There was no interaction based on socioeconomic background. </p>
<p>The study features a few limitations and caveats. The genetic predictor is a noisy measurement that only captures a fraction of the actual heritable traits for cognitive performance. Comparing genetic differences within local twin pairs amplifies this measurement noise even further. As a result, the reported effects are likely much smaller than the actual biological impact. </p>
<p>The geographical and historical realities of the respondent group also matter. The individuals in this sample grew up in Sweden during the middle of the twentieth century, a period defined by the rapid expansion of the modern welfare state. Class-based politics and labor movements were highly salient in their daily lives. </p>
<p>The findings might look completely different in populations where economic ideology is not the primary dividing line in public debate. In political environments where left-wing economic positions are championed by socially conservative populists, the class dynamics could manifest in alternate ways. Finding out which specific political relationships are affected by changing social cultures will require further study. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the findings demonstrate that genetic influences on political behavior are highly contingent on social environments. An effect that appears to be mathematically zero on average can obscure shifting dynamics beneath the surface. This heavy dependency on outside environmental factors functions as a strong argument against genetic determinism. </p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13023">Class, genes, and rationality: A gene-environment interaction approach to ideology</a>,” was authored by Rafael Ahlskog.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/most-people-listen-to-true-crime-podcasts-to-learn-but-dark-personality-traits-drive-different-motives/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Most people listen to true crime podcasts to learn, but dark personality traits drive different motives</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 13th 2026, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>People listen to true crime podcasts to satisfy a variety of psychological needs, with a strong focus on seeking information and learning about human behavior. But a new study published in the journal <em><a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2027-29037-001" target="_blank">Psychology of Popular Media</a></em> suggests that individuals with certain antisocial personality traits tend to tune in for entirely different reasons, such as relaxation or pure entertainment. These findings provide evidence that the broad appeal of true crime stories stems from their ability to gratify vastly different psychological desires across diverse audiences.</p>
<p>True crime entertainment occupies a highly visible place in the modern media landscape. Podcasts, in particular, have experienced massive growth, consistently ranking among the most downloaded audio programs in the United States. This specific medium has attracted a uniquely gendered audience. Women make up the vast majority of both the creators and the listeners of these popular audio programs.</p>
<p>Fans develop a positive relationship with this genre, and this relationship often becomes a relevant part of their personal identity. Fans frequently engage in close, repeated listening, and many participate in online communities to discuss their favorite cases. Despite this massive and dedicated audience, scientists know very little about the underlying psychological drivers that prompt people to consume stories about real world murders, kidnappings, and assaults.</p>
<p>Researchers <a href="https://communication.ucdavis.edu/people/sofia-rhea" target="_blank">Sofia V. Rhea</a> and Laramie D. Taylor wanted to understand the specific needs that these podcasts fulfill for their listeners. They sought to identify the most common motivations for tuning in. </p>
<p>In addition to general motivations, the researchers wanted to see if stable dispositional traits might predict why someone seeks out this sensational content. “I was drawn to this topic because true crime has become a massive cultural phenomenon, yet we still know surprisingly little about why people are so captivated by it,” said Rhea, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Davis. “Popular narratives often assume that fans are morbid or ‘dark,’ but those assumptions rarely come from data.”</p>
<p>Rhea noted that many listeners claim to find practical utility in the genre. “At the same time, we are seeing more content creators and fans describe true crime as having a functional role in their lives, helping them learn about the world and feel safer,” Rhea told PsyPost. “I wanted to understand the psychological traits and motivations behind true crime engagement in a way that moves beyond stereotypes and conjecture.”</p>
<p>The study was grounded in a broader psychological concept which posits that our unique personal traits make us respond to the exact same media in vastly different ways. This helps explain why one person might find a story about a serial killer terrifying, while another finds it soothing. The researchers focused specifically on the “dark triad” of personality. The dark triad is a psychological framework that groups together three socially undesirable personality traits. These traits are narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.</p>
<p>Narcissism involves a sense of grandiosity, superiority, and a strong desire for attention. Psychopathy is characterized by low empathy, a lack of remorse, and a tendency to seek out thrilling experiences. Machiavellianism refers to a manipulative nature and a tendency to exploit others for personal gain. The researchers focused on subclinical levels of these traits, meaning they looked at everyday personality differences rather than formal medical diagnoses.</p>
<p>The authors proposed that people possess an active role in their media diets. This idea is known as the uses and gratifications framework. It suggests that audiences are not passive receivers of information. Instead, they actively seek out specific types of entertainment to fulfill specific cognitive or emotional goals.</p>
<p>To explore these dynamics, the researchers recruited 300 true crime podcast fans. The participants were gathered from two distinct sources to ensure a varied sample. Some participants were recruited from true crime discussion boards on the social media platform Reddit. The rest of the participants were drawn from the undergraduate student body at a large West Coast university.</p>
<p>The researchers screened the group to ensure all participants both consumed true crime podcasts and identified as fans of the genre. The final sample was roughly 73 percent female. The participants had an average age of about 26 years.</p>
<p>The study measured motivations using two distinct methods. First, participants answered an open ended question asking them to describe, in their own words, why they listen to true crime podcasts. The researchers analyzed these written responses using an artificial intelligence technique called topic modeling. This computer algorithm scans large bodies of text to identify recurring themes without human bias.</p>
<p>Second, participants completed a 30 item questionnaire designed to measure specific podcast listening motives. Participants rated how strongly they agreed with statements related to various potential needs. These needs included entertainment, relaxation, information gathering, companionship, social interaction, escaping reality, passing the time, and voyeurism. Voyeurism refers to the enjoyment of observing the private or personal details of other people’s lives.</p>
<p>The participants also completed a 12 item psychological survey known as the Dirty Dozen. This brief questionnaire measures the presence of the three dark triad personality traits. Participants rated their agreement with statements such as “I tend to lack remorse” or “I tend to manipulate others to get my way.” Finally, the participants reported how frequently they listened to true crime podcasts and how important being a fan was to their personal identity.</p>
<p>When looking at the general audience, the researchers found that information seeking was the most prevalent motivation for listening. The computer algorithm identified several distinct learning oriented themes in the open ended responses. Fans reported a desire to educate themselves about the justice system. They also expressed a strong curiosity about human behavior and a desire to understand the psychology behind why criminals act the way they do.</p>
<p>“I was surprised by how consistently information-focused listeners were,” Rhea said. “Even though true crime podcasts often include sensational or frightening material, fans seem to be using them to learn, understand criminal behavior, or make sense of the world around them.”</p>
<p>This focus on education aligns with the culture of survival often promoted by popular true crime podcast hosts. Listeners frequently tune in to learn from the mistakes of victims, hoping to gather knowledge that might keep them safe in the real world. Other themes identified in the written responses centered around cognitive engagement, fascination with specific crimes, and deep involvement in the narrative storytelling.</p>
<p>“They are not approaching this violent content the way horror fans might,” Rhea added. “For true crime podcast fans, it does not seem to be about the adrenaline rush. It is about understanding.”</p>
<p>“Honestly, the headline is simple: true crime fans want answers, not blood,” Rhea said. “Most people are listening to learn, not to revel in anyone’s suffering and misfortune.”</p>
<p>The structured questionnaire also highlighted that passing the time, general entertainment, and physiological arousal were significant motivators for some listeners. Arousal in this context refers to the physical thrill or excitement people experience when engaging with frightening or suspenseful content. This suggests that some true crime fans possess a heightened baseline desire for intense sensory experiences.</p>
<p>When the researchers factored in the dark triad personality traits, they noticed distinct shifts in listening motivations. People who scored higher in psychopathy reported listening to true crime podcasts for relaxation, companionship, and social interaction. They also cited voyeurism and the habit of escaping reality as significant motivators. In addition, individuals with higher psychopathy scores reported a stronger personal identification as true crime fans.</p>
<p>Individuals who scored higher in narcissism exhibited a different pattern of motivation. These individuals tended to seek out true crime content primarily for entertainment and arousal. However, higher narcissism scores were associated with a lower overall frequency of listening. The authors note that narcissistic individuals might use these stories to experience a sense of comparative superiority, imagining how they would outsmart criminals or avoid becoming victims.</p>
<p>The trait of Machiavellianism did not show any significant associations with specific listening motivations or listening frequency. Overall, these findings highlight that true crime podcast fans are not a monolithic group. “Yes, some ‘dark’ personality traits shape specific motives, but the idea that true crime fans may be drawn to violence for its own sake just doesn’t hold up once you look at the data,” Rhea said.</p>
<p>The researchers outlined a few limitations to their work. The study relied on a cross sectional design, meaning the data was collected at a single point in time. This prevents scientists from determining cause and effect. It remains unknown whether underlying personality traits dictate media choices or if a heavy diet of true crime subtly shapes a person’s disposition.</p>
<p>“It is important to remember that these insights come from a relatively narrow slice of the true crime world,” Rhea said. “True crime podcasts may be popular, but they are not monolithic, and they represent only one specific corner of a much larger genre. It is also worth noting that this is survey research, which means we cannot make strong claims about the direction of these effects or the causes behind them.”</p>
<p>The participant pool was also likely younger and more comfortable with digital technology than the average podcast listener. The reliance on self reported open ended responses presents another limitation. Participants might not fully recognize or be able to articulate the subconscious reasons behind their media preferences.</p>
<p>Future research should expand to include people who occasionally listen to true crime but do not consider themselves fans. Scientists also hope to explore the real world consequences of consuming so much morbid media. They plan to investigate whether heavy consumption of true crime podcasts increases real world anxieties and fears about personal safety.</p>
<p>“My long-term goal with this line of research is to keep understanding how and why people become fans of specific media, and what the consequences of that fandom might be, both good and bad,” Rhea said. “When it comes to true crime fans specifically, I am continuing to explore true crime as a gendered content space and have been examining the effects of engaging with true crime content.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ppm0000650" target="_blank">Audiences on the Dark Side: Do Antisocial Personality Traits Predict Motives for True Crime Listening?</a>,” was authored by Sofia V. Rhea and Laramie D. Taylor.</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/millions-of-adults-in-the-us-have-seriously-considered-shooting-someone/" 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;">Millions of adults in the US have seriously considered shooting someone</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 13th 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Millions of adults in the United States have seriously considered shooting another person at some point in their lives, representing a massive and previously unmeasured group at risk of committing armed violence. By understanding the characteristics and behaviors of these individuals, public health experts hope to develop better strategies to stop injuries before they happen. These conclusions come from a national study published recently in the journal <em><a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2846568" target="_blank">JAMA Network Open</a></em>.</p>
<p>The researchers initiated this project to fill a gap in our current understanding of firearm violence. Medical and law enforcement records routinely track the aftermath of shootings, such as emergency room visits and homicides. In 2023 alone, hospitals recorded over 116,000 emergency department visits for gun-related assaults.</p>
<p>Before any physical harm occurs, an individual must first conceptualize the act of shooting someone else. Until now, public health officials have lacked clear data on how frequently the general public experiences these thoughts. Identifying the number of people who fall into this category provides a new metric for evaluating the risk of interpersonal violence across the country.</p>
<p>Brian Hicks, a psychologist and psychiatry professor at the University of Michigan Medical School, led the research team. Mark Ilgen, a researcher with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the University of Michigan, coauthored the paper. Together, they sought to characterize this hidden population and find potential opportunities for intervention.</p>
<p>Their work stems from a need to shift violence prevention away from reacting to tragedies and toward proactive safety measures. By catching a dangerous idea before it becomes a physical reality, communities might be able to save lives. This requires knowing who is having these thoughts, who they intend to target, and what steps they have already taken to prepare.</p>
<p>To gather this information, the researchers conducted a large-scale poll called the National Firearms, Alcohol, Cannabis, and Suicide survey. Between May and September of 2025, they reached out to adults across the country using text messaging and mailing addresses. A total of 7,034 people opted into the study and completed the questionnaire.</p>
<p>Because an initial survey sample rarely matches the exact demographics of the entire country, the team used a statistical tool known as survey weighting. This mathematical adjustment ensures the final results accurately reflect the broader population based on age, sex, race, income, and political affiliation. With these mathematical adjustments in place, the responses provided a reliable snapshot of the national landscape.</p>
<p>The data revealed that 7.3% of adults in the United States have thought about shooting someone at some point in their lives. This percentage translates to roughly 19.4 million people nationwide. When asked about the past year specifically, 3.3% of respondents reported having these thoughts, which equates to more than 8.6 million individuals.</p>
<p>Owning a weapon did not make a person more likely to experience these violent ideas. The data showed that individuals who do not own guns reported thoughts of shooting someone at the same rates as those who already keep firearms in their homes. However, a desire to commit violence prompted some unarmed individuals to consider acquiring a weapon.</p>
<p>Among the survey respondents who had thought about shooting someone, 21.3% said they had considered getting a gun specifically to carry out the act. Translated to the broader population, this means roughly 4.1 million adults have thought about purchasing a firearm to harm another person. A smaller fraction, representing about 1.5 million people, reported actually bringing a weapon to a specific location with the intent to shoot someone.</p>
<p>The researchers also asked respondents who they had thought about shooting. Participants could select multiple answers to this question. Just over 50% of the people who reported these thoughts said they imagined shooting an enemy. About 25% pictured a stranger, such as someone they might have a conflict with in a public space.</p>
<p>Other targets reflected a mix of personal relationships and broader societal figures. Around 10% of those with thoughts of shooting someone identified a family member as the target, and similar percentages named current or former romantic partners. Some respondents reported thoughts consistent with politically motivated violence, with about 14% considering a government official and nearly 7% considering a police officer or military member.</p>
<p>Demographic analysis showed that certain groups were more likely to report thoughts of shooting others. Men reported these thoughts more often than women. Younger adults experienced them more frequently than older individuals.</p>
<p>Race and geography also played a role in the results. Black respondents reported these ideas at higher rates than white respondents. People living in urban areas and Midwestern states were also more likely to report having considered shooting someone. The researchers noted that these demographics closely mirror the populations most frequently victimized by interpersonal firearm violence.</p>
<p>Income and educational background showed distinct patterns as well. Those with household incomes under $50,000 and lower educational attainment were more likely to report thoughts of shooting someone in the previous year. Differences across political ideologies were not statistically significant, meaning Republicans, Democrats, and Independents reported these thoughts at similar rates.</p>
<p>The study highlighted several behaviors that could serve as warning signs or opportunities for help. About 1.5% of the total sample, or roughly 4 million people, said they had told someone else about their thoughts of shooting another person. Sharing this information creates a potential opening for family members or friends to intervene before the situation escalates.</p>
<p>Some individuals took proactive steps to prevent themselves from causing harm. Half of one percent of respondents said they had given their gun to someone else for safekeeping during a personal crisis. Another 1.5% said they would consider temporarily handing over their weapon in the future.</p>
<p>These findings support the use of specific legal and policy tools aimed at reducing firearm injuries. Extreme risk protection orders, commonly known as red flag laws, allow a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person who poses a danger to themselves or others. In the 21 states where these laws exist, family members or law enforcement can use the fact that someone spoke about shooting another person as grounds to request temporary disarmament.</p>
<p>Waiting periods for firearm purchases offer another layer of prevention. Since many unarmed people consider buying a gun to shoot someone, delaying the transaction gives them time to cool off. This delay might stop an impulsive thought from turning into a fatal encounter.</p>
<p>In a press release about the study, Hicks explained the gravity of the data. “While most people who these thoughts don’t act on them, the number is so high that the small proportion who do act turns into tens of thousands of fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries each year,” he said.</p>
<p>He also noted that preventing violence involves addressing both harm to others and harm to oneself. “That does not include the toll of self-harm with firearms, which accounts for over half of firearm-related deaths. The more we can understand factors that can reduce risk, the better.”</p>
<p>The researchers acknowledged several limitations in their work. The survey was conducted entirely online and only in English. This format likely excluded people who do not have reliable access to the internet or who speak other languages.</p>
<p>Additionally, survey questions rely on participants interpreting the wording correctly and answering honestly. Even with statistical weighting, the responses might contain unmeasured biases based on who chose to opt into the study and who decided to ignore the invitations.</p>
<p>Moving forward, the research team plans to look deeper into other factors connected to violent ideas. Future analyses will examine how substance use problems and mental health conditions relate to thoughts of shooting others. The scientists will also investigate whether these thoughts correlate with risky habits, such as carrying a weapon in public, storing guns unlocked, or firing a weapon after drinking alcohol. The research provides a new baseline for understanding violent ideation in the United States. </p>
<p>The study, “<a href="http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.0734" target="_blank">Prevalence of Thoughts of Shooting Others Among US Adults</a>,” was authored by Brian M. Hicks and Mark A. Ilgen.</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/narcissists-tend-to-view-god-as-a-punishing-figure-who-owes-them-special-favors/" 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;">Narcissists tend to view God as a punishing figure who owes them special favors</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">May 13th 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A recent study published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2026.113720" target="_blank">Personality and Individual Differences</a></em> provides evidence that different aspects of narcissism correspond to specific, often self-serving, patterns of religious engagement. The findings suggest that while highly narcissistic individuals might not be more religious overall, they tend to use religion as a tool for personal gain, status, or emotional comfort. This research offers a detailed understanding of how people with inflated self-views or deep-seated insecurities navigate faith and spirituality.</p>
<p>At first glance, narcissism and religion seem like an unlikely pair. Religious traditions usually promote humility, selflessness, and community care. Narcissism is a personality trait characterized by egotism, a sense of superiority, and a strong feeling of entitlement. This stark contrast raises an interesting question about how individuals with strong narcissistic traits interact with religious beliefs and communities.</p>
<p>Previous studies looking at broad connections between narcissism and religion have yielded mixed results. Some research suggests religious individuals actually score higher on general narcissism scales than non-religious people. Other sets of data show no significant relationship at all between grandiose narcissism and a person’s overall level of faith. To make sense of these apparent contradictions, researchers decided to break down both narcissism and religiosity into more specific categories. </p>
<p>“What drew my attention was that although research on trait narcissism has been growing rapidly, we still know relatively little about how it relates to religiosity,” said study author Julia Tokarz, a doctoral candidate at the University of Warsaw’s Faculty of Psychology and a member of <a href="https://personality-intelligence-cognition.com/" target="_blank">the Personality Intelligence Cognition Lab</a>. “Previous studies were quite limited and did not take into account the current three-factor model of narcissism.”</p>
<p>Tokarz noted that dealing with life’s challenges might explain the connection. “At the same time, narcissism is linked to various psychological and social difficulties, while religion can provide people with different resources,” Tokarz said. “This made me wonder whether religion might also serve a regulatory function for people with narcissistic traits, for example, by helping them maintain a positive self-image or cope with difficult emotions.”</p>
<p>The research team organized religious engagement into three main functional areas including motivation, emotion, and thought. By dividing narcissism into distinct facets, the authors hoped to uncover more specific patterns of behavior. Modern psychology often splits narcissism into agentic, antagonistic, neurotic, and communal types. Agentic narcissism involves a drive for success, admiration, and self-promotion, representing the classic image of someone who constantly seeks attention.</p>
<p>Antagonistic narcissism centers on arrogance, hostility, and a tendency to exploit others. These individuals often see the world as a highly competitive place where they must dominate to survive. Neurotic narcissism is defined by emotional fragility, feelings of inadequacy, and hypersensitivity to criticism. This type of vulnerable narcissist often struggles with their self-esteem and fears social rejection. </p>
<p>Finally, communal narcissism occurs when a person seeks to be seen as the most altruistic or helpful individual in a group. They inflate their own self-worth through seemingly selfless acts, demanding recognition for their charity. The researchers designed three independent studies to see how these four different personality traits connect to the different ways people practice and think about religion.</p>
<p>Summarizing the overarching results, Tokarz explained the main takeaways. “We cannot say clearly that people with narcissistic traits are either more or less religious overall,” Tokarz said. “What our findings suggest instead is that if a narcissistic person is involved in religion, their engagement is more likely to be externally motivated, for example, driven by social or emotional benefits rather than purely personal faith.”</p>
<p>Tokarz also noted how this attitude extends to their view of the divine. “They may also be more likely to see themselves as especially favored in the eyes of God and to perceive God as more authoritarian or controlling,” Tokarz said.</p>
<p>The first study focused on the motivational side of religion, aiming to see why different types of narcissistic people engage with their faith. The authors recruited 150 online participants, primarily young adults and university students, who specifically declared some sort of religious affiliation. Most participants identified as Roman Catholic, while smaller percentages identified with other Christian denominations, Buddhism, or Islam. The participants completed standardized questionnaires measuring their levels of agentic, antagonistic, neurotic, and communal narcissism.</p>
<p>They also completed the Religious Orientation Scale, a widely used psychological tool. This scale measures whether a person’s religious motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic religion means a person practices their faith for its own sake, deeply integrating those spiritual values into their everyday life and decision-making. Extrinsic religion means a person uses religion as a means to an end, such as gaining social status, finding a community network, or seeking simple emotional relief.</p>
<p>The researchers found that all four facets of narcissism were positively linked to an extrinsic religious orientation. This suggests that individuals with high levels of any type of narcissism tend to view religion as a tool to achieve non-spiritual personal goals. Agentic narcissists might use a church to network and gain admiration, while neurotic narcissists might use it purely to soothe their own anxieties. The antagonistic trait was also associated with lower levels of general religious involvement.</p>
<p>The second study explored the emotional and cognitive aspects of faith. The authors specifically looked at how people view God and how they use religion to cope with stress. The researchers surveyed 242 online participants, consisting of a mix of religious individuals and non-religious people. Like the first study, participants filled out questionnaires to measure the different facets of narcissism and their general level of religiosity.</p>
<p>To assess their image of God, participants rated their agreement with statements describing God as loving, merciful, and forgiving, or as angry, punitive, and vengeful. They also answered questions about their religious coping styles. Positive religious coping involves seeking spiritual support during hard times. Negative religious coping involves feeling punished, abandoned, or attacked by a higher power.</p>
<p>The authors noted that agentic and antagonistic narcissism were positively linked to viewing God as a punitive and vengeful figure. Because these individuals often view the social world as a harsh, competitive hierarchy, a controlling and punishing deity aligns perfectly with their personal worldview. This image of an authoritarian God might serve as a psychological tool to reinforce their own beliefs in strength, dominance, and superiority over others. </p>
<p>People scoring high in antagonistic narcissism also tended to reject the idea of a loving God entirely. Additionally, this antagonistic trait was inversely related to positive religious coping. This indicates that these individuals are much less likely to turn to their faith for comfort during difficult times. The authors found no significant link between neurotic narcissism and religious coping, which was an unexpected detail given their specific struggles with emotional regulation.</p>
<p>The third study focused on a concept called divine entitlement. This refers to the belief that one deserves special privileges, favors, or extra blessings from a higher power. The research team recruited 148 participants online for this final phase. The sample again consisted mostly of university students and Roman Catholics in Poland. </p>
<p>Participants completed the same narcissism and general religiosity scales used in the previous studies. To measure divine entitlement, respondents rated their agreement with specific statements regarding their perceived relationship with the divine. These statements included phrases like “God owes me” or “People like me deserve extra blessings from God.” This allowed the researchers to see if the demanding nature of narcissism extends to a spiritual level.</p>
<p>The data revealed that agentic, antagonistic, and communal narcissism were all positively related to feelings of divine entitlement. However, when the scientists ran a deeper statistical analysis, they found that only agentic and communal narcissism were independent predictors of this belief. This means that when all traits were considered together, the antagonistic trait did not uniquely contribute to these feelings of entitlement. This suggests that people who use religion to self-promote or appear exceptionally altruistic are the most likely to feel that God owes them special favors.</p>
<p>As with all research, there are some limitations. The research relied entirely on cross-sectional data, meaning the information was collected at a single point in time. This type of study design can show that two variables are related, but it cannot prove that one causes the other. It is impossible to say whether narcissistic traits cause a person to view God as punitive, or if certain religious environments might encourage specific personality traits.</p>
<p>Another potential limitation is the demographic makeup of the study samples. The participants were predominantly Polish Roman Catholics, with a noticeably higher proportion of women than men participating. This specific cultural and religious context means the findings might not apply perfectly to people from different countries. </p>
<p>“One important limitation is that our studies were conducted in a Polish, predominantly Catholic context,” Tokarz said. “This means the findings may not fully apply to people from other cultures or religious traditions. Still, some of our results are consistent with findings from studies carried out in other religious settings.”</p>
<p>Future research could expand on these findings by including a wider variety of religious affiliations and cultural backgrounds. Scientists might also track individuals over longer periods to see how their religious beliefs and personality traits influence each other over time. Tokarz emphasized the need to look closely at these varied motivations moving forward.</p>
<p>“Our studies suggest that religion may attract people with narcissistic traits for reasons that are not always strictly religious, and that these motivations may differ depending on the type of narcissism,” Tokarz said. “We also know that religion can serve many different psychological functions. In future research, I would like to explore this more directly through experimental studies and examine what kinds of psychological roles religion may play for people with different narcissistic traits.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2026.113720" target="_blank">Between ego and faith: Motivational, affective, and cognitive dimensions of religious engagement in narcissism</a>,” was authored by Julia Tokarz, Paweł Łowicki, and Marcin Zajenkowski.</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>