DATE: April 03, 2025 at 12:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------

TITLE: Prenatal hormone exposure may shape alcohol drinking habits, new research suggests

URL: https://www.psypost.org/prenatal-hormone-exposure-may-shape-alcohol-drinking-habits-new-research-suggests/

A new study published in the American Journal of Human Biology suggests that the length of your fingers—specifically the ratio between your index and ring fingers—might predict how much alcohol you consume. Researchers found that students with longer ring fingers compared to index fingers tended to drink more, especially men. These finger ratios are thought to reflect hormone levels in the womb, meaning the roots of drinking behavior could be influenced before birth.

The research team, made up of scientists from Swansea University and the Medical University of Lodz, wanted to explore whether prenatal hormone exposure might shape future behaviors, like alcohol use, in people who are not alcohol dependent. Earlier studies had shown a link between the so-called “digit ratio” and alcohol problems in clinical populations, but the strength of this association in everyday drinkers was less clear. The current study aimed to fill this gap by measuring finger lengths directly and comparing them to alcohol use in a large sample of university students.

To test their ideas, the researchers recruited 258 students from the Medical University of Lodz in Poland. The sample included 169 women and 89 men, with an average age of about 22. Researchers measured each participant’s height, weight, and finger lengths on both hands. Specifically, they calculated the ratio between the second digit (index finger) and the fourth digit (ring finger), known as the 2D:4D ratio. Lower ratios mean the ring finger is longer than the index finger. This ratio is believed to reflect how much testosterone and estrogen a person was exposed to during early pregnancy.

To assess alcohol use, participants completed the Polish version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, a ten-item questionnaire developed by the World Health Organization. This tool provides a score from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater risk for harmful drinking. It also allowed the researchers to estimate how many grams of alcohol each person consumed weekly. Participants filled out the form anonymously after their finger lengths were recorded, and their results were grouped into categories based on risk level, from abstinent to possibly addicted.

The researchers found that students with lower digit ratios, particularly on the right hand, reported drinking more alcohol. This relationship was especially strong in men. For example, men with lower right-hand 2D:4D ratios had higher alcohol use scores and consumed more alcohol weekly. These associations were moderate to large in strength. Among women, the associations were smaller but still present. Notably, the left-hand finger ratios did not show any connection to alcohol use.

When the researchers looked more closely at body size, they found that men who were taller and heavier also tended to drink more. However, these physical traits did not explain the link between digit ratios and alcohol consumption. Even after accounting for height, weight, and finger length, the finger ratio remained a significant predictor of how much alcohol someone drank. In contrast, body size measures were no longer associated with alcohol use once digit ratio was taken into account.

The results support the idea that prenatal hormone exposure may play a role in shaping alcohol-related behaviors later in life. A lower 2D:4D ratio is thought to indicate higher exposure to testosterone and lower exposure to estrogen before birth. These hormone levels are believed to influence brain development, including traits related to risk-taking and reward sensitivity. Because alcohol use, especially at high levels, often overlaps with risk-taking tendencies, the researchers suggest that early hormone exposure might increase the likelihood of heavier drinking through this pathway.

Interestingly, the association between digit ratio and alcohol consumption was strongest in the right hand and in men, a pattern that has been seen in other studies. This may reflect sex-specific effects of hormones during fetal development, as men typically have lower 2D:4D ratios than women. The study also reinforces the idea that right-hand measurements are more sensitive to prenatal hormone effects than left-hand ones.

The study does have some limitations. One issue is the imbalance between male and female participants, with nearly twice as many women in the sample. This is common in medical universities in Poland, where the study took place, but it may have influenced the results. Also, while the study focused on alcohol consumption, it did not collect data on other behaviors—such as impulsivity or sensation-seeking—that might help explain why digit ratio and drinking are related.

Another factor not accounted for in the study is genetics. Some genetic variations are known to affect alcohol metabolism and the risk of alcohol dependence. While the study highlights the role of prenatal hormone exposure, it does not explore how this may interact with genetic risk factors. Moreover, alcohol use is influenced by many environmental and social factors that were not part of the analysis.

The researchers also note that behaviors associated with risk-taking peak during adolescence and young adulthood—exactly the age group studied here. Since lower digit ratios are linked to greater risk-taking tendencies, it is possible that the finger length-alcohol use connection reflects a broader personality profile. Future studies could examine whether digit ratios predict not only drinking but also other behaviors, such as gambling, drug use, or reckless driving.

Despite these limitations, the findings add to a growing body of evidence that the roots of certain behaviors may be traced back to biological factors shaped before birth. While finger length alone cannot determine a person’s habits, it may serve as one of many clues about predispositions that interact with life experiences. The researchers hope that further work can clarify how prenatal conditions influence adult behavior and whether this knowledge can help in preventing harmful patterns of alcohol use.

The study, “Is Alcohol Consumption Pattern Dependent on Prenatal Sex-Steroids? A Digit Ratio (2D:4D) Study Among University Students,” was authored by Barbara Ślawski, Anna Kasielska-Trojan, John T. Manning, and Bogusław Antoszewski.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/prenatal-hormone-exposure-may-shape-alcohol-drinking-habits-new-research-suggests/

-------------------------------------------------

Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org

Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot

Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com

EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org

READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org

It's primitive... but it works... mostly...

-------------------------------------------------

#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist

DATE: April 03, 2025 at 10:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------

TITLE: Psilocybin-assisted neurofeedback shows promise in preliminary research

URL: https://www.psypost.org/psilocybin-assisted-neurofeedback-shows-promise-in-preliminary-research/

Can psychedelics help train the brain? Scientists have begun to explore whether pairing psilocybin microdosing with neurofeedback training can improve cognitive function. A new study offers early signs that the approach is safe, tolerable, and feasible—but it remains unclear whether it actually enhances thinking skills. The research has been published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

Psilocybin is the active compound found in certain psychedelic mushrooms. At higher doses, it can cause altered states of consciousness, but at very low “microdoses,” it does not produce hallucinations. Growing research suggests microdosing may subtly enhance mood and cognition, possibly by promoting the brain’s ability to change and adapt.

Neurofeedback, on the other hand, is a technique that uses real-time displays of brain activity—usually via electroencephalography (EEG)—to teach people how to control specific patterns of neural activity.

The researchers from the University of Groningen wanted to explore whether psilocybin could enhance neurofeedback training by increasing the brain’s plasticity, making it more receptive to learning. Their goal was to examine whether this combined approach could improve executive functions, which include skills like working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control.

To test this, the team conducted a small, early-phase study involving 37 participants. These volunteers were recruited from a microdosing workshop in the Netherlands and were not new to the idea of using psychedelics to support mental functioning. Eighteen were randomly assigned to the experimental group, and 19 to a passive control group. The control group did not receive any training during the core part of the study.

The experimental group first completed a week-long period to adjust to microdosing, using low amounts of Psilocybe mexicana truffles. They then participated in three sessions of neurofeedback training, spaced across one week. Before each neurofeedback session, they took a microdose of psilocybin. During the sessions, participants sat in a lab and received visual feedback based on the level of a specific brain rhythm called frontal-midline theta, which is linked to executive function. The goal was to increase this rhythm over time. Participants used self-chosen mental strategies to try to “turn the feedback square red,” which indicated successful upregulation of the target brain activity.

Both before and after the training period, participants completed a battery of cognitive tests and questionnaires. The researchers looked at both lab-based executive function tasks and self-reported assessments of how well participants managed these skills in daily life. Participants also set personalized goals—such as improving focus, reducing anxiety, or feeling more present—and rated their progress.

The study’s main goal was to test whether this kind of training was practical and safe. On that front, the results were promising. No one dropped out, no one reported negative psychological effects, and participants generally rated the sessions as engaging and meaningful. Most reported a strong sense of connection to the study and were motivated to complete the training, despite finding the neurofeedback somewhat difficult.

In terms of brain activity, the researchers observed a trend toward increased frontal-midline theta across sessions, with a large effect size, although the result was just shy of statistical significance. Within individual sessions, changes were more modest. The findings suggest that participants may have started to learn how to self-regulate the target brain rhythm, but three sessions may have been too few to produce consistent changes.

When it came to standard lab tests of executive function, such as tasks that measure memory updating or response inhibition, the results were mixed. There were no clear improvements in reaction times or accuracy that could be attributed to the training. However, participants in the experimental group reported improvements on questionnaires that asked about real-world executive functioning. These self-reported gains were seen across all four areas measured: working memory, mental flexibility, self-monitoring, and inhibition.

Despite these encouraging findings, the study was focused on determining whether psilocybin-assisted neurofeedback is safe and feasible. Because of this, there are several limitations. Most notably, the study lacked an active control group, which makes it difficult to determine whether the observed improvements were truly due to the neurofeedback and psilocybin, or simply the result of participating in an engaging new experience. Participants also knew they were receiving the active intervention, which could have influenced their expectations and self-reports. Although the study included measures of suggestibility and optimism, which were similar between groups, the researchers acknowledge that subtle placebo effects cannot be ruled out.

Moving forward, the research team recommends that future studies include an active control condition, a longer training period, and a larger sample size to test the durability and specificity of the effects. They also suggest exploring the best timing between psilocybin intake and training, as the acute effects of the substance may temporarily reduce the very brain activity participants are trying to increase.

In sum, this early research shows that psilocybin-assisted neurofeedback is feasible and well-tolerated. But it is still unclear whether it results in improved cognitive functioning. While the study cannot yet prove that the intervention improves brain function in an objective sense, it lays important groundwork for future trials. If confirmed, this novel approach could open new possibilities for treating cognitive symptoms that cut across many mental health conditions.

The study, “Psilocybin-assisted neurofeedback for the improvement of executive functions: a randomized semi-naturalistic-lab feasibility study,” was authored by S. Enriquez-Geppert, J. Krc, F. J. O’Higgins, and M. Lietz.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/psilocybin-assisted-neurofeedback-shows-promise-in-preliminary-research/

-------------------------------------------------

Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org

Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot

Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com

EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org

READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org

It's primitive... but it works... mostly...

-------------------------------------------------

#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist

DATE: April 03, 2025 at 09:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------

TITLE: Study finds liberals show less empathy to political opponents than conservatives do

URL: https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-liberals-show-less-empathy-to-political-opponents-than-conservatives-do/

In today’s polarized political landscape, the ability to understand and empathize with those across the aisle has reached concerning lows. New research published in Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin reveals an asymmetry in this empathy deficit: liberals consistently show less empathy toward their conservative peers than vice versa.

President Joe Biden’s inaugural call to “stand in the other person’s shoes” highlighted empathy as crucial for healing national divisions. Yet many people find it hard to feel for political opponents. Empathy—defined as sympathy for and understanding of another’s suffering with the aim of reducing it—is widely seen as essential for improving intergroup relations, but tends to diminish when directed toward those outside one’s political or social group.

James P. Casey and colleagues conducted four preregistered studies examining how political ideology shapes intergroup empathy bias and why such differences arise. The researchers recruited 4,737 participants, roughly evenly split between liberals and conservatives, from online platforms including Prolific, CloudResearch, and MTurk.

Study 1 involved 549 U.S. participants, while Study 2 included 958 U.K. participants. Study 3 and Study 4 sampled 1,372 and 1,874 U.S. participants, respectively, with recruitment spanning both conservative and liberal administrations to account for political context.

In each study, participants read a short scenario describing a person undergoing a mild hardship (e.g., a sprained ankle). The person was identified as politically conservative, liberal, or neutral. Participants then rated their emotional responses using several scales: empathic concern (e.g., sympathy), perspective-taking, empathic intentions (e.g., willingness to help), and empathic avoidance.

Mediating variables included perceptions of the target’s morality, likability, similarity to the self, and, in later studies, the perceived harm caused by the target’s political group. Ingroup political power was also measured to assess whether the party in power influenced empathic responses.

Across all four studies, participants consistently showed lower empathy for political outgroup members than for ingroup or neutral targets. However, this bias was not symmetrical. Liberals exhibited significantly less empathy for conservatives than conservatives showed for liberals. In Study 1, this asymmetry was driven by liberals’ stronger negative judgments of conservatives’ morality and likability. Conservatives’ empathic responses remained relatively stable regardless of the target’s political affiliation.

Study 2 confirmed these findings in the U.K. sample, where British liberals also exhibited stronger empathy bias against conservatives, mediated by perceptions of morality, likability, and similarity. Study 3 demonstrated that even after the shift to a Democratic administration in the U.S., liberals continued to judge conservatives as more harmful and immoral, leading to reduced empathy. Study 4 further validated this pattern with a larger sample, strengthening the evidence for the link between perceived group harm and diminished empathy.

One limitation is that findings rely on hypothetical scenarios rather than real-world interactions, which may limit generalizability of results to real-world political discourse or behavior.

The research, “Empathic Conservatives and Moralizing Liberals: Political Intergroup Empathy Varies by Political Ideology and Is Explained by Moral Judgment,” was authored by James P. Casey, Eric J. Vanman, and Fiona Kate Barlow.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-liberals-show-less-empathy-to-political-opponents-than-conservatives-do/

-------------------------------------------------

Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org

Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot

Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com

EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org

READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org

It's primitive... but it works... mostly...

-------------------------------------------------

#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist

DATE: April 03, 2025 at 06:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------

TITLE: Americans support economic redistribution when the wealthy pay or the costs are hidden

URL: https://www.psypost.org/americans-support-economic-redistribution-when-the-wealthy-pay-or-the-costs-are-hidden/

A new study published in Political Research Quarterly sheds light on a longstanding puzzle in American politics: why voters often express strong support for government programs but hesitate when those programs come with visible costs. The findings indicate that Americans broadly support redistributive economic policies—but only when the costs are hidden or shifted to a small, wealthy minority. Support drops significantly when the burden of paying for these policies becomes more visible or widely shared.

Most prior surveys have asked people if they support increased government spending or if they favor higher taxes. But these questions are usually asked in isolation, without linking the benefits of a program to the costs of funding it. In real-world policymaking, however, spending decisions almost always involve trade-offs. Yale University political scientist Sam Zacher wanted to understand how Americans respond when those trade-offs are made explicit—when a policy benefit is directly tied to who would pay for it.

To do this, Zacher designed a survey that went beyond standard public opinion polls. The survey, fielded in late 2022 and early 2023, included 1,201 participants, with an intentional oversample of high-income respondents. About 382 of the participants had household incomes above $200,000. The survey was designed to measure support for a wide range of economic policy proposals, both in isolation and when paired with specific tax increases. Participants were asked to rate their support on a scale from 0 to 100, with labels indicating levels of support or opposition.

Each respondent was randomly assigned to one of two groups of policy “benefits,” such as increased funding for K–12 education, public pre-kindergarten, housing, health care, and renewable energy. Some proposals were more moderate (like raising the minimum wage to $11), while others were more ambitious (like transitioning to single-payer health care). All respondents saw the same set of “cost” options: five types of tax increases, including higher income taxes on those earning over $200,000 or $1 million, increased capital gains taxes, and an across-the-board tax increase on all incomes. Each policy benefit was also paired with a specific tax cost, forming a “bundle.” For example, one bundled proposal asked whether participants supported raising taxes on households earning over $1 million to fund public K–12 schools.

Zacher’s findings reveal just how sensitive Americans are to these policy trade-offs. Across the board, support for policy benefits was much higher when the cost was not mentioned. But when a tax increase was included—especially one affecting a broad swath of the public—support fell sharply. For example, a majority of Americans expressed support for public pre-kindergarten programs when asked in isolation. But when the proposal required raising taxes on all income levels, support dropped by nearly 30 percentage points.

The public was most supportive of redistributive policy bundles that placed the financial burden on the very wealthy. Proposals that paired tax hikes on incomes above $1 million with increased spending on popular services like renewable energy or public education consistently received majority or even supermajority support. On the other hand, proposals that required tax increases on all income levels—regardless of the benefit—never crossed the 50% support threshold.

Interestingly, support for raising taxes on the wealthy was sometimes even higher than support for the policy bundle itself. This suggests that while Americans may support “soaking the rich,” they can become more skeptical when the tax increase is linked to a particular government program. This effect may reflect general hesitation about complex policy changes or a lack of trust in government implementation.

Zacher also found that Americans’ preferences are shaped not just by their overall ideology or partisan identity, but also by their economic self-interest. Affluent respondents were much more sensitive to the potential costs of redistribution. When a policy proposal would impose direct tax increases on high-income households, support among affluent participants dropped significantly, even when the benefit was widely popular.

This pattern held even within political parties. Among Republicans, the gap between low-income and high-income voters was especially large. Wealthier Republicans were far more likely to oppose redistributive policy bundles than their less affluent counterparts. Among Democrats, the divisions were smaller but still present, especially when policy bundles included progressive tax increases.

The study also explored whether political donors—who often have outsize influence in the policy process—differed in their preferences. Among Democrats, donors and non-donors held similar views overall, though there were some differences on specific policies. For Republicans, donor preferences appeared more moderate than expected, though the small sample size made it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

But as with any study, there are limitations to consider. Zacher’s survey included a specific set of policy combinations, meaning that not all possible trade-offs were tested. The study also focused primarily on economic policies and did not explore issues like immigration or social policy, which can also have redistributive effects. Additionally, because the survey was conducted online, it may have excluded some populations who are less likely to participate in web-based surveys.

The study, “What Forms of Redistribution Do Americans Want? Understanding Preferences for Policy Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs,” was published online on June 14, 2024.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/americans-support-economic-redistribution-when-the-wealthy-pay-or-the-costs-are-hidden/

-------------------------------------------------

Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org

Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot

Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com

EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org

READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org

It's primitive... but it works... mostly...

-------------------------------------------------

#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist