People who experience high levels of social anxiety tend to view neutral or ambiguous interactions as intentionally hostile, but treating the anxiety can effectively reduce this aggressive perception, according to a recent paper published in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. These findings suggest that addressing underlying anxiety can lead to meaningful improvements in how people understand the intentions of those around them.

Social anxiety involves an intense fear of being watched and judged by others in everyday social situations. This fear often leads people to avoid social events or act in ways designed to protect themselves from perceived embarrassment. Scientists recognize that people with social anxiety often assume others are judging them negatively, a pattern known as a social-evaluative bias.

A related psychological pattern, called hostile interpretation bias, specifically involves interpreting neutral or unclear social cues as signs of anger, disrespect, or aggression. For example, if a person does not reply to a greeting, someone with a hostile interpretation bias might assume the silence is an intentional insult. While a social-evaluative bias involves feeling generally judged, a hostile bias involves assuming the other person actively wishes them harm.

Previous work links this hostile bias to problematic anger and aggression. Individuals with social anxiety often report experiencing persistent anger throughout the day, even when they are alone. Because of this connection, scientists at Florida State University wanted to understand the exact relationship between social anxiety and hostile interpretations.

“One of the primary goals of our work is to better understand and treat social anxiety disorder,” said study authors Tapan Patel and Jesse Cougle, a PhD candidate and a professor of psychology, respectively.

“Individuals with social anxiety disorder tend to interpret ambiguous situations as threatening, and for some they may interpret situations or others with hostile intent. While this bias is common for those who may struggle with anger, these issues haven’t been directly studied in individuals with social anxiety disorder. We explored whether social anxiety maintains these biases.”

The researchers conducted two separate studies. In the first study, they recruited 120 undergraduate students from a large public university. The participants completed virtual questionnaires measuring their levels of social anxiety and their tendencies to interpret situations as hostile or benign.

To measure interpretation biases, the participants read short, ambiguous social scenarios, such as someone bumping into them in a hallway. They then rated how strongly hostile words, like aggressive, or benign words, like accidental, applied to the situation. Approximately one month later, 68 of the original participants completed the same questionnaires a second time.

The researchers found that higher social anxiety was linked to higher levels of hostile interpretations at both the initial assessment and the one-month follow-up. However, a person’s initial level of social anxiety did not predict whether their hostile interpretations would worsen or improve over the following month. Social anxiety was also not significantly associated with benign interpretations at any point.

“Individuals with high social anxiety may be prone to interpret certain situations with others in a hostile light,” Patel and Cougle told PsyPost. “They may think others’ behavior is often fueled by hostile intent, meanness, or aggression.”

The second study included 69 university students who reported elevated levels of social anxiety. The scientists randomly assigned these participants to either a behavioral intervention group or a waitlist control group. The intervention group consisted of 35 students, while the control group included 34 students.

The intervention was designed to help participants reduce their use of safety behaviors over a 28-day period. Safety behaviors are subtle actions socially anxious people use to try to prevent negative outcomes, such as avoiding eye contact, speaking softly, or repeatedly asking others for reassurance. These actions tend to keep people feeling anxious because they prevent individuals from learning that social situations are actually safe.

When individuals constantly rely on safety behaviors, they trick themselves into thinking these actions are the only reason they survived a social event. By dropping the behaviors, people are forced to confront the situation and eventually learn that their worst fears will not actually come true. The active treatment group in the study selected five specific safety behaviors they frequently used and committed to avoiding them for one month.

Every morning, they received a text message reminding them to drop these behaviors, along with a link to a checklist to track their progress. The control group simply waited for a month before being offered the treatment at a later date. Both groups completed assessments of their social anxiety and interpretation biases before and after the 28-day period.

At the end of the month, the group that actively reduced their safety behaviors reported much lower levels of social anxiety compared to the waitlist group. This reduction in safety behaviors also led to reductions in hostile interpretation bias. The scientists found that the drop in hostile interpretations was directly explained by the drop in social anxiety.

“We were surprised that the effect of our treatment on hostile interpretations was fully explained by the effect on social anxiety,” Patel and Cougle said. “We anticipated that there would be some unique effect of treatment left over after accounting for the change in social anxiety, but this finding further supports that social anxiety may play a role in the tendency to interpret situations as a hostile.”

These outcomes provide evidence that social anxiety helps maintain the tendency to view others as hostile. The researchers suggest that mental health professionals should pay close attention to these aggressive assumptions when treating patients. Reducing social anxiety can lead to meaningful changes in how people perceive the world, potentially protecting them from chronic frustration and anger.

While the findings offer a new perspective on treating social anxiety, the scientists noted a few limitations. Both studies relied on relatively homogeneous samples of college students, which means the results might not automatically apply to the general public. Additionally, while the second study selected students with high social anxiety, it is unclear how many of them would meet the formal medical criteria for a clinical diagnosis.

The use of a waitlist control group in the second study means the researchers cannot entirely rule out the possibility that simply being in a treatment program caused the improvements. The studies also did not directly measure feelings of anger, which would have provided more context about how reducing hostile biases impacts emotional well-being.

“Reducing social anxiety may lead to meaningful changes in the tendency to interpret situations as hostile, but it is important to note that other factors cannot be ruled out for the size of this effect,” Patel and Cougle noted. “Practically speaking, future research should measure these biases and clinicians should assess for them given they are often associated with problematic anger.”

“The next steps will be to continue to examine this effect in more varied populations such as community members with social anxiety disorder. Additionally, we will want to examine this effect in our behavioral treatment compared to an active control group. It would also be interesting to examine if reductions in this hostile bias would affect anger in people with social anxiety.”

The study, “A multi-method analysis of the role of social anxiety in hostile interpretation bias,” was authored by Tapan A. Patel, Matthew C. Sala, James M. Zech & Jesse R. Cougle.

A recent study published in Consciousness and Cognition suggests that people with a unique perceptual trait called synesthesia tend to experience different thematic patterns in their dreams compared to those without the trait. The findings provide evidence that our individual cognitive styles shape our imagination and mental life even while we are asleep.

Synesthesia is a neurological condition where information meant to stimulate one of your senses triggers another sense at the same time. For example, a person with synesthesia might see specific colors when they hear music or taste certain flavors when they read words. People with this trait often score higher on measures of imagination, emotional reactivity, and openness to new experiences.

Scientists conducted this study to understand if these waking mental habits influence the subconscious mind during sleep. The continuity hypothesis of dreaming proposes that our dreams act as a mirror for our everyday thoughts, emotional tendencies, and personality traits. From this perspective, dreams are not just random static generated by the sleeping brain but are meaningful expressions of an individual’s underlying mental structure.

Prior research provides evidence that synesthesia involves an increase in structural connectivity between different regions of the brain. This heightened connectivity allows for greater blending of concepts and perceptions during waking hours. The researchers predicted that this unique mental organization might naturally spill over into the dreaming state.

“My work looks at large collections of dreams to understand how different groups of people experience and make sense of the world. This study is one step in a broader effort to see what dreams can tell us about stable differences in how people think, feel, and interpret their environments,” explained study author Emily Cook, chief science officer at The Center for Organizational Dreaming.

“Synesthesia was a compelling case for this, because it is a clearly defined trait where certain kinds of information automatically evoke extra perceptions or ideas—for example, seeing colours when reading letters, tasting flavours when hearing words, or picturing numbers laid out in space. People with synesthesia also tend to score higher on traits like fantasy proneness, absorption, vivid imagery, and openness to experience.”

“The study builds on the idea that dreaming is continuous with waking cognition, so if synesthesia is linked to a distinctive style of perception and association in waking life, some trace of that should appear in dream content as well,” Cook said. “I wanted to test whether, when you gather many reports together, people with synesthesia tend to dream in systematically different ways from people without synesthesia, and whether those differences align with what is already known about synesthetic imagination and association.”

To explore this question, the scientists analyzed a massive dataset of dream journals shared on the social media platform Reddit. They gathered 2,337 dream reports in total. This included 1,169 reports from individuals who self-identified as synesthetes by posting in a dedicated synesthesia community.

To ensure a fair comparison, the researchers matched these reports with 1,168 control dreams posted by non-synesthetes. They matched these control dreams to the exact same days the synesthete dreams were posted. This step helped eliminate any biases related to specific world events or trends that might have influenced what people were dreaming about at the time.

Instead of reading and categorizing the dreams by hand, the scientists used advanced computational linguistics. These are computer programs designed to process and analyze large amounts of natural human language. The software converted the text of each dream into complex mathematical representations.

This process mapped out the semantic relationships between words in the dream reports. It allowed the computer to group the text into thousands of highly specific topics. Eventually, the program condensed these smaller topics into twenty broad, overarching themes for the researchers to compare.

The researchers also trained machine learning models to see if a computer could guess whether a dream belonged to a synesthete or a non-synesthete. These classification models achieved a modest level of accuracy. This performance indicates that the differences in language use between the two groups were subtle and spread out across many different words.

The thematic analysis revealed that synesthete dreams systematically differed from control dreams in four distinct categories. People with synesthesia were more likely to describe dreams involving digital life. This theme included references to scrolling, screens, computer accounts, and routine technology use.

Synesthetes also reported more dreams centered on interpersonal regret. This theme featured scenarios involving guilt, moral conflict, missed opportunities, and urgent apologies. The scientists note that this aligns with the heightened emotional reactivity and memory retention frequently observed in people with synesthesia.

The third prevalent theme in synesthete dreams was diverse worlds. This category included shifting environments, cultural settings, and complex or dystopian landscapes. Because synesthetes tend to score high in openness to experience, they may possess a more flexible cognitive style that supports the construction of richly detailed and varied dream settings.

Finally, the violent conflict theme appeared more often in the dreams of synesthetes. This theme involved fictional threats, horror imagery, and words associated with intense physical clashes. The researchers suggest that individuals with enhanced memory abilities, a common trait in synesthesia, might be more likely to incorporate intense waking experiences into their dreams.

“One surprise was how rarely synesthesia was named directly in dreams,” Cook told PsyPost. “People with synesthesia rarely described classic synesthesia pairings, such as colours for letters or tastes for words, in their dreams. Given how central those links can be in waking life, it would be easy to expect more obvious synesthesia content in dreams.

“In the paper, we note that this likely reflects that our analysis focused on broad themes rather than specific sensory links, and that sensory details in general are often under-described. We suspect that if we collected dream information differently (for example, by asking synesthetes directly whether they have tasted colors in their dreams), we might find more evidence of ‘dream synesthesia.'”

Together, these results provide evidence that stable brain traits manifest themselves in unstructured, self-generated imagination.

“The main message is that people with synesthesia tend to dream in somewhat different ways than people without synesthesia,” Cook explained. “They were more likely to describe dreams about digital life, guilt and repair, violent conflict, and diverse or shifting worlds than matched controls.”

“Instead of treating synesthesia as merely an unusual way of sensing, the findings support a view of synesthesia as a broader style of imagination and association that shapes many aspects of mental life, including dreaming. The study shows that dreams can contain information about how different groups move through and make sense of their worlds, which is the broader aim of my work.”

While the study offers new insights into the dreaming mind, there are a few limitations to keep in mind. Because the data came from anonymous Reddit users, the scientists could not clinically verify that the participants actually had synesthesia. The researchers relied on self-identification, which means some people might have been misclassified.

“One of the most interesting aspects of this study was that we were able to collect dreams from 1169 synesthetes,” Cook said. “This is a huge number- small sample sizes have historically limited both dream content research and synesthesia research. As only 1-4% of the population has synesthesia, it can be hard to find enough participants.”

“We achieved a large sample size by gathering dream reports shared anonymously online from people who self-identify as synesthetes. The downside of this approach is that we could not use lab-style checks to ensure every single synesthete met the full criteria for synesthesia.”

Another factor to consider is the potential demographic differences between the two groups. For instance, the higher prevalence of digital themes might just mean the synesthete group was slightly younger on average, as younger people tend to use technology more often. The researchers also did not control for factors like gender or cultural background.

Additionally, relying on self-reported dream journals introduces a degree of selection bias. People are usually more likely to share bizarre, narratively structured, or highly emotional dreams online than boring ones. This tendency could skew the types of themes the computer programs detected in the text.

“My long-term goal is to build a richer map of how different groups dream and what that can tell us about their ways of seeing and understanding the world,” Cook told PsyPost. “I am planning studies that combine very large, anonymous online samples with smaller cohorts who complete in-depth assessments, so we can see whether the same patterns appear when dreams are collected and verified in different ways.”

“For me, this study shows how quickly dream research can advance now that we have large public dream collections and tools to handle them. When we bring thousands of dreams into one analysis, patterns in how different groups dream become much easier to see than in small, hand-coded samples. More broadly, it highlights that dreams carry rich information about how people experience the world, and that this information is only now becoming available in a way that lets us study group differences at scale.”

The study, “Synesthesia is associated with distinctive patterns in dream content,” was authored by Kyle Napierkowski and Emily Cook.

If you search for the highest IQ on record, you will likely encounter the number 228, attributed to columnist Marilyn vos Savant, or the number 230, attributed to mathematician Terence Tao. However, psychometricians view these astronomical figures with skepticism. While both individuals are undeniably exceptional, the specific numbers attached to their names require context.

The term IQ, or Intelligence Quotient, is one of the most recognized acronyms in the world. It is a score derived from a set of standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence. Psychologists generally agree that IQ tests measure a trait known as general intelligence, often abbreviated as g. This concept refers to a broad mental capacity that influences performance across a wide variety of cognitive tasks. When a person takes an IQ test, they are not being tested on their knowledge of trivia or facts.

Instead, they are tested on their ability to reason, solve novel problems, and recognize patterns. The tests also measure working memory, which is the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind over a short period. A useful analogy is to think of g as the computing power of a computer’s processor. A higher score suggests a processor that can handle complex information quickly and accurately.

So how did vos Savant and Tae end up with such high IQ scores? To understand the distinction between internet legend and verified ability, one must look past the simple numerical scores and examine the documented histories of these two intellectuals, beginning with Tao.

The Early Life of a Mathematical Prodigy

Terence Tao is a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a winner of the Fields Medal, which is often described as the Nobel Prize of mathematics. He is widely considered one of the smartest living individuals.

While popular culture frequently assigns him a definitive IQ of 230, the reality of his intellect is best understood through the assessments conducted during his childhood. Two primary academic sources, a 1984 study by Ken Clements and a 2006 retrospective by Michelle Muratori and colleagues, provide a detailed record of this singular mind.

The story of Tao’s precociousness begins remarkably early. According to a 1984 article in Educational Studies in Mathematics by Ken Clements, a mathematics educator who assessed Tao directly, the boy learned to read and write at the age of two simply by watching Sesame Street. By the time he was seven years old, he was living a dual academic life.

He spent part of his day at a primary school in Australia for general studies and the rest of his time at a local high school studying Year 11 and Year 12 physics and mathematics. His high school teacher noted that there was very little he actually taught the seven-year-old, as Tao would finish all the coursework lessons ahead of the rest of the class.

Quantifying Genius: SATs and Estimations

The quantification of his intelligence, which leads to the high IQ estimates often cited today, comes from specific testing data. In his 1984 assessment, Clements administered the Australian Council for Educational Research Operations Test to the then seven-year-old Tao. This test measures the ability to perform mathematical operations. Tao achieved a perfect score of 60 out of 60, a feat Clements had never seen in a primary-school-aged child.

Later, the researcher Julian Stanley from Johns Hopkins University provided an even more standardized metric. As detailed in a 2006 Gifted Child Quarterly article, Stanley sent the Tao family the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) when Terence was just eight years old.

The SAT is a standardized exam generally taken by university-bound high school students in the United States. On the mathematics section, the eight-year-old Tao scored a 760 out of a possible 800. Researchers Julian Stanley and Miraca Gross utilized these raw scores to calculate his estimated IQ. Based on the statistical rarity of an 8-year-old scoring 760 on the SAT, the extrapolated IQ was estimated to be between 220 and 230.

However, Tao himself has downplayed the astronomical estimates derived from these childhood tests. Writing on his own website, he argued that the test is “extremely noisy at these scales” and a more realistic estimate is simply an IQ “greater than 175.”

“This was documented in the book Exceptionally Gifted Children by Miraca Gross, where I was given the pseudonym ‘Adrian Seng’… But there is no reason to expect that this ratio would continue in my later years,” he said.

Cognitive Style and “Radical Acceleration”

Beyond the raw numbers, the researchers observed a specific cognitive style in the young Tao. Clements noted in his 1984 study that Tao possessed a distinct preference for analytic thinking over visual imagery. Analytic thinking involves using logic, symbols, and formulas to solve problems, while visual imagery relies on picturing shapes and movements in the mind.

When Clements administered a space visualization test that required mentally rotating shapes, Tao performed well but made errors that he did not make in pure algebra. When asked to explain his methods, Tao revealed that he tried to use mathematical rules to verify the position of the shapes rather than simply imagining them turning. This indicated a mind that naturally gravitated toward the structure of syntax and symbols rather than spatial intuition.

The educational strategy used to nurture this talent was unique. His parents, Billy and Grace Tao, opted for what researchers call radical acceleration, but they applied it with a twist. As described in the Gifted Child Quarterly, they did not simply push him into university at age 10 to study everything.

Instead, they staggered his grade levels. At age seven, he was taking high school math but remained in primary school for spelling and social studies. This allowed him to maintain social contact with his age peers while his intellectual needs were met in specific subjects. His father, Billy Tao, noted that this prevented the burnout often associated with child prodigies.

From Cognitive Sprinter to Marathon Runner

Billy Tao later used a running metaphor to describe his son’s development. He viewed Terence’s early years as those of a “sprinter,” characterized by rapid progression through standard curriculum. However, to become a true mathematician, Terence had to evolve into a “marathon runner.” This transition occurred during his doctoral studies at Princeton University.

The Gifted Child Quarterly article highlights that the skills required for research are different from those required for testing. While the “sprinter” phase relied on speed and quick calculation, the “marathon” phase required deep patience, perseverance, and the ability to grapple with unsolved problems for long periods.

Despite his intense academic schedule, reports from his childhood suggest he remained a socially adjusted child. Clements observed him playing hide-and-seek with his brothers and noted he was a happy, well-mannered boy who understood he was different but did not let it isolate him.

In the 2006 interview, Terence Tao reflected that his parents worked to keep his life as normal as possible. He did not find his true social niche until graduate school, where he met peers with similar intellectual passions, but his early years were defined by a supportive family environment rather than isolation.

The record of Terence Tao’s early life offers a clear picture of what extreme high intelligence looks like in practice. It was not merely a matter of a high score on a test, but a combination of rapid learning speed, a preference for analytical problem solving, and an educational environment that adapted to his specific uneven development. His journey from a child who taught himself to read at two to a Fields Medalist illustrates that while raw potential is essential, the management of that talent determines the ultimate outcome.

Marilyn vos Savant: The Guinness Record Holder

While Tao’s high score is largely a matter of academic estimation, the other famous contender for the title held a widely publicized official record. For five years in the late 1980s, the Guinness Book of World Records included a category that fascinated the public: Highest IQ. The person holding that title was Marilyn vos Savant, a magazine columnist from St. Louis, Missouri.

Her listed Intelligence Quotient of 228 became legendary, cementing her status as a cultural icon of intellect. However, the story behind that number is a complex mix of psychology, statistics, and changing scientific standards. By examining the history of her testing and the critiques from experts like psychologist Andrew M. Colman, we can understand why Guinness eventually retired the category entirely.

The Science of Scoring: Ratio vs. Deviation IQ

To understand how vos Savant achieved a score of 228, one must look at how intelligence testing has evolved. According to biographical records, vos Savant took the Stanford-Binet test in 1956 when she was ten years old. At that time, psychologists utilized a scoring method known as Ratio IQ.

This formula calculated a person’s score by dividing their “mental age” by their biological age and multiplying the result by 100. Vos Savant performed so well that the test determined she had the mental age of a person aged 22 years and 10 months. When this mental age was divided by her actual age of ten, the resulting calculation yielded the score of 228.

While this number is mathematically accurate based on the old formula, modern science views it with skepticism. Writing for The Skeptic, Andrew M. Colman pointed out in the 1990s that the Ratio IQ method is flawed, particularly when applied to adults. A person’s mental age does not continue to increase linearly throughout their life, but their biological age does.

This flaw led psychologists to replace Ratio IQ with a method called Deviation IQ. This modern system, introduced by David Wechsler in 1939, scores individuals by comparing them to the general population using a statistical model called a normal distribution, or a bell curve.

In a normal distribution, the average score is set at 100. The way scores spread out from that average is measured in units called standard deviations. For most IQ tests, one standard deviation is 15 points. This means that a score of 115 is one unit above average, and a score of 130 is two units above average.

Colman noted that a score of 228 is 8.53 standard deviations above the mean. In statistical terms, this is an astronomical distance. The probability of a person achieving such a score is less than one in 100 quadrillion. Given that the Earth’s population is only in the billions, Colman argued that finding a person with a valid Deviation IQ of 228 is effectively impossible.

The discrepancy between these scoring methods suggests that vos Savant’s record was the result of using a childhood ratio score that does not translate to adult intelligence scales. Indeed, when vos Savant took the Mega Test as an adult in the mid-1980s, she achieved a standardized score of 186.

While this is still an exceptionally high score that places her in the elite tier of intellectual ability, it is far lower than the 228 figure that brought her fame. In 1990, Guinness removed the category, concluding that intelligence tests at the extreme high end of the spectrum were too unreliable to designate a single world record holder.

Beyond the Score: The Monty Hall Problem

Despite the debates regarding her test scores, vos Savant demonstrated her cognitive abilities through her long-running column in Parade magazine, “Ask Marilyn.” She is perhaps best known for her 1990 analysis of the Monty Hall problem, a probability puzzle based on a game show scenario.

The problem asks whether a contestant should switch doors after the host reveals a losing option. Vos Savant correctly argued that switching doubles the contestant’s probability of winning. At the time, she received thousands of letters, many from academics and mathematicians, insisting she was wrong. Later computer simulations and formal proofs vindicated her answer, proving her logic superior to that of her critics.

The value of IQ

Decades of data indicate that IQ scores are strong predictors of academic achievement and occupational performance. This correlation is particularly strong in complex fields such as law, medicine, engineering, and science.

In these professions, the ability to absorb large amounts of abstract information and apply it to new situations is essential. Because the tests measure this specific type of processing speed and abstract reasoning, they can statistically forecast how well an individual might perform in an academic or highly technical environment.

However, the predictive power of an IQ score has limits. While it correlates with performance, it does not guarantee success. A high score represents potential rather than achievement. Psychologists emphasize that other factors, such as motivation, discipline, and social skills, play a significant role in determining a person’s actual life outcomes. A student with a high IQ who lacks the discipline to study may still perform poorly, while a student with a slightly lower score but a strong work ethic may excel.

Another significant distinction exists between intelligence and rationality. Intelligence, as measured by IQ, is the ability to process information. Rationality is the ability to think clearly, avoid bias, and make sound decisions. Keith Stanovich, a prominent psychologist, argues that IQ tests do not measure rationality.

This explains why a highly intelligent person might still make poor financial decisions or believe in conspiracy theories. The raw processing power of the brain does not automatically result in good judgment. In fact, a high IQ can sometimes allow a person to construct sophisticated arguments to justify incorrect beliefs.

It is also important to recognize that IQ scores are not fixed or immune to environmental influence. Throughout the 20th century, average IQ scores rose steadily across the world, a phenomenon known as the Flynn Effect. This rise suggests that intelligence is influenced by factors such as education, nutrition, and the increasing complexity of the modern environment.

As society has become more reliant on abstract symbols and technology, people have become better at the types of reasoning tasks found on IQ tests. This demonstrates that while biology plays a role, the environment helps shape the cognitive abilities that the tests measure.

In clinical settings, the scores serve a diagnostic purpose. They assist psychologists in identifying specific learning disabilities or developmental delays. By comparing a student’s IQ score with their actual academic performance, educators can identify discrepancies that may indicate a need for specialized support. In this context, the score acts as a tool to understand a learner’s specific needs rather than a label of their worth.

Ultimately, the value of an IQ score lies in its specificity. It is a reliable measure of a particular type of mental horsepower that is useful in academic and technical domains. It is not a comprehensive measure of human capability. It does not account for creativity, wisdom, emotional insight, or practical skills. When viewed objectively, an IQ score provides a snapshot of a person’s abstract reasoning ability, but it leaves the full picture of their potential incomplete.

A recent study published in Psychological Reports suggests that experiencing abuse or neglect during childhood is linked to specific changes in cognitive skills during young adulthood. The findings indicate that while young adults with a history of maltreatment tend to struggle more with switching between mental tasks, their ability to hold and process temporary information remains intact. These results highlight how a harsh upbringing shapes brain development in complex ways, involving both vulnerabilities and psychological adaptations.

Scientists conducted this study to better understand how adverse early environments influence mental abilities as people transition into true adulthood. Emerging adulthood, which spans from ages 18 to 29, represents a unique developmental stage. During this phase, people take on new responsibilities, explore their identities, and experience significant brain maturation.

“Research has long linked childhood maltreatment to mental‑health problems, but findings on its impact on cognitive functioning have been inconsistent,” said study author Wai Man Wong, a PhD student in clinical psychology at Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

“Some studies report clear deficits, while others find little to no effect. This inconsistency highlighted a real gap: we lacked a solid, quantitative understanding of whether maltreatment reliably affects cognition, and which domains are most impacted. Our study addressed this by systematically synthesizing the evidence through meta‑analysis to clarify the strength and pattern of these associations.”

The researchers focused specifically on executive function, which refers to the higher-level mental skills that help us plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks. Past studies looking at the link between early maltreatment and executive function have yielded mixed and confusing results. The scientists wanted to clarify this relationship by testing two competing ideas in psychology.

The first idea is the deficits model, which proposes that chronic stress from childhood trauma universally damages brain development and impairs mental skills. The second idea is the adaptation model. This perspective suggests that children who grow up in dangerous or unpredictable environments might actually fine-tune certain cognitive strengths to help them survive their specific circumstances.

To investigate these theories, the researchers performed a meta-analysis, which is a statistical technique that combines and analyzes the results of multiple independent scientific studies. They searched five major academic databases to find research that measured childhood maltreatment and specific cognitive skills in emerging adults. Their final analysis included 17 different studies, yielding 85 statistical comparisons and providing a combined sample of 19,357 participants.

The meta-analysis approach allows researchers to look at the big picture rather than relying on a single experiment. By pooling data from over 19,000 people, scientists can calculate an overall effect size, which measures the strength of a relationship between two variables. This statistical technique helps smooth out the quirks of individual studies to reveal true underlying patterns.

In these studies, childhood maltreatment included a range of adverse experiences that occurred before the age of eighteen. These experiences involved physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. The studies also measured forms of neglect, which happens when adults fail to meet a child’s basic physical or emotional needs.

The scientists looked at three specific components of executive function. The first component was cognitive flexibility, which is the ability to easily switch between different rules or ways of thinking. In everyday life, this might look like quickly coming up with a creative solution when a sudden problem arises at work.

The second component was inhibitory control, which refers to a person’s ability to override impulsive urges and regulate their attention or emotions. For example, inhibitory control is what stops someone from snapping at a rude customer. The third component was working memory, which acts as the mental workspace we use to temporarily hold and manipulate auditory and visual information.

The combined data revealed that young adults who experienced childhood maltreatment tended to perform worse on tests of cognitive flexibility than those without such histories. They also showed reductions in inhibitory control. The statistical analysis demonstrated a small but distinct drop in the ability to shift mental focus and suppress impulses among the maltreated group.

At the same time, working memory capacities between the two groups were completely comparable. The researchers found no significant deficit in working memory among those who had endured childhood abuse or neglect. Statistical models that accounted for the age of participants and whether the original studies were peer-reviewed consistently showed that working memory was preserved.

These findings support a balanced view of how trauma impacts the developing brain. The deficits in cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control align with the idea that early chronic stress can harm certain areas of brain development. When a child experiences continuous trauma, their body is constantly flooded with stress hormones.

Normally, the human body uses a fight or flight response to survive immediate danger. Once the threat passes, the brain signals the body to stop producing stress hormones and return to a calm state. However, chronic childhood maltreatment can break this natural feedback loop, leaving the developing brain exposed to overwhelming levels of stress chemicals.

Over time, this biological wear and tear can negatively alter the brain regions responsible for higher-level thinking and self-regulation. The physical toll of prolonged stress might explain the slight impairments in cognitive flexibility and inhibitory control. At the same time, the adaptation model provides evidence for why working memory remains strong in spite of this stress.

From an evolutionary perspective, maintaining a strong working memory might be prioritized in high-stakes environments. Keeping track of multiple pieces of information helps individuals quickly detect threats and survive dangerous situations. The researchers describe this as a trade-off, where certain skills are sacrificed to preserve the mental tools needed most for survival.

It is important to remember that these findings represent averages across large groups of people. These results do not mean that every person who experienced childhood maltreatment will inevitably struggle with cognitive flexibility or impulse control. Many individuals show immense resilience and perform exceptionally well on all cognitive tasks despite early hardships.

The researchers hope these findings will encourage a shift in how society views survivors of childhood trauma. Focusing solely on cognitive deficits can unintentionally stigmatize people who experienced early hardships. Recognizing the preservation of working memory highlights the incredible adaptability of the human brain.

The scientists also noted several limitations in the available research. Most of the analyzed studies used a cross-sectional design, meaning they looked at data from a single point in time. This prevents researchers from proving a direct cause-and-effect relationship between childhood events and adult cognitive skills.

Additionally, the studies relied on participants to remember and report their own childhood experiences. Relying on human memory can sometimes result in inaccurate recollections or reporting biases. The available data also lacked consistent demographic details, which made it difficult to test how factors like gender might influence these cognitive outcomes.

Moving forward, the researchers suggest that future studies should examine different categories of maltreatment separately. Analyzing specific forms of trauma, like physical abuse versus emotional neglect, might reveal unique impacts on brain development. Scientists also hope to collect more detailed demographic data to better understand how various backgrounds shape the relationship between early adversity and later cognitive function.

“Our results showed that childhood maltreatment is linked to reduced cognitive flexibility and weaker inhibitory control in emerging adulthood, but working memory remained largely intact,” Wong told PsyPost. “In lay terms: on average, young adults with histories of maltreatment, may have a slightly more difficult time switching between different tasks and inhibiting impulses, than those without such histories.”

“On the other hand, there are no differences between groups in working memory, the skill of holding information in mind and actively thinking about. Of note, these findings do not apply to every person with maltreatment. It is important to keep in mind that these are group-level differences. Together, the findings show that maltreatment shapes cognition in complex ways, involving both vulnerability and adaptation.”

The study, “Childhood Maltreatment Impacts Cognitive Function in Emerging Adulthood: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” was authored by Wai M. Wong, Bixi Zhang, Damaris Foley, and Valentina Nikulina.

When interacting with highly realistic humanoid robots, the simple presence of eyes strongly shapes how humans perceive the machine’s mental abilities. A recent study published in Consciousness and Cognition provides evidence that people are far more likely to see a robot as capable of independent action and emotional experience if it has eyes on its face. The findings suggest that this specific facial feature plays a surprisingly powerful role in human interaction with artificial beings.

As artificial intelligence becomes more advanced, engineers are increasingly designing humanoid robots for everyday social environments. In human interaction, eyes act as important social signals that communicate attention, intentions, and emotions. Some ethicists have warned against adding eyes to robots, arguing that it creates a deceptive illusion of consciousness and empathy in a machine that does not actually possess them.

“Humanoid robots are becoming increasingly common in social environments, meaning that people are now expected to engage with artificial agents in ways that resemble human interaction. Prior research shows that humans rely heavily on eyes to convey information during social exchanges, and that people may even respond to robotic eye gaze as if it carries social intent,” said study author Samuli Linnunsalo, a postdoctoral researcher in the Human Information Processing Laboratory at Tampere University.

“Yet, despite this, surprisingly many new humanoid robots are designed without eyes. Because successful human–robot interaction depends on humans perceiving robots as having mental abilities, we wanted to examine whether simply adding eyes influences our tendency to attribute mental capacities to robots.”

To explore this, the researchers conducted two separate experiments using online participants from Western, English-speaking countries. In the first experiment, they recruited 200 adult participants to complete a self-evaluation questionnaire.

The scientists used an artificial intelligence image generator to create 48 highly realistic pictures of humanoid robots with full bodies. They produced two versions of each robot identity: one with eyes and one where the eyes were digitally removed.

To ensure a variety of appearances, the robots featured different characteristics, including adult-like or child-like proportions, humanoid faces or display screens, and direct or averted body orientations. Each participant viewed 24 robot images and answered four specific questions about each machine’s capabilities.

These questions asked participants to rate things like whether the robot could act with self-control or experience fear. Participants answered on a scale of one to nine.

The scientists found that participants gave higher agency and experience ratings to the robots with eyes compared to those without eyes. The addition of eyes increased perceived agency and experience even more for child-looking robots than for adult-looking robots.

Additionally, robots with digital screen faces tended to receive slightly higher ratings than those with physical, humanoid faces. The researchers suspect people might associate screens with advanced computer technology, leading to higher estimations of mental capability.

In the second experiment, the scientists wanted to see if these explicit survey answers matched people’s automatic, unconscious reactions. They recruited 100 new adult participants to complete a timed categorization task known as an implicit association test.

This type of test measures underlying biases by tracking how quickly a person pairs specific images with specific words. A faster reaction time suggests a stronger, more automatic connection in the person’s brain.

One group of 51 participants matched robot images with words related to agency, such as autonomous, passive, planful, or mindless. The researchers selected these specific words based on an earlier pilot study of 50 adults who rated various adjectives.

The other group of 49 participants matched the robot images with words related to experience, such as emotional, sensitive, impassive, or unfeeling. The scientists selected five robot identities from the first experiment, showing each participant the versions both with and without eyes.

The implicit association test results aligned perfectly with the first experiment. The participants demonstrated a strong, automatic mental link between the presence of eyes and higher levels of both agency and experience.

The researchers noted that this automatic bias occurred before participants had time to consciously think about their answers. It suggests that the effect is deeply rooted in human social cognition.

“We were surprised by the consistency of results across self-reports and the Implicit Association Test,” Linnunsalo told PsyPost. “Even when people weren’t consciously evaluating the robots, their automatic responses still showed the same bias toward robots with eyes. This suggests that the effect is robust and deeply rooted in human social cognition.”

The scientists note that humans have a natural tendency to assign human characteristics to objects with human-like features. Seeing a robot with two eyes causes a human to intuitively direct their attention to the machine’s head.

This reaction ties into theories of attention, which propose that humans assume a mind exists wherever they see directed attention. Because eyes are powerful cues for attention, they can trick our brains into perceiving a conscious being.

The scientists also asked participants about their general interest in new technology and their skepticism regarding whether robots could ever attain true consciousness. For people who reported a high interest in new technology, the absence of eyes caused an even sharper drop in their automatic associations with emotional experience.

The scientists suggest that tech enthusiasts might already expect modern robots to have some level of feeling or advanced capability. When presented with a completely eyeless face, that expectation was strongly disrupted.

“The key takeaway is that the presence of eyes strongly shapes how people perceive a robot’s mental abilities,” Linnunsalo explained. “When a robot has eyes, people are more likely to see it as capable of independent action and having emotional experiences, compared to robots without eyes.”

While these findings are informative, the study does have a few limitations. The researchers only used static, computer-generated images of robots, meaning the results might not fully capture how people react to real machines in three-dimensional space. It remains unclear if these exact effects would hold true in physical, real-life interactions with robots.

“This study used static images of robots as stimuli,” Linnunsalo noted. “Therefore, we cannot yet say to what extent these effects extend to real-life interactions with robots that can move or speak.”

Also, the study only included participants from Western countries.Cultural differences in how people view eye contact could alter the results in other parts of the world. For instance, some cultures view direct gaze differently, which could change how people interpret a robot looking at them.

“Our long-term goal is to understand how people respond to eye gaze cues from humanoid robots and how robots can use their eyes to facilitate interaction with humans,” Linnunsalo said. “Our next steps include investigating how different qualities of robot’s eyes, such as their realism, shape how the robot is perceived, and examining how the appearance and behavior of robots’ eyes influence real-life human-robot interaction.”

“The findings highlight how design choices that may seem purely aesthetic can have profound effects on human psychology. As robots increasingly enter homes, workplaces, and care settings, understanding the impact of their appearance becomes more important than ever. Our study underscores the need for thoughtful, evidence-based design in the development of humanoid robots.”

The study, “The impact of eyes on attributions of agency and experience in humanoid robots,” was authored by Jari K. Hietanen, Samuli Linnunsalo, and Dennis Küster.

A new study published in Evolution and Human Behavior provides evidence that the tendency for young men to mistake friendliness for sexual interest strengthens gradually throughout their teenage years. The research also suggests that when adolescent girls express romantic interest, boys rarely dismiss it as mere friendliness. Together, these findings help explain how romantic misunderstandings develop during adolescence and mirror the dynamics often seen in heterosexual adults.

In evolutionary psychology, a framework called Error Management Theory proposes that adults have built up specific biases to handle the uncertainty of dating. This theory suggests that men tend to overperceive sexual interest so they do not miss out on rare mating opportunities.

Failing to notice a sexual opportunity carries a high reproductive cost for men. On the other hand, women tend to underperceive sexual interest. This underperception bias helps them gently brush off unwanted suitors without causing conflict and protects their social reputation from rumors.

While these patterns are well documented in adults, scientists did not know at what age these psychological adaptations activate. Because adolescents experience puberty and possess reproductive capabilities, they face many of the same social and biological challenges as adults. The researchers wanted to test whether these misperception biases are already functioning by age 16.

They also wanted to track how these psychological patterns change as teenagers mature into young adults at age 19. If these biases appear too early, they could interfere with normal socializing and play. If they appear too late, adolescents might miss out on important social and romantic learning experiences.

“Imagine you’re having a friendly conversation with someone you secretly have a crush on. You naturally hope they’re talking to you not just out of friendliness, but because they might feel something more. But you can’t know for sure—you have to infer their intentions. Are you their crush? Or just their friend?” said Marius Stavang, a PhD student at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and member of the the Sexual Conflict Research Group.

“This kind of romantic uncertainty is something most people experience at some point. Research on adults shows that men and women tend to make predictable inferential errors in these situations: men often overestimate women’s romantic or sexual interest, while women tend to underestimate men’s interest. However, we didn’t know when these patterns begin to emerge.”

“Do these sex-typical misperception biases already exist in early adolescence, or do they develop later? That was the key gap we wanted to address. Understanding how these misperceptions develop matters because they can lead to awkwardness, disappointment, and in more serious cases, sexual coercion.”

To explore these questions, the scientists analyzed data from 1,290 heterosexual high school students in Norway. The sample included 551 males and 739 females between the ages of 16 and 19. The data was originally gathered as part of the 2013 Health, Sexual Harassment, and Experiences Study in the city of Trondheim.

Students completed surveys in private cubicles or at home during regular school hours. The researchers measured sexual misperception by asking participants about their experiences over the previous 12 months. Specifically, they asked if the students had ever been just friendly to someone of the opposite sex, only to have that person mistake their friendliness for a sexual advance.

This scenario represents being sexually overperceived. They also asked if the students had ever tried to show sexual or romantic interest, only to have the other person assume they were just trying to be nice. This scenario represents being sexually underperceived.

In addition, the participants answered questions about their sociosexuality, which is a person’s willingness to engage in casual sex without a committed relationship. The survey also asked students to rate their own mate value. In evolutionary biology, mate value refers to a person’s overall attractiveness and desirability as a romantic or sexual partner.

The scientists found that the traditional adult pattern of misperception is not fully formed at age 16. Instead, it develops over the course of the late teen years. At age 16, only 7 percent of females reported that males mistook their friendliness for sexual interest.

By age 19, that number grew to 25 percent. Because of this steady increase, females first reported a noticeable male overperception bias at age 17. This suggests that the male tendency to read too much into friendly behavior becomes active in the middle of adolescence.

“We found that the tendency for males to overestimate females’ sexual interest is not fully established by age 16, but appears to strengthen somewhat across middle to late adolescence,” Stavang told PsyPost. “This suggests that the well-known adult pattern—where men interpret women’s friendliness as sexual interest—undergoes developmental change during the teenage years.”

The patterns for underperception looked very different. Across all ages from 16 to 19, a substantial number of males reported that their romantic interest was dismissed as just being nice. About 13 percent of boys experienced this misunderstanding in the past year.

In contrast, only 3 percent of girls reported having their romantic interest mistaken for friendliness. This indicates that the classic experience of being placed in the friend zone is exceptionally rare for teenage girls. The sex difference in underperception is already firmly in place by age 16 and stays relatively consistent through age 19.

“I was surprised that almost no adolescent girls reported that their amorous interest was discounted as just friendliness,” Stavang said. “I had expected this classic experience—often discussed among adult men as the ‘friendzone’—to be more evenly distributed during high school, when dating norms might be less firmly established.”

The researchers also noted an unexpected pattern in how boys were overperceived by girls. The number of boys who had their friendliness mistaken for sexual interest rose from 16 to 18, but then dropped sharply to just 3 percent at age 19. Because so few 19-year-old boys were overperceived, and many were still underperceived, it was at age 19 that boys formally reported a female underperception bias.

Personal traits also influenced how often teenagers were misunderstood. A higher interest in casual sex increased the risk of being overperceived for both boys and girls. For boys, this openness to casual sex also increased their chances of having their actual romantic interest ignored.

Self-perceived mate value played a significant role for boys. Males who rated themselves as highly attractive partners were much more likely to have their friendliness mistaken for sexual interest. Relationship status and whether a teenager had experienced their sexual debut did not appear to affect their risk of being misperceived.

There are a few potential misinterpretations and limitations to keep in mind regarding this study. Because the research relied on teenagers reporting their own experiences, the data might be influenced by memory errors or subjective interpretations of social events. Also, the survey did not ask for the specific ages of the people who misunderstood the participants, meaning the misperceptions could have involved older or younger peers.

The research was conducted in Norway, a country known for high gender equality and open attitudes toward teenage dating. The researchers note that cultural rules surrounding dating might cause these biases to develop differently in more conservative societies. Finally, the study only looked at chronological age rather than physical maturity, which might play a bigger role in how teenagers are perceived by others.

“In adults, speed-dating paradigms have been very useful for studying misperception,” Stavang noted. “Participants can report how interested they think the other person is in them, and that can be directly compared to how interested the other person actually reports being. This provides a relatively objective measure of misperception.”

“If similar designs could be adapted ethically and appropriately for adolescent samples, it would represent a major step forward in understanding how sexual misperception biases develop. Longitudinal designs would also be especially valuable for identifying when and why these biases strengthen.”

“Romantic misunderstandings often arise because people are not fully transparent about their feelings,” Stavang added. “Adolescents may also be learning—by observing adults—that they too should communicate ambiguously when dating.”

“Encouraging clearer and more honest communication about interest and lack of interest could potentially reduce these misperceptions. If we understand how these biases develop, we may also be better equipped to interrupt cycles of misunderstanding before they solidify into adult patterns.”

The study, “Adolescent development of sexual misperception biases: females increasingly overperceived, males consistently underperceived,” was authored by Marius Stavang, Mons Bendixen, and Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair.

The concept of masochism often evokes images of whips, chains, and leather. While these elements can certainly be part of the picture, the scientific and historical reality is far more nuanced. At its core, masochism refers to the experience of finding pleasure or gratification in pain, humiliation, or submission. This seeming paradox has puzzled psychologists and neurologists for over a century. How can a sensation designed to warn the body of danger become a source of enjoyment?

Recent research suggests the answer lies in a complex interplay of biology, psychology, and social context. Scientists are finding that pain and pleasure share overlapping neural pathways. They also suggest that the context in which pain occurs can fundamentally alter how the brain processes it. To understand masochism, one must look beyond the physical sensation and examine the mind of the person experiencing it.

The Historical Origins

The word “masochism” has a literary origin. It was coined in 1883 by the German neurologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing. He derived the term from the name of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian writer. Sacher-Masoch was a nobleman and journalist known for writing romantic stories about life in Galicia. He became famous for his novella Venus in Furs, published in 1869.

The story within Venus in Furs follows a man named Severin von Kusiemski. Severin is so infatuated with a woman named Wanda von Dunajew that he asks to be her slave. He encourages her to treat him in progressively degrading ways. Wanda is initially hesitant but eventually embraces the role of the dominant figure. Severin describes his feelings during these ordeals as “suprasensuality.” The story mirrors the author’s own life, as Sacher-Masoch famously signed a contract with his mistress to become her slave for six months.

Krafft-Ebing used Sacher-Masoch’s name to describe a specific psychopathology. In his book Psychopathia Sexualis, he defined masochism as a condition where an individual is controlled by the idea of being completely subject to the will of another person. He noted that this idea is often colored by lustful feeling. Krafft-Ebing considered this a perversion of sexual life.

Later, Sigmund Freud expanded on these ideas. In his 1905 work Three Papers on Sexual Theory, Freud linked masochism with sadism. Sadism is the derivation of pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Freud argued that sadism and masochism were two sides of the same coin. He suggested that a person who enjoys inflicting pain is also capable of enjoying receiving it. He viewed these tendencies as stemming from psychological development in early childhood.

Sexual Masochism Disorder

In modern psychology, the definition has evolved. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) distinguishes between masochistic sexual interests and a mental disorder. Many people enjoy masochistic elements in their sexual lives without meeting the criteria for a disorder.

The DSM-5 defines Sexual Masochism Disorder specifically. To receive this diagnosis, a person must experience recurrent and intense sexual arousal from being humiliated, beaten, bound, or made to suffer. This pattern must persist for at least six months. Most importantly, these urges or behaviors must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

If an individual engages in these behaviors consensually and experiences no distress or dysfunction, they do not have a disorder. This distinction is vital. It separates consensual BDSM practices from pathological conditions. BDSM is an acronym that stands for Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, and Sadism and Masochism.

The Neuroscience of Pleasure and Pain

One of the central questions regarding masochism is how physical pain can translate into pleasure. A paper published in The Journal of Sex Research by Cara R. Dunkley and colleagues at the University of British Columbia proposes a theoretical model for this phenomenon. The researchers argue that pain in a BDSM context is qualitatively different from accidental pain.

Accidental pain, such as stubbing a toe, triggers a threat response. It signals danger and creates suffering. In contrast, masochistic pain is often described as “good pain.” The researchers suggest that this transformation occurs through “top-down processing.” This is a function where the brain interprets sensory data based on expectations, memories, and context.

When a person consents to pain in a safe environment, their brain regulates the sensation. This regulation involves the release of specific neurochemicals. The researchers point to endogenous opioids and endocannabinoids as key players. Endogenous opioids are the body’s natural painkillers, similar to morphine. Endocannabinoids are chemicals produced by the body that interact with the same receptors as cannabis.

These chemicals are often released during intense physical exertion, leading to phenomena like the “runner’s high.” The researchers suggest a similar process occurs during masochistic activities. The physiological stress of the activity triggers a flood of these mood-enhancing chemicals. This can blunt the sharpness of the pain and induce feelings of euphoria or relaxation.

Dunkley and her team also highlight the role of sexual arousal. Research indicates that sexual arousal can act as a powerful analgesic, or pain reliever. Studies have shown that stimulation of the genitals can raise the threshold for pain tolerance significantly. When arousal is present, the brain may suppress negative emotional reactions to pain. This allows the physical sensation to be experienced as intense but not necessarily aversive.

Altered States of Consciousness

Beyond the chemical reaction, masochism may serve a psychological function. Dunkley and colleagues discuss the concept of “subspace.” This is a colloquial term used in the BDSM community to describe a trance-like state. It is characterized by feelings of floating, peace, and detachment from reality.

The researchers compare this state to “flow” or mindfulness meditation. During intense sensation, an individual’s focus narrows to the immediate present. This can provide a relief from the burdens of self-awareness. Baumeister, a prominent psychologist, described this as “escaping the self.” For a high-functioning or stressed individual, the forced focus of pain can be a welcome vacation from their daily responsibilities and thoughts.

This state appears to reduce activity in the parts of the brain responsible for executive function and self-monitoring. This phenomenon is known as transient hypofrontality. By shutting down the internal monologue, the individual achieves a state of deep relaxation. This paradox—that stress on the body leads to peace in the mind—is a recurring theme in the study of masochism.

Benign Masochism in Everyday Life

Masochism is not limited to the bedroom. A study published in the Journal of Research in Personality in 2023 explores the concept of “benign masochism.” This term refers to the tendency to enjoy negative experiences in a safe context. Common examples include eating extremely spicy food, watching tear-jerker movies, or riding terrifying roller coasters.

Karolina Dyduch-Hazar and Vanessa Mitschke led this research. They sought to determine if people with masochistic traits actively seek out unpleasant stimuli. They conducted studies where participants could choose which videos to watch. The videos varied in emotional tone, ranging from happy scenes to disgusting ones, such as a man vomiting.

The researchers found that individuals who scored high on a scale of benign masochism showed a distinct preference. They were more likely to choose and enjoy videos that were highly arousing and negative. While most people preferred positive content, these individuals found pleasure in the intensity of the negative clips.

The researchers suggest that this behavior stems from a desire for sensation. It also involves the realization that the threat is not real. Dyduch-Hazar explains that the joy comes from realizing that one has been “fooled” by their body. The physical reaction is fear or disgust, but the mind knows there is no actual danger. This creates a safe space to experience intense emotions.

Links to Childhood Trauma

The relationship between childhood experiences and adult sexual preferences is a subject of ongoing investigation. A study published in Sexologies in 2022 by Mike Abrams and his colleagues explored the link between childhood abuse and sadomasochism. They surveyed over 1,000 adults about their histories of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse.

The findings indicated a correlation. Participants who reported childhood abuse were more likely to report sadomasochistic tendencies in adulthood. The type of abuse seemed to matter. Sexual abuse was most strongly associated with more extreme forms of sadism and masochism. Psychological abuse was linked to milder forms.

Abrams notes that this relationship is complex. It does not mean that all survivors of abuse will develop these interests. Nor does it mean that all masochists were abused. However, the data suggests that early experiences can shape how individuals eroticize power and pain.

Healing or Repetition?

This link to trauma raises a critical question: Is engaging in BDSM a harmful repetition of past abuse, or can it be a form of healing? A 2024 paper in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy tackled this difficult issue. Ateret Gewirtz-Meydan and her team reviewed existing literature to understand the mechanisms at play.

They found that for some survivors, BDSM offers a way to reclaim control. This process is sometimes called “rescripting.” In a consensual scene, the survivor calls the shots. They set the boundaries and have the power to stop the action at any moment. This can allow them to revisit traumatic feelings from a position of power rather than helplessness.

This transforms a passive experience of victimization into an active experience of survival and pleasure. The researchers note that BDSM emphasizes explicit consent and negotiation. This framework can help survivors learn to establish and enforce boundaries.

However, the researchers also warn of risks. The intense power dynamics can trigger retraumatization. If a scene goes wrong or boundaries are ignored, it can replicate the original abuse. Dissociation is another risk factor. Dissociation is a coping mechanism where a person detaches from reality. While some seek this state for relief, it can be harmful if it prevents an individual from processing their emotions or recognizing when they are unsafe.

The researchers conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. For some, BDSM is a powerful therapeutic tool. For others, it may reinforce negative patterns. Clinicians are encouraged to approach the topic without judgment and to understand the specific motivations of the individual.

“It is crucial for clinicians to approach this topic with sensitivity and avoid pathologizing BDSM practices,” Gewirtz-Meydan told PsyPost. “Understanding the therapeutic potential of BDSM and fostering open, non-judgmental conversations about it can contribute to destigmatizing and empowering trauma survivors.”

Masochism and Chronic Pain

A surprising area of research links sexual masochism with chronic pain conditions. A study published in the European Journal of Pain in 2026 by Annabel Vetterlein and her colleagues investigated this connection. They surveyed a large group of individuals, some of whom identified as BDSM practitioners and some who did not.

The results showed a significantly higher prevalence of chronic pain among the BDSM practitioners. Approximately 47% of the participants with sadomasochistic interests reported living with chronic pain. This is compared to about 29% in the control group. This finding was consistent across both men and women.

The researchers explored why this might be. They found that practitioners of sadomasochism tended to view pain differently than the general population. They were more likely to see pain as a challenge to be overcome rather than a tragedy to be feared. They also scored higher on measures of sensation seeking.

Vetterlein and her team suggest that engaging in masochism might serve as a coping strategy. The experience of acute, voluntary pain during a BDSM scene triggers the release of pain-relieving neurochemicals. This can provide temporary relief from the persistent, involuntary pain of a chronic condition.

This “fighting pain with pain” approach allows the individual to feel a sense of control. Chronic pain often makes people feel helpless. Voluntary pain restores a sense of agency. The researchers also noted that the social aspect of BDSM might play a role. Sharing the experience of pain with a partner can create a sense of belonging and support that is often lacking for chronic pain sufferers.

Personality Predictors

The study by Vetterlein also sought to identify what personality traits predict an interest in masochism. They found three main factors. The first was having chronic pain, as mentioned above. The second was “sensation seeking.” This is a personality trait defined by the search for experiences and feelings that are varied, novel, complex, and intense. Sensation seekers are often willing to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experiences.

The third predictor was a specific attitude toward pain. Individuals who viewed pain as a “challenge” were much more likely to have masochistic interests. This attitude frames pain as a test of endurance and strength. It removes the victimhood often associated with suffering and replaces it with a narrative of achievement.

A Complex Phenomenon

The scientific understanding of masochism has come a long way since Krafft-Ebing first defined it as a perversion. Today, researchers recognize it as a multifaceted phenomenon. It is not simply a desire to be hurt. It is a complex interaction between the brain’s reward systems, an individual’s psychological history, and their social environment.

Physiologically, it exploits the body’s natural response to stress to create pleasure. Psychologically, it offers a way to alter consciousness, escape self-awareness, and potentially cope with trauma or chronic pain. Socially, it relies on strict codes of consent and trust to transform a threat into a game.

Whether manifested as a sexual preference, a taste for spicy food, or a way to manage past trauma, masochism highlights the adaptability of the human mind. It demonstrates that our experience of reality—and specifically of pain—is not a fixed biological fact. It is a subjective experience that we can shape, reframe, and sometimes even enjoy.

A recent comprehensive review of existing scientific research suggests that individuals who engage in impulsive acts of violence tend to score lower on intelligence tests compared to non-violent individuals. The findings provide evidence that lower intellectual abilities may make it harder for people to resolve conflicts peacefully, though intelligence is just one piece of a complex behavioral puzzle. The research was published in the journal Intelligence.

Scientists from various disciplines have spent decades attempting to understand the underlying factors that drive aggression and violence. While past research provides evidence that lower cognitive abilities are linked to general criminal behavior, the specific relationship between intelligence and violent acts against others has remained less clear. This gap in knowledge prompted researchers to look closer at specific types of aggression.

The researchers conducted the new review to figure out if people who commit violent acts consistently show lower intellectual abilities than those who do not. They also wanted to know if this pattern holds true for different components of intelligence, such as verbal skills and nonverbal problem solving. By clarifying this connection, the scientists hoped to gather information that could help design better rehabilitation programs.

“The main motivation for this study was the absence of a systematic analysis assessing whether violence is truly related to the intelligence quotient (IQ) or whether, on the contrary, it is an independent factor,” explained Ángel Romero-Martínez, a professor of psychobiology at the University of Valencia.

“Although prior research has linked low intelligence to general antisocial behavior, there was a significant lack of specialized systematic reviews focusing exclusively on violence against others. We aimed to resolve the debate over whether low IQ is an inherent characteristic of violent behavior (acting as a facilitator) or merely an incidental variable. By conducting this meta-analysis, we were able to demonstrate that violence—particularly reactive violence—is not independent of cognitive abilities, but is significantly influenced by them.”

To explore this topic, the scientists conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This type of research involves gathering all previously published studies on a specific subject and combining their data using statistical tools to find an overall trend. The research team searched three major scientific databases, including PubMed and Scopus, along with exploring reference lists to find studies that measured intelligence and assessed aggressive behavior.

Out of more than 5,000 initially identified articles, the researchers removed duplicates and screened the remaining papers for relevance. They ultimately selected 131 empirical studies that met their strict inclusion criteria. For the statistical analysis, they looked at two main sets of data to evaluate group differences and behavioral associations.

The first part of the analysis compared the intelligence scores of 1,860 violent individuals against a control group of 3,888 non-violent individuals. The second part examined the statistical correlation between intelligence and aggressive behavior across a massive pool of 33,118 participants. These aggressive behaviors included a variety of actions, ranging from general hostility and poor anger control to externalizing behaviors and physical assaults.

The intelligence quotient, commonly known as IQ, is a standardized score used to measure a person’s intellectual abilities, with an average score set at 100. In their analysis, the scientists looked at full IQ scores, as well as verbal and nonverbal scores. Verbal intelligence involves the ability to use and understand language, which is important for communication.

Nonverbal intelligence relates to visual problem solving and abstract reasoning without the use of words. The data showed that violent individuals scored significantly lower on full, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence tests compared to the non-violent control groups. This gap in intelligence scores was particularly large when the violent individuals also suffered from a diagnosed mental or personality disorder.

The findings indicate that these cognitive differences are present regardless of gender. The researchers also noted that differences in socioeconomic status did not seem to explain the gap. Many of the included studies accounted for economic and educational backgrounds, and the intelligence gap remained consistent.

“What was truly surprising was just how clear and robust the relationship turned out to be,” Romero-Martínez told PsyPost. “Beyond finding a general link, the most striking aspect was the consistent relationship across all different types of intelligence (verbal and non-verbal IQ).”

When looking at the broader pool of over 33,000 participants, the scientists found a consistent negative correlation between intelligence and violence. This means that as IQ scores decrease, the tendency to engage in violent behavior tends to increase. The correlation coefficients ranged from negative 0.09 to negative 0.20, pointing to a modest but reliable link between lower intelligence and aggressive tendencies.

The research suggests that this lower intelligence is primarily associated with reactive violence. Reactive violence is defined as an impulsive, emotional outburst of aggression in response to frustration or a perceived threat. It differs from proactive violence, which is planned, calculated, and goal oriented.

The scientists propose that lower intellectual abilities might limit an individual’s mental resources for managing stress. Without strong problem solving or verbal skills, a person may struggle to process frustration and navigate conflicts peacefully. In high stress situations, this cognitive limitation can act as a facilitator for impulsive physical or verbal aggression.

“The most important takeaway is that while our study found a correlation between lower IQ and reactive violence, having a lower IQ does not mean a person will be violent,” Romero-Martínez explained. “It is crucial to understand that intelligence is just one factor within a much more complex problem involving biological, social, and psychological variables. Rather than a direct cause, a lower IQ acts as a facilitator.”

“It may limit an individual’s cognitive resources to manage stress or solve conflicts peacefully, making them more prone to impulsive or reactive aggression. Therefore, these findings should be used not to label individuals, but to improve rehabilitation programs by tailoring them to the specific cognitive needs of each person, helping them develop better non-violent coping strategies.”

“The practical significance of these effects should not be interpreted to blame or stigmatize individuals with lower IQ scores,” Romero-Martínez continued. “Instead, the real value of these findings lies in identifying the therapeutic needs of people involved in violent acts.”

“By understanding that cognitive limitations can act as a barrier to peaceful conflict resolution, we can develop more effective intervention programs tailored to individual needs. These results suggest that rehabilitation should focus on providing specific tools and strategies that match the person’s cognitive profile, ultimately helping them to manage frustration and avoid violent behavior more successfully.”

The study does have some limitations that scientists will need to address in future research. For instance, the original studies included in the review used a wide variety of different intelligence tests, which could introduce inconsistencies into the data. Additionally, the researchers only included studies published in English or Spanish, which might restrict how well the results apply to other global populations.

Moving forward, scientists plan to explore other mental factors that might influence the relationship between intelligence and reactive violence. They aim to study how specific mental processes, such as cognitive flexibility and impulse control, play a role in aggressive outbursts.

“As we gain deeper knowledge and a more nuanced understanding of these contributors, we will be better equipped to develop effective strategies to intervene and prevent this type of behavior,” Romero-Martínez said. “We do not want our work to remain solely on a theoretical level. Our ultimate ambition is for our findings to have a real-world impact. By translating this research into practical tools and evidence-based policies, we aim to provide society with better resources to address the root causes of violence and foster safer environments for everyone.”

The study, “Analysis of the intelligence quotient and its contribution to reactive violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” was authored by Ángel Romero-Martínez, Carolina Sarrate-Costa, and Luis Moya-Albiol.

New research suggests that when given the option between marriage and domestic partnership, same-sex couples in the United States overwhelmingly choose marriage. The findings indicate that marriage retains a distinct and powerful status due to its legal benefits, social clarity, and perceived level of commitment. This study was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

Social scientists have debated the status of marriage in American society for decades. One prominent theory, known as deinstitutionalization, suggests that the social norms and rules surrounding marriage are weakening. This theory posits that marriage is becoming less distinct from cohabitation, or living together without being married. For same-sex couples, this question has been particularly complex. Historically excluded from marriage, many couples relied on alternatives like domestic partnerships to secure legal recognition.

Domestic partnerships are legal relationships available in some jurisdictions that grant couples some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Before marriage equality was established federally, debates occurred within the gay rights movement regarding the value of marriage.

Some activists argued for assimilation into the tradition of marriage. Others advocated for domestic partnerships as a way to reject what they viewed as a patriarchal or overly traditional institution. The researchers aimed to understand if same-sex couples viewed these two forms of union as equivalent or if they preferred one over the other when both were legally available.

“The percentage of American adults who are married has been steadily declining in recent decades. One question we need to ask ourselves is: is the institution of marriage in decline or perhaps even dying?” explained study author Michael J. Rosenfeld, a professor of sociology at Stanford University.

“One way to think about the question is to ask: what are the alternatives to marriage? Domestic partnership laws in some states, California as an example, were designed to offer the same rights and benefits as marriage. So when given the choice between marriage and domestic partnership, what did couples choose and why?”

For their study, the researchers utilized two primary sources of data. The first was an administrative dataset from the California Secretary of State. This included records of all domestic partnerships filed in California from January 2000 to November 2020. The researchers identified same-sex couples within this data by analyzing the first names of the partners. They used a database from the Social Security Administration to determine the probability of a name being male or female.

Couples were categorized as same-sex if both names had a greater than 95 percent probability of belonging to the same gender. This process identified 48,310 same-sex domestic partnerships. The researchers then compared these registrations with data on same-sex marriages from the American Community Survey. This allowed them to track how the uptake of domestic partnerships changed after same-sex marriage became legal in California in late June 2013.

The second data source was the 2022 “How Couples Meet and Stay Together” survey. This is a nationally representative survey of adults in the United States. The sample included 92 individuals currently in same-sex relationships. These participants were asked explicitly whether they would prefer to be married or in a domestic partnership. They were also asked to write open-ended responses explaining the reasons for their preference.

The analysis of the California administrative data showed a dramatic shift in behavior following the legalization of same-sex marriage. In the years prior to 2013, thousands of same-sex couples registered as domestic partners. However, immediately after the Supreme Court decision that allowed same-sex marriage in California, new domestic partnership registrations dropped significantly.

In the second half of 2013, same-sex couples in California chose marriage over domestic partnership at a ratio of more than 22 to 1. This preference persisted over time. Even years later, between 2016 and 2018, new same-sex marriages outnumbered new domestic partnerships by a ratio of about 13 to 1. This suggests that for the vast majority of couples, domestic partnership was a temporary substitute rather than a preferred alternative.

The national survey results supported the findings from the California administrative data. Among the respondents in same-sex relationships, the preference for marriage was dominant. About three times as many respondents preferred marriage compared to those who preferred domestic partnership.

When asked to explain their reasoning, participants provided clear distinctions between the two institutions. The most common reason for preferring marriage was practical and legal. Respondents noted that marriage offers federal benefits and tax advantages that domestic partnerships do not. They also highlighted portability, which refers to the ability of their legal status to be recognized in other states or countries. Domestic partnerships often lack this recognition outside the jurisdiction where they are performed.

Beyond legal rights, the social and symbolic nature of marriage played a major role. Many participants described marriage as signifying a higher level of commitment than domestic partnership. They viewed domestic partnership as a “marriage-lite” option or a status that implied a less serious bond. Respondents also noted that marriage is a term that is immediately understood by families, friends, and coworkers. This social intelligibility allows couples to communicate the nature of their relationship without needing to explain complex legal terms.

A minority of respondents did prefer domestic partnership. Their reasons often aligned with the theories of those who critique traditional marriage. Some viewed marriage as having too much historical baggage or religious connotation. Others preferred domestic partnership specifically because it felt like a lower level of commitment. This aligns with the idea of a “menu of options,” where couples can choose the legal status that best fits the intensity of their relationship.

The researchers concluded that marriage remains a highly resilient institution. Rather than fading in importance, the distinctiveness of marriage appears to have been reinforced by the fight for marriage equality. Same-sex couples, having studied the institution from the outside for years, appear acutely aware of the specific advantages marriage provides.

“My findings show that same-sex couples overwhelmingly chose marriage over domestic partnership, even though many in the gay rights movement predicted that same-sex couples might prefer the newer and less traditional option of domestic partnership,” Rosenfeld told PsyPost. “Marriage is a durable and flexible institution that is thousands of years old and is not going away.”

As with any study, there are some limitations. California was unique in offering a domestic partnership system that granted nearly all state-level rights of marriage. Most other states did not offer such a robust alternative, making direct comparisons difficult in other regions. Additionally, the number of same-sex couples in the 2022 survey was relatively small, which limits the ability to generalize the survey findings to the entire population with high precision.

Future research could examine how these preferences shift for younger generations who have grown up in a world where marriage equality is the norm. It remains to be seen if the specific legal and cultural distinctions between marriage and other forms of union will continue to hold the same weight as the political context evolves.

The study, “What Happened to the Marriage Alternatives? Same-Sex Couples in the United States and the Distinctiveness of Marriage,” was authored by Michael J. Rosenfeld and Alisa Feldman.

A trio of studies published in Psychological Science, Scientific Reports, and the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology provides evidence regarding the development of early mathematical skills in preschool children. The findings suggest that the age at which a child grasps the concept of cardinality is a strong predictor of their first-grade readiness. The research also indicates that the complexity of parental speech and parental math anxiety significantly influence the development of these essential quantitative abilities.

Understanding the foundations of mathematics is a primary goal for developmental psychologists. While many children learn to recite numbers by rote memory, this does not necessarily mean they understand quantity. The conceptual leap occurs when a child understands cardinality. This is the principle that the last number word used when counting a set of objects represents the total quantity of that set.

Scientists sought to determine if the timing of this conceptual insight matters for future academic success. They investigated whether acquiring this knowledge early in preschool provides an advantage over acquiring it just prior to kindergarten. The researchers also aimed to identify specific home and parental factors that facilitate or hinder this learning process.

“This is part of a larger project funded by the National Institutes of Health that is focused on identifying the home (e.g., parent math anxiety) , school (e.g., classroom instruction), and child (e.g, working memory) factors that children’s early conceptual learning of the quantities represented by number word and numerals, as well as overall math achievement,” said study author David C. Geary, a Curators’ Distinguished Professor at the University of Missouri.

The first study, published in 2018, followed 141 children from the beginning of preschool through the first grade. The scientists assessed the children’s quantitative skills at multiple time points. To measure cardinality, the researchers utilized a “give-a-number” task.

In this procedure, a researcher asked the child to provide a specific number of objects, such as “give me three fish.” Children who do not understand cardinality might grab a random handful. Those who grasp the concept count out the exact number requested.

By the first grade, the researchers assessed the children’s number-system knowledge. This involves understanding how numbers relate to one another, such as knowing that the number seven is composed of a six and a one.

The data revealed that the age at which a child became a “cardinal-principle knower” was highly predictive of their later abilities. Children who understood this concept at the beginning of preschool showed significantly higher number-system knowledge in first grade. This advantage existed even after controlling for intelligence and executive function.

Executive function refers to a set of mental skills that include working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control. These cognitive processes allow children to focus attention and manage information.

The results suggest that simply understanding cardinality before kindergarten is not the only factor for success. The timing of this insight appears to be significant. Early mastery allows children to build a deeper understanding of number relationships before formal schooling begins.

Building on this, a second study published in 2025 examined what drives improvements in cardinal knowledge. The scientists focused on the home environment, specifically the nature of conversations between parents and children. They hypothesized that the quality of “number talk” would predict gains in a child’s understanding.

The researchers recruited 86 preschoolers and their primary caregivers. They assessed the children’s cardinal knowledge at the beginning of the school year and again five months later. To measure parental engagement, the scientists used a structured observation task.

Pairs of parents and children were asked to plan a pretend birthday party. They were given specific items like plates and goodie bags to encourage discussion about quantities. The researchers recorded these interactions and transcribed the conversations.

They coded the speech for complexity. Simple number talk involved basic counting or naming small quantities. Complex number talk involved comparing the size of two sets or labeling larger sets of objects.

The analysis indicated that the complexity of parental number talk predicted gains in the children’s cardinal knowledge. Children whose parents engaged in more complex quantitative discussions showed greater improvement over the five-month period. Simple counting activities did not show the same predictive power.

This study also highlighted the role of the child’s own cognitive abilities. Children with stronger executive functions tended to make larger gains in their understanding of number words. This suggests a bidirectional relationship where both the home environment and the child’s cognitive capacities contribute to learning.

The third study, published in 2026, investigated potential barriers to this early development. The researchers explored the impact of parental mathematics anxiety. They sought to understand if a parent’s fear or nervousness regarding math correlated with their child’s quantitative skills at the start of preschool.

This study involved 130 children and their parents. The parents reported their levels of math anxiety using a sliding scale. They also completed assessments of their own math and reading achievement.

The researchers assessed the children’s quantitative competencies using a battery of tasks. These included counting, recognizing numerals, and the give-a-number task. The scientists also measured the children’s executive functions.

The findings provided evidence that higher parental math anxiety is associated with lower complex quantitative knowledge in children. This relationship was particularly evident for cardinal knowledge. Children of highly anxious parents tended to perform worse on these conceptual tasks.

The data revealed an interaction between the child’s cognitive abilities and the parent’s anxiety. Children who possessed strong executive functions and had parents with low math anxiety demonstrated the highest competency levels. This suggests that a child’s ability to focus can amplify the benefits of a low-anxiety home environment.

“Children’s early home experiences with numbers, counting, and related topics contributes to their math development,” Geary told PsyPost. “Parents who avoid these activities place their children at risk of falling behind their peers.”

The study also clarified the nature of parental math anxiety. Parents who reported high anxiety also tended to have lower math achievement scores themselves. They reported lower confidence in their abilities and a tendency to avoid numerical information.

This implies that math anxiety is not an isolated emotional state. It appears to be part of a broader constellation of traits including lower subject proficiency and avoidance behaviors. These factors likely combine to create a home environment that is less conducive to early math learning.

Self-reported home numeracy activities, such as playing number games, did not strongly predict the children’s skills in this specific study. This suggests that general reports of activities may not capture the specific types of interactions that drive learning. The specific quality of engagement, as seen in the party-planning study, seems to be more significant than the frequency of general activities.

The studies — like all research — come with some caveats. The studies identify correlations but cannot definitively prove causation. While the longitudinal designs offer strong evidence, unmeasured genetic or environmental factors could play a role.

“We don’t fully understand the specific activities that promote early math development, but progress is being made,” Geary said.

The reliance on self-reports for some parental measures introduces potential bias. Parents may overestimate the frequency of educational activities.

“There was no relation between parents math anxiety and the math activities they reported engaging in, suggesting self-reports of these activities are not reliable,” Geary noted. “They stated they avoided math information and so they likely over-reported how much they engaged in these activities with their children.”

Future research should focus on experimental interventions. Scientists need to determine if coaching parents to use complex number talk can directly improve children’s outcomes. It would also be beneficial to explore if reducing parental anxiety leads to better math readiness in their children.

“We’re still collecting data,” Geary told PsyPost. “In the end, we’ll look at parent, classroom, and child factors that contribute to key aspects of math development over the two years of preschool.”

Despite these limitations, the implications for parents and educators are practical. The research suggests that early exposure to number concepts is beneficial. It indicates that the quality of interaction matters more than rote counting.

Parents might encourage their children by discussing the relationships between numbers. Conversations could involve comparing quantities, such as discussing which pile has more blocks. Labeling the total number of items in a set appears to be particularly helpful.

The findings also suggest that addressing parental attitudes is necessary. Parents who feel anxious about math may inadvertently limit their child’s exposure to complex concepts. Building parental confidence could be a key step in supporting the next generation of learners.

The study, “Early Conceptual Understanding of Cardinality Predicts Superior School-Entry Number-System Knowledge,” was authored by David C. Geary, Kristy vanMarle, Felicia W. Chu, Jeffrey Rouder, Mary K. Hoard, and Lara Nugent.

The study, “Complexity of parental number talk predicts preschoolers’ gains in cardinal knowledge,” was authored by David C. Geary, Emine Simsek, Sara Gable, Jordan A. Booker, Lara Nugent, and Mary K. Hoard.

The study, “Parental mathematics anxiety predicts children’s cardinal number word and numeral knowledge at preschool entry,” was authored by David C. Geary, Sara Gable, Mary K. Hoard, and Lara Nugent.

In recent years, the term “incel”—short for involuntary celibate—has become a fixture in public discourse, almost exclusively associated with men. The male incel subculture is frequently linked to online misogyny, violent rhetoric, and real-world acts of aggression. However, a parallel but distinct phenomenon has emerged that remains largely obscured from the mainstream view: the “femcel.”

Female involuntary celibates, or femcels, are women who feel they are unable to form romantic or sexual relationships despite wishing to do so. Unlike their male counterparts, whose grievances often turn outward toward women and society, femcels tend to direct their frustrations inward.

New academic research is beginning to explore this understudied population, revealing a complex subculture defined by loneliness, specific standards of beauty, and a digital evolution from support groups to ironic aesthetic movements.

The Origins and Ideology of the Femcel

The concept of involuntary celibacy was actually coined by a woman in the 1990s as an inclusive term for lonely people of all genders. Over time, the male faction radicalized into the modern incel movement, effectively pushing women out of the definition. In response, women formed their own spaces. According to research published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, femcels congregate in online communities to discuss their exclusion from the romantic marketplace.

Hannah Rae Evans and Adam Lankford, scientists at the University of Alabama, analyzed thousands of posts from femcel discussion forums. They found that these women express three distinct types of sexual frustration: unfulfilled desires to have sex, a lack of available partners, and unsatisfying sexual activities. This suggests that for femcels, the issue is not merely a lack of sexual access, but a deep dissatisfaction with the quality and availability of intimate connection.

“When I first heard the term ‘femcel,’ I was immediately interested and wanted to know more about their communities. When I began exploring their online subculture, I saw so many different directions that our research could take because this is such an understudied population,” Evans told PsyPost.

A central pillar of femcel ideology is the “Pink Pill.” This is a gender-flipped version of the “Red Pill” philosophy found in male-dominated online spaces. While the Red Pill claims to reveal the truth about female nature, the Pink Pill focuses on the harsh realities of female existence within a patriarchal society. Specifically, it emphasizes “lookism,” or the belief that society values women almost entirely based on their physical beauty.

Scholars Debora Maria Pizzimenti and Assunta Penna explored this dynamic in their ethnographic study of the Reddit community r/Vindicta. They published their findings in the Italian Sociological Review. Their work describes how femcels view beauty not as subjective, but as an objective, measurable form of power.

In these communities, members often categorize women into a hierarchy. “Stacys” are highly attractive women who hold high sexual market value and receive good treatment from society. “Beckys” are average women. Femcels place themselves at the bottom, believing their physical features prevent them from accessing the privileges afforded to attractive women.

This belief system is rigid. Users often discourage “coping” mechanisms, such as the idea that personality matters more than looks. Instead, they focus on “looksmaxxing,” or the pursuit of surgical and cosmetic enhancements to improve their social standing.

The Psychology of Isolation and Inhibition

While the online rhetoric can be harsh, the underlying psychological profile of a femcel appears to be one of profound isolation. Lola Cassidy, a researcher at the National College of Ireland, conducted a quantitative study comparing women who identify as femcels to a control group of women who do not. Her findings provide statistical evidence regarding the mental health struggles within this community.

Cassidy found that femcels reported significantly higher levels of loneliness compared to non-femcel women. The study utilized the UCLA Three-Item Loneliness Scale, and results indicated that many femcels selected the highest possible scores for feelings of isolation. This supports the qualitative observations that these online spaces serve as a refuge for women who feel entirely disconnected from social life.

In addition to loneliness, the study revealed that femcels exhibit higher levels of social inhibition. Social inhibition involves the avoidance of social situations and the suppression of emotional expression due to a fear of rejection or judgment. Cassidy suggests that this inhibition may predict a stronger preference for online social interactions. For femcels, the internet acts as a necessary buffer, allowing them to communicate without the immediate fear of face-to-face rejection.

The research also highlighted a link between femcel identity and “problematic internet use.” This term refers to compulsive online activity that interferes with daily life. Femcels in the study scored higher on measures of problematic internet use than the control group. They were more likely to use social media for emotional regulation. This implies that for these women, online forums are not just a pastime but a primary coping mechanism for managing negative emotions.

Femcels Versus Incels: A Distinct Difference

A common misconception is that femcels are simply the female equivalent of incels. While they share the core experience of involuntary celibacy and use similar terminology, their reactions to this state differ significantly. Male incels frequently externalize their anger. They often blame women for their celibacy, viewing access to women’s bodies as a right that has been denied to them. This worldview has been linked to real-world violence and mass shootings.

Femcels, in contrast, tend to internalize their frustration. Evans and Lankford noted in their study that femcel discussions contained significantly less support for aggression and violence than what has been reported regarding male incels. While extreme views exist, the researchers are not aware of any mass violence committed by individuals identifying with the femcel community.

Ruby Ling, in a thesis for the University of Alberta, conducted a comparative analysis of incel and femcel subreddits. She found that while both groups use derogatory language to describe the opposite sex, the nature of their grievances is different. Incels often dehumanize women, reducing them to their biological functions. Femcels, conversely, often express a desire for companionship and emotional intimacy rather than just sexual access.

Ling also noted that femcels tend to view their condition as fluid. While incels often believe their genetic fate is sealed at birth, femcels discuss how life events—such as aging, motherhood, or weight gain—can push a woman into “femceldom.” This suggests a view of celibacy that is tied to a woman’s fluctuating social capital rather than an innate biological defect.

Furthermore, Ling’s research highlights the hostility femcels face from male incels. Male incel communities frequently deny the existence of female involuntary celibacy, arguing that women can always find a sexual partner if they lower their standards. This rejection forces femcels to create their own separated spaces, where they often discuss the “misogyny-laden obstacles” they face in dating.

Radical Feminism and the Femcel

The relationship between femcels and feminism is complicated. On the surface, femcel rhetoric often aligns with radical feminist theory. Both groups acknowledge the existence of a patriarchy that oppresses women. Both groups often criticize liberal feminism, particularly regarding the sexual revolution and hookup culture, which femcels argue benefits men while leaving women unfulfilled and used.

Ling’s analysis found that femcel forums often function as women-only spaces where members discuss male violence and the objectification of women. Themes of men feeling entitled to women’s bodies are common in both radical feminist and femcel discourse. However, femcels rarely identify as feminists. They often feel that mainstream feminism ignores the specific struggles of “ugly” or socially awkward women.

Pizzimenti and Penna’s research on the r/Vindicta community supports this. They observed that while the community is a “Pink Pill” space that focuses on female strategies for survival, it is often antifeminist in tone. The focus is individualistic rather than collective. The goal is not to dismantle the patriarchy but to navigate it successfully by maximizing one’s aesthetic value. This reflects a pragmatic, survivalist approach rather than a political movement.

The Rise of “Femcelcore” and Heteronihilism

In recent years, the femcel identity has migrated from obscure forums to mainstream platforms like TikTok, undergoing a significant transformation. Researchers Jacob Johanssen and Jilly Boyce Kay describe this shift in the European Journal of Cultural Studies. They distinguish between the “traditional” femcel—who is genuinely isolated and excluded—and the “aesthetic” femcel, or “femcelcore.”

Femcelcore is characterized by a specific digital aesthetic. It often involves imagery of messy bedrooms, references to “sad girl” culture (such as the novels of Ottessa Moshfegh or the music of Lana Del Rey), and an ironic embrace of “toxic femininity.” This new iteration is less about the inability to find a partner and more about a performance of alienation.

Johanssen and Kay argue that this trend represents a form of “heteronihilism.” This concept describes a deep disappointment with heterosexual culture. It is a mood of fatalistic apathy. Women engaging in femcelcore may not be strictly celibate, but they express a sense of giving up on the promise of romantic fulfillment. They view heterosexuality as inevitably disappointing but inescapable.

This aligns with findings from Ada Jussila of the University of Turku, who analyzed the subreddit r/femcelgrippysockjail. Her work, published in WiderScreen, details how this community uses irony and memes to process mental health struggles and gendered expectations.

Jussila notes that the community is divided. Traditional femcels, who define their status by physical unattractiveness and rejection, sometimes clash with second-wave femcels who view the identity as a mental state or aesthetic. The latter group often engages in “ironic misandry”—exaggerated hatred of men used for comedic effect. This allows them to vent frustration while maintaining a safe distance from their true emotions.

Community Dynamics and Gatekeeping

The tension between these different definitions of “femcel” leads to intense gatekeeping within the community. Pizzimenti and Penna observed that forums like r/Vindicta have strict rules to maintain their focus. They explicitly state that the space is for “unattractive women” and forbid “coping” posts that try to deny the importance of beauty.

Jussila also observed this dynamic. In the communities she studied, users frequently debated who qualifies as a “real” femcel. Traditional members often try to exclude those they perceive as “average” women who are merely going through a rough patch in dating. This “othering” process helps the core group maintain a sense of identity, but it also creates a hostile environment for newcomers.

Despite this, these communities offer a rare source of support. For women who feel completely invisible to society, finding a group that acknowledges their reality is powerful. Ling’s research notes that these forums provide validation for experiences that are otherwise dismissed. Women share advice, support each other through trauma, and offer a space to vent without judgment.

Mental Health and Well-being

The mental health implications of the femcel identity are significant. Cassidy’s study found that femcels reported significantly lower mental well-being compared to the control group. This lower well-being was statistically predicted by their high levels of loneliness and social inhibition.

However, the relationship between internet use and well-being is complex. While femcels exhibit problematic internet use, Cassidy found that this usage did not directly correlate with their loneliness in the same way it did for the control group. This suggests that for femcels, online communities might not be the cause of their loneliness, but rather a symptom or a refuge.

Jussila’s work supports this, noting that the “femcelcore” aesthetic often glamourizes mental illness or dissociation. This can be a double-edged sword. It provides a language for expressing pain, but it may also trap users in a cycle of negativity. Johanssen and Kay warn that the “heteronihilist” mood of these spaces is anti-political. It encourages resignation rather than action, potentially deepening the user’s sense of hopelessness.

Conclusion

The femcel phenomenon is a multifaceted reflection of modern pressures regarding beauty, relationships, and digital connection. It is not simply a female version of the incel movement, though it shares roots in the experience of involuntary celibacy. Research indicates that femcels are driven by internalized distress, loneliness, and a belief that they have failed to meet societal standards of womanhood.

From the rigid beauty hierarchies of r/Vindicta to the ironic despair of TikTok’s femcelcore, these women are navigating a world where they feel they do not belong. While they generally avoid the violent radicalization seen in male incel communities, their struggles with mental health and social isolation are profound.

Scientists Evans and Lankford emphasize that further study of this population is necessary. Understanding femcels can help researchers identify the factors contributing to radicalization and develop support strategies for those suffering from severe social isolation. As the definition of the term continues to evolve, it remains a powerful lens through which to view the changing dynamics of gender and connection in the digital age.

For many aspiring artists and musicians, achieving fame on social media represents the ultimate career goal. A new study published in Administrative Science Quarterly challenges this assumption, revealing that gaining a massive following often triggers a psychological struggle that threatens the creator’s well-being. The research identifies a phenomenon called “audience entanglement,” describing how creators must actively manage their deep emotional connection to their audience to prevent burnout and sustain their careers.

The creator economy has grown rapidly in recent years. It is now a multi-billion dollar industry where individuals can earn a living by sharing their work directly with fans. Academic research and popular advice have historically viewed the attainment of a large audience as the endpoint of a creator’s journey. The prevailing logic suggests that once a creator builds a substantial fanbase, they have succeeded.

The researchers behind the new study argue that this view is incomplete. They suggest that gaining an audience is not an endpoint but rather a new starting point that introduces unique challenges. While traditional gig workers interact with clients or algorithms, digital creators interact with thousands of anonymous strangers. The scientists sought to understand how these independent workers make sense of this relationship. They wanted to know how creators manage the pressure of constant visibility once they have achieved widespread appeal.

“Creative workers often seek a large audience for their creations, in large part because it makes doing creative work financially viable. Probably due to the necessity of a large audience for sustaining this type of work, there is a large body of research that illuminates what makes ideas, products, and services gain widespread appeal,” said study author Julianna Pillemer, an assistant professor of Management and Organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

“We know very little, however, about what happens to creators after this type of large audience is attained. Our study reveals what happens to creators after their work has gained widespread appeal on social media platforms – a phenomenon we call ‘audience entanglement’ – and offers tangible strategies for how they may cultivate a healthier relationship with their audience and capture meaning from their work.”

To explore this dynamic, the scientists conducted an inductive qualitative study. This means they did not start with a hypothesis to prove but instead gathered data to develop a new theory. They focused on two distinct groups of independent creative workers: visual artists on Instagram and musicians on YouTube.

The sample consisted of 54 creators who had already achieved significant success. The visual artists had an average of over 500,000 followers, while the musicians averaged nearly 280,000 subscribers. These numbers placed the participants in the top tier of users on their respective platforms. The researchers conducted a total of 74 in-depth interviews. (This included follow-up interviews with a portion of the participants to track how their experiences evolved over time.)

During these interviews, the participants shared detailed career histories. They described high and low points, their emotional reactions to platform metrics, and their strategies for coping with online interactions. The researchers analyzed these transcripts to identify common themes and psychological states.

The central finding of the study is the deep interrelatedness between the creator and their audience. The researchers found that this relationship becomes a persistent consideration in how the creator approaches their work. It is not something they can easily ignore.

For most creators, this phenomenon initially manifests as “dysfunctional entanglement.” In this state, the creator feels an oppressive dependence on audience reactions. They become hypersensitive to comments, likes, and view counts. They begin to rely on these external metrics as their primary source of validation.

This dysfunctional state also involves a struggle with platform volatility. Social media platforms use complex algorithms to determine which posts get seen. These algorithms change frequently and unpredictably. Creators in a state of dysfunctional entanglement feel they are at the mercy of these hidden rules. They experience distressing emotions when a post fails to perform well. Some participants described this feeling as being in a “chamber of despair” or feeling like a “crumpled up ball of paper.”

When entanglement is dysfunctional, creators often question the meaning of their work. The pressure to please the audience and the fear of losing relevance can make the creative process feel hollow. Consequently, many participants viewed their work on the platform as unsustainable. They expressed desires to quit or find ways to exit the platform economy entirely.

“In most academic research and standard advice, gaining a large audience is seen as the endpoint for creators – a sign that one has ‘made it’ and the real work stops there,” Pillemer told PsyPost. “However, our research reveals that this prevailing view is far from complete– rather a whole new set of challenges begin, that threaten to undermine their creative endeavors altogether.”

“Specifically, we find that creators often experience a sense of ‘dysfunctional’ audience entanglement – a distinctly negative psychological state – even amidst extreme objective success. They use terms like ‘chamber of despair’ and ‘crumpled up ball of paper’ to capture how their audience makes them feel. The psychic pain of this entangled state can make their work seem unsustainable, leading many to want to stop creating altogether. Thus, the very thing that many creators desire most – a large admiring audience for their work – ironically can be the thing that tanks their creative endeavors.”

The study found that some creators manage to shift out of this negative state. They do so by developing specific “entanglement management strategies.” The researchers identified three primary tactics that help creators regain a sense of control.

The first strategy is distancing from audience input. This involves setting strict boundaries around how and when the creator engages with the platform. For example, a creator might choose not to read comments for 24 hours after posting. Others might assign a trusted friend or partner to filter messages, shielding themselves from abusive or unhelpful feedback.

The second strategy is depersonalizing audience critique. This is a cognitive shift where the creator changes how they interpret negative feedback. Instead of viewing a mean comment as a true reflection of their worth, they reframe it. They might view the commenter as someone who is simply having a bad day. They might also decide that the critique is about the specific piece of work, not about them as a human being.

The third strategy is distilling personal standards. This involves a conscious effort to refocus on one’s own artistic ideals. The creator reminds themselves why they started creating in the first place. They prioritize work that meets their own internal standards of quality, rather than creating content solely to chase viral trends.

By utilizing these strategies, creators can move toward a state of “functional entanglement.” This does not mean they disconnect from their audience entirely. Instead, they achieve a balanced dependence. They appreciate their audience and value the connection, but they do not let it dictate their emotional stability.

In a state of functional entanglement, creators are better able to accept platform volatility. They acknowledge that algorithms are unpredictable and that fluctuations in views are a business reality, not a personal failure. This shift allows them to experience uplifting emotions again. They can capture meaning from positive interactions with fans without being crushed by the negative ones. Most importantly, this functional state makes the work feel sustainable in the long run.

The researchers noted that moving between these states is often a cycle. A creator might achieve functional entanglement, only to slip back into dysfunctional patterns when a platform changes its features or when they face a wave of harassment. Maintaining a healthy relationship with the audience requires ongoing effort and the active application of management strategies.

“Because prior research treats having a large audience for one’s creations as an endpoint, we also don’t know much about how creators manage one successfully,” Pillemer explained. “We find that some creators develop strategies to manage their relationship to their audience – distancing themselves from audience input, depersonalizing audience critiques, and distilling their personal standards —that shift them to a state of functional entanglement, or feeling a healthier relationship with their audience that makes their work feel more sustainable in the long run.”

There are some limitations to this study to consider. The research relies on the participants’ own descriptions of their experiences. Self-reported data can sometimes be influenced by how individuals wish to present themselves. Additionally, the study focused specifically on visual artists and musicians. The dynamics might differ for other types of influencers, such as those in the fitness, beauty, or gaming sectors. The platforms studied, Instagram and YouTube, also have specific mechanisms for feedback that might differ from platforms like TikTok or Twitch.

Future research could explore how personality traits influence a creator’s susceptibility to dysfunctional entanglement. It would also be useful to investigate whether these dynamics appear in other professions that are becoming increasingly digitized and dependent on public ratings. As more workers enter the gig economy and rely on digital platforms, understanding the psychological toll of audience dependence will become increasingly important.

“Many influencers seek to go viral above all else, without any concern for how it might impact them psychologically,” Pillemer added. “Indeed, some of the most successful creators – for example, MrBeast – actively encourage approaches that will likely lead to dysfunctional entanglement. Our work challenges the view that simply obtaining more and more followers is uniformly beneficial, and offers a more balanced view on how these workers can see their work as sustainable.”

“The creator economy is booming, with around 30 million creators being paid for their content. Goldman Sachs Research estimates that the value of the creator economy will reach half a trillion dollars by 2027. This research provides concrete strategies for both successful and budding creators to help to manage their relationship to their audience and platform more effectively. By encouraging a more functional relationship with their audience, creators can avoid burnout and continue to find meaning and value in their work.”

The study, “Audience Entanglement: How Independent Creative Workers Experience the Pressures of Widespread Appeal on Digital Platforms,” was authored by Julianna Pillemer, Spencer Harrison, Chad Murphy, and Yejin Park.

New research published in Molecular Psychiatry suggests that two major personality traits associated with alcohol use—impulsivity and neuroticism—stem from largely distinct brain networks. While both traits heighten the risk for problematic drinking in adolescents, the biological pathways driving that risk appear to be different. This finding supports the concept that there are multiple neurological routes that can lead to similar risky behaviors in youth.

Impulsivity and neuroticism are well-known psychological risk factors for substance abuse, yet it remains unclear how these traits manifest in the brain’s complex wiring. Previous studies often focused on isolated brain regions rather than the broad communication patterns across the entire brain.

The research team aimed to determine whether these two personality traits share a common neural foundation or if they operate through separate mechanisms. By mapping these connections, the scientists hoped to clarify how different vulnerabilities contribute to the onset of alcohol use during the critical developmental period of adolescence.

“We are interested in understanding how risk factors in adolescence contribute to substance use problems later in life,” explained study authors Annie Cheng and Sarah Yip, a postdoctoral associate and an associate professor, respectively, at the Yale School of Medicine.

“Traits like impulsivity (acting without thinking) and neuroticism (tending to experience more negative emotions) are known to increase alcohol-use risk, but we still don’t fully understand what is happening in the brain that connects these traits to later outcomes—especially during adolescence, when risky behaviors and many mental health conditions first emerge. Our study uses brain connectivity patterns to better understand how these personality traits may relate to substance use at a biological level.”

The study analyzed data from approximately 1,100 young adults who participated in the IMAGEN study, a large multi-center genetic-neuroimaging project in Europe. The participants were 19 years old at the time of the brain scans. During the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sessions, the participants performed a specific activity known as the Stop Signal Task. This task measures inhibitory control by asking participants to respond to a stimulus but withhold their response when a specific signal appears.

The researchers utilized a technique called functional connectivity analysis. This method examines how different regions of the brain communicate with one another by measuring the synchronization of their activity over time. Using a machine learning approach called connectome-based predictive modeling, the team sought to identify specific patterns of brain connectivity that could predict a participant’s levels of impulsivity and neuroticism.

Impulsivity was measured using the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale, which assesses a person’s tendency to act without foresight. Neuroticism, the tendency to experience negative emotions like anxiety or moodiness, was assessed using the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. The scientists also looked at the participants’ alcohol use behaviors using a standardized screening test.

The researchers found that the brain networks predicting impulsivity were fundamentally different from those predicting neuroticism. The neural signature for impulsivity was primarily characterized by connections involving motor and sensory areas of the brain. This suggests that the biological basis of acting without thinking is closely tied to the systems that manage physical movement and sensory processing.

In contrast, the neural signature for neuroticism was much more distributed throughout the brain. It involved a wide array of networks, including those responsible for emotion regulation, self-reflection, and executive control. Specifically, the neuroticism network included connections in the default mode network, the frontoparietal network, and subcortical regions.

A direct comparison of the two networks showed very little overlap. Only about 3 percent to 4 percent of the functional connections were shared between the impulsivity and neuroticism models. This indicates that while these traits often occur together in individuals, they arise from distinct neurobiological architectures.

“We were somewhat surprised by how little overlap there was between the brain networks associated with impulsivity and neuroticism,” Cheng and Yip told PsyPost. “These traits often co-occur and jointly predict a wide range of psychiatric conditions, so one might expect them to share more common neural architecture. Instead, we found that their underlying brain connectivity patterns were largely distinct. This raises an important question for future research: why are impulsivity and neuroticism implicated together in so many forms of psychopathology if their neural networks are largely distinct?”

The researchers also compared these personality networks to a previously identified brain network associated with alcohol-use risk. Both impulsivity and neuroticism networks showed some overlap with the alcohol-risk network, sharing about 10 percent to 20 percent of their connections. However, the specific connections that overlapped were different for each trait.

This finding provides biological evidence for the psychological concept of equifinality. Equifinality is the idea that different developmental pathways can lead to the same outcome. In this context, one teenager might be at risk for alcohol misuse due to motor-sensory disconnects related to impulsivity, while another might be at risk due to emotional regulation issues related to neuroticism.

“Even though impulsivity and neuroticism are both linked to alcohol-use risk, they appear to be supported by largely distinct brain networks,” the researchers explained. “In other words, two teens might be at risk for similar behaviors, but for different underlying neurobiological reasons. This supports the idea that there isn’t just one pathway to risky behavior—there are multiple routes that can lead to the same outcome.”

To ensure the results were robust, the scientists tested their models on an independent group of participants. They used data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, which includes children in the United States. Even though the ABCD participants were younger, aged 11 to 12, the models still showed a significant association, suggesting the findings are generalizable across different populations.

“The practical significance of our findings lies in improving our understanding of how vulnerability may develop into risky behavior over time,” Cheng and Yip said. “We show that impulsivity and neuroticism—two traits that both increase alcohol-use risk—are supported by largely distinct brain networks and relate to alcohol use risk via different brain connections.”

“This suggests that prevention and intervention efforts may need to differ depending on whether a young person’s risk is driven more by difficulty regulating behavior or difficulty managing negative emotions. In other words, our findings support a more personalized, mechanism-based approach to reducing adolescent risk, rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all approach.”

As with all research, there are limitations. The sample from the IMAGEN study primarily consisted of individuals of White European ancestry. It remains to be seen if these specific brain patterns apply equally to more diverse populations. Additionally, the study relied on self-reported questionnaires to measure personality traits, which may not always capture the full complexity of an individual’s behavior.

The brain scans were collected while participants were performing a specific task rather than while resting. It is possible that the brain networks might look different when the brain is not engaged in a structured activity. The study was also cross-sectional, meaning it looked at a single point in time, so it cannot definitively prove that the brain patterns caused the behaviors.

It is also important to note that these brain patterns represent risk factors rather than deterministic predictions. “These brain patterns do not mean a teenager is ‘wired’ for alcohol problems,” Cheng and Yip noted. “Instead, they point to systems that may contribute to vulnerability, helping guide prevention efforts toward strengthening regulatory skills, emotional coping, and supportive environments.”

“A key next step is to examine how these brain networks change over time and how they relate to future alcohol use or other mental health outcomes. As large longitudinal studies like ABCD continue to follow participants into later adolescence and adulthood, we will be able to test how these neural signatures evolve across development. Ultimately, we hope this work contributes to more targeted and developmentally informed prevention approaches.”

“One broader implication is that adolescent risk-taking behavior reflects highly complex interactions among developing brain systems, personality traits, and environmental factors,” the researchers said. “By studying these systems in large, diverse samples, we can move toward a more nuanced understanding of youth development that recognizes individual variability.”

The study, “Impulsivity and neuroticism share distinct functional connectivity signatures with alcohol-use risk in youth,” was authored by Annie Cheng, Sarah Lichenstein, Bader Chaarani, Qinghao Liang, Marzieh Babaeianjelodar, Steven J. Riley, Wenjing Luo, Corey Horien, Abigail S. Greene, Tobias Banaschewski, Arun L. W. Bokde, Sylvane Desrivières, Herta Flor, Antoine Grigis, Penny Gowland, Andreas Heinz, Rüdiger Brühl, Jean-Luc Martinot, Marie-Laure Paillère Martinot, Eric Artiges, Frauke Nees, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos, Luise Poustka, Sarah Hohmann, Nathalie Holz, Christian Baeuchl, Michael N. Smolka, Nilakshi Vaidya, Henrik Walter, Robert Whelan, Gunter Schumann, R. Todd Constable, Godfrey Pearlson, Hugh Garavan, and Sarah W. Yip.

New research provides evidence that the repetitive thoughts occupying a person’s mind can directly influence the spontaneous memories they experience later. This phenomenon, termed “preoccupation priming,” suggests that focusing on a specific topic creates a tendency for the brain to retrieve personal memories related to that subject. The study was published in the scientific journal Consciousness and Cognition.

Psychologists have studied involuntary autobiographical memories for many years. These are memories of past personal events that pop into consciousness without any deliberate attempt to retrieve them. They often occur during mundane activities, such as walking down the street or washing dishes.

Previous research indicated a strong connection between a person’s current life concerns and the content of these spontaneous memories. For instance, diary studies showed that individuals going through a breakup or starting a new diet often reported involuntary memories centered on those specific themes.

However, these earlier studies were primarily correlational. They relied on participants recording their daily experiences, which made it difficult to determine the direction of cause and effect. It was unclear if thinking about a topic caused the memories, or if having the memories caused the person to think about the topic more frequently.

Researchers John H. Mace and Emily Chow sought to resolve this ambiguity by conducting a controlled laboratory experiment. They aimed to establish a causal link by manipulating what participants thought about and then measuring the subsequent effect on their involuntary memories. The goal was to demonstrate that the cognitive act of repetitive thinking serves as a mechanism that primes the memory system.

The study included 60 undergraduate students as participants. The researchers randomly assigned these individuals to one of two groups: a repetitive thinking group and a control group.

The experiment began with a priming phase designed to simulate the experience of being preoccupied. Participants were told they were taking part in a study on concentration. They viewed a series of slides on a computer screen that instructed them to imagine an activity or think about a specific topic.

In the repetitive thinking group, participants viewed ten slides. Seven of these slides instructed them to “think about food.” The remaining three slides offered unrelated instructions, such as imagining raking leaves or setting goals. Each slide remained on the screen for 35 seconds, forcing the participant to maintain their focus on the topic for a sustained period.

The control group also viewed ten slides with similar timing. However, only one slide instructed them to think about food. The other nine slides featured various unrelated prompts, such as imagining sitting in a chair, thinking about rain, or thinking about watches. This design ensured that the control group was exposed to the topic of food but did not engage in the repetitive rumination characteristic of a preoccupation.

Following the priming phase, the researchers administered a vigilance task. This is a standard method used in psychology to elicit and record involuntary memories. Participants watched a sequence of 92 slides. Each slide contained a pattern of horizontal or vertical lines with a short phrase embedded in the center, such as “hanging your clothes” or “growing a garden.”

The participants were given a simple, repetitive assignment to keep them occupied. They had to say “yes” out loud whenever they saw a slide with vertical lines. This type of low-attention task is known to encourage mind-wandering, which facilitates the emergence of spontaneous memories.

The researchers instructed the participants to ignore the text phrases on the slides but to pay attention to their own mental states. If they experienced a spontaneous thought or a specific memory during the task, they were to click a mouse button and write down what they experienced in a booklet.

Crucially, the vigilance task included specific cues designed to trigger food-related memories. Of the 89 non-practice slides, seven contained phrases directly related to food, such as “buying food,” “cooking dinner,” or “eating good food.” The remaining 82 slides contained neutral phrases unrelated to the priming topic.

After the task was completed, the participants reviewed their written entries. They categorized each entry as either a general thought or a specific memory. Two independent judges also reviewed the entries to determine if they were related to food.

The researchers found that the participants who engaged in repetitive thinking about food produced significantly more involuntary memories related to food than the control group. This outcome supports the hypothesis that preoccupation operates as a form of priming. By thinking about a subject repeatedly, the brain becomes sensitized to that information, making related past experiences more accessible to involuntary retrieval.

The study yielded another finding regarding the total number of memories produced. The repetitive thinking group reported a higher number of involuntary memories overall, regardless of whether the memories were about food. This suggests that the act of repetitive thinking might trigger a state of heightened memory accessibility.

The researchers suggest this increase in total memories may be due to “collateral priming.” This concept implies that when a specific network of memories is activated, such as memories about food, the activation spreads to other associated memories. For example, a memory about a dinner party might activate memories about the friends who were there or the location where it happened, even if those details are not strictly about food.

The study also compared the number of spontaneous thoughts that were not memories. The data showed no significant difference between the two groups regarding these non-memory thoughts. This indicates that the priming effect was specific to the autobiographical memory system and did not simply increase general thoughts about the topic.

These findings have implications for understanding how our daily mental habits shape our cognitive reality. The results suggest that the things we obsess over or worry about do more than just occupy our conscious attention. They actively recruit our past experiences, bringing related memories to the forefront of our minds.

“Your daily involuntary memories will track your thoughts and all the information that you process,” explained Mace, professor and chair of the Department of Psychology at Eastern Illinois University. “Most of the time, you will be unaware of the connection. If you a preoccupied with a particular idea (e.g., losing weight, a former partner), thinking about it a lot, this will influence your involuntary memories, in that many of them will feature the topic you are preoccupied with. You will make these connections, and this will not be a problem unless the preoccupations and memories are distressing.”

There are some limitations to this study that should be considered. The experiment focused on a single topic: food. While food is a common subject of daily thought, it is possible that other topics might yield different results.

Additionally, the duration of the repetitive thinking in the lab was relatively short, totaling about four minutes. Real-world preoccupations often last for days, weeks, or months. It is plausible that the effects observed in the laboratory would be even stronger in a natural setting where the repetition is more frequent and intense.

Future research in this area aims to explore different types of topics to see if the effect is universal. The scientists are also interested in examining how the frequency of the repetitive thought impacts the strength of the priming. Understanding these variables could provide deeper insight into how our internal monologues influence the way we remember our past.

The study, “Preoccupation priming: How repetitive thinking can influence our involuntary memories,” was authored by John H. Mace and Emily Chow.

If you search the internet for the smartest people in history, one name appears more than any other. That name is Albert Einstein. His wild hair and expressive face have become the universal symbol for genius. But what was his IQ score?

Einstein was a theoretical physicist born in Germany in 1879. He is best known for developing the theory of relativity. This work fundamentally changed how humanity understands the universe.

Before Einstein, the laws of physics seemed set in stone. Isaac Newton had described a world of absolute time and space. Einstein challenged this view.

In 1905, often called his “miracle year,” he published four groundbreaking papers. One of these papers introduced the famous equation E=mc². This equation demonstrated that mass and energy are interchangeable.

He did not stop there. He went on to explain the photoelectric effect, which was a vital step toward quantum theory. This specific work won him the Nobel Prize in Physics.

His contributions led to technologies we use every day. Without his theories, we would not have GPS navigation or laser technology. He reshaped our concept of reality itself.

Because his achievements were so monumental, people naturally wonder about the mind that created them. We want to quantify his brilliance. We want to know if his brain was different from ours.

Understanding the Intelligence Quotient

To understand the rumors about Einstein’s score, we must first understand the test itself. IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. It is a standardized score derived from a set of tests.

These tests are designed to assess human intelligence. The first modern intelligence test was developed in France in 1905. Psychologists Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon created it.

Their original goal was not to identify geniuses. Instead, they wanted to identify children who needed extra help in school. The test was a tool for education, not a measure of elite status.

Later, American psychologists adapted these tests for adults. The most famous early version was the Army Alpha test. It was created in 1917 to evaluate soldiers during World War I.

Modern tests, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, measure various cognitive abilities. They look at verbal comprehension and working memory. They also measure perceptual reasoning and processing speed.

The average score on these tests is set at 100. Most people score between 85 and 115. A score above 130 is typically considered “gifted.”

The maximum score on current tests often tops out around 160. This is the 99.9th percentile. This means a person with this score scores higher than almost everyone else in the general population.

The Missing Evidence

This brings us to the central question. Did Albert Einstein ever take an IQ test? According to a 2023 article by psychologist Russell T. Warne, the answer is almost certainly no. Warne asserts that there is no evidence Einstein ever sat for such an assessment.

Warne analyzes the timeline of Einstein’s life to support this conclusion. Einstein was born in 1879. He was already 26 years old when Binet created the first children’s test in 1905. He was an established adult by the time testing became common.

The first adult test, the Army Alpha, appeared in 1917. At that time, Einstein was 39 years old. He was living in Europe and was already a world-famous celebrity. Warne argues that Einstein had little to gain from taking an intelligence test.

It is unlikely that a physicist of his stature would have bothered with a psychometric evaluation. He was busy working on unified field theory. He was also navigating the political turmoil of Europe. There are no records in the Albert Einstein Archives or biographies that mention a test.

Where the Estimates Originate

If there is no record of a test, where does the number 160 come from? Warne conducted a search of historical publications to find the answer. He found that journalists and writers have been guessing Einstein’s IQ for nearly a century.

One of the earliest estimates appeared in a 1945 issue of Life magazine. The article profiled a 14-year-old prodigy named Merrill Kenneth Wolf. The magazine reported that Wolf had an IQ of 182. The article stated that this was “only 23 points lower than Einstein’s.”

This phrasing implies that the magazine believed Einstein’s IQ was 205. However, Life magazine was not consistent. In 1954, the same magazine published an article about another prodigy. This time, they estimated Einstein’s IQ at 192.

Other publications joined the guessing game. In 1962, Popular Mechanics stated that Einstein was estimated to have an IQ of 207. A 1974 book by Mariann Olden claimed his IQ was 205. 

Warne points out that the variation in these numbers is extreme. They range from 150 to over 200. This inconsistency suggests that the numbers are fabricated. There is no primary source. The number 160 appears to be a modern consensus among journalists, but it is not based on data.

Psychologists Weigh In

Academic experts are skeptical of these numbers. In a 2020 article for Biography.com, Dean Keith Simonton weighed in on the issue. Simonton is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California, Davis.

Simonton warns that these estimates often confuse two different things. They conflate intellectual ability with domain-specific achievement. Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist of his time. This means he was exceptional in physics.

However, general intelligence tests measure a wide range of skills. They test vocabulary, pattern recognition, and memory. Being a genius in physics does not guarantee a perfect score in every other area. Simonton suggests that if you look at Einstein’s early development, his raw IQ might not have been as striking as his physics work.

Jonathan Wai, a professor at the University of Arkansas, offers a different perspective in the same Biography.com article. Wai notes that people who earn PhDs in physics typically have extremely high IQs.

Wai points to Einstein’s famous thought experiments. As a teenager, Einstein imagined chasing a beam of light. This required intense spatial visualization. Wai argues that this suggests Einstein was highly talented in spatial reasoning.

Wai believes that if Einstein had been tested, he would have scored well above average. This is consistent with data on other physicists. However, this is still a prediction, not a confirmed score.

The Biological Evidence

While we lack a test score, we do have biological evidence. We have Einstein’s brain. When Einstein died in 1955, a pathologist named Thomas Harvey performed the autopsy. Harvey removed the brain for scientific study.

In 1999, a team of researchers published a landmark study in The Lancet. The team was led by Sandra F. Witelson and Debra L. Kigar. They worked with Thomas Harvey to analyze the anatomy of the brain.

The researchers compared Einstein’s brain to a control group. This group consisted of 35 brains from men with normal intelligence. The men in the control group had an average IQ of 116.

The study revealed something surprising about brain size. Many people assume that a genius must have a massive brain. However, Einstein’s brain weighed 1,230 grams. This was not statistically different from the control group.

In fact, his brain was slightly lighter than the average for the men in the study. This finding is significant. It proves that total brain weight is not the primary factor in exceptional intelligence. A heavy brain does not automatically equal a smart mind.

Unique Brain Architecture

Although the weight was normal, the structure was not. Witelson and her colleagues found unique features in the parietal lobes. The parietal lobes are the part of the brain responsible for processing sensory information.

This region handles visuospatial cognition and mathematical thinking. The researchers measured the width of Einstein’s brain. They found that his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider than those of the control group.

This extra width gave his brain a more spherical shape than a typical human brain. The researchers also discovered a unique feature on the surface of the brain. The brain has deep folds and grooves. One major groove is called the Sylvian fissure.

In a normal brain, the Sylvian fissure runs deep and meets a structure called the parietal operculum. The study found that Einstein lacked a parietal operculum in both hemispheres.

Because this structure was missing, the Sylvian fissure did not run as far as usual. It merged with another groove called the postcentral sulcus. This was a unique anatomical variation. The researchers did not see this in any of the control brains.

The Functional Impact

The researchers in The Lancet study proposed a theory about this anatomy. They suggested that the absence of the parietal operculum allowed the inferior parietal lobule to expand. This is a specific area within the parietal lobe.

The scientists hypothesized that this expansion allowed for better connections between neurons. Without the usual groove separating the area, the brain cells could communicate more efficiently. This creates a highly integrated network for visual and spatial thinking.

This biological finding aligns with how Einstein described his own mind. He often stated that words were not significant in his thought process. Instead, he thought in signs and images.

He visualized complex physical problems. His theory of relativity came from visualizing moving bodies and light. The researchers concluded that his unique parietal anatomy likely supported this specific type of reasoning.

The Threshold of Intelligence

The biological evidence tells us Einstein was unique. However, it does not confirm a specific IQ number. This leads to a broader discussion about the value of IQ scores.

In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the relationship between IQ and success. He compares Einstein to a man named Christopher Langan. Langan appeared on the TV show 1 vs. 100. The show claimed Langan had an IQ of 195.

If we accept the common estimate of 160 for Einstein, then Langan’s score is significantly higher. By strict numerical logic, Langan should be “smarter.” Yet, Einstein is the one who revolutionized science.

Gladwell uses this comparison to introduce the “threshold theory.” He argues that intelligence matters up to a point. You have to be smart enough to handle complex ideas. But once you cross that threshold, a higher score does not guarantee more success.

Gladwell supports this by looking at Nobel Prize winners. He lists the colleges attended by the last 25 American winners in medicine. The list includes elite schools like Harvard and Yale. But it also includes schools like Holy Cross, Gettysburg College, and the University of Illinois.

These are good schools, but they are not all exclusive Ivy League institutions. Gladwell argues that a Nobel Prize winner does not need to have the highest IQ in the world. They just need to be smart enough to get into a decent university.

Once a person is “smart enough,” other factors take over. Creativity, persistence, and a willingness to question authority become essential. Einstein possessed these traits in abundance.

Why We Obsess Over the Number

Robert B. McCall, a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, questioned the value of these estimates in his interview with Biography.com. He stated that he does not see the value in trying to calculate Einstein’s IQ.

McCall argues that famous people are famous for their actions. We should celebrate those actions. Their contributions are only modestly related to a test score. A person can be accomplished in ways that an IQ test cannot measure.

The obsession with the number 160 reveals more about society than it does about Einstein. We want to believe that intelligence is a single, measurable trait. We want to rank people on a scoreboard.

Assigning a score of 160 to Einstein gives us a reference point. It makes the concept of “genius” feel tangible. However, it is an oversimplification. It ignores the specific nature of his mind.

New research published in BMC Psychology suggests that the structural wiring of the brain may play a significant role in how people solve problems through sudden insight. The study indicates that individuals who frequently experience “Aha!” moments tend to have less organized white matter pathways in specific language-processing areas of the left hemisphere. These findings imply that a slightly less rigid neural structure might allow the brain to relax its focus, enabling the unique connections required for creative breakthroughs.

For decades, scientists have studied the phenomenon of insight, which occurs when a solution to a problem enters awareness suddenly and unexpectedly. This is often contrasted with analytical problem solving, which involves a deliberate and continuous step-by-step approach.

While previous studies using functional MRI and EEG have mapped the brain activity that occurs during these moments, there has been little understanding of the underlying physical structure that supports them. The researchers behind the new study aimed to determine if stable differences in white matter—the bundles of nerve fibers that connect different brain regions—predict an individual’s tendency to solve problems via insight.

“For over two decades, neuroscience has mapped what happens in the brain during these moments using EEG and fMRI. We know from prior research that insight feels sudden, tends to be accurate, and involves distinct functional activation patterns — including a burst of activity in the right temporal cortex just before the solution reaches awareness,” said study authors Carola Salvi of the Cattolica University of Milan and Simone A. Luchini of Pennsylvania State University.

“But one major question remained open: what structural features of the brain might make some people more likely to experience insight in the first place?”

“Most previous white matter studies of creativity did not specifically focus on Aha! experiences. They measured how many problems people solved, or how creatively, not how they solved them (with or without these sudden epiphanies). Yet insight and non insight solutions are phenomenologically and neurally distinct processes.”

White matter acts as the communication infrastructure of the brain, transmitting signals between distant regions. To examine this structure, the researchers employed a technique called Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI). This method tracks the movement of water molecules within brain tissue.

“We wanted to know whether stable white matter microstructure — the brain’s anatomical wiring — differs depending on whether someone tends to solve problems through sudden insight or through deliberate step-by-step reasoning (non insight solutions),” Salvi and Luchini explained. “Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) allowed us to examine this structural dimension directly.”

In healthy white matter, water tends to move along the direction of the nerve fibers, a property known as fractional anisotropy (FA). High FA values generally indicate highly organized, dense, and well-insulated fibers, which are typically associated with efficient signal transmission and strong cognitive performance.

The study involved 38 distinct participants, after excluding those who did not meet specific criteria or failed to complete the task correctly. These participants engaged in a standard test used to measure creative potential known as the Compound Remote Associates (CRA) task. In this activity, individuals viewed three words, such as “crab,” “pine,” and “sauce,” and were asked to find a fourth word that forms a common phrase with all three, in this case, “apple.”

After each successful solution, participants reported whether they arrived at the answer through a step-by-step analysis or a sudden insight. This self-reporting method allowed the scientists to quantify an “insight propensity” for each person. The researchers then analyzed the DTI scans to see how white matter integrity correlated with this propensity, controlling for variables such as age and gender.

The findings offered a counterintuitive perspective on brain connectivity. The analysis revealed that participants who solved more problems via insight exhibited lower fractional anisotropy in the left hemisphere’s dorsal language network. This network includes the arcuate fasciculus and the superior longitudinal fasciculus, pathways that connect brain regions responsible for language production, comprehension, and semantic processing.

“One striking finding was that people who more frequently experienced insight showed lower fractional anisotropy in specific left-hemisphere dorsal language pathways, including parts of the arcuate fasciculus and superior longitudinal fasciculus,” Salvi and Luchini told PsyPost.

“At first glance, that might sound counterintuitive. Fractional anisotropy is often interpreted as reflecting the coherence or organization of white matter pathways. In many cognitive domains, higher fractional anisotropy is associated with better performance.”

“But insight may operate differently. The left hemisphere is typically involved in focused, fine-grained semantic processing — narrowing in on dominant interpretations of words and concepts. The right hemisphere, by contrast, is thought to support broader, ‘coarse’ semantic coding — integrating more distantly related ideas. Slightly lower fractional anisotropy in left dorsal language pathways may reflect a system that is less tightly constrained by dominant interpretations.

“In other words, it may allow a partial ‘release’ from habitual patterns of thought and it is in line with other studies where lesions in the left frontotemporal regions have been shown to increase artistic creativity,” Salvi and Luchini continued. “Taken together, these findings imply that left hemispheric regions play a regulatory role in creativity and that their disruption lifts this constraint, thus promoting novel ideas.”

“That release effect is fascinating. In simple words It suggests that creativity sometimes emerges not from strengthening control, but from relaxing it just enough to let weaker, more remote associations surface. When the brain is less locked into its most obvious interpretations, it may be more capable of restructuring the problem — and that restructuring is the heart of an Aha! moment.”

It is worth noting that no significant structural associations were found for the step-by-step analytical problem solving style. This suggests that the neural architecture supporting insight is distinct and specific. Analytical solving may rely on dynamic brain activity rather than the stable structural traits identified for insight.

This concept of sudden recognition is being explored in other sensory domains as well. A separate study recently conducted by researchers at NYU Langone Health examined “one-shot learning,” which is the visual equivalent of an “Aha!” moment.

In that study, participants viewed blurred images that became recognizable only after seeing a clear version. The NYU team found that the high-level visual cortex stores “priors,” or memory templates, which the brain accesses to suddenly make sense of ambiguous visual information.

While the NYU study focused on visual perception and the current study focused on linguistic creativity, both highlight a similar cognitive phenomenon: the brain’s ability to reorganize information suddenly to form a coherent whole. The NYU findings suggest this happens through accessing stored memory templates, while the current study suggests that linguistic insight relies on structural flexibility that permits distant connections to surface.

There are some limitations to the current study that warrant mention. The sample size of 38 participants is relatively small, though it is typical for technically intensive DTI studies. Additionally, the study establishes a correlation but does not prove causation. It remains unclear whether people are born with this structural connectivity or if engaging in creative thinking alters the white matter over time. Demographic factors such as education level were also noted as potential influences on white matter integrity.

Future research will likely focus on larger and more diverse groups to verify these results. Scientists may also attempt to combine structural imaging with functional tracking to see how these white matter highways are utilized in real-time during the moment of insight. By understanding the physical architecture of creativity, science moves closer to demystifying how the human brain generates novel ideas.

“In many areas of cognition, greater microstructural organization (as indexed by higher fractional anisotropy) is associated with stronger performance. Here, greater insight propensity was linked to lower fractional anisotropy in specific left dorsal pathways,” the researchers added.

“This challenges a simple ‘more organized white matter equals better cognition’ view. Instead, it suggests that the neural architecture supporting insight may involve a delicate balance between constraint and flexibility. Too much structural rigidity could reinforce dominant interpretations. A slightly less constrained system may allow the mind to wander just far enough to discover something unexpected. That idea — that brilliance can emerge from loosening control rather than tightening it — is both scientifically intriguing and deeply human.”

The study, “The white matter of Aha! moments,” was authored by Carola Salvi, Simone A. Luchini, Franco Pestilli, Sandra Hanekamp, Todd Parrish, Mark Beeman, and Jordan Grafman.

New research published in the journal Injury Epidemiology highlights a shift in the motivations behind gun ownership in the United States. Following the 2024 presidential election, fewer gun owners reported possessing firearms to advance political objectives. However, a growing number of owners, particularly Republicans, cited the need for protection at political rallies and protests as a primary reason for owning a gun.

The landscape of gun ownership in America has evolved substantially over the past few decades. “Over time, we’ve been noticing shifts in Americans’ reasons for owning guns,” said study author Julie A. Ward, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University.

“It used to be that if you asked gun owners why they own a gun or guns, the main reason you would hear was ‘for hunting’. Over time, hunting has stayed an important reason for many gun owners, but we’ve also seen growth in other reasons. Now, for example, “protection from other people” or for potential use in political or ideological conflict is increasingly common.”

“In a nationally representative survey we fielded in 2023, we saw that 85% of newer gun owners (meaning, people who purchased their first gun since 2020) said that at least one political violence related reason for gun ownership was personally important to them.”

“Roughly 60% of these newer gun owners cited defensive reasons (meaning, to protect themselves from political violence) and a similar portion cited assertive reasons (meaning, to advance an important political objective of their own). These proportions were nearly double what we saw among longer-term gun owners that year.”

“Knowing this – we wondered what changes we might see in Americans’ reasons for gun ownership two years later – following these hints of potential growth in owning guns for use in political conflict and on the heels of a 2024 US Presidential election that involved very high levels of political aggression and violence,” Ward explained.

“These are very real-world questions that we were trying to answer: What reasons do US gun owners give for their personal gun ownership? And, have those reasons changed since 2023 – either overall or by political affiliation? Understanding gun owners’ interests and concerns in this time of escalating tensions is critical for figuring out what we need to do to keep people safe.”

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from the National Survey of Gun Policy. This is a recurring survey that tracks public opinion on firearms and related policies. The study utilized two specific waves of the survey. The first wave was collected in January and February of 2023. The second wave was collected in January 2025, shortly before the presidential inauguration.

The total sample consisted of 2,003 adults who personally owned firearms. The participants were split evenly between the 2023 and 2025 groups. To ensure the findings applied to the general public, the researchers used statistical weighting. This is a method that adjusts the survey data so that the demographics of the respondents match the age, race, and gender makeup of the entire country.

Participants in the study were presented with a list of ten potential reasons for owning a gun. They were asked to rate how important each reason was to them personally. The options covered a wide range of motivations. These included traditional reasons like hunting or recreational target shooting.

The list also included specific questions regarding political violence. For example, participants were asked if they owned a gun “for protection at demonstrations, rallies, or protests.” Another option asked if they owned a gun “to advance an important political objective.” This phrasing implies using the firearm as a tool to force a political outcome rather than just for safety.

The researchers found a notable decline in the number of people owning guns for offensive political purposes. In 2023, roughly 35 percent of gun owners said that advancing a political objective was an important reason for ownership. By 2025, that number had dropped significantly to 22 percent.

“We found that as political violence escalated nationally, large majorities of Democrat, Independent, and Republican gun owners were rejecting such violence,” Ward told PsyPost. “Compared with responses in 2023, in 2025, we saw significantly fewer gun owners endorsing gun ownership to ‘advance an important political objective’ across each of these political groups.”

In contrast, the researchers observed a rise in gun ownership motivated by a desire for protection in political spaces. In 2025, 42 percent of all gun owners said protection at demonstrations or rallies was an important reason for ownership. This was an increase from 35 percent in 2023.

This shift was largely driven by Republican gun owners. The data showed that 51 percent of Republican respondents in 2025 cited protection at rallies as a key reason for owning a gun. This was a significant jump from 40 percent in 2023.

“This tells us there is growing concern among gun owners for personal safety in spaces that are used for political speech,” Ward said. “The problem is, even when motivated by defensive interests, increased gun carrying doesn’t reduce a population’s risk for gun-related harms – it increases it.”

“It is especially urgent that policymakers act on these safety concerns. For example, policies that regulate gun carrying in sensitive spaces are a strategy that can protect First and Second Amendment rights at the same time. For public safety and for democracy, it is critical that that people not only feel safe – but actually also are safe – when they are exercising their right to free speech.”

Republicans also reported increases in other protective motivations. In 2025, 97 percent of Republican gun owners cited home protection as an important reason, up from 93 percent. Additionally, concern regarding police violence increased within this group. About 34 percent of Republicans cited protection against police as a reason for ownership in 2025, compared to 25 percent in 2023.

The researchers also found a resurgence in hunting as a motivation. Among all gun owners, 81 percent listed hunting as important in 2025. This was an increase from 74 percent in the previous survey.

“We think there may be some interesting explanations for why we see these differences happening together,” Ward told PsyPost. “One may relate to marketing – linking consumerism (related to buying more or different guns) to threat messaging and to personal identities can be a powerful way to increase gun sales. And, those types of messages don’t come at us randomly. Social media and newsfeed algorithms can use political identity to shape the messages we see. How those exposures shape how we feel about our own gun ownership could be an important direction for future research.”

There are some limitations to this study that should be considered. The research compared two different groups of people at two different times. It did not track the same individuals over the two-year period. This means the study describes changes in the overall population, but it cannot pinpoint if specific individuals changed their minds.

“The results we report are both statistically significant and practically significant,” Ward noted. “Many of these differences were double-digit percentage point shifts. It’s also important to note that the way this large survey was designed means these results are representative of the population of gun owners nationwide.”

There is also the potential for social desirability bias. This is a phenomenon where survey takers give answers they believe are socially acceptable, rather than what they truly feel. However, the anonymous nature of the survey helps to reduce this likelihood.

Future research could examine the underlying causes of these shifts. Scientists suggest investigating how media consumption and political marketing influence fears of victimization. Understanding why specific groups feel unsafe at political events could help policymakers design better security measures.

The study, “Gun ownership for political protection or armed political expression: a nationally representative analysis of differences in 2025 vs. 2023,” was authored by Julie A. Ward, Rebecca A. Valek, Vanya C. Jones, Lilliana Mason, and Cassandra K. Crifasi.

A new study published in npj Mental Health Research suggests that U.S. Special Operations veterans treated with a combination of magnesium and ibogaine experience a rapid, self-directed form of psychological healing. The findings suggest that the treatment triggers a state of “auto-psychotherapy,” where patients revisit traumatic memories, reframe their life narratives, and feel a physical sense of brain repair.

Ibogaine is a powerful psychoactive substance derived from the root bark of the African shrub Tabernanthe iboga. While it has been used traditionally for centuries in West-Central Africa, it has gained attention in modern medicine for its potential to treat addiction and severe mental health conditions.

However, ibogaine interacts with the heart in ways that can be dangerous. To mitigate these risks, the treatment protocol in this study combined ibogaine with magnesium, a mineral that supports heart health and nervous system stability.

Previous observational studies have indicated that ibogaine can lead to reductions in symptoms of depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders. Despite these promising clinical outcomes, scientists have not fully understood what the patient actually experiences during the treatment that leads to recovery.

Most prior research focused on numbers and symptom checklists rather than the personal story of the patient. In their new study, the researchers aimed to bridge that gap. They sought to characterize the specific thoughts, emotions, and sensations veterans experienced to see if these subjective effects could explain their rapid recovery.

“A major motivation was the gap between strong clinical improvements being reported and limited understanding of patients’ lived healing processes,” said study author Clayton Olash, a psychiatry resident physician at the Medical University of South Carolina and affiliate researcher at Stanford University’s Brain Stimulation Laboratory.

“There is an active debate about whether psychedelic outcomes are primarily pharmacologic and neurobiological, or whether subjective experience and meaning-making are central to change. We wanted to characterize the lived psychological process in veterans who showed substantial recovery, and examine whether their reports aligned with established therapeutic frameworks.”

The study involved 30 male U.S. Special Operations Veterans. These participants had extensive histories of combat deployments and traumatic brain injuries, often caused by blast exposure. At the start of the study, the majority met the clinical criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, and many suffered from major depressive disorder or alcohol use disorder. The participants traveled to a specialized clinic in Tijuana, Mexico, to receive the treatment.

The procedure was highly structured. Participants underwent medical screenings and preparatory sessions before the treatment day. On the day of dosing, they received intravenous magnesium to protect the heart. They then took oral ibogaine, with the dosage calculated specifically for their body weight. During the active phase of the drug, which can last many hours, the veterans lay on mats with eyeshades to encourage internal reflection. Medical staff monitored them closely throughout the process.

To capture the subjective nature of the experience, the researchers asked the veterans to answer three open-ended questions shortly after their treatment. The scientists analyzed these written narratives using a method called constructivist grounded theory. This is a research technique where scientists read the text multiple times to identify recurring patterns and group them into broader themes. This allows the data to tell a story rather than forcing it into pre-existing categories.

The analysis revealed that the veterans engaged in a process the scientists described as “accelerated auto-psychotherapy.” This term refers to a condensed, self-guided therapeutic process where the patient achieves deep insights without the immediate direction of a talk therapist. The researchers identified four primary domains of experience that defined this process.

The first domain was characterized as dialogic trauma re-appraisal. Veterans reported that they were able to recall painful or repressed memories with vivid clarity. However, unlike in a flashback where the person feels the original terror, these participants viewed the events with a sense of detachment. Many described an internal dialogue with a “guide” or “teacher” that helped them view their trauma from a new, less self-critical perspective. This allowed them to process events that had haunted them for decades.

“What surprised me most was the depth and consistency of reported psychological reprocessing across participants,” Olash told PsyPost.

The second theme involved an altered sense of self and mystical connectedness. Participants frequently described a dissolution of their ordinary ego or identity. Some reported feeling as though they were a “witness” to their own life, separating their core consciousness from their history and pain. This state often included feelings of awe and a sense of merging with a divine presence or the universe. This shift in perspective appeared to help veterans break free from rigid, negative beliefs about themselves.

The third theme centered on emotional resolution. The narratives contained frequent descriptions of intense emotional release. Veterans reported finding relief from chronic guilt, shame, and anger. In place of these heavy emotions, they experienced surges of forgiveness and compassion, both for themselves and for the people in their lives. This emotional breakthrough often led to a renewed desire to connect with family and friends.

The final theme was described as embodied healing. A significant number of participants reported physical sensations that they interpreted as their brains being repaired. They used metaphors involving electricity, rewiring, or scrubbing to describe the feeling of their neural pathways resetting. While this was a subjective sensation, it coincided with the veterans reporting improved mental clarity and a reduction in the physical symptoms associated with their brain injuries.

“I also found it remarkable how often participants linked subjective healing experiences to a felt sense of neural restoration, especially when previous work in this same cohort has shown that they experienced objective cognitive recovery from symptoms of TBI,” Olash said.

“In practical terms, these were not subtle changes in many cases, participants often described rapid and meaningful improvement in symptoms and functioning. Because this was qualitative work, our goal was depth and mechanism-rich description rather than effect size estimation. So the significance is best understood as clinically meaningful lived change that helps generate testable hypotheses for larger controlled studies.”

These themes suggest that ibogaine functions differently than standard psychiatric medications, which often work by suppressing symptoms. Instead, the substance appears to induce a dream-like state that lowers psychological defenses. This allows the brain to process suppressed information and reorganize its understanding of past trauma. The researchers noted that these experiences align with concepts found in established therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and exposure therapy, but occur at a much faster rate.

“The key takeaway is that, in carefully structured settings, psychedelic treatment can involve deep psychological change and not just temporary intoxication,” Olash told PsyPost. “Participants described shifts in beliefs, emotional processing, trauma-related meaning, and sense of self that mapped onto concepts seen in psychotherapy. At the same time, these are powerful interventions with real risks, so this is not a casual or unsupervised treatment model.”

While the results provide insight into the potential of ibogaine, there are limitations to consider. The study population consisted exclusively of male Special Operations veterans, so the findings may not apply to women or civilians with different types of trauma. The data relied on retrospective accounts written days after the treatment, which can be subject to memory errors. Additionally, the study was open-label and observational, meaning there was no control group receiving a placebo for comparison.

It is also important to note that the researchers who analyzed the data were interpreting subjective narratives, which introduces a degree of potential bias. For instance, the study does not prove that the physical sensation of “brain rewiring” corresponds to actual biological repair.

“These qualitative findings are hypothesis-generating and should not be overgeneralized beyond the population and treatment conditions studied,” Olash said.

The scientists emphasize that ibogaine is a potent substance with serious risks if not administered in a medical setting. Future research aims to combine these narrative accounts with neuroimaging technology. This would allow scientists to see if the subjective feelings of healing map onto observable changes in brain structure and function. The researchers hope that by understanding these mechanisms, they can develop safer and more effective treatments for complex neuropsychiatric disorders.

“My long-term goal is to understand how acute altered states can be translated into durable clinical traits and recovery,” Olash explained. “That includes studying how psychedelic interventions might be paired with mindfulness, psychotherapy, and brain stimulation approaches to improve durability and personalization of outcomes. I am interested in mechanism-focused, clinically grounded research that can inform safer and more effective psychiatric care.”

“I think psychiatry is entering a period where novel interventions may meaningfully expand the treatment landscape for people who have not responded to conventional options. That said, careful screening, medical oversight, and rigorous science are essential. I hope this work encourages thoughtful public discussion and more high-quality research rather than hype.”

The study, “Accelerated recovery using magnesium ibogaine: characterizing the subjective experience of its rapid healing from neuropsychiatric disorders,” was authored by Clayton Olash, Derrick Matthew Buchanan, Randi Brown, Afik Faerman, Kirsten Cherian, George Lin, David Spiegel, James J. Gross and Nolan Williams.