DATE: September 03, 2025 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

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

TITLE: Common artificial sweeteners linked to cognitive decline in large study

URL: https://www.psypost.org/common-artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-cognitive-decline-in-large-study/

A new study published in the journal Neurology provides evidence that regular consumption of certain artificial and low-calorie sweeteners may be linked to a faster decline in memory and other cognitive abilities over time. Using data from more than 12,000 middle-aged and older adults in Brazil, researchers found that individuals who consumed higher amounts of these sweeteners tended to show steeper drops in verbal fluency, memory, and overall cognitive function over an eight-year period. The association appeared stronger in people with diabetes but was also observed among participants without the condition.

With global dementia cases projected to triple by 2050, researchers are increasingly focused on identifying lifestyle factors that might influence cognitive aging. While sugary diets have been linked to poorer brain health, many individuals have shifted toward low- and no-calorie sweeteners as perceived healthier alternatives. These sweeteners—commonly found in diet beverages, yogurts, protein bars, and tabletop products—include aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, and sugar alcohols like erythritol and xylitol.

Despite their widespread use, concerns have grown around their potential health effects. Prior studies have linked artificial sweeteners to higher risks of diabetes, cardiovascular problems, and depression, even when consumed within official safety limits. Some research has also suggested a potential connection between these sweeteners and dementia or poor memory, but evidence from large-scale, long-term studies has been lacking. The current study was designed to address this gap.

The research drew on data from the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil), a multicenter cohort that began in 2008 and enrolled over 15,000 public employees aged 35 and older from six cities across Brazil. After excluding individuals with incomplete dietary data or extreme reported calorie intake, the final sample included 12,772 adults, with an average age of 52 at baseline. Participants were followed over three waves of assessment: 2008–2010, 2012–2014, and 2017–2019—a span of approximately eight years.

At the start of the study, participants completed a detailed food frequency questionnaire that asked about their diet over the past year. This allowed researchers to estimate the intake of seven specific low- and no-calorie sweeteners: aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, erythritol, xylitol, sorbitol, and tagatose.

Based on total daily intake, participants were divided into three consumption groups. The lowest group averaged 20 milligrams per day, while the highest group averaged 191 milligrams per day—an amount equivalent to the aspartame content of one can of diet soda. Among all sweeteners, sorbitol was consumed in the highest quantity, with an average intake of 64 milligrams per day.

Cognitive performance was assessed at the start, middle, and end of the follow-up period. The battery of tests included measures of verbal fluency, working memory, word recall, and processing speed, enabling researchers to track changes in memory, language, and general thinking skills. These scores were standardized to allow comparison across waves and participants.

After statistically adjusting for a wide range of factors—including age, sex, income, physical activity, blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, body mass index, and diet quality—the researchers found that individuals in the highest tertile of sweetener consumption showed a 62% faster decline in global cognitive scores than those in the lowest group. This translated to an estimated 1.6 additional years of cognitive aging over the eight-year period. Participants in the middle group experienced a 35% faster decline, equivalent to about 1.3 extra years of aging.

The association between sweetener intake and cognitive decline was strongest in adults under the age of 60. In this group, higher consumption was linked to steeper losses in verbal fluency and overall cognition. Among those aged 60 and older, the study did not find a significant association between sweetener intake and cognitive performance. The researchers also found that the relationship between sweetener use and cognitive decline was stronger in individuals with diabetes compared to those without.

When each sweetener was analyzed separately, consumption of aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, erythritol, xylitol, and sorbitol was associated with faster decline in global cognition, especially in memory and verbal fluency. In contrast, tagatose—a naturally occurring sugar found in some dairy products and fruits—was not associated with cognitive decline.

Notably, the trend held even when looking at the frequency of consumption, rather than the exact quantity. Participants who consumed any type of low- or no-calorie sweetener on a daily basis showed a significantly faster decline in memory, language, and overall cognitive function compared to those who consumed sweeteners only occasionally or not at all.

“Low- and no-calorie sweeteners are often seen as a healthy alternative to sugar, however our findings suggest certain sweeteners may have negative effects on brain health over time,” explained Claudia Kimie Suemoto of the University of São Paulo, the senior author of the study.

Although the study was large and followed participants over several years, the researchers caution against drawing firm conclusions about cause and effect. The study relied on self-reported dietary data collected only at the beginning of the study, which may not capture long-term changes in diet. People with certain health conditions, such as diabetes or obesity, may also be more likely to consume artificial sweeteners in place of sugar, raising the possibility that underlying health issues, rather than the sweeteners themselves, contributed to cognitive decline.

In addition, while the researchers adjusted for a wide range of demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors, unmeasured variables could still play a role. The study also lacked brain imaging or biological markers that could offer clues about how these sweeteners might affect brain structure or function.

Despite these caveats, the new findings add to a growing body of research raising concerns about the long-term safety of common sugar substitutes. Recent laboratory studies have suggested that erythritol, a sugar alcohol frequently used in low-carbohydrate and ketogenic products, may impair the function of blood vessels in the brain. In one in vitro study, erythritol increased oxidative stress and reduced nitric oxide production in human endothelial cells, potentially disrupting blood flow and increasing the risk of stroke.

Epidemiological studies have also linked elevated levels of erythritol in the blood to higher risks of heart attacks and strokes, while clinical trials have reported increased platelet reactivity following erythritol intake—another possible contributor to clot formation.

Sucralose, another widely used sweetener, has been implicated in altered brain activity related to hunger and reward. A recent brain imaging study found that sucralose increased activity in the hypothalamus, a region involved in appetite regulation, and heightened connectivity with brain areas involved in motivation and sensory processing. These effects varied depending on sex and body weight, with women and individuals with obesity showing stronger responses. Such findings suggest that sucralose may disrupt the brain’s normal signaling related to satiety, potentially contributing to overeating or altered eating behavior over time.

While these studies do not focus directly on cognition, they raise broader concerns about how artificial sweeteners may influence brain health through vascular, metabolic, and neural pathways—concerns that align with the new findings from Brazil.

In an accompanying editorial published in Neurology, Rush University physician scientist Thomas M. Holland wrote that these findings pose “a fundamental question” to the medical community. “In our efforts to prevent stroke and preserve cognition through dietary modification, are we inadvertently recommending substances that may accelerate the very cognitive decline we seek to prevent?”

The new study, according to Holland, has “provided neurologists, and the broader medical community, caring for cognitively at-risk populations, with critical evidence that dietary counseling must extend beyond traditional cardiovascular risk reduction to address the potential cognitive effects of food additives, particularly artificial sweeteners. Supporting long-term brain health requires a proactive, integrated approach, optimizing diet, movement, sleep, stress, cognitive stimulation, and social connection to build cognitive resilience over time.”

Given the widespread consumption of artificial sweeteners, especially among people seeking to manage weight or blood sugar, researchers emphasize the need for more longitudinal and experimental studies to clarify their potential effects on the brain. Future research should include repeated dietary assessments over time, neuroimaging to detect changes in brain structure, and biomarkers of inflammation and neurotoxicity.

There is also a need to examine whether certain populations—such as people with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or low insulin sensitivity—are more vulnerable to the potential harms of artificial sweeteners. In addition, researchers should compare the cognitive effects of natural sweeteners like tagatose, stevia, or monk fruit to those of synthetic ones.

“While we found links to cognitive decline for middle-aged people both with and without diabetes, people with diabetes are more likely to use artificial sweeteners as sugar substitutes,” said Suemoto. “More research is needed to confirm our findings and to investigate if other refined sugar alternatives, such as applesauce, honey, maple syrup or coconut sugar, may be effective alternatives.”

The study, “Association Between Consumption of Low- and No-Calorie Artificial Sweeteners and Cognitive Decline: An 8-Year Prospective Study,” was authored by Natalia Gomes Gonçalves, Euridice Martinez-Steele, Paulo A. Lotufo, Isabela Bensenor, Alessandra C. Goulart, Sandhi Maria Barreto, Luana Giatti, Carolina Perim de Faria, Maria del Carmen Bisi Molina, Paulo Caramelli, Dirce Maria Marchioni, and Claudia Kimie Suemoto.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/common-artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-cognitive-decline-in-large-study/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATE: September 03, 2025 at 02:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

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

TITLE: Researchers rushed to study the aftermath of the Trump shooting. Here’s what they found

URL: https://www.psypost.org/researchers-rushed-to-study-the-aftermath-of-the-trump-shooting-heres-what-they-found/

The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump in July 2024 sent shockwaves through the political system, but it also provided researchers with an extraordinary opportunity. Moments of political violence are rare in the United States, and when they occur, they raise urgent scientific questions about how people respond. Do such events intensify polarization, or do they generate solidarity? Do they encourage conspiracy thinking, or do they temper support for violence? Social scientists and psychologists have been working quickly to provide data-driven answers.

On July 13, 2024, during an outdoor campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a 20-year-old gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop with an AR-15–style rifle. Trump was struck in the ear, one spectator was killed, and others were seriously wounded before law enforcement killed the shooter. The shocking images of Trump with blood on his face, raising his fist in defiance, were immediately circulated worldwide. The event was widely described as the most serious attempt on a U.S. president or candidate since the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Now, four new studies are offering early evidence about how Americans—and Trump himself—processed the event. From survey experiments measuring shifts in political attitudes, to computational analyses of rhetorical patterns, to studies on the interpersonal spread of misinformation and the dynamics of online engagement, researchers are beginning to chart how this event shaped public behavior, belief, and political expression in its immediate aftermath. Read on to see what science suggests about how this dramatic episode shaped political behavior, cognition, and communication.

1. After the assassination attempt, Republicans became less supportive of political violence

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers evidence that the assassination attempt on Donald Trump did not lead to an escalation in support for political violence. In fact, among Republicans—including those who strongly identify with Trump’s movement—support for violent action against Democrats appeared to decrease. At the same time, Republicans reported feeling more positively about their own party, suggesting that the attack fostered a sense of unity rather than increased hostility toward political opponents.

To investigate this question, researchers took advantage of an ongoing national survey that was already collecting data when the shooting occurred. They analyzed responses from over 4,000 participants, comparing answers given before the event to those given in the days immediately after. Participants were asked about their attitudes toward both parties, their support for democratic norms, and their views on different scenarios involving political violence. By analyzing changes across time—and within individuals who completed the survey both before and after the event—the researchers were able to detect meaningful shifts in political attitudes.

The findings suggest that Republicans, and especially those who strongly identified with Trump, became less likely to endorse violent actions such as vandalism or assault as political tools. Their perceptions of their own party also grew more favorable. Democrats, on the other hand, showed no significant change in attitudes. While this drop in violent support among Republicans did not last long, the data contradicts predictions that the shooting would immediately spark retaliation or civil unrest. As lead author Sean Westwood noted, public support for political violence remains low overall, and even events as extreme as an attempted assassination may not push Americans closer to open conflict.

2. Trump’s metaphorical language shifted after the shooting—and echoed his 2016 rhetoric

Another study, presented at the 2025 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence, explored how Donald Trump’s language changed after the assassination attempt. By analyzing metaphors in his speeches, researchers found that Trump’s post-shooting rhetoric became more psychologically similar to his 2016 campaign, potentially reflecting a return to familiar mental frameworks as a way of coping with trauma.

Rather than relying on interviews or clinical assessments, the research team used a computational tool called MetaPro to analyze thousands of metaphors across Trump’s campaign speeches. These speeches were drawn from three key periods: his 2016 campaign, his 2024 campaign before the shooting, and his 2024 campaign after the shooting. Metaphors were treated as indicators of deeper thought processes, with the idea that people often rely on familiar figurative language to make sense of abstract concepts—especially during times of stress.

The researchers found that while Trump’s most frequently used metaphors remained relatively consistent, his post-shooting speeches became more similar to his 2016 style. Concepts related to cognition, perception, and internal states became more prominent, while metaphors about success and production took on new emotional undertones. For example, there was an uptick in metaphors connecting physical vulnerability to personal identity, such as references linking the body to objects or actions. These changes may suggest that the shooting prompted a shift in focus—from external achievements to internal resilience and control. While the study cannot make clinical claims, it offers a unique lens into how trauma may shape political communication and mental framing, especially among high-profile figures.

3. People were more likely to believe conspiracy theories about the shooting if they heard them from someone they knew

A separate study published in PNAS Nexus explored how conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination attempt spread and took hold. The researchers found that people who heard these theories from personal contacts—such as friends or family—were more likely to believe them than those who encountered the same claims through social media or news outlets. This finding challenges the common assumption that online platforms are the main drivers of conspiracy belief and suggests that interpersonal influence plays a more powerful role than previously thought.

To examine these dynamics, the researchers surveyed over 2,700 U.S. adults in the days following the shooting. Participants were asked whether they had heard two specific conspiracy theories—one alleging that Democrats orchestrated the attack, and another claiming the shooting was staged—and where they encountered them. The researchers also measured participants’ political views, approval of Trump, and general tendency toward conspiratorial thinking. Social media was the most common source of exposure, but it was hearing the theories from personal contacts that most strongly predicted belief.

Even after accounting for political affiliation and general conspiratorial attitudes, the channel of communication mattered. People were significantly more likely to believe a conspiracy theory if it was passed along by someone they knew personally. The study also found that belief in these theories followed partisan lines, with Trump supporters more likely to believe the theory blaming Democrats, and Democrats more open to the idea that the event was staged. These findings suggest that addressing misinformation may require more than just flagging content on platforms—it may also mean thinking more deeply about how beliefs spread within trusted social circles.

4. Solidarity, not hostility, drove engagement on social media after the Trump shooting

In a final study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers examined how social media users responded to the Trump shooting and a separate political crisis—President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election. The team found that in the wake of Trump’s shooting, Republican social media users were more likely to engage with posts expressing solidarity and support for their own group, rather than posts attacking the opposing party. This shift was temporary, but it suggests that positive group emotions can become powerful drivers of engagement when a political community is under threat.

The researchers analyzed over 62,000 Facebook posts made by politicians, partisan media outlets, and political commentators in July 2024. Using a combination of artificial intelligence and manual coding, they identified posts that conveyed either in-group solidarity or out-group hostility. Before the shooting, posts attacking the other side generated more engagement across the board. But immediately after the assassination attempt, the dynamic changed. For Republicans, posts expressing support for Trump and unity within the party became more viral than aggressive content. After Biden exited the race later that month, the same pattern played out in reverse—Democrats gravitated toward solidarity, while Republicans returned to hostility.

These findings suggest that in times of crisis, people may be more inclined to rally around their own group rather than lash out at others. However, the effect seems to be time-limited and tied to which political side feels under threat. When one party experiences a crisis, their supporters show a greater appetite for messages of unity, while the opposing side may feel emboldened to go on the attack. This dual pattern highlights the complex emotional responses that emerge in polarized environments—and how social media amplifies them.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/researchers-rushed-to-study-the-aftermath-of-the-trump-shooting-heres-what-they-found/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATE: September 03, 2025 at 01:53PM
SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORG

TITLE: Chatbots Can Be Manipulated Through Flattery and Peer Pressure

URL: http://www.socialpsychology.org/client/redirect.php?from=rss_feed&id=187161&url=https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMilgFBVV95cUxPbmZQRmFSVWo5T3BzVWNoNmNodGw0eGpnYjVnQ0ZSVWk4X0haY3IzNUJvYnA2Ry1DUXpHWGY2RENSbVJVd0RSQTJucU0xNzlucE5XS2NGZ0IzeWJHVmpLQ29ZREQwdEZYS2xxaE5VWFRwaGJvTTFMaV9aZlFXY2toNjhCRGYzYzk5b0RzemhJcEczYUdWbnc?oc=5

Source: Google News - Health

AI chatbots aren't supposed to do things like call you names or tell you how to make controlled substances, but with the right psychological tactics, at least some bots can be convinced to break their own rules. Researchers used tactics described in Robert Cialdini's book "Influence" to convince OpenAI's GPT-4o Mini to complete requests it would normally refuse, including calling the user a jerk and giving instructions for how to synthesize...

URL: http://www.socialpsychology.org/client/redirect.php?from=rss_feed&id=187161&url=https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMilgFBVV95cUxPbmZQRmFSVWo5T3BzVWNoNmNodGw0eGpnYjVnQ0ZSVWk4X0haY3IzNUJvYnA2Ry1DUXpHWGY2RENSbVJVd0RSQTJucU0xNzlucE5XS2NGZ0IzeWJHVmpLQ29ZREQwdEZYS2xxaE5VWFRwaGJvTTFMaV9aZlFXY2toNjhCRGYzYzk5b0RzemhJcEczYUdWbnc?oc=5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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