https://www.scivillage.com/ Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:03:50 +0000 MyBB https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20245.html Tue, 21 Apr 2026 20:37:38 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20245.html https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/news-even...ou-oppose/

PRESS RELEASE: In a world that feels like it's growing more negative by the day it may be a surprise that talking about what we're against has its value, at least when it comes to engaging people who disagree with us.

Over a series of studies with nearly 6,000 people, researcher Rhia Catapano tested what happened when participants were presented with viewpoints they disagreed with and how open they were to them when those viewpoints were expressed in support terms instead of oppositional ones. Think of "I support abortion rights," versus "I'm against making abortion illegal."

Turns out, those two ways of expressing the same idea can land very differently with someone else. And we're really good at getting that wrong.

"It’s often difficult to meaningfully take the perspective of someone who we disagree with," explains Catapano, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. She conducted the research with Stanford University's Zakary L. Tormala.

"When people want to understand what will make others receptive, they think about what would make themselves receptive," says Prof. Catapano. "Unfortunately, people who disagree with us are frequently not receptive to the same things we are."

Study participants generally believed that other people with opposing viewpoints to their own would be more open when the viewpoint was expressed in a pro-support way. But that is not how they responded when the shoe was on the other foot.

Whether the topic was abortion, gun control or taxing the rich, participants reported being less open to a different viewpoint when it was presented using pro-support language. They also tended to believe the holder of that viewpoint was more certain and extreme in their position. Participants shown simulated Reddit posts with perspectives that did not match their own were more likely to keep reading if the post talked about what the poster was against instead of what they were for.

That was not the case though when two parties agreed on an issue. There, engagement was better when the argument was framed in a pro-support way.

The mechanism behind those nuanced dynamics, the researchers found, is our perception of how our values line up with someone else's. When someone uses pro-support language to express a perspective we disagree with, we tend to see them as more out of step with our own values than when they talk about what they're against.

Still, when it comes to the public square, "almost every cause identifies itself based on what it supports," says Prof. Catapano, which ultimately may alienate those the cause most wishes to engage.

And while her findings don't offer a panacea to the polarization we find ourselves in, she believes that they point to simple changes that may help, even in a world of division. "A person doesn’t need to change their mindset, or even the arguments that they’re making -- they just have to change the framing of their arguments," the researcher says. "The hope is that by using many small levers, we can improve dialogues little by little."

The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.]]> https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/news-even...ou-oppose/

PRESS RELEASE: In a world that feels like it's growing more negative by the day it may be a surprise that talking about what we're against has its value, at least when it comes to engaging people who disagree with us.

Over a series of studies with nearly 6,000 people, researcher Rhia Catapano tested what happened when participants were presented with viewpoints they disagreed with and how open they were to them when those viewpoints were expressed in support terms instead of oppositional ones. Think of "I support abortion rights," versus "I'm against making abortion illegal."

Turns out, those two ways of expressing the same idea can land very differently with someone else. And we're really good at getting that wrong.

"It’s often difficult to meaningfully take the perspective of someone who we disagree with," explains Catapano, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. She conducted the research with Stanford University's Zakary L. Tormala.

"When people want to understand what will make others receptive, they think about what would make themselves receptive," says Prof. Catapano. "Unfortunately, people who disagree with us are frequently not receptive to the same things we are."

Study participants generally believed that other people with opposing viewpoints to their own would be more open when the viewpoint was expressed in a pro-support way. But that is not how they responded when the shoe was on the other foot.

Whether the topic was abortion, gun control or taxing the rich, participants reported being less open to a different viewpoint when it was presented using pro-support language. They also tended to believe the holder of that viewpoint was more certain and extreme in their position. Participants shown simulated Reddit posts with perspectives that did not match their own were more likely to keep reading if the post talked about what the poster was against instead of what they were for.

That was not the case though when two parties agreed on an issue. There, engagement was better when the argument was framed in a pro-support way.

The mechanism behind those nuanced dynamics, the researchers found, is our perception of how our values line up with someone else's. When someone uses pro-support language to express a perspective we disagree with, we tend to see them as more out of step with our own values than when they talk about what they're against.

Still, when it comes to the public square, "almost every cause identifies itself based on what it supports," says Prof. Catapano, which ultimately may alienate those the cause most wishes to engage.

And while her findings don't offer a panacea to the polarization we find ourselves in, she believes that they point to simple changes that may help, even in a world of division. "A person doesn’t need to change their mindset, or even the arguments that they’re making -- they just have to change the framing of their arguments," the researcher says. "The hope is that by using many small levers, we can improve dialogues little by little."

The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20223.html Sat, 18 Apr 2026 21:12:17 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20223.html https://www.informs.org/News-Room/INFORM...Profitable

PRESS RELEASE: Big data, artificial intelligence and advanced pricing algorithms make it easier than ever for companies to fine-tune prices for individual products to closely reflect their unique value and cost. The conventional wisdom is straightforward: better data, better algorithms and sharper segmentation should produce better profits. But new research suggests that the most profitable answer isn’t always more fine-grained pricing across a product line. In fact, it is fewer, better-chosen price points.

The study, titled “Consumer-Driven Class Pricing,” is by Zuhui Xiao from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Class pricing is a surprisingly widespread feature of everyday markets: the practice of assigning a small number of price points to a much larger assortment of related products. Think of a bar menu with many draft beers but only three price points, or a supermarket aisle with hundreds of SKUs but a dozen distinct shelf prices. Similar patterns extend to fast-moving consumer goods, restaurants, toys, discount stores, convenience retail, budget travel, books and car rentals.

The rationale for class pricing is not just operational simplicity; it is consumer psychology. Consumers do not evaluate prices in isolation. Rather, they form price expectations across the products in front of them and compare what they pay with what they expected to pay for nearby alternatives. Paying more than expected is perceived as a psychological loss, while paying less than expected is perceived as a psychological gain.

Xiao finds that the key driver of class pricing is “loss aversion,” the well-established tendency for people to be more sensitive to perceived losses than to equivalent gains. In this context, consumers feel the pain of paying more than expected more intensely than they appreciate the pleasure of paying less than expected.

“When firms introduce more granular pricing, it triggers consumers’ direct comparison of prices,” said Xiao. “Consumers perceive higher-priced items as losses relative to cheaper alternatives and tend to resent higher prices more than they reward lower ones. As a result, the price disadvantage of higher-priced items is psychologically amplified, making them look worse than the underlying price difference alone would suggest.”

Because of this amplified price disadvantage, even when higher-priced products carry greater prestige, better taste or higher quality, firms cannot fully translate that stronger appeal into sufficiently higher willingness to pay. At the same time, they must keep lower-priced products cheap enough to attract additional demand. The result is an asymmetry: firms give up more on the lower-priced products than they can recover on the higher-priced ones, reducing total profit.

“This asymmetry can reduce consumers’ total willingness to pay across the assortment and outweigh the benefits of differentiating prices based on cost or value,” added Xiao. “That is why adding more price points can actually backfire.”

As a result, expanding the number of price points may reduce total profitability. The findings challenge the assumption that more data and better algorithms should always lead to more precise pricing.

“Even with advanced technologies, firms should be cautious,” Xiao explained. “More pricing flexibility does not necessarily translate into higher profits. In many cases, simpler pricing structures are more effective.”

Read the full study here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2023.0133]]> https://www.informs.org/News-Room/INFORM...Profitable

PRESS RELEASE: Big data, artificial intelligence and advanced pricing algorithms make it easier than ever for companies to fine-tune prices for individual products to closely reflect their unique value and cost. The conventional wisdom is straightforward: better data, better algorithms and sharper segmentation should produce better profits. But new research suggests that the most profitable answer isn’t always more fine-grained pricing across a product line. In fact, it is fewer, better-chosen price points.

The study, titled “Consumer-Driven Class Pricing,” is by Zuhui Xiao from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Class pricing is a surprisingly widespread feature of everyday markets: the practice of assigning a small number of price points to a much larger assortment of related products. Think of a bar menu with many draft beers but only three price points, or a supermarket aisle with hundreds of SKUs but a dozen distinct shelf prices. Similar patterns extend to fast-moving consumer goods, restaurants, toys, discount stores, convenience retail, budget travel, books and car rentals.

The rationale for class pricing is not just operational simplicity; it is consumer psychology. Consumers do not evaluate prices in isolation. Rather, they form price expectations across the products in front of them and compare what they pay with what they expected to pay for nearby alternatives. Paying more than expected is perceived as a psychological loss, while paying less than expected is perceived as a psychological gain.

Xiao finds that the key driver of class pricing is “loss aversion,” the well-established tendency for people to be more sensitive to perceived losses than to equivalent gains. In this context, consumers feel the pain of paying more than expected more intensely than they appreciate the pleasure of paying less than expected.

“When firms introduce more granular pricing, it triggers consumers’ direct comparison of prices,” said Xiao. “Consumers perceive higher-priced items as losses relative to cheaper alternatives and tend to resent higher prices more than they reward lower ones. As a result, the price disadvantage of higher-priced items is psychologically amplified, making them look worse than the underlying price difference alone would suggest.”

Because of this amplified price disadvantage, even when higher-priced products carry greater prestige, better taste or higher quality, firms cannot fully translate that stronger appeal into sufficiently higher willingness to pay. At the same time, they must keep lower-priced products cheap enough to attract additional demand. The result is an asymmetry: firms give up more on the lower-priced products than they can recover on the higher-priced ones, reducing total profit.

“This asymmetry can reduce consumers’ total willingness to pay across the assortment and outweigh the benefits of differentiating prices based on cost or value,” added Xiao. “That is why adding more price points can actually backfire.”

As a result, expanding the number of price points may reduce total profitability. The findings challenge the assumption that more data and better algorithms should always lead to more precise pricing.

“Even with advanced technologies, firms should be cautious,” Xiao explained. “More pricing flexibility does not necessarily translate into higher profits. In many cases, simpler pricing structures are more effective.”

Read the full study here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2023.0133]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20197.html Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:53:23 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20197.html Why would it be experiencing economic hardship and have mental health issues? It's in the top five of progressive states and consistently votes for the Democratic Party. Has a plethora of psychiatric facilities and abundant welfare and assistance programs. "...Despite significant investments in prevention... half have experienced physical violence in their lifetime..." So not just the mere middle of the year that the survey was conducted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Economic hardship tied to increased violence across California
https://today.ucsd.edu/story/economic-ha...california

PRESS RELEASE: Economic instability – including job loss, food insecurity, eviction and homelessness – is strongly associated with higher rates of violence among California adults, according to a new statewide survey led by the University of California San Diego.

The findings come from the 2025 California Violence Experiences Survey (CalVEX). The new report provides a comprehensive picture of how violence is experienced across the state, including forms of violence that often go unreported in official data.

Adults who experienced economic shocks in the past year were significantly more likely to report physical, sexual and intimate partner violence. For example, Californians who experienced homelessness were about five times more likely to report physical violence in the past year, while those facing food insecurity were about four times more likely. Similar patterns were observed for sexual violence (16% vs 7%) and intimate partner violence (15% vs 4%).

“Violence is not occurring in isolation,” said Jakana Thomas, co-principal investigator of CalVEX and holder of the MacArthur Foundation Chair in International Justice and Human Rights in the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego. “It is closely tied to whether people have stable housing, enough food and the basic conditions needed to get by.”

The CalVEX survey, fielded in May and June 2025, includes responses from more than 4,000 adults across California.

Overall, the data show that violence remains widespread. More than half of California adults have experienced physical violence in their lifetimes, and an estimated 7% – more than 2 million people – experienced physical violence in the past year. Levels of violence remain elevated statewide.

Gender-based violence also remains a significant concern. About 1 in 11 Californians experienced sexual violence in the past year, and 1 in 17 experienced intimate partner violence. Gender non-conforming individuals faced the highest rates across multiple measures, with 49% reporting sexual violence in the past year.

“Despite significant investments in prevention, we’re not seeing substantial declines,” said Thomas, who is a professor both in UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy and the Department of Political Science in the School of Social Sciences. “These findings point to the need to look more closely at the underlying conditions – including economic instability – that continue to put people at risk.”

The findings also highlight the broader impacts of violence on health and well-being. Individuals who experienced violence in the past year were significantly more likely to report depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and substance use.

“Vulnerability to violence is connected to the broader conditions in which people live,” said co-PI Anita Raj, executive director of the Newcomb Institute at Tulane University. “Addressing it requires a public health approach that considers not just individual behavior, but the economic and social environments shaping people’s lives.”

The full report is available on the VEXData website, along with related briefs.]]> Why would it be experiencing economic hardship and have mental health issues? It's in the top five of progressive states and consistently votes for the Democratic Party. Has a plethora of psychiatric facilities and abundant welfare and assistance programs. "...Despite significant investments in prevention... half have experienced physical violence in their lifetime..." So not just the mere middle of the year that the survey was conducted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Economic hardship tied to increased violence across California
https://today.ucsd.edu/story/economic-ha...california

PRESS RELEASE: Economic instability – including job loss, food insecurity, eviction and homelessness – is strongly associated with higher rates of violence among California adults, according to a new statewide survey led by the University of California San Diego.

The findings come from the 2025 California Violence Experiences Survey (CalVEX). The new report provides a comprehensive picture of how violence is experienced across the state, including forms of violence that often go unreported in official data.

Adults who experienced economic shocks in the past year were significantly more likely to report physical, sexual and intimate partner violence. For example, Californians who experienced homelessness were about five times more likely to report physical violence in the past year, while those facing food insecurity were about four times more likely. Similar patterns were observed for sexual violence (16% vs 7%) and intimate partner violence (15% vs 4%).

“Violence is not occurring in isolation,” said Jakana Thomas, co-principal investigator of CalVEX and holder of the MacArthur Foundation Chair in International Justice and Human Rights in the School of Global Policy and Strategy at UC San Diego. “It is closely tied to whether people have stable housing, enough food and the basic conditions needed to get by.”

The CalVEX survey, fielded in May and June 2025, includes responses from more than 4,000 adults across California.

Overall, the data show that violence remains widespread. More than half of California adults have experienced physical violence in their lifetimes, and an estimated 7% – more than 2 million people – experienced physical violence in the past year. Levels of violence remain elevated statewide.

Gender-based violence also remains a significant concern. About 1 in 11 Californians experienced sexual violence in the past year, and 1 in 17 experienced intimate partner violence. Gender non-conforming individuals faced the highest rates across multiple measures, with 49% reporting sexual violence in the past year.

“Despite significant investments in prevention, we’re not seeing substantial declines,” said Thomas, who is a professor both in UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy and the Department of Political Science in the School of Social Sciences. “These findings point to the need to look more closely at the underlying conditions – including economic instability – that continue to put people at risk.”

The findings also highlight the broader impacts of violence on health and well-being. Individuals who experienced violence in the past year were significantly more likely to report depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and substance use.

“Vulnerability to violence is connected to the broader conditions in which people live,” said co-PI Anita Raj, executive director of the Newcomb Institute at Tulane University. “Addressing it requires a public health approach that considers not just individual behavior, but the economic and social environments shaping people’s lives.”

The full report is available on the VEXData website, along with related briefs.]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20154.html Thu, 09 Apr 2026 22:19:23 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20154.html http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aeb5280

PRESS RELEASE: Punishing freeloaders in public good games (PPGs) – experimental models used to analyze the social dilemma between individual self-interest and group cooperation – can boost cooperation, but whether punishment helps or harms the groups’ outcomes depends heavily on context, according to a study involving over 7,000 human participants. The findings reveal when, rather than whether, punishment works. Human societies routinely confront so-called “social dilemmas” – situations in which individual incentives clash with the collective good.

These scenarios can arise in contexts ranging from public health to environmental policy. When they occur, cooperation – or prioritizing shared benefit over personal gain – is both essential and difficult to sustain. PPGs offer a simplified model for examining these dynamics. Although the group benefits most when everyone contributes fully, individuals can maximize their personal gain by contributing nothing.

One widely studied solution to this problem is costly peer punishment, where individuals penalize those who fail to contribute. While this mechanism can discourage selfish behavior, it comes at a cost to both punisher and punished. Past studies have shown that, in some cases, the burden of punishment outweigh its benefits. However, despite this body of research, the conditions under which punishment best promotes cooperation remains unclear.

To better understand these dynamics, Mohammed Alsobay and colleagues conducted a large integrative experiment, systematically varying 14 features of PPGs (e.g. communication, group structure, incentives) across 360 conditions, analyzing more than 147,000 decisions from 7,100 participants. According to Alsobay et al., the experimental design allowed them to precisely identify when punishment helps or hinder shared outcomes, which factors matter most, and how they interact.

The authors found that punishment consistently increased cooperation, but its effect on collective welfare varied dramatically – from a 43% improvement to a 44% reduction – depending on context. According to the study, communication was the most influential factor and was roughly three times more consequential than any other variable. Other important elements include how contributions are framed, the structure of contribution choices, the duration of the interaction, and the visibility of others’ outcomes.

Notably, the findings show that these factors do not operate in isolation but interact in complex ways. For example, longer interactions only enhance the effectiveness of punishment when communication is possible. The authors also used the data to develop and train a predictive model that was able to outperform humans when predicting whether punishment would help or harm welfare in new experiments.]]> http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aeb5280

PRESS RELEASE: Punishing freeloaders in public good games (PPGs) – experimental models used to analyze the social dilemma between individual self-interest and group cooperation – can boost cooperation, but whether punishment helps or harms the groups’ outcomes depends heavily on context, according to a study involving over 7,000 human participants. The findings reveal when, rather than whether, punishment works. Human societies routinely confront so-called “social dilemmas” – situations in which individual incentives clash with the collective good.

These scenarios can arise in contexts ranging from public health to environmental policy. When they occur, cooperation – or prioritizing shared benefit over personal gain – is both essential and difficult to sustain. PPGs offer a simplified model for examining these dynamics. Although the group benefits most when everyone contributes fully, individuals can maximize their personal gain by contributing nothing.

One widely studied solution to this problem is costly peer punishment, where individuals penalize those who fail to contribute. While this mechanism can discourage selfish behavior, it comes at a cost to both punisher and punished. Past studies have shown that, in some cases, the burden of punishment outweigh its benefits. However, despite this body of research, the conditions under which punishment best promotes cooperation remains unclear.

To better understand these dynamics, Mohammed Alsobay and colleagues conducted a large integrative experiment, systematically varying 14 features of PPGs (e.g. communication, group structure, incentives) across 360 conditions, analyzing more than 147,000 decisions from 7,100 participants. According to Alsobay et al., the experimental design allowed them to precisely identify when punishment helps or hinder shared outcomes, which factors matter most, and how they interact.

The authors found that punishment consistently increased cooperation, but its effect on collective welfare varied dramatically – from a 43% improvement to a 44% reduction – depending on context. According to the study, communication was the most influential factor and was roughly three times more consequential than any other variable. Other important elements include how contributions are framed, the structure of contribution choices, the duration of the interaction, and the visibility of others’ outcomes.

Notably, the findings show that these factors do not operate in isolation but interact in complex ways. For example, longer interactions only enhance the effectiveness of punishment when communication is possible. The authors also used the data to develop and train a predictive model that was able to outperform humans when predicting whether punishment would help or harm welfare in new experiments.]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20101.html Thu, 02 Apr 2026 19:26:01 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20101.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1122595

INTRO: US courts have ruled against platform providers for failing to protect children, and the debate over age restrictions for social media has gained momentum. An international group of experts from academia, children’s rights organizations and non-profit institutions is convinced that bans would be the wrong approach.

In the journal Science they advocate for new strategies for the digital safety of children and youths aged 13 and older. Prof. Sandra Cortesi and Prof. Urs Gasser from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) explain when artificial intelligence could intervene on smartphones, what role peer groups can play and why children should be involved in shaping their digital education.

Q: In the US, Meta and Google were ordered to pay substantial fines just a few days ago for failing to adequately protect children and youths on their social media and video platforms, respectively. What significance do these rulings hold in light of your working group’s findings?

Urs Gasser: These rulings could mark a turning point because they underscore that child safety in the digital world is not simply a matter of harmful content, but also a matter of platform design. The courts have examined how platforms are built, what kinds of risks their features generate and whether companies can be held responsible when those risks are foreseeable and insufficiently addressed. These questions strike at the heart of our working group’s recommendations: designing digital spaces to ensure safety, agency and well-being of children and youths from the outset. In the context of the cases heard in the US, this means excluding features that can be addictive and providing protection against abuse by adults.

Q: Several countries have banned social media for children under a certain age or are planning to do so. Why are you opposed to a ban?

Urs Gasser: Our argument is not against regulation. Legal requirements are indispensable. However, we believe that policymakers should do more than just establish red lines. Rather, they should require providers to design their platforms and products in a child-friendly manner. That is more demanding than a blanket ban, but also more promising. After all, what we really want is for children and youths to be able to learn how to use media autonomously and in a way that has a positive impact on them... (MORE - details)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1122595

INTRO: US courts have ruled against platform providers for failing to protect children, and the debate over age restrictions for social media has gained momentum. An international group of experts from academia, children’s rights organizations and non-profit institutions is convinced that bans would be the wrong approach.

In the journal Science they advocate for new strategies for the digital safety of children and youths aged 13 and older. Prof. Sandra Cortesi and Prof. Urs Gasser from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) explain when artificial intelligence could intervene on smartphones, what role peer groups can play and why children should be involved in shaping their digital education.

Q: In the US, Meta and Google were ordered to pay substantial fines just a few days ago for failing to adequately protect children and youths on their social media and video platforms, respectively. What significance do these rulings hold in light of your working group’s findings?

Urs Gasser: These rulings could mark a turning point because they underscore that child safety in the digital world is not simply a matter of harmful content, but also a matter of platform design. The courts have examined how platforms are built, what kinds of risks their features generate and whether companies can be held responsible when those risks are foreseeable and insufficiently addressed. These questions strike at the heart of our working group’s recommendations: designing digital spaces to ensure safety, agency and well-being of children and youths from the outset. In the context of the cases heard in the US, this means excluding features that can be addictive and providing protection against abuse by adults.

Q: Several countries have banned social media for children under a certain age or are planning to do so. Why are you opposed to a ban?

Urs Gasser: Our argument is not against regulation. Legal requirements are indispensable. However, we believe that policymakers should do more than just establish red lines. Rather, they should require providers to design their platforms and products in a child-friendly manner. That is more demanding than a blanket ban, but also more promising. After all, what we really want is for children and youths to be able to learn how to use media autonomously and in a way that has a positive impact on them... (MORE - details)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20087.html Tue, 31 Mar 2026 19:48:06 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20087.html https://www.uel.ac.uk/

PRESS RELEASE: Women are missing out at work not just because of pay gaps or bias, but because they simply do not have the same time as men to compete. That is the conclusion of a new study co-authored by Professor Toyin Adisa of the University of East London, published in the International Journal of Management Reviews.

The paper analysed 88 studies and found that women’s working lives are shaped by a constant “time squeeze” caused by unpaid care, domestic work and rigid social expectations.

A double workload. This means many women are effectively working two jobs. As a result, they have less time for networking, training, visibility and progression, all of which are critical for getting ahead at work.

The researchers argue that this “hidden time gap” is a major but overlooked barrier to inclusion. Even when organisations offer flexible working, it often fails to solve the problem because the underlying expectations about availability and productivity remain unchanged.

A global pattern. While the study focuses on African workplaces, the authors say the findings reflect a wider global issue. Many organisations are still built around an “ideal worker” who is always available, with few responsibilities outside work. In reality, that model excludes large numbers of women everywhere.

The study sets out five ways time affects women at work, from life-stage pressures such as motherhood to wider historical and cultural factors that shape who is expected to do care work. Across all of them, the result is the same: less opportunity, less recognition and less inclusion.

Rethinking how work is organised. The authors say employers need to rethink how work is organised, not just offer surface-level fixes. Suggested changes include better childcare support, fairer workloads and more realistic expectations about working time.

Professor Toyin Adisa, of the Royal Docks School of Business and Law at UEL, said, “Women are not falling behind because they lack ambition or ability. They are falling behind because they are carrying a second shift that workplaces still largely ignore. If we want real inclusion, we have to stop designing jobs around the assumption that everyone has unlimited time.”

No quick fixes. The study warns there are no quick fixes. While measures like flexible working and childcare support can help, the problem runs much deeper. Women’s disadvantage at work is rooted in how time is distributed across society, shaped by entrenched gender roles, cultural expectations and organisational norms.

Professor Toyin Adisa said, “If we are serious about inclusion, we cannot rely on small policy tweaks. We have to rethink how work is organised and how care is valued across society.”]]> https://www.uel.ac.uk/

PRESS RELEASE: Women are missing out at work not just because of pay gaps or bias, but because they simply do not have the same time as men to compete. That is the conclusion of a new study co-authored by Professor Toyin Adisa of the University of East London, published in the International Journal of Management Reviews.

The paper analysed 88 studies and found that women’s working lives are shaped by a constant “time squeeze” caused by unpaid care, domestic work and rigid social expectations.

A double workload. This means many women are effectively working two jobs. As a result, they have less time for networking, training, visibility and progression, all of which are critical for getting ahead at work.

The researchers argue that this “hidden time gap” is a major but overlooked barrier to inclusion. Even when organisations offer flexible working, it often fails to solve the problem because the underlying expectations about availability and productivity remain unchanged.

A global pattern. While the study focuses on African workplaces, the authors say the findings reflect a wider global issue. Many organisations are still built around an “ideal worker” who is always available, with few responsibilities outside work. In reality, that model excludes large numbers of women everywhere.

The study sets out five ways time affects women at work, from life-stage pressures such as motherhood to wider historical and cultural factors that shape who is expected to do care work. Across all of them, the result is the same: less opportunity, less recognition and less inclusion.

Rethinking how work is organised. The authors say employers need to rethink how work is organised, not just offer surface-level fixes. Suggested changes include better childcare support, fairer workloads and more realistic expectations about working time.

Professor Toyin Adisa, of the Royal Docks School of Business and Law at UEL, said, “Women are not falling behind because they lack ambition or ability. They are falling behind because they are carrying a second shift that workplaces still largely ignore. If we want real inclusion, we have to stop designing jobs around the assumption that everyone has unlimited time.”

No quick fixes. The study warns there are no quick fixes. While measures like flexible working and childcare support can help, the problem runs much deeper. Women’s disadvantage at work is rooted in how time is distributed across society, shaped by entrenched gender roles, cultural expectations and organisational norms.

Professor Toyin Adisa said, “If we are serious about inclusion, we cannot rely on small policy tweaks. We have to rethink how work is organised and how care is valued across society.”]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20045.html Wed, 25 Mar 2026 01:29:18 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20045.html 11% rise in maternal deaths in US aid-dependent countries under Republican administrations
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1120798

INTRO: Maternal deaths rise by around 11% in countries that rely on US aid following a switch from a Democratic to a Republican administration, suggest the findings of a data analysis published in the open access journal BMJ Global Health.

This is equivalent to around 45 additional deaths for every 100,000 live births, eroding a fifth of the decline in global maternal deaths that has been achieved since 1985, conclude the researchers.

US foreign aid for family planning and reproductive health services has been heavily influenced by changes in the implementation of the Mexico City Policy—first introduced as the US Policy on Population Assistance under the Reagan administration in 1984, and often referred to as the Global Gag Rule (GGR), explain the researchers.

The policy prohibits disbursal of US aid for family planning to overseas non-governmental organisations that provide, make referrals to, or promote abortion-related services or information, even when these services are financed through non-US funds.

The policy was rebranded as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy and expanded to apply to all US global health assistance during President Trump’s first term of office in 2017.

To estimate the impact of shifts in funding on maternal deaths, the researchers used data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators for every year between 1985 and 2023 to measure the maternal mortality ratio for 150 countries... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> 11% rise in maternal deaths in US aid-dependent countries under Republican administrations
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1120798

INTRO: Maternal deaths rise by around 11% in countries that rely on US aid following a switch from a Democratic to a Republican administration, suggest the findings of a data analysis published in the open access journal BMJ Global Health.

This is equivalent to around 45 additional deaths for every 100,000 live births, eroding a fifth of the decline in global maternal deaths that has been achieved since 1985, conclude the researchers.

US foreign aid for family planning and reproductive health services has been heavily influenced by changes in the implementation of the Mexico City Policy—first introduced as the US Policy on Population Assistance under the Reagan administration in 1984, and often referred to as the Global Gag Rule (GGR), explain the researchers.

The policy prohibits disbursal of US aid for family planning to overseas non-governmental organisations that provide, make referrals to, or promote abortion-related services or information, even when these services are financed through non-US funds.

The policy was rebranded as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy and expanded to apply to all US global health assistance during President Trump’s first term of office in 2017.

To estimate the impact of shifts in funding on maternal deaths, the researchers used data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators for every year between 1985 and 2023 to measure the maternal mortality ratio for 150 countries... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20001.html Wed, 18 Mar 2026 20:50:09 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20001.html http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342824

PRESS RELEASE: In a survey study of U.S. teens, more than half (55.3%) reported that they had created at least one image using nudification tools, which use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to show what an individual may look like without clothing. Chad Steel of George Mason University, Virginia, U.S., presents these findings in the open-access journal PLOS One on March 18, 2026.

Prior research has suggested that the creation and distribution of sexualized images—whether or not GenAI is involved—have become normalized among U.S. adolescents. GenAI can be used for sexual exploitation, such as the non-consensual creation of sexualized images of individuals. Reports of GenAI misuse by adolescents have risen, with victims experiencing consequences similar to the impacts of other forms of child sexual exploitation material, such as a sense of dehumanization and permanent life disruptions.

However, the overall prevalence among adolescents of GenAI usage in regards to sexualized images has been unclear. To help deepen understanding, Steel analyzed online survey results from 557 English-speaking U.S. residents aged 13 to 17. The survey was anonymous and conducted with parental consent. It included questions about participants’ experiences with creating, sharing, and viewing of sexualized GenAI images—both of themselves or others, and consensually or non-consensually.

Of the teens surveyed, 55.3 percent reported that they had used nudification tools to create at least one image of themselves or others, and 54.4 percent reported that they had received such an image. In addition, 36.3 percent reported that at least one sexualized GenAI image of themselves had been created by someone else without their consent, and 33.2 percent reported that at least one sexualized GenAI image of themselves had been non-consensually distributed.

Steel found that these results were largely similar across demographic categories, including age. Although usage was widespread for both male and female participants, male participants reported higher rates of creating and distributing sexualized GenAI images of themselves and others, whether consensually or non-consensually.

These findings could help inform legal policies and educational efforts to promote safe use of GenAI tools. This was an exploratory study, and future research could provide further insights, such whether similar results hold true for adolescents in other countries.

Steel adds: “Teens are no longer just digital natives but AI-natives. ‘Nudification’ and GenAI apps are their new ‘sexting’, only with more challenging issues surrounding consent.”]]> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342824

PRESS RELEASE: In a survey study of U.S. teens, more than half (55.3%) reported that they had created at least one image using nudification tools, which use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to show what an individual may look like without clothing. Chad Steel of George Mason University, Virginia, U.S., presents these findings in the open-access journal PLOS One on March 18, 2026.

Prior research has suggested that the creation and distribution of sexualized images—whether or not GenAI is involved—have become normalized among U.S. adolescents. GenAI can be used for sexual exploitation, such as the non-consensual creation of sexualized images of individuals. Reports of GenAI misuse by adolescents have risen, with victims experiencing consequences similar to the impacts of other forms of child sexual exploitation material, such as a sense of dehumanization and permanent life disruptions.

However, the overall prevalence among adolescents of GenAI usage in regards to sexualized images has been unclear. To help deepen understanding, Steel analyzed online survey results from 557 English-speaking U.S. residents aged 13 to 17. The survey was anonymous and conducted with parental consent. It included questions about participants’ experiences with creating, sharing, and viewing of sexualized GenAI images—both of themselves or others, and consensually or non-consensually.

Of the teens surveyed, 55.3 percent reported that they had used nudification tools to create at least one image of themselves or others, and 54.4 percent reported that they had received such an image. In addition, 36.3 percent reported that at least one sexualized GenAI image of themselves had been created by someone else without their consent, and 33.2 percent reported that at least one sexualized GenAI image of themselves had been non-consensually distributed.

Steel found that these results were largely similar across demographic categories, including age. Although usage was widespread for both male and female participants, male participants reported higher rates of creating and distributing sexualized GenAI images of themselves and others, whether consensually or non-consensually.

These findings could help inform legal policies and educational efforts to promote safe use of GenAI tools. This was an exploratory study, and future research could provide further insights, such whether similar results hold true for adolescents in other countries.

Steel adds: “Teens are no longer just digital natives but AI-natives. ‘Nudification’ and GenAI apps are their new ‘sexting’, only with more challenging issues surrounding consent.”]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19938.html Tue, 10 Mar 2026 21:02:10 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19938.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1119519

INTRO: Texas busing programs that transported newly-arrived immigrants to Democratic-led cities boosted President Donald Trump’s vote share in affected counties during the 2024 election, according to a new study from the USC Price School of Public Policy and the University of North Texas.

Published in Sociological Science, the study quantifies the political impact of a policy that brought a unique migration shock to places far from the U.S.-Mexico border. The findings also highlight the growing role of state- and city-led immigration policies, as well as the enduring power of perceived threats from racial minorities, researchers said. The findings come as immigration enforcement is expected to be a top issue heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

From 2022 to 2024, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott transported more than 100,000 migrants to six cities that were led by Democratic mayors and had enacted "sanctuary" policies that protected undocumented immigrants by restricting cooperation with federal immigration officials. The cities were Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.

To examine the electoral impact of the widely publicized busing program, researchers analyzed county-level election data and Associated Press VoteCast exit polls, comparing election results from 2016, 2020 and 2024. Study authors contrasted electoral results from counties that received migrant buses against those that did not, isolating how much affected counties distinctively changed in 2024 versus 2016 and 2020.

The study found... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1119519

INTRO: Texas busing programs that transported newly-arrived immigrants to Democratic-led cities boosted President Donald Trump’s vote share in affected counties during the 2024 election, according to a new study from the USC Price School of Public Policy and the University of North Texas.

Published in Sociological Science, the study quantifies the political impact of a policy that brought a unique migration shock to places far from the U.S.-Mexico border. The findings also highlight the growing role of state- and city-led immigration policies, as well as the enduring power of perceived threats from racial minorities, researchers said. The findings come as immigration enforcement is expected to be a top issue heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

From 2022 to 2024, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott transported more than 100,000 migrants to six cities that were led by Democratic mayors and had enacted "sanctuary" policies that protected undocumented immigrants by restricting cooperation with federal immigration officials. The cities were Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.

To examine the electoral impact of the widely publicized busing program, researchers analyzed county-level election data and Associated Press VoteCast exit polls, comparing election results from 2016, 2020 and 2024. Study authors contrasted electoral results from counties that received migrant buses against those that did not, isolating how much affected counties distinctively changed in 2024 versus 2016 and 2020.

The study found... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19926.html Sun, 08 Mar 2026 18:18:34 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19926.html Doesn't quite add up. If the "political facts" they grilled and evaluated participants on revolved around knowledge of precise information about the structure of government, how it operates, existing statutes, and facts about individual legislators and their stances on policy issues... Then how do you get complex or more difficult to determine "gray areas" from that (via being "more informed")? Answers to such would actually be of the very definitive or binary nature that they covertly disparage one group (conservatives) for desiring. Such "political facts" have little to do with the varying moral standards, self-interested commitment to one's own community or group, and socioeconomic goals of opposing ideologies that actually drive voter decision-making (as well as knowledge of the intellectual genealogies of parties and political movement histories -- concealed motives).

And why the surprise at moderates being insufficiently confident and potentially less involved in politics? Either that's due to information overkill from multiple POVs again creating that celebrated "gray area" which entails diminishing the ability to decide or to act speedily (including sometimes letting any diesel truck that comes along roar through unimpeded due to that hesitancy), or... When has genuine neutrality or indifference ever generated passion and high expertise in _X_ area, unless one is placed in a job or enters a situation that requires attention devoted to _X_?
- - - - - - - - - - - -

People with the least political knowledge tend to be the most overconfident in their grasp of facts
https://www.psypost.org/people-with-the-...f-facts/hh

EXCERPTS: New research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Appliedhh suggests that people often overestimate their understanding of political facts. This tendency to be overconfident appears most common among individuals who actually know the least about politics and those who lean conservative...

[...] As the researchers explained, “Metacognition is broadly defined as thinking about one’s own cognition. The type we studied is called metacognitive monitoring accuracy, or the degree to which judgments of what one knows matches what one actually knows.”

In simpler terms, this concept refers to a person’s ability to accurately recognize when they are right and when they are wrong. “People tend to be overconfident regarding what they think they know, and this has serious consequences in the political realm, such as when people vote on candidates and issues that they don’t understand as well as they think they do,” the researchers stated.

[...] To evaluate political awareness, the participants took a test of 60 questions covering basic political figures, government rules, and policy issues. The test was designed to be balanced, containing an equal number of questions that might favor liberal or conservative viewpoints. It also included 20 general knowledge questions to serve as a point of comparison.

The researchers measured confidence at two different points during the testing process. First, participants were asked to estimate how well they would do on the test before they took it. Then, after answering the multiple-choice questions, they rated their confidence in each specific answer they had just selected. [...] The scientists also used an objective questionnaire to measure the participants’ political orientation based on their agreement with specific policies, rather than just asking them to label themselves.

A person with a high need for cognitive closure generally prefers a clear “yes” or “no” answer and dislikes gray areas. By collecting all this information, the researchers could look at how political beliefs and thinking habits relate to self-awareness. The researchers observed that the participants were generally overconfident in their test performance. The gap between what people thought they knew and what they actually knew was widest among those with the lowest test scores.

“We found that people are generally overconfident in their political knowledge, especially those who truly don’t know much about politics (the classic Dunning-Kruger effect),” the researchers detailed. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge in a specific area greatly overestimate their own competence, often because they lack the expertise needed to recognize their own mistakes.

The data also revealed a connection between political leanings, thinking styles, and this overconfidence. “Those who were more politically conservative and who like to make quick, definitive decisions, even if they may not have all the relevant information, tend to be the most overconfident,” the researchers observed.

To explain this, the scientists point to the mental shortcuts, or cues, that people use to judge their own memory. “Our analyses suggest that these individuals may be using the wrong cues to decide whether they know something or not,” the researchers stated. For instance, someone might mistakenly rely on a strong political identity as a cue that they know a specific political fact, rather than actually retrieving the correct information from memory.

[...] The researchers caution against generalizing too broadly from this single investigation. “Keep in mind that this is just one study and it needs to be replicated and extended in order to draw strong conclusions,” the researchers added.

The analysis also brought a couple of unexpected trends to light. “We were surprised that political metacognition was better than general knowledge metacognition, and that underconfidence was most prevalent among political moderates,” the researchers noted. “The first was reassuring but the latter suggests that political moderates may be insufficiently engaged and/or vocal in the political realm.”

The scientists emphasized that their goal is not to criticize any specific group of voters. “We do not at all intend to shame or pass judgment on anyone, it isn’t easy to be metacognitively accurate and there are lots of factors that can bias us,” the researchers said.

They also pointed out that the findings do not apply universally to all conservatives. “It’s also not an anti-conservative paper; we emphasize that at high levels of political knowledge, liberals and conservatives had very similar political metacognitive accuracy,” the researchers stated.

In fact, the data suggests that actual familiarity with a topic overrides political biases. As the researchers put it, “political metacognitive accuracy was better predicted by political knowledge than political orientation, meaning that what one knows is more important than whether one leans liberal or conservative.”

“We also want to emphasize that when we say ‘political knowledge’ we mean verifiable political facts, like who the speaker of the house is or how many votes are needed to pass a bill,” the researchers clarified. “So, we were not presenting highly emotional or biased information for our participants to judge, and thus our results might not replicate in more politicized contexts.”

Because the participants were mostly White, male, and lower-to-middle income, the scientists caution that the findings might not apply to the entire American population. The researchers are already planning to expand this line of inquiry to address these variables and explore new contexts... (MORE - missing details)]]> Doesn't quite add up. If the "political facts" they grilled and evaluated participants on revolved around knowledge of precise information about the structure of government, how it operates, existing statutes, and facts about individual legislators and their stances on policy issues... Then how do you get complex or more difficult to determine "gray areas" from that (via being "more informed")? Answers to such would actually be of the very definitive or binary nature that they covertly disparage one group (conservatives) for desiring. Such "political facts" have little to do with the varying moral standards, self-interested commitment to one's own community or group, and socioeconomic goals of opposing ideologies that actually drive voter decision-making (as well as knowledge of the intellectual genealogies of parties and political movement histories -- concealed motives).

And why the surprise at moderates being insufficiently confident and potentially less involved in politics? Either that's due to information overkill from multiple POVs again creating that celebrated "gray area" which entails diminishing the ability to decide or to act speedily (including sometimes letting any diesel truck that comes along roar through unimpeded due to that hesitancy), or... When has genuine neutrality or indifference ever generated passion and high expertise in _X_ area, unless one is placed in a job or enters a situation that requires attention devoted to _X_?
- - - - - - - - - - - -

People with the least political knowledge tend to be the most overconfident in their grasp of facts
https://www.psypost.org/people-with-the-...f-facts/hh

EXCERPTS: New research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Appliedhh suggests that people often overestimate their understanding of political facts. This tendency to be overconfident appears most common among individuals who actually know the least about politics and those who lean conservative...

[...] As the researchers explained, “Metacognition is broadly defined as thinking about one’s own cognition. The type we studied is called metacognitive monitoring accuracy, or the degree to which judgments of what one knows matches what one actually knows.”

In simpler terms, this concept refers to a person’s ability to accurately recognize when they are right and when they are wrong. “People tend to be overconfident regarding what they think they know, and this has serious consequences in the political realm, such as when people vote on candidates and issues that they don’t understand as well as they think they do,” the researchers stated.

[...] To evaluate political awareness, the participants took a test of 60 questions covering basic political figures, government rules, and policy issues. The test was designed to be balanced, containing an equal number of questions that might favor liberal or conservative viewpoints. It also included 20 general knowledge questions to serve as a point of comparison.

The researchers measured confidence at two different points during the testing process. First, participants were asked to estimate how well they would do on the test before they took it. Then, after answering the multiple-choice questions, they rated their confidence in each specific answer they had just selected. [...] The scientists also used an objective questionnaire to measure the participants’ political orientation based on their agreement with specific policies, rather than just asking them to label themselves.

A person with a high need for cognitive closure generally prefers a clear “yes” or “no” answer and dislikes gray areas. By collecting all this information, the researchers could look at how political beliefs and thinking habits relate to self-awareness. The researchers observed that the participants were generally overconfident in their test performance. The gap between what people thought they knew and what they actually knew was widest among those with the lowest test scores.

“We found that people are generally overconfident in their political knowledge, especially those who truly don’t know much about politics (the classic Dunning-Kruger effect),” the researchers detailed. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge in a specific area greatly overestimate their own competence, often because they lack the expertise needed to recognize their own mistakes.

The data also revealed a connection between political leanings, thinking styles, and this overconfidence. “Those who were more politically conservative and who like to make quick, definitive decisions, even if they may not have all the relevant information, tend to be the most overconfident,” the researchers observed.

To explain this, the scientists point to the mental shortcuts, or cues, that people use to judge their own memory. “Our analyses suggest that these individuals may be using the wrong cues to decide whether they know something or not,” the researchers stated. For instance, someone might mistakenly rely on a strong political identity as a cue that they know a specific political fact, rather than actually retrieving the correct information from memory.

[...] The researchers caution against generalizing too broadly from this single investigation. “Keep in mind that this is just one study and it needs to be replicated and extended in order to draw strong conclusions,” the researchers added.

The analysis also brought a couple of unexpected trends to light. “We were surprised that political metacognition was better than general knowledge metacognition, and that underconfidence was most prevalent among political moderates,” the researchers noted. “The first was reassuring but the latter suggests that political moderates may be insufficiently engaged and/or vocal in the political realm.”

The scientists emphasized that their goal is not to criticize any specific group of voters. “We do not at all intend to shame or pass judgment on anyone, it isn’t easy to be metacognitively accurate and there are lots of factors that can bias us,” the researchers said.

They also pointed out that the findings do not apply universally to all conservatives. “It’s also not an anti-conservative paper; we emphasize that at high levels of political knowledge, liberals and conservatives had very similar political metacognitive accuracy,” the researchers stated.

In fact, the data suggests that actual familiarity with a topic overrides political biases. As the researchers put it, “political metacognitive accuracy was better predicted by political knowledge than political orientation, meaning that what one knows is more important than whether one leans liberal or conservative.”

“We also want to emphasize that when we say ‘political knowledge’ we mean verifiable political facts, like who the speaker of the house is or how many votes are needed to pass a bill,” the researchers clarified. “So, we were not presenting highly emotional or biased information for our participants to judge, and thus our results might not replicate in more politicized contexts.”

Because the participants were mostly White, male, and lower-to-middle income, the scientists caution that the findings might not apply to the entire American population. The researchers are already planning to expand this line of inquiry to address these variables and explore new contexts... (MORE - missing details)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19912.html Fri, 06 Mar 2026 22:01:07 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19912.html https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/03...their-jobs

PRESS RELEASE: Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell University study reveals.

Published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, research by cognitive psychologist Shane Littrell introduces the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a tool designed to measure susceptibility to impressive-but-empty organizational rhetoric.

“Corporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,” said Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Arts and Sciences. “Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate bullshit confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty.”

Although people anywhere can BS each other – that is, share dubious information that’s misleadingly impressive or engaging – the workplace not only rewards but structurally protects it, Littrell said. In a work setting where corporate jargon is already the norm, it’s easy for ambitious employees to use corporate BS to appear more competent or accomplished, accelerating their climb up the corporate ladder of workplace influence.

Corporate BS seems to be ubiquitous – but Littrell wondered if it is actually harmful. To test this, he created a “corporate bullshit generator” that churns out meaningless but impressive-sounding sentences like, “We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing” and “By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.”

He then asked more than 1,000 office workers to rate the “business savvy” of these computer-generated BS statements alongside real quotes from Fortune 500 leaders. Divided into four distinct studies, the research verified the scale as a statistically reliable measure of individual differences in receptivity to corporate bullshit, then, through use of established cognitive tests, made connections between receptivity to BS and analytic thinking skills known to be essential to workplace performance.

The results revealed a troubling paradox. Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and “visionary,” but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making.

Essentially, the employees most excited and inspired by “visionary” corporate jargon may be the least equipped to make effective, practical business decisions for their companies.

“This creates a concerning cycle,” Littrell said. “Employees who are more likely to fall for corporate bullshit may help elevate the types of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it, creating a sort of negative feedback loop. Rather than a ‘rising tide lifting all boats,’ a higher level of corporate BS in an organization acts more like a clogged toilet of inefficiency.”

When BS goes too far or gets called out, real reputational or financial damage can occur, Littrell said. For instance, a 2014, a memo from the former executive vice president of Microsoft Devices Group to employees, later dubbed in the press “the worst email ever,” opened with 10 paragraphs of jargon, including “Our device strategy must reflect Microsoft’s strategy and must be accomplished within an appropriate financial envelope,” burying the real news in paragraph 11 – that 12,500 employees were going to lose their jobs.

“Most of us, in the right situation, can get taken in by language that sounds sophisticated but isn’t,” Littrell said. “That’s why, whether you’re an employee or a consumer, it’s worth slowing down when you run into organizational messaging of any kind – leaders’ statements, public reports, ads – and ask yourself, ‘What, exactly, is the claim? Does it actually make sense?’ Because when a message leans heavily on buzzwords and jargon, it’s often a red flag that you’re being steered by rhetoric instead of reality.”

For additional information, see this Cornell Chronicle story.]]> https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/03...their-jobs

PRESS RELEASE: Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell University study reveals.

Published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, research by cognitive psychologist Shane Littrell introduces the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a tool designed to measure susceptibility to impressive-but-empty organizational rhetoric.

“Corporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,” said Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Arts and Sciences. “Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate bullshit confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty.”

Although people anywhere can BS each other – that is, share dubious information that’s misleadingly impressive or engaging – the workplace not only rewards but structurally protects it, Littrell said. In a work setting where corporate jargon is already the norm, it’s easy for ambitious employees to use corporate BS to appear more competent or accomplished, accelerating their climb up the corporate ladder of workplace influence.

Corporate BS seems to be ubiquitous – but Littrell wondered if it is actually harmful. To test this, he created a “corporate bullshit generator” that churns out meaningless but impressive-sounding sentences like, “We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing” and “By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.”

He then asked more than 1,000 office workers to rate the “business savvy” of these computer-generated BS statements alongside real quotes from Fortune 500 leaders. Divided into four distinct studies, the research verified the scale as a statistically reliable measure of individual differences in receptivity to corporate bullshit, then, through use of established cognitive tests, made connections between receptivity to BS and analytic thinking skills known to be essential to workplace performance.

The results revealed a troubling paradox. Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and “visionary,” but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making.

Essentially, the employees most excited and inspired by “visionary” corporate jargon may be the least equipped to make effective, practical business decisions for their companies.

“This creates a concerning cycle,” Littrell said. “Employees who are more likely to fall for corporate bullshit may help elevate the types of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it, creating a sort of negative feedback loop. Rather than a ‘rising tide lifting all boats,’ a higher level of corporate BS in an organization acts more like a clogged toilet of inefficiency.”

When BS goes too far or gets called out, real reputational or financial damage can occur, Littrell said. For instance, a 2014, a memo from the former executive vice president of Microsoft Devices Group to employees, later dubbed in the press “the worst email ever,” opened with 10 paragraphs of jargon, including “Our device strategy must reflect Microsoft’s strategy and must be accomplished within an appropriate financial envelope,” burying the real news in paragraph 11 – that 12,500 employees were going to lose their jobs.

“Most of us, in the right situation, can get taken in by language that sounds sophisticated but isn’t,” Littrell said. “That’s why, whether you’re an employee or a consumer, it’s worth slowing down when you run into organizational messaging of any kind – leaders’ statements, public reports, ads – and ask yourself, ‘What, exactly, is the claim? Does it actually make sense?’ Because when a message leans heavily on buzzwords and jargon, it’s often a red flag that you’re being steered by rhetoric instead of reality.”

For additional information, see this Cornell Chronicle story.]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19854.html Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:59:56 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19854.html New poll: Almost half of US adults unaware of connection between processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1117630

EXCERPT: “In light of colorectal cancer now being the leading cause of cancer deaths in adults under 50, it’s concerning that so many people still don’t know about the strong connection between eating processed meat and the risk of developing colorectal cancer,” said Joseph Barrocas, MD, an internal medicine specialist from Huntersville, N.C.

But on a positive note, Dr. Barrocas said, the survey shows that many people want that information.

The poll also revealed that just one-third of adults say they’ve received information from a health care professional about the link between processed meat consumption and colon cancer.

“More health care practitioners have to be educated about the link between diet and colorectal cancer,” Dr. Barrocas said, “and in addition to recommending screening, discuss with patients the protective benefits of a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans.”

Research has shown:

*Those following a plant-based diet had a 22% lower risk for all types of colorectal cancers compared with those who consumed an omnivorous diet. Plant-based diets may be especially protective, because fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes are packed with cancer-fighting phytochemicals... (MORE - missing details, no ads)]]> New poll: Almost half of US adults unaware of connection between processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1117630

EXCERPT: “In light of colorectal cancer now being the leading cause of cancer deaths in adults under 50, it’s concerning that so many people still don’t know about the strong connection between eating processed meat and the risk of developing colorectal cancer,” said Joseph Barrocas, MD, an internal medicine specialist from Huntersville, N.C.

But on a positive note, Dr. Barrocas said, the survey shows that many people want that information.

The poll also revealed that just one-third of adults say they’ve received information from a health care professional about the link between processed meat consumption and colon cancer.

“More health care practitioners have to be educated about the link between diet and colorectal cancer,” Dr. Barrocas said, “and in addition to recommending screening, discuss with patients the protective benefits of a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans.”

Research has shown:

*Those following a plant-based diet had a 22% lower risk for all types of colorectal cancers compared with those who consumed an omnivorous diet. Plant-based diets may be especially protective, because fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes are packed with cancer-fighting phytochemicals... (MORE - missing details, no ads)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19818.html Wed, 18 Feb 2026 23:22:39 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19818.html http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338029

PRESS RELEASE: Certain markers of high status may more strongly boost attitudes towards women versus men, and low status markers may more strongly worsen attitudes towards men versus women—with both findings more pronounced in countries with more conservative gender norms. Marie Isabelle Weißflog of Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany, and the University of York, U.K., and colleagues present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS One on February 18, 2026.

Within society, some people receive unequal rights, opportunities, and access to resources. Social psychologists have researched how such social injustice is linked with either gender, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic status/class, as separate factors. Many studies have also examined how race and gender interact to shape social realities—for instance, judgments of female leaders of different races. However, far less research has examined how gender and status/class intersect to influence how people judge and treat others. For example, women in high-status leadership roles might be judged as less legitimate than men in the same roles.

To help address this gap, Weißflog and colleagues analyzed responses from surveys in which participants read descriptions of hypothetical men and women of different educational, income, and occupational status, and reported how much they would like, respect, or wish to engage with them. The analysis included 2,714 participants from Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.

In general, participants had more positive attitudes towards people with higher education, income, and occupation level. However, attitudes towards women were more strongly positively influenced by higher income and education than attitudes towards men. Meanwhile, low income and occupational status influenced attitudes towards men more negatively than attitudes towards women.

Both differences were more pronounced in countries with more conservative gender norms. In countries with higher overall inequality, such as Brazil and India, status and gender had a weaker influence on attitudes towards others – perhaps because here, respondents felt that low status would be more attributable to context than to any individual characteristics or efforts.

This study underscores the importance of intersectionality—in this case, between gender and class—when examining social injustice. While more research is needed to further deepen understanding, the findings could help inform discussions and policies addressing social injustice.

The authors add: “If we want to tackle the growing inequalities we are witnessing in many countries, it is important to understand how socioeconomic status and class inequalities emerge and impact how people and social groups perceive and act towards one another. Our findings show that looking at status/class in isolation is only part of the picture, however - its impact can differ depending on the social and cultural context, and is intertwined with people's other social positions like race/ethnicity, gender, and more.

In countries with more conservative gender norms, there is more of a gender difference in how women and men are perceived based on their status, and men are judged more harshly if they do not live up to the "breadwinner" role. That really highlights how strict gender norms can not only negatively impact women and gender minorities, but also be a double-edged sword for men - they may benefit from them when they fit into the role expectations, but also be penalized when they do not.”]]> http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338029

PRESS RELEASE: Certain markers of high status may more strongly boost attitudes towards women versus men, and low status markers may more strongly worsen attitudes towards men versus women—with both findings more pronounced in countries with more conservative gender norms. Marie Isabelle Weißflog of Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany, and the University of York, U.K., and colleagues present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS One on February 18, 2026.

Within society, some people receive unequal rights, opportunities, and access to resources. Social psychologists have researched how such social injustice is linked with either gender, race/ethnicity, or socioeconomic status/class, as separate factors. Many studies have also examined how race and gender interact to shape social realities—for instance, judgments of female leaders of different races. However, far less research has examined how gender and status/class intersect to influence how people judge and treat others. For example, women in high-status leadership roles might be judged as less legitimate than men in the same roles.

To help address this gap, Weißflog and colleagues analyzed responses from surveys in which participants read descriptions of hypothetical men and women of different educational, income, and occupational status, and reported how much they would like, respect, or wish to engage with them. The analysis included 2,714 participants from Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.

In general, participants had more positive attitudes towards people with higher education, income, and occupation level. However, attitudes towards women were more strongly positively influenced by higher income and education than attitudes towards men. Meanwhile, low income and occupational status influenced attitudes towards men more negatively than attitudes towards women.

Both differences were more pronounced in countries with more conservative gender norms. In countries with higher overall inequality, such as Brazil and India, status and gender had a weaker influence on attitudes towards others – perhaps because here, respondents felt that low status would be more attributable to context than to any individual characteristics or efforts.

This study underscores the importance of intersectionality—in this case, between gender and class—when examining social injustice. While more research is needed to further deepen understanding, the findings could help inform discussions and policies addressing social injustice.

The authors add: “If we want to tackle the growing inequalities we are witnessing in many countries, it is important to understand how socioeconomic status and class inequalities emerge and impact how people and social groups perceive and act towards one another. Our findings show that looking at status/class in isolation is only part of the picture, however - its impact can differ depending on the social and cultural context, and is intertwined with people's other social positions like race/ethnicity, gender, and more.

In countries with more conservative gender norms, there is more of a gender difference in how women and men are perceived based on their status, and men are judged more harshly if they do not live up to the "breadwinner" role. That really highlights how strict gender norms can not only negatively impact women and gender minorities, but also be a double-edged sword for men - they may benefit from them when they fit into the role expectations, but also be penalized when they do not.”]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19810.html Wed, 18 Feb 2026 00:51:51 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19810.html Early puberty may increase the risk of poor mental wellbeing and higher consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1116788

INTRO: The body changes, hormones surge, and the transition from child to teenager is well underway. But when puberty begins earlier than among peers, it may have consequences for young people – even when it falls within what medical science considers the normal range. That is one of the key findings of three new studies from the research group of Professor Cecilia Ramlau-Hansen from the Department of Public Health at Aarhus University:

“Early puberty is associated with an increased risk of general psychological distress, in terms of lower self-rated health, psychiatric diagnoses and the use of psychiatric medication among young people. The trend is strongest for girls, but it also applies to boys. Our studies suggest that girls who enter puberty early may have twice the risk of receiving psychiatric medication for mental health conditions in general, compared with girls who begin puberty at the same time as their classmates. Among boys, we found only a slight increase in risk,” says Postdoc Anne Gaml-Sørensen, who is first author behind the study.

The studies are based on cohort investigations in which a total of 15,818 Danish adolescents completed questionnaires on puberty. We have investigated risk factors for earlier puberty in these Danish adolescents, and now – as they grow older – we investigate the consequences of earlier puberty, tells Professor Cecilia Ramlau-Hansen.

Primarily affects girls. Moreover, around 4% of the girls received an anxiety diagnosis, while approximately 12% reported social anxiety symptoms, says PhD student Anne Marie Ladehoff Thomsen, who specifically has investigated anxiety in adolescents with earlier puberty. The earlier the girls entered puberty, the higher their risk of receiving a register-based anxiety diagnosis. The risk was around 26% higher for each year earlier they began puberty.

And it is not only the risk of mental health difficulties such as anxiety that increases when hormonal changes begin early. According to Postdoc Pernille Jul Clemmensen, who has investigated risk-taking behaviours, it is also reflected in young people’s relationship with alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs.

“What we can also see is that earlier and more rapid pubertal development is associated with increased risk-taking behaviour during adolescence. This may manifest itself in earlier and more frequent use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs,” she explains... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> Early puberty may increase the risk of poor mental wellbeing and higher consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1116788

INTRO: The body changes, hormones surge, and the transition from child to teenager is well underway. But when puberty begins earlier than among peers, it may have consequences for young people – even when it falls within what medical science considers the normal range. That is one of the key findings of three new studies from the research group of Professor Cecilia Ramlau-Hansen from the Department of Public Health at Aarhus University:

“Early puberty is associated with an increased risk of general psychological distress, in terms of lower self-rated health, psychiatric diagnoses and the use of psychiatric medication among young people. The trend is strongest for girls, but it also applies to boys. Our studies suggest that girls who enter puberty early may have twice the risk of receiving psychiatric medication for mental health conditions in general, compared with girls who begin puberty at the same time as their classmates. Among boys, we found only a slight increase in risk,” says Postdoc Anne Gaml-Sørensen, who is first author behind the study.

The studies are based on cohort investigations in which a total of 15,818 Danish adolescents completed questionnaires on puberty. We have investigated risk factors for earlier puberty in these Danish adolescents, and now – as they grow older – we investigate the consequences of earlier puberty, tells Professor Cecilia Ramlau-Hansen.

Primarily affects girls. Moreover, around 4% of the girls received an anxiety diagnosis, while approximately 12% reported social anxiety symptoms, says PhD student Anne Marie Ladehoff Thomsen, who specifically has investigated anxiety in adolescents with earlier puberty. The earlier the girls entered puberty, the higher their risk of receiving a register-based anxiety diagnosis. The risk was around 26% higher for each year earlier they began puberty.

And it is not only the risk of mental health difficulties such as anxiety that increases when hormonal changes begin early. According to Postdoc Pernille Jul Clemmensen, who has investigated risk-taking behaviours, it is also reflected in young people’s relationship with alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs.

“What we can also see is that earlier and more rapid pubertal development is associated with increased risk-taking behaviour during adolescence. This may manifest itself in earlier and more frequent use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs,” she explains... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19779.html Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:32:25 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19779.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1116255

INTRO: A new national study finds a concerning surge in teen “sexting,” which frequently exposes them to serious risks, including sextortion, coercion and privacy violations. Sexting involves sending or receiving sexually suggestive images or video, while sextortion is the threat to share explicit or intimate images without consent to pressure someone into providing more images, sexual favors, money or other demands. Sextortion is especially harmful for teens, who are still developing impulse control, risk assessment and emotional regulation.

Using a national sample of 3,466 adolescents aged 13 to 17 years in the United States, researchers from Florida Atlantic University and the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, explored the prevalence of sexting behaviors, related negative outcomes, and differences across age, race, gender and sexual orientation.

Results of the study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, show that nearly 1 in 3 youth (32.4%) reported having received a sext, and almost 1 in 4 (23.9%) said they had sent one. These numbers represent a marked increase from what the researchers found in their 2019 study using the same methodology, where 23% had received and 14% had sent a sext.

“Sexting has become normalized in some peer groups, a trend amplified by increased reliance on digital communication during and after COVID-19,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., co-author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “The rise of AI tools also makes it easier to create realistic sexual content without actual sexting, which can be used in sextortion schemes.”

Whom youth sexted mattered immensely. Compared to those who only sexted with a current boyfriend or girlfriend, youth who sent sexts to someone outside a current relationship were:

• more than 13 times as likely to have their image shared without consent, and
  
• nearly five times as likely to experience sextortion, even after accounting for gender, sexual orientation, race and age.

Boys were significantly more likely than girls to both send and receive sexts, and non-heterosexual youth reported higher participation than heterosexual youth. White and multiracial youth had the highest rates overall. While older teens were generally more likely to sext, the pattern was not linear: 15 and even 13 year olds reported high levels of involvement.

Requests for sexts were even more common than sending... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1116255

INTRO: A new national study finds a concerning surge in teen “sexting,” which frequently exposes them to serious risks, including sextortion, coercion and privacy violations. Sexting involves sending or receiving sexually suggestive images or video, while sextortion is the threat to share explicit or intimate images without consent to pressure someone into providing more images, sexual favors, money or other demands. Sextortion is especially harmful for teens, who are still developing impulse control, risk assessment and emotional regulation.

Using a national sample of 3,466 adolescents aged 13 to 17 years in the United States, researchers from Florida Atlantic University and the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, explored the prevalence of sexting behaviors, related negative outcomes, and differences across age, race, gender and sexual orientation.

Results of the study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, show that nearly 1 in 3 youth (32.4%) reported having received a sext, and almost 1 in 4 (23.9%) said they had sent one. These numbers represent a marked increase from what the researchers found in their 2019 study using the same methodology, where 23% had received and 14% had sent a sext.

“Sexting has become normalized in some peer groups, a trend amplified by increased reliance on digital communication during and after COVID-19,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., co-author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “The rise of AI tools also makes it easier to create realistic sexual content without actual sexting, which can be used in sextortion schemes.”

Whom youth sexted mattered immensely. Compared to those who only sexted with a current boyfriend or girlfriend, youth who sent sexts to someone outside a current relationship were:

• more than 13 times as likely to have their image shared without consent, and
  
• nearly five times as likely to experience sextortion, even after accounting for gender, sexual orientation, race and age.

Boys were significantly more likely than girls to both send and receive sexts, and non-heterosexual youth reported higher participation than heterosexual youth. White and multiracial youth had the highest rates overall. While older teens were generally more likely to sext, the pattern was not linear: 15 and even 13 year olds reported high levels of involvement.

Requests for sexts were even more common than sending... (MORE - details, no ads)]]>