DATE: May 09, 2025 at 10:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

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

TITLE: Even people who don’t enjoy music still feel the urge to move to it

URL: https://www.psypost.org/even-people-who-dont-enjoy-music-still-feel-the-urge-to-move-to-it/

A new study published in PLOS One has found that individuals with musical anhedonia — a condition where people feel little or no pleasure from music — still report a strong desire to move when listening to rhythmic music. This urge to move appears to generate its own form of pleasure, even in the absence of the typical reward experienced from listening to music. The findings suggest that the sensation of “groove” — the pleasurable feeling that makes us want to dance — may stem more from our drive to move than from the direct enjoyment of the music itself.

Previous studies have shown that the feelings of enjoyment and the desire to move to music are highly correlated. Yet they’ve also hinted that these sensations may rely on different brain mechanisms. The current study took this question a step further by examining a group of people who don’t feel musical pleasure and asking whether they still experience the urge to move — and if that urge could produce its own rewarding experience.

“I, myself, am a musician, and I’ve spent a lot of time enjoying, creating, and seeking out the pleasurable urge to move to music in my free time,” said study author Isaac Romkey, a PhD student at Concordia University and member of the Penhune Laboratory for Motor Learning and Neural Plasticity. “This study centered on trying to dissociate the two components of groove, pleasure and urge to move.”

For their study, the researchers recruited 204 participants through an online platform. Seventeen of these individuals were identified as having specific musical anhedonia, meaning they had a selective lack of pleasure in music, but not in other rewarding activities like eating or socializing. The rest served as controls, including a subset that was matched to the musical anhedonia group by age, gender, and musical experience.

To identify those with musical anhedonia, participants completed the Barcelona Music Reward Questionnaire, a tool used in previous studies to classify people based on their musical reward sensitivity. The researchers also ruled out alternative explanations like depression or global anhedonia (a general inability to experience pleasure), and screened for basic musical perception skills such as pitch recognition and beat synchronization. This ensured that any differences observed weren’t due to hearing impairments, motor deficits, or overall lack of musical exposure.

Participants then listened to short, computer-generated musical clips that varied in two key musical features: rhythmic complexity and harmonic complexity. Some rhythms were simple and predictable, while others were syncopated or more unpredictable. Likewise, the harmonic content ranged from basic chords to more complex, dissonant ones. After each clip, participants rated how much pleasure they felt and how much the music made them want to move, using a five-point scale. The researchers were especially interested in whether musical anhedonics would show different patterns of response from controls.

As expected from previous research, the control group showed the strongest responses — both in pleasure and desire to move — when listening to music with moderate rhythmic complexity. This follows a well-known inverted U-shaped pattern: music that’s too simple is boring, while overly complex rhythms are hard to follow. Mid-level syncopation strikes the right balance between surprise and predictability, which tends to produce the most groove. Harmonic complexity had a similar, though more linear, effect: simpler chords were generally preferred.

The group with musical anhedonia showed some surprising results. Although they reported lower overall pleasure ratings compared to the control group, their urge to move was remarkably intact. Like the controls, they showed peak responses to medium rhythmic complexity, and their movement ratings closely matched those of the control group. This suggests that while they may not feel typical musical pleasure, they still engage with rhythmic stimuli on a motor level.

“We were surprised that individuals with musical anhedonia showed the same ratings,” Romkey told PsyPost.

But the most striking finding came from the mediation analyses. In the musical anhedonia group, the urge to move completely explained the little pleasure they did report. In other words, the desire to move wasn’t just intact — it was actually driving their limited pleasurable experience. By contrast, in the control group, both the music itself and the urge to move contributed to the pleasure, indicating a more complex interaction between these two components of groove.

These results suggest that the pleasure people derive from groove may not always stem from musical appreciation in the traditional sense. Instead, the desire to move — a response tied to motor circuits in the brain — can be a powerful source of enjoyment on its own. This aligns with theories of predictive coding, which argue that we find pleasure in music when it strikes a balance between fulfilling and violating our expectations. Moving to the beat may help us resolve these prediction errors, reinforcing motor patterns and rewarding the brain’s effort to sync up with the rhythm.

“The pleasure we receive from music appears to be multifaceted; we can get pleasure from many different aspects of music, and the type of pleasure that the component of music evokes is different as well,” Romkeys aid.

Interestingly, prior brain imaging studies have shown that the dorsal striatum, a region involved in movement and habit learning, is more active when people feel the urge to move to music. This contrasts with the ventral striatum, which is typically linked to reward and pleasure. The current findings add behavioral evidence to this neural distinction, supporting the idea that groove is rooted in motor planning as much as — or perhaps more than — in musical enjoyment.

The study has several strengths, including a rigorous screening process for musical anhedonia and a large, diverse sample tested online using standardized musical stimuli. However, the authors acknowledge a few limitations.

“Mediation analyses are not causal, meaning that they do not prove anything on their own,” Romkey noted. “These analyses should be thought of as an indication of where future research should grow towards. As well, we used simple piano chords for our stimuli. We may see different results with more ecologically valid stimuli.”

In addition, the group of musical anhedonics was small, and their diagnosis relied on behavioral questionnaires rather than clinical assessments.

Despite these limitations, the study offers a new perspective on how music moves us. It suggests that the desire to move may be a more universal and resilient form of musical engagement than previously thought — one that can persist even when other sources of musical pleasure are absent. This has implications not only for understanding musical anhedonia but also for developing music-based therapies that harness movement to improve well-being.

“The next steps in this line of research are to investigate the relationship between the brain connectivity of those with and without musical anhedonia and groove ratings,” Romkey said. “We are hypothesizing that those with musical anhedonia will have their groove relationship maintained via connections to motor planning networks, as opposed to reward networks of the brain.”

The study, “The pleasurable urge to move to music is unchanged in people with musical anhedonia,” was authored by Isaac D. Romkey, Tomas Matthews, Nicholas Foster, Simone Dalla Bella, and Virginia B. Penhune.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/even-people-who-dont-enjoy-music-still-feel-the-urge-to-move-to-it/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATE: May 09, 2025 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

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

TITLE: People with lower cognitive ability more likely to fall for pseudo-profound bullshit

URL: https://www.psypost.org/people-with-lower-cognitive-ability-more-likely-to-fall-for-pseudo-profound-bullshit/

A new meta-analysis published in Applied Cognitive Psychology offers insight into why some people are more likely than others to be taken in by pseudo-profound statements—sentences that sound deep and meaningful but are essentially meaningless. The study found that receptivity to this type of language is more common among individuals with lower cognitive abilities and greater faith in intuition, and is also linked to stronger belief in the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and religion.

Pseudo-profound bullshit refers to statements that appear meaningful but don’t actually convey any real substance. These phrases are often grammatically correct and filled with abstract, inspirational words, but upon closer examination, they lack any concrete or verifiable content.

For example, the sentence “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty” might sound insightful, but it doesn’t actually say anything meaningful. The term gained attention after a 2015 study by Gordon Pennycook and colleagues, which found that some people consistently rate such statements as profound—even though they were generated using random buzzwords.

Since then, researchers have become increasingly interested in what makes someone more susceptible to these kinds of statements. In an age of information overload, distinguishing truth from nonsense is more important than ever. Pseudo-profound bullshit may seem harmless on the surface, but it can shape people’s beliefs in ways that promote misinformation, influence political attitudes, and even affect health behaviors.

To better understand who is most likely to fall for pseudo-profound bullshit, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis—a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to identify patterns across a larger body of evidence. They analyzed 46 separate experiments drawn from 26 articles published between 2015 and 2023. The studies included more than 13,600 participants in total, with most of the data coming from Canada and the United States.

All of the included studies used variations of the Bullshit Receptivity Scale, which presents people with meaningless but syntactically correct statements and asks them to rate how profound they find each one. The researchers then looked at how responses on this scale were related to other variables, such as cognitive reflection, verbal intelligence, belief systems, and thinking styles.

The analysis revealed a consistent pattern: people who scored higher in receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, religious and paranormal claims, and had greater faith in intuition. These individuals also tended to score lower on measures of cognitive reflection, verbal intelligence, and mathematical ability.

Cognitive reflection, which refers to the ability to override intuitive but incorrect answers in favor of more deliberate reasoning, showed the strongest negative correlation with bullshit receptivity. In other words, people who are more reflective and analytical are less likely to fall for nonsense that sounds deep. Verbal intelligence and arithmetic skills also showed negative correlations, although these effects were somewhat smaller.

On the other hand, individuals who expressed stronger intuitive thinking tendencies—such as relying on gut feelings—were more likely to find pseudo-profound statements meaningful. They also tended to find mundane or motivational quotes more profound. These findings support the idea that some people have a general tendency to see depth and wisdom in all kinds of statements, regardless of their actual content.

Interestingly, people who were more prone to ontological confusions—such as believing that thoughts can influence physical objects—also rated pseudo-profound statements as more meaningful. This suggests that a blurry distinction between abstract and concrete concepts might play a role in how people assess meaning.

The researchers found that these relationships were generally consistent across the studies, though the strength of the effects varied. One of the most robust findings was the link between bullshit receptivity and motivational quotes. People who were more receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit were also more likely to find depth in simple, inspirational phrases, even if those phrases lacked substance.

Although the findings paint a fairly consistent picture, the authors caution that the data come with some limitations. Most of the studies were conducted in Western countries, primarily the United States and Canada, which means the results might not generalize to other cultural contexts. Additionally, the studies used slightly different versions of the bullshit receptivity measure, which could introduce inconsistencies.

Another limitation involves the measurement tools themselves. While widely used, the Bullshit Receptivity Scale and the Cognitive Reflection Test have been criticized for their reliability and for overlapping with other cognitive traits, such as numeracy. These concerns suggest that future research should aim to refine these tools and develop more precise ways to assess how people process ambiguous or misleading information.

Despite these limitations, the meta-analysis offers a comprehensive overview of what is currently known about bullshit receptivity and provides a foundation for future work. It shows that bullshit receptivity is not random but is meaningfully connected to individual cognitive differences and belief systems.

The authors suggest that future research could explore how different cultural, educational, or political environments shape bullshit receptivity. They also recommend that future studies look into whether interventions aimed at improving critical thinking skills could reduce susceptibility to pseudo-profound nonsense.

The study, “Relationship Between Bullshit, Cognitive Skills, and Belief Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review,” was authored by Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez, Marcelo Leiva-Bianchi, Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina, Javier Escudero-Pastén, and Fabiola Salas.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/people-with-lower-cognitive-ability-more-likely-to-fall-for-pseudo-profound-bullshit/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATE: May 09, 2025 at 06:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

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

TITLE: Narcissism may be fueling political polarization, according to new psychology research

URL: https://www.psypost.org/narcissism-may-be-fueling-political-polarization-according-to-new-psychology-research/

People with narcissistic personality traits—especially those who feel entitled and antagonistic—are more likely to display extreme loyalty to their political in-group and hostility toward their opponents, according to a new study published in Political Behavior. The research suggests that personality may play a central role in deepening affective polarization, regardless of party or ideological stance.

Affective polarization refers to the growing emotional divide between political groups, where individuals not only strongly identify with their own group but also express distrust, dislike, or even hatred toward opposing groups. While past research has often focused on ideological or demographic sources of this divide, the current study highlights how a common personality trait—narcissism—may predispose individuals to both fervent group loyalty and contempt for outsiders.

Narcissism is a personality trait centered around self-importance and entitlement. It involves a heightened sense of superiority, a strong desire for admiration, and in many cases, a tendency to demean or devalue others. The researchers focused on a particular form of narcissism called “grandiose narcissism,” which can be broken into two subtypes: admiration and rivalry. Admiration involves self-promotion and a desire to be seen as special, while rivalry is about defensiveness and antagonism—especially toward perceived threats to one’s status or ego.

“We often have a sense that ‘extremists’ have something in common, but it is unclear what that is,” explained study author James Tilley, a professor at the University of Oxford. “There is a sentence in a C. P. Snow novel (The Affair) that I quote in my new book (Tribal Politics with Sara Hobolt, due out next year) that sums this up nicely: “They stood at the two extremes, both utterly recalcitrant. As often with extremists, they felt linked. They had a kinship, much more than with their own sides, the safe and sensible people in the middle.'”

“Our idea was that disposition, or personality, helps explain why people have 1) different levels of attachment to their own political identity and 2) different levels of animosity towards people with a different political identity,” Tilley continued. “Previous research has not found consistent links between the standard Big-5 personality traits and affective polarization, so we wanted to explore the role of narcissism.”

The researchers conducted a two-wave national panel survey in Britain using data collected by the polling company YouGov. The first wave, in March 2021, included over 3,500 adults and measured their personality traits. In July 2021, about 2,000 of those same individuals completed a follow-up survey assessing their political identities and attitudes toward in-group and out-group partisans. The time gap between the surveys helped reduce the chance that political questions would influence how participants responded to personality measures.

Participants were asked about both traditional party identities (e.g., Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) and newer political groupings related to Brexit (Leavers and Remainers). Roughly three-quarters of respondents reported identifying with a political party or a Brexit position.

To measure narcissism, the researchers used the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ), an 18-item scale that distinguishes between admiration and rivalry. Participants rated how much they agreed with statements like “I am great” or “I want my rivals to fail.” Higher scores indicated greater narcissistic tendencies.

The researchers also measured affective polarization in two parts. First, they assessed in-group affinity using questions like whether criticism of one’s political group felt like a personal insult or whether participants felt connected to other group members. Second, they measured out-group animosity using items that captured emotional reactions to opposing groups, such as feeling good when the opposing party was criticized or getting angry when it was praised.

The researchers found a clear pattern: people with higher levels of narcissism were more likely to report both stronger emotional ties to their own group and more intense animosity toward political opponents. This held true across both party and Brexit identities. Importantly, narcissism had a stronger association with out-group animosity than with in-group affinity. In other words, narcissistic individuals were more likely to dislike their opponents than to express admiration for their own side.

When broken down by narcissism subtype, the researchers found that rivalry—the aspect marked by defensiveness, entitlement, and antagonism—was the strongest driver of affective polarization. People high in rivalry expressed greater loyalty to their political in-group and significantly more negative feelings toward the out-group. In contrast, the admiration subtype had only weak or inconsistent effects.

“People high in narcissism tend to have a stronger attachment to people who share their politics and are also more hostile towards people on the other side of the political debate,” Tilley told PsyPost.

“This association is mostly due to the ‘rivalry’ aspect of narcissism rather than the ‘admiration’ aspect. ‘Rivalry’ is less about feelings of superiority, and more about feelings of antagonistic entitlement. This form of entitlement means that people are hostile to political out-groups (people on the other side), but also cling more strongly to their in-group (people on their own side) due a greater perceived threat of the out-group.”

These results held even when accounting for other well-established personality traits, such as the Big Five dimensions (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). Among these, only neuroticism came close to matching the effect of narcissism on political attitudes, but its impact was still consistently smaller. The findings suggest that rivalry in particular may play a unique and underappreciated role in shaping political divisions.

Interestingly, the influence of narcissism on polarization appeared relatively consistent across identity types. Whether someone identified as a Remainer or a Leaver, a Conservative or a Labour supporter, narcissism predicted more extreme political attitudes. This points to a deeper psychological commonality among highly polarized individuals—regardless of which side they are on.

Despite its strengths, the study has some limitations. Because the data is observational, the findings show association rather than causation. It remains possible, for example, that being deeply involved in partisan politics might reinforce narcissistic traits over time.

“It is possible that people with strong political identities may become more narcissistic,” Tilley noted. “Our results simply show a correlation. Having said that, we measure personality three months prior to the political attitudes, so any reverse causation is not due to immediate survey effects.”

The researchers argue that these findings have important implications for understanding both mass and elite polarization. At the mass level, they raise the possibility that rising narcissism—if occurring generationally or culturally—could be contributing to increasingly divided electorates. At the elite level, the results may help explain why political leaders, who tend to score high on narcissistic traits, often appear more polarized than average citizens.

“One consistent, and unsurprising, finding in the literature is that politicians score highly in narcissism,” Tilley explained. “The more we select narcissistic politicians at elections, the more we might expect elite politics to become affectively polarized and uncivil. To the extent that affective polarization is a ‘bad thing,’ this is probably not good news because voters often take their cues from politicians.”

The study, “Narcissism and Affective Polarization,” was authored by James Tilley and Sara Hobolt.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/narcissism-may-be-fueling-political-polarization-according-to-new-psychology-research/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DATE: May 08, 2025 at 08:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

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

TITLE: Scientists studied Fox News — here’s what they discovered

URL: https://www.psypost.org/scientists-studied-fox-news-heres-what-they-discovered/

As a dominant force in American media, Fox News has long attracted both loyal viewers and fierce critics. Known for its conservative slant, the network has become a key player in U.S. political discourse, influencing everything from election outcomes to public health behaviors.

Given its reach and impact, Fox News has been the subject of numerous academic studies across psychology, political science, and communication. Click on each headline below to learn more about what the research reveals.

1. Trump’s attacks on Fox News altered conservative media consumption

A study in Public Opinion Quarterly explored how Donald Trump’s frequent criticism of Fox News reshaped audience perceptions and behaviors. By analyzing nearly 25,000 of Trump’s tweets, the study found that his public attacks on Fox News correlated with dips in the network’s ratings and changes in how both Republicans and Democrats viewed the network.

The research showed that when Trump promoted alternatives like One America News Network (OANN), Republican viewers expressed more willingness to switch from Fox to more hardline outlets. Democrats, interestingly, responded by viewing Fox News as more moderate and were more open to watching it. This highlights how elite cues can shift media preferences even within partisan audiences.

2. Watching Fauci on Fox News improved public health behaviors

A study in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology revealed that Fox News viewers who watched Dr. Anthony Fauci were more likely to adopt COVID-19 mitigation behaviors—such as using disinfectant and social distancing—compared to those who saw him on other platforms like CNBC.

The researchers found that viewers’ feelings toward scientists mattered more than political ideology. Although watching Fauci didn’t change beliefs about hydroxychloroquine, it did lead to increased commitment to health behaviors—but only when he appeared on Fox News. This suggests that scientists may be more persuasive when speaking directly to skeptical audiences through trusted channels.

3. FoxNews.com users showed reduced knowledge

A study published in American Politics Research found that using Fox News’ website did not harm people’s understanding of basic political processes, like how the Senate works. However, it did correlate with reduced knowledge of societal issues, such as climate change, unemployment, and economic trends.

This distinction—between political mechanics and real-world conditions—suggests Fox News may selectively inform or misinform depending on the topic. Notably, these findings held even after controlling for ideology and other demographics, indicating the effects were not merely due to who watches but potentially how Fox covers key issues.

4. Fox News opinion shows intensify political polarization

In Political Research Quarterly, researchers analyzed the influence of opinion shows during the 2008 presidential election and found that Fox News opinion programming increased hostility toward Barack Obama more than it increased support for John McCain.

The shows employed a highly oppositional tone, attacking the out-party candidate more than promoting the in-party candidate. This resulted in viewers adopting more extreme views of the opposition’s ideology, reinforcing polarization through negative partisanship. Fox News viewers, for example, came to view Obama as more extreme without necessarily adjusting their views of McCain.

5. Fox News consumption linked to COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs

A study in Research & Politics found that populist individuals—regardless of party—who consumed Fox News were more likely to believe in COVID-19 conspiracies, such as that the virus was a bioweapon or that a vaccine was being hidden by elites.

The study highlighted that Fox News viewers with populist attitudes, whether Democrat or Republican, were more susceptible to misinformation. These beliefs were tied to lower engagement in protective health behaviors, such as social distancing and mask-wearing, demonstrating how conservative media can influence both belief systems and real-world actions.

6. Trust in Fox News linked to fewer COVID-19 precautions

Published in BMJ Global Health, a survey of nearly 5,000 Americans found that those who trusted Fox News more than CNN were less likely to wear masks or avoid risky behaviors like going to bars during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study revealed that Fox viewers not only engaged in fewer protective behaviors but also changed their behaviors more quickly when Fox News downplayed the severity of the pandemic. In contrast, those who trusted CNN maintained more consistent health precautions, showing how partisan messaging can influence public health at scale.

7. Fox News increased Republican vote shares over two decades

A large-scale study in the Journal of Public Economics found that increased Fox News viewership, driven partly by the network’s channel position on cable lineups, led to a significant rightward shift in political preferences and a boost in Republican vote shares at all levels of government.

From 2000 to 2020, the study tracked millions of Americans’ political attitudes and voting outcomes and found that Fox News shaped not just how people voted in presidential elections, but also in House, Senate, and gubernatorial races. Even modest increases in viewership were enough to tip the scales in close contests—such as the 2016 election.

8. Fox News use associated with COVID-19 misinformation and prejudice

A study in Frontiers in Psychology found that people who relied on Fox News for information were more likely to believe misinformation about COVID-19 and to hold prejudiced views toward Asian Americans during the early months of the pandemic.

Those who trusted Fox News were less knowledgeable about how the virus spreads and more likely to endorse myths—such as that COVID-19 was manmade. In contrast, regular readers of NPR or the New York Times were more accurately informed and expressed lower levels of prejudice. The researchers emphasized the importance of credible news sources during health crises.

9. Fox News encouraged more Republican challenges to Democrats

Published in the American Journal of Political Science, a study showed that the entry of Fox News into new congressional districts increased the likelihood that quality Republican candidates would run against vulnerable Democratic incumbents. The effect was not mirrored for Democratic challengers.

The availability of Fox News changed Republican perceptions of electoral viability, encouraging stronger candidates to enter races they previously might have avoided. Interestingly, this didn’t translate into more successful challenges—suggesting the network influenced perception more than electoral outcomes. Still, it highlighted the role of partisan media in shaping the strategic decisions of political elites.

10. Many Fox News viewers aren’t strong partisans

Contrary to assumptions that only die-hard partisans watch Fox News, a study in the American Journal of Political Science found that many viewers of partisan media—including Fox News—are independents or weak partisans. Around 15% of Americans watch eight or more hours of partisan television per month.

The study used Nielsen and smart TV data to show that even viewers who don’t identify strongly with the Republican Party tend to stick with Fox News once they start watching it. This habit-forming nature of media consumption suggests that Fox’s influence may extend beyond ideology, reaching audiences through entertainment, style, and routine.

11. Fox News viewers more likely to believe in UFOs

A study in the Atlantic Journal of Communication found that regular Fox News viewers were more likely to believe that UFOs are real and potentially extraterrestrial. While general TV viewing didn’t correlate with such beliefs, Fox News stood out alongside shows like Ghost Hunters and podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience.

The researchers suggest that Fox’s frequent coverage of government UFO disclosures, framed in ways that often blur science and speculation, may contribute to public belief in alien visitation. The study cautions that media consumption patterns can shape not only political views, but also beliefs about paranormal and fringe topics.

URL: https://www.psypost.org/scientists-studied-fox-news-heres-what-they-discovered/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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