Screening for mental health problems in school can reduce and prevent later psychotic experiences

Peer-Reviewed Publication

RCSI

 

IMAGE: PROFESSOR MARY CANNON, PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, RCSI UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES view more 

CREDIT: RAY LOHAN/ RCSI

Wednesday, 8 February 2023: In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers at RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences have found that a school-based screen for mental health problems, combined with a referral system, can be effective at improving and protecting the mental health of adolescents.

The research, published in BMC Public Health, is the first study to examine the impact of school-based interventions on preventing psychotic experiences, an early indicator of developing mental disorders in children and adolescents. Of the interventions tested, one consisting of a universal screener and selective intervention was found to both reduce the rates of, and prevent psychotic experiences at 12-month follow up.

Professor Mary Cannon, Professor of Psychiatric Epidemiology and Youth Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, RCSI, commented: “Prevention has two key objectives; to reduce the symptoms of mental health disorders, and prevent new incidence of symptoms. This study demonstrates that school-based interventions have the potential to be effective at both key aims of prevention, making a positive impact on public mental health.”

Lead author and RCSI PhD student, Lorna Staines commented: “Psychotic experiences are particularly common in the adolescent population and are associated with a four-fold increased risk for psychotic disorder, and a three-fold increased risk for any mental disorder. This study has for the first time identified school-based programmes as an effective route to prevent psychotic experiences.”

The lead authors of this study are supported through funding provided by the European Research Council Consolidator Award (iHEAR). The SEYLE project was supported through Coordination Theme 1 (Health) of the European Union Seventh Framework Programme. Further support was provided by a Wellcome Trust Innovations Award, a research grant from Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), the European Regional Development Fund and FutureNeuro industry partners.

 

ENDS

 

About RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences is a world-leading university for Good Health and Well-being. Ranked in the world top 50 for its contribution to UN Sustainable Development Goal 3 in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings 2022, it is exclusively focused on education and research to drive improvements in human health worldwide.

RCSI is an international not-for-profit university, headquartered in Dublin. It is among the top 250 universities worldwide in the World University Rankings (2023). RCSI has been awarded Athena Swan Bronze accreditation for positive gender practice in higher education.

Visit the RCSI MyHealth Expert Directory to find the details of our experts across a range of healthcare issues and concerns. Recognising their responsibility to share their knowledge and discoveries to empower people with information that leads them to better health, these clinicians and researchers are willing to engage with the media in their area of expertise.

---

JOURNAL

BMC Public Health

DOI

10.1186/s12889-023-15107-x 

Childhood mental health problems

 resulting from early-life adversity drive

 poorer cognitive performance in

 adolescence, study suggests

Early-life adversity has long-term effects on children’s mental health, which in turn affects cognitive functioning as teenagers, say researchers. However, if mental health improves over time this outcome can be alleviated

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDG 

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Paper available at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gT05MtcRuvRYPL6cPTazut7672Z5UsDN?usp=share_link

Early-life adversity – such as poverty, illness or family conflict – has long been linked to mental health difficulties and poorer cognitive functioning as children grow up. But how these factors interact and evolve over time has so far been unknown.

Now, a new study by researchers at the University of Cambridge, together with colleagues in Nigeria, has revealed the interplay between early-life adversity, mental health difficulties and cognitive functioning over the course of childhood. The results, published today in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, show that childhood mental health influences the extent to which early-life adversity impacts on later cognitive functioning.

Scientists analysed data from the ongoing Millennium Cohort Study, which has assessed 13,287 children on a variety of tests at ages three, five, seven, eleven and fourteen. They selected measures of early-life adversity (which they classified as taking place before the age of three), mental health and cognitive functioning – namely, working memory and vocabulary.

The team from the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge used a statistical technique designed to tease out the extent to which mental health affects the relationship between early-life adversity and cognitive functioning later in childhood.

They found that early-life adversity is associated with poorer performance on working memory and vocabulary through its impact on mental health across childhood. For example, poorer mental health across ages 3-14 resulting from early-life adversity accounted for 59% of the variance in poorer working memory performance at age 11 and explained 70% of poorer performance in vocabulary at age 14.  

The researchers showed that early-life adversity at age three strongly predicted poorer mental health across ages 3-14, with the association strongest at three but getting progressively weaker over time. In other words, children who experienced early-life adversity were most likely to experience mental health difficulties from age three to age fourteen, although poorer mental health was greater at age 3 than in the later years. This suggests that exposure to early-life adversity at this developmentally sensitive time has a negative long-term impact on mental health.

They also found that decreases in mental health difficulties over time were associated with improvements in working memory and vocabulary. This suggests that if behavioural and psychological difficulties can be addressed when children are young, the effects of early-life adversity on later cognition could be alleviated. This finding has important implications for clinicians, educators and parents involved in interventions.

“Our findings suggest that early-life adversity can lead to prolonged periods of poor mental health, which in turn may have lasting effects on cognitive performance, such as working memory and vocabulary,” said lead author Dr Tochukwu Nweze from the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit.

“We already know that poor mental health and cognition are associated with numerous behavioural problems which affect life quality and satisfaction. This reinforces the need for early interventions to give children the best possible life-outcomes.”

The researchers say that, at a time of rising mental health challenges among teenagers and young people, made worse by contemporary risk factors such as conflicts, pandemics and climate change, educators and clinicians need to focus on building resilience in children who have experienced early-life adversity.

“In this way, we can hope to break the self-sustaining mental health difficulties faced by individuals who have experienced early-life adversity,” said Dr Nweze.

The research was funded by Cambridge Trust under the Cambridge African Scholarship scheme.

ENDS.

Reference:

Tochukwu Nweze et al., Childhood mental health difficulties mediate the long-term association between early-life adversity at age 3 and poorer cognitive functioning at ages 11 and 14, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8 February 2023, DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.13757

Contact details:

Charis Goodyear, Communications Coordinator, University of Cambridge Office of External Affairs and Communications Charis.Goodyear@admin.cam.ac.uk

Tochukwu Nweze, University of Cambridge ejiofortochukwunweze@gmail.com

About the University of Cambridge

The University of Cambridge is one of the world’s leading universities, with a rich history of radical thinking dating back to 1209. Its mission is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

Cambridge was second in the influential 2023 QS World University Rankings, the highest rated institution in the UK.

The University comprises 31 autonomous Colleges and over 100 departments, faculties and institutions. Its 20,000 students include around 9,000 international students from 147 countries. In 2022, 72.5% of its new undergraduate students were from state schools and more than 25% from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Cambridge research spans almost every discipline, from science, technology, engineering and medicine through to the arts, humanities and social sciences, with multi-disciplinary teams working to address major global challenges. In the Times Higher Education’s rankings based on the UK Research Excellence Framework, the University was rated as the highest scoring institution covering all the major disciplines.

The University sits at the heart of the ‘Cambridge cluster’, in which more than 5,200 knowledge-intensive firms employ more than 71,000 people and generate £19 billion in turnover. Cambridge has the highest number of patent applications per 100,000 residents in the UK.

www.cam.ac.uk

---

JOURNAL

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

DOI

10.1111/jcpp.13757 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Childhood mental health difficulties mediate the long-term association between early-life adversity at age 3 and poorer cognitive functioning at ages 11 and 14

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

8-Feb-2023

COI STATEMENT

The research was funded by Cambridge Trust under the Cambridge African Scholarship scheme.

How does early-life adversity affect childhood mental health and cognitive function?

Peer-Reviewed Publication

WILEY

New research published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry indicates that early-life adversity—such as homelessness, parental violence, or longstanding illness in the family—may lead to mental health challenges, which in turn have adverse consequences for the development of cognitive abilities during childhood. 

In the study of 13,287 children in the UK, adversity at age 3 years was strongly associated with poorer mental health across all ages from 3 to 14 years. Also, adversity predicted poorer working memory at age 11 and vocabulary at age 14. The impact of adversity on cognition was partially due to its negative effects on mental health during development. 

“Our findings not only highlight the deleterious effects of adversity on mental health and cognitive abilities but also reveal one of the mechanisms through which these effects manifest and persist over a long period of time. Prolonged periods of poor mental health as a result of early-life adversity, may have lasting or partially cumulative effects on cognitive abilities of working memory and vocabulary,” said the lead author of the paper, Tochukwu Nweze, PhD, a recent graduate of University of Cambridge. “At a time of rising mental health challenges among teenagers and young people, exacerbated by contemporary environmental risk factors, we suggest that educators in collaboration with clinicians could foster greater resilience by attempting to break this vicious cycle of persistent and self-sustaining mental health difficulties faced by individuals who experienced early adversity through some sort of deliberate and targeted clinical intervention.”

URL upon publication: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13757

 

Additional Information
NOTE: The information contained in this release is protected by copyright. Please include journal attribution in all coverage. For more information or to obtain a PDF of any study, please contact: Sara Henning-Stout, newsroom@wiley.com.

About the Journal
The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (JCPP) is widely recognised to be the leading international journal covering both child and adolescent psychology and psychiatry. JCPP publishes the highest quality clinically relevant research in psychology, psychiatry and related disciplines.

About Wiley
Wiley is one of the world’s largest publishers and a global leader in scientific research and career-connected education. Founded in 1807, Wiley enables discovery, powers education, and shapes workforces. Through its industry-leading content, digital platforms, and knowledge networks, the company delivers on its timeless mission to unlock human potential. Visit us at Wiley.com. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram.

---

JOURNAL

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

DOI

10.1111/jcpp.13757 

ARTICLE TITLE

Childhood mental health difficulties mediate the long-term association between early-life adversity at age 3 and poorer cognitive functioning at ages 11 and 14

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

8-Feb-2023

Relationships matter more than emotion when it comes to ‘likes’ on Instagram

Friends can expect a ‘like’ but acquaintances must play their part to earn a like on Instagram

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF BATH

The emotional buzz of receiving a like to an Instagram post can leave people more disposed to return a like in the future, but it’s the status of the relationship that is the overriding factor in determining the tap of approval, according to a study from the University of Bath.

Close friends can expect a like from one another to an Instagram post regardless of their reaction to a previous post, but for acquaintances the behaviour is reciprocal.

“People who are good friends give likes to each other as a way of keeping the relationship going - it’s something they’ll do whether the other person has liked their last post or ignored it,” said Dr Kseniya Stsiampkouskaya from the University’s School of Management. “The action of giving a like can be seen as a small building block that supports the friendship and strengthens the bond between two people. This means that social media users engage in ‘social grooming’ - behaviour aimed at maintaining social structures and relationships.”

The researchers say the excitement and enthusiasm generated by receiving a like is a big driver of intention to like somebody’s posts in the future, but good friends don’t need this – it’s their attachment that prompts them to like a post.

“If you share something on social media, you can expect a like from your close friend even if you missed their previous post,” says Stsiampkouskaya. “Liking between close friends is not about direct reciprocity, it is about the bigger picture - their friendship and connection.

“For acquaintances, however, the situation is different. Acquaintances do not have the same social obligations towards each other as close friends, so they tend to mirror each other’s behaviours. Receiving a like from an acquaintance triggers our norm of reciprocity, so we are more likely to return the kindness and give a like back. However, if this acquaintance didn’t like our previous post, we will probably do the same and just ignore their future posts.”

The research, published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, explores the direct reciprocation of social media likes via an online experiment. 201 participants from the UK, US, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (71 per cent women) were allocated to one of four groups: receiving a like from a close friend, not receiving a like from a close friend, receiving a like from an acquaintance, and not receiving a like from an acquaintance.

They completed a questionnaire-based simulation of Instagram in which they had the choice to return or not return a like to a friend/ acquaintance, with researchers using statistical modelling techniques to assess participants’ emotional reactions.

The researchers acknowledge that while relational closeness influences liking behaviours it is not the sole predictor – previous research points to a variety of factors including demographics, personality traits, enjoyment, personal brand management and information sharing.

However, they say the study is “an important stepping-stone” in understanding how user behaviour changes across different levels of relational closeness. Insights can help social media platforms optimise user experience by fulfilling their original purpose of connecting people and providing ample opportunities for relationship building and maintenance. 

“Understanding how relational closeness affects user behaviour can help brands and businesses create effective engagement strategies, fostering the culture of cooperation and co-creation on social media,” said Stsiampkouskaya.

“Last but not least, the knowledge of why and how people give likes on social media can ease the pressure of social comparison, increase users’ self-awareness, and help them engage with platforms in a more mindful way.”

To Like or Not to Like? An Experimental Study on Relational Closeness, Social Grooming, Reciprocity, and Emotions in Social Media Liking is published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, by Dr Kseniya Stsiampkouskaya, Professor Adam Joinson and Dr Lukasz Piwek: https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/28/2/zmac036/6987873

---

JOURNAL

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

DOI

10.1093/jcmc/zmac036 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

ARTICLE TITLE

To Like or Not to Like? An Experimental Study on Relational Closeness, Social Grooming, Reciprocity, and Emotions in Social Media Liking

Study reveals warning signs of poor mental health in athletes

‘Put down’ language is a key indicator of poor mental health in athletes, recent research shows

Peer-Reviewed Publication

STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY

‘Put down’ language is a key indicator of poor mental health in athletes, recent research shows.

More than 400 athletes across a variety of sports, ages and levels of experience were questioned for the study by sports psychology experts from Staffordshire University and Manchester Metropolitan University.

The findings reveal that athletes’ belief systems – specifically irrational beliefs – are related to poorer self-confidence, and in turn, greater competitive anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Phrases that reflect self-depreciating beliefs such as “if I lose, I’m a failure" or “If I face setbacks, it shows how stupid I am” are warning signs, say the authors.

Paul Mansell, Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology at Staffordshire University, said: “Despite the psychological benefits of physical activity, studies frequently report poor mental health in athletes, which may be exacerbated by adversities, such as injury, de-selection, and performance pressure.

“We investigated athletes’ beliefs, how they view stress, their levels of self-confidence and put all this data together to work out what might predict psychological wellbeing. We found irrational beliefs to be a core reason for symptoms of poor mental health manifesting in athletes.”

This is the first known study that has examined irrational beliefs, self-confidence, and the psychological wellbeing of athletes all together. Irrational beliefs are extreme, rigid, and illogical ideas that people hold. For example, a person might believe that they “must” get what they want, or that just because they have failed, that they are a “complete failure”.

Dr Martin Turner, from Manchester Metropolitan University, said: “In our recent study, self-depreciation beliefs were found to be the main predictor of low self-confidence. In simple terms, when an athlete put themselves down and uses language like “If I lose, it means I am a failure" it is most damaging and most likely to lead to losses of confidence. This is then likely to have a knock-on effect on performance and wellbeing.

“We can all work to help athletes develop mindsets that help them deal with the challenges of sport and life. By encouraging rational and logical beliefs about performance, we can help athletes to stay healthy amidst the high demands of competitive sport.”

The authors propose Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) as an effective tool for protecting self-confidence. REBT helps athletes to challenge these self-depreciation beliefs and develop beliefs that are more helpful and healthy. For example, rather than believe “I am a failure if I fail”, this might be countered with “failing is not ideal, but it does not mean that I am failure”.

Paul added: “The good news is that irrational beliefs can be challenged and weakened. A coach, teammate or a sports psychologist can listen out for irrational belief phrases and help athletes to counter them. Promoting helpful ‘self-talk’ or imagery can really help to shift somebody’s mindset from being rigid and illogical to being more rational, flexible and healthy.”

Read the full paper Testing the REBT-I model in athletes: Investigating the role of self-confidence between irrational beliefs and psychological distress published in Psychology of Sport and Exercise.

Discover more about Staffordshire University’s range of Sport and Exercise degree courses.

---

JOURNAL

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

DOI

10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102284 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Survey

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Testing the REBT-I model in athletes: Investigating the role of self-confidence between irrational beliefs and psychological distress

Free speech vs. harmful misinformation: How people resolve dilemmas in online content moderation

Study reveals key factors that affect people’s decisions to quash harmful misinformation

Peer-Reviewed Publication

MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

The issue of content moderation on social media platforms came into sharp focus in 2021, when major platforms such as Facebook and Twitter suspended the accounts of then U.S. President Donald Trump. Debates continued as platforms confronted dangerous misinformation about the COVID-19 and the vaccines, and after Elon Musk singlehandedly overturned Twitter’s COVID-19 misinformation policy and reinstated previously suspended accounts.

“So far, social media platforms have been the ones making key decisions on moderating misinformation, which effectively puts them in the position of arbiters of free speech. Moreover, discussions about online content moderation often run hot, but are largely uninformed by empirical evidence,” says lead author of the study Anastasia Kozyreva, Research Scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. “To deal adequately with conflicts between free speech and harmful misinformation, we need to know how people handle various forms of moral dilemmas when making decisions about content moderation,” adds Ralph Hertwig, Director at the Center for Adaptive Rationality of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development.

In the conjoint survey experiment, more than 2,500 U.S. respondents indicated whether they would remove social media posts spreading misinformation about democratic elections, vaccinations, the Holocaust, and climate change. They were also asked whether they would take punitive action against the accounts by issuing a warning or a temporary or indefinite suspension. Respondents were shown information about hypothetical accounts, including political leaning and number of followers, as well as the accounts’ posts and the consequences of the misinformation they contained.

The majority of respondents chose to take some action to prevent the spread of harmful misinformation. On average, 66 percent of respondents said they would delete the offending posts, and 78 percent would take some action against the account (of which 33 percent opted to “issue a warning” and 45 percent chose to indefinitely or temporarily suspend accounts spreading misinformation). Not all misinformation was penalized equally: Climate change denial was acted on the least (58%), whereas Holocaust denial (71%) and election denial (69%) were acted on most often, closely followed by anti-vaccination content (66%).

“Our results show that so-called free-speech absolutists such as Elon Musk are out of touch with public opinion. People by and large recognize that there should be limits to free speech, namely, when it can cause harm, and that content removal or even deplatforming can be appropriate in extreme circumstances, such as Holocaust denial,” says co-author Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair in Cognitive Psychology at the University of Bristol.

The study also sheds light on the factors that affect people’s decisions regarding content moderation online. The topic, the severity of the consequences of the misinformation, and whether it was a repeat offense had the strongest impact on decisions to remove posts and suspend accounts. Characteristics of the account itself—the person behind the account, their partisanship, and number of followers—had little to no effect on respondents’ decisions. 

Respondents were not more inclined to remove posts from an account with an opposing political stance, nor were they more likely to suspend accounts that did not match their political preferences. However, Republicans and Democrats tended to take different approaches to resolving the dilemma between protecting free speech and removing potentially harmful misinformation. Democrats preferred to prevent dangerous misinformation across all four scenarios, whereas Republicans preferred to protect free speech, imposing fewer restrictions.

“We hope our research can inform the design of transparent rules for content moderation of harmful misinformation. People's preferences are not the only benchmark for making important trade-offs on content moderation, but ignoring the fact that there is support for taking action against misinformation and the accounts that publish it risks undermining the public's trust in content moderation policies and regulations,” says co-author Professor Jason Reifler from the University of Exeter. “Effective and meaningful platform regulation requires not only clear and transparent rules for content moderation, but general acceptance of the rules as legitimate constraints on the fundamental right to free expression. This important research goes a long way to informing policy makers about what is and, more importantly, what is not acceptable user-generated content,” adds co-author Professor Mark Leiser from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

---

JOURNAL

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

DOI

10.1073/pnas.2210666120 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Survey

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation.

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

7-Feb-2023

Reducing pesticide pollution and the intensity of harvesting can increase crop yield and contribute to climate change mitigation

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF TURKU

 

IMAGE: COMMON MEADOW AFTER HARVEST AT THE END OF JUNE. THE MEADOW PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE OF INTENSIVE MOWING CLOSE TO THE GROUND. view more 

CREDIT: BENJAMIN FUCHS

In two studies, researchers at the University of Turku in Finland have found that carbon sequestration and plant resilience as well as forage pasture yield can be increased through key adjustments in agricultural management. The results provide a roadmap for reducing pesticide loads in soils and the first steps towards increasing climate change mitigation while improving crop yield in grasslands.

Soil properties are an essential driver of plant quality, including resilience against climatic extremes and resistance against insect pests and pathogens.

The increasing food demand of the rising global population together with technological advancement and novel synthetic agrochemicals have resulted in agricultural intensification with the goal to maximise crop production.

“However, in recent decades, we have observed both a reduction in plant resilience and crop yields and the degradation of soil quality. This has resulted in an exponential need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” says Docent Benjamin Fuchs from the Biodiversity Unit of the University of Turku, Finland.

“Only in recent years, we have started to realise that intensive agriculture and agrochemical pollution in fact contribute to a reversal of the intended purpose. Soils are polluted with pesticides and at the same time, extreme weather events erode soil nutrients,” Dr Fuchs continues.

Intensive harvesting and pesticide residues in soil limit root growth

One key challenge in the research was to find practical and sustainable ways to improve plant resilience and elevate crop yield while mitigating the carbon (CO2) emissions caused by human activity by enhancing carbon sequestration in the soil.

The researchers conducted two independent experiments at the University of Turku’s research facilities at the Ruissalo Botanical Gardens in Turku, Finland. In the greenhouse and common garden studies, the research team showed that the intensity of mowing has a great impact on pastures. By reducing the intensity of the mowing and cutting the plant higher, the overall yield of the pasture increased and the plants developed bigger roots. This indicates a higher atmospheric carbon sequestration into belowground storage.

What was surprising, Fuchs emphasises, is that the researchers found a detrimental effect of herbicide residues in soil on root growth regardless of the intensity of the yield harvest.

“This demonstrates a tremendous limitation to the potential carbon binding and storage belowground when soils are polluted by pesticide. Considering the vast amount of pesticides applied to agricultural fields yearly, we can conclude that the impact on soil quality is a major driver of limited root growth, carbon sequestration, and consequently plant resilience and productivity,” Dr Fuchs says.

The authors propose additional field studies to extrapolate their findings onto a field scale. Both studies conclude that climate change mitigation via optimising carbon sequestration and storage in soil can be achieved by reducing pesticides, which will facilitate root growth and improve plant resilience.

All over the world, cultivated grasslands are used as grazing pasture as well as for growing fodder that is turned into hay and silage. They cover large parts of the world’s agricultural land and have a tremendous potential for climate change mitigation through carbon storage. The plants use carbon dioxide as they grow, and some of this atmospheric carbon becomes bound in the soils.

“Consequently, understanding how pesticide pollution in soil and intensive management limit plant productivity is the key to optimising intensive grassland-based agriculture in a sustainable and climate-friendly way,” Fuchs concludes.

Roots from study plants from herbicide-free soil representing intense mowing, with 5cm mowing height (left), less intense mowing with 15cm mowing height (middle) and no mowing (right). Roots are clearly smaller when the mowing intensity is higher.

CREDIT

Kalle Rainio

---

JOURNAL

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment

DOI

10.1002/sae2.12035 

ARTICLE TITLE

Management practice and soil properties affect plant productivity and root biomass in endophyte-symbiotic and endophyte-free meadow fescue grasses

U.S. Study: abortion views closely tied to views on race, religion

Peer-Reviewed Publication

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

A new study finds that public attitudes about abortion are closely tied to both religious beliefs and attitudes about race. The study provides the first empirical evidence of the strong relationship between racial attitudes and beliefs about abortion rights, and finds that this relationship has grown stronger in recent years.

“There’s been plenty of historical analysis of the relationship between the pro-life movement and racial attitudes, but this is the first effort to demonstrate the clear, empirical relationship between racial attitudes and abortion attitudes,” says Steven Green, co-author of the study and a professor of political science at North Carolina State University. “And we found that the strength of this relationship has increased considerably in the past decade.”

In other words, the researchers found that scoring highly on racial resentment is strongly associated with believing that abortion should be illegal. By the same token, people who had low scores on racial resentment were much less likely to believe abortion should be illegal.

Racial resentment is a well-established, standardized scale that is used to measure attitudes toward Black people in the United States. The higher the score on the racial resentment scale, the less an individual believes in systemic racism and the legacy of slavery.

“Some have argued that evangelicals oppose abortion not simply because of their views on the sanctity of life, but due to racial resentment against government policies and other cultural shifts related to a broader movement towards greater racial equality,” Greene says. “We wanted to explore this possible relationship, as it has only become more important to understand these attitudes in the wake of the Dobbs decision.”

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion is not a constitutional right, allowing states to impose restrictions on abortion and access to related medical care.

For this study, researchers drew on data from two nationally representative surveys conducted in 2020: the American National Election Study (ANES) and the Public Religion Research Institute American Values Survey. Both surveys asked respondents questions related to their attitudes about abortion, racial resentment and religious beliefs, in addition to other demographic and political information.

“One of the things that really stood out to us was that the relationship between racial resentment and abortion attitudes was remarkably strong regardless of an individual’s partisan affiliation and political beliefs,” Greene says. “For example, conservative Republicans who had low racial resentment scores were substantially more likely to support abortion rights than their fellow conservative Republicans.”

To get a handle on how the relationship between racial resentment and abortion attitudes has changed over time, the researchers looked at ANES survey data from 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016, as well as the 2020 data.

From 2000 through 2008, the researchers found no statistically significant relationship between racial resentment and abortion rights attitudes. The relationship first showed up in 2012, and grew significantly stronger through 2016 and 2020.

“Ultimately, we found that religious beliefs are absolutely a factor in whether people think abortion should be legal,” Greene says. “However, the evidence strongly suggests that racial attitudes are also closely tied to how people view abortion.

“In essence, the data tell us that beliefs about abortion rights are closely tied to beliefs about racial justice issues,” Greene says. “Understanding this relationship offers a lens through which to view the ongoing political debates about these issues both on the national stage and in state legislatures across the country.”

“It will be fascinating to see how the relationship between racial attitudes, religion and abortion continues to evolve in the post-Dobbs era,” says Laurel Elder, corresponding author of the paper and professor of political science at Hartwick College. “This is one of the things we hope to explore in our current book project, Public Opinion on Abortion in Post-Roe America.”

The paper, “Abortion, religion, and racial resentment: Unpacking the underpinnings of contemporary abortion attitudes,” is published in Social Science Quarterly. The paper was co-authored by Melissa Deckman of the Public Religion Research Institute and by Mary-Kate Lizotte of Augusta University.

---

JOURNAL

Social Science Quarterly

DOI

10.1111/ssqu.13237 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Survey

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Abortion, religion, and racial resentment: Unpacking the underpinnings of contemporary abortion attitudes

Extreme earners are not extremely smart

Peer-Reviewed Publication

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY

 

IMAGE: MARC KEUSCHNIGG, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT THE INSTITUTE OF ANALYTICAL SOCIOLOGY AT LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY AND PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AT LEIPZIG UNIVERSITY. view more 

CREDIT: VERENA KEUSCHNIGG

People with higher incomes also score higher on IQ-tests – up to a point. At high incomes the relationship plateaus and the top 1% score even slightly lower on the test than those whose incomes rank right below them. This suggests that one cannot infer high intelligence from high income, shows a new study from Linköping University published in the European Sociological Review.

The researchers combine wage data from Swedish population registers with scores from cognitive ability tests taken from military conscripts at age 18-19.

“This data trove permits us to test, for the first time, whether extremely high wages are indicative of extreme intelligence. To do so, we needed reliable income data that covers the entire wage spectrum. Survey data typically miss top incomes, but the registers offer full income data on all citizens,” says Marc Keuschnigg, associate professor at The Institute of Analytical Sociology at Linköping University and professor of sociology at Leipzig University.

The relationship between cognitive ability and wage is strong for most people across the wage spectrum. Above a threshold wage level, however, wage ceases to play a role in differentiating individuals of varying ability.

Above €60,000 annual wage, average ability plateaus at a modest level of +1 standard deviation. The top 1 percent earners even score slightly worse on cognitive ability than those in the income strata right below them. This is an important finding, because the top 1% earn exorbitant wages that are twice as high as the average wage among the top 2-3%, according to Marc Keuschnigg.

Recent years have seen much academic and public discussion of rising inequality. In debates about interventions against large wage discrepancies, a common defense of top earners is that their unique talents motivate the huge amounts of money they earn. However, along an important dimension of merit— cognitive ability—the study finds no evidence that those with top jobs that pay extraordinary wages are more deserving than those who earn only half those wages.

The bulk of citizens earn normal salaries that are clearly responsive to individual cognitive capabilities. But among top incomes, cognitive-ability levels do not differentiate wages. Similarly, differences in occupational prestige (an alternative measure of job success) between accountants, doctors, lawyers, professors, judges, and members of parliament are unrelated to their cognitive abilities. With relative incomes of top earners steadily growing in Western countries, an increasing share of aggregate earnings may be allocated in ways unrelated to cognitive capability, according to the researchers.

---

JOURNAL

European Sociological Review

DOI

10.1093/esr/jcac076 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

The plateauing of cognitive ability among top earners

Goethe University study: Investors also suffer in unregulated competitions for freely available resources

Game Theory Study by theoretical physicist Professor Claudius Gros

Peer-Reviewed Publication

GOETHE UNIVERSITY FRANKFURT

 

IMAGE: PROFESSOR CLAUDIUS GROS, THEORETICAL PHYSICIST AT THE GOETHE UNIVERSITY FRANKFURT view more 

CREDIT: UWE DETTMAR FOR GOETHE UNIVERSITY FRANKFURT

FRANKFURT. Without regulations for their use, the condition of freely accessible resources such as fish stocks, water or air can deteriorate dramatically. In economics, this is referred to as the "Tragedy of the Commons". In 2009, Elinor Ostrom became the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics for her studies on this topic. Ostrom's question of how to prevent this "tragedy" is just as relevant today as it was some 20 years ago.

Game theory deals with situations in which a number of agents compete with each other, with each participant trying to maximize his or her own profit individually. One speaks of a "Nash equilibrium" if players cannot increase their returns further. The "Tragedy of the Commons" is a game theoretical scenario in which the actors do not compete directly, but indirectly: If someone takes a piece of a common pie, there will be less for everybody else.

Instead of investigating how to avoid the "Tragedy of the Commons", Claudius Gros from Goethe University’s Institute for Theoretical Physics examined the resulting Nash equilibrium, with unexpected results: If a common good is divided more or less equally among N interested parties, then each receives a share of the order 1/N. However, the respective investment costs still need to be deducted. Gros' calculations show that, in equilibrium, the actors increase their engagement until the resulting investment costs almost reach the value of the resources the individual investor can secure for her- or himself. Mathematically, the theoretical physicist was able to show that the final profit of the individual investor scales as 1/N².

The original expectation, that investors each receive a proportional share from the resource, remains correct, as Gros' research shows. However, this does not translate into an overall return of the same proportion, which is smaller by a power in the number of investors. Gros denotes the dramatic deterioration of the net profit as "catastrophic poverty", as it implies that unregulated competition drives the individual actor close to the profitability limit, viz to the subsistence level. Similarly, Gros was able to show that catastrophic poverty can be avoided when the actors cooperate with each other. Cooperation leads to a net profit corresponding to the number of investors in simple power, the classical result.

The result of the investigations is therefore that the "Tragedy of the Commons" can cause substantially more damage than previously assumed. Uncontrolled access not only leads to a potentially excessive exploitation of the resource, a topic that has been the focus of many previous studies. In addition, investors suffer themselves when only maximizing their own profits. Mathematically, Gros was able to show that technological progress intensifies this process and that either all, or the vast majority of participating investors are ultimately affected by catastrophic poverty. If anything, only a few investors – the oligarchs – stand to gain more.

---

JOURNAL

Royal Society Open Science

DOI

10.1098/rsos.221234 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Computational simulation/modeling

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Generic catastrophic poverty when selfish investors exploit a degradable common resource

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

8-Feb-2023