Search

Do optimists really live longer? Here’s what the research says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fuschia-sirois-331254">Fuschia Sirois</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/durham-university-867">Durham University</a> Do you tend to see the glass as half full, rather than half empty? Are you always looking on the bright side of life? If so, you may be surprised to learn that this tendency could actually be good for your health. A <a href="https://content.apa.org/record/2020-71981-001">number of studies</a> have shown that optimists enjoy higher levels of wellbeing, better sleep, lower stress and even better cardiovascular health and immune function. And now, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35674052/">a recent study</a> has shown that being an optimist is linked to longer life. To conduct their study, researchers tracked the lifespan of nearly 160,000 women aged between 50 to 79 for a period of 26 years. At the beginning of the study, the women completed a <a href="https://local.psy.miami.edu/people/faculty/ccarver/availbale-self-report-instruments/lot-r/">self-report measure of optimism</a>. Women with the highest scores on the measure were categorised as optimists. Those with the lowest scores were considered pessimists. Then, in 2019, the researchers followed up with the participants who were still living. They also looked at the lifespan of participants who had died. What they found was that those who had the highest levels of optimism were more likely to live longer. More importantly, the optimists were also more likely than those who were pessimists to live into their nineties. Researchers refer to this as “exceptional longevity”, considering the average lifespan for women is about 83 years in developed countries. What makes these findings especially impressive is that the results remained even after accounting for other factors known to predict a long life – including education level and economic status, ethnicity, and whether a person suffered from depression or other chronic health conditions. But given this study only looked at women, it’s uncertain whether the same would be true for men. However, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1900712116">another study</a> which looked at both men and women also found that people with the highest levels of optimism enjoyed a lifespan that was between 11% and 15% longer than those who were the least optimistic. <h2>The fountain of youth?</h2> So why is it that optimists live longer? At first glance it would seem that it may have to do with their healthier lifestyle. For example, <a href="https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310828">research from several studies</a> has found that optimism is linked to eating a healthy diet, staying physically active, and being less likely to smoke cigarettes. These healthy behaviours are well known to improve heart health and <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases">reduce the risk</a> for cardiovascular disease, which is a <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds)">leading cause of death</a> globally. Adopting a healthy lifestyle is also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3857242/">important for reducing the risk</a> of other potentially deadly diseases, such as diabetes and cancer. But having a healthy lifestyle may only be part of the reason optimists live a longer than average life. This latest study found that lifestyle only accounted for 24% of the link between optimism and longevity. This suggests a number of other factors affect longevity for optimists. Another possible reason could be due to the way optimists manage stress. When faced with a stressful situation, optimists tend to deal with it head-on. They <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16859439/">use adaptive coping strategies</a> that help them resolve the source of the stress, or view the situation in a less stressful way. For example, optimists will problem-solve and plan ways to deal with the stressor, call on others for support, or try to find a “silver lining” in the stressful situation. All of these approaches are well-known to reduce feelings of stress, as well as the biological reactions that occur when we feel stressed. It’s these <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/stress/body">biological reactions to stress</a> –- such as elevated cortisol (sometimes called the “stress hormone”), increased heart rate and blood pressure, and impaired immune system functioning –- that can take a toll on health over time and increase the risk for developing <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159115004316?via%3Dihub">life-threatening diseases</a>, such as cardiovascular disease. In short, the way optimists cope with stress may help protect them somewhat against its harmful effects. <h2>Looking on the bright side</h2> Optimism is typically viewed by researchers as a relatively stable personality trait that is determined by both <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/sex-differences-in-the-genetic-architecture-of-optimism-and-health-and-their-interrelation-a-study-of-australian-and-swedish-twins/58F21AA11943D44B4BA4C63A966E6AC7">genetic</a> and early childhood influences (such as having a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541423/">secure and warm relationship</a> with your parents or caregivers). But if you’re not naturally prone to seeing the glass as half full, there are some ways you can increase your <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221122?journalCode=rpos20">capacity to be optimistic</a>. Research shows optimism can change over time, and can be cultivated by engaging in simple exercises. For example, visualising and then writing about your “<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-matters-most/201303/what-is-your-best-possible-self">best possible self</a>” (a future version of yourself who has accomplished your goals) is a technique that studies have found can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221122">significantly increase optimism</a>, at least temporarily. But for best results, the goals need to be both positive and reasonable, rather than just wishful thinking. Similarly, simply <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/SOCP.149.3.349-364">thinking about positive future events</a> can also be effective for boosting optimism. It’s also crucial to temper any expectations for success with an accurate view of what you can and can’t control. Optimism is reinforced when we experience the positive outcomes that we expect, and <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-20680-001">can decrease</a> when these outcomes aren’t as we want them to be. Although more research is needed, it’s possible that regularly envisioning yourself as having the best possible outcomes, and taking realistic steps towards achieving them, can help develop an optimistic mindset. Of course, this might be easier said than done for some. If you’re someone who isn’t naturally optimistic, the best chances to improve your longevity is by <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003332">living a healthy lifestyle</a> by staying physically active, eating a healthy diet, managing stress, and getting a good night’s sleep. Add to this cultivating a more optimistic mindset and you might further increase your chances for a long life.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184785/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fuschia-sirois-331254">Fuschia Sirois</a>, Professor in Social & Health Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/durham-university-867">Durham University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-optimists-really-live-longer-heres-what-the-research-says-184785">original article</a>.

Caring

Eating some chocolate really might be good for you – here’s what the research says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dan-baumgardt-1451396">Dan Baumgardt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-bristol-1211">University of Bristol</a> Although it always makes me scoff slightly to see Easter eggs making their first appearance in supermarkets at the end of December, there are few people who aren’t delighted to receive a bit of chocolate every year. It makes sense that too much chocolate would be bad for you because of the high fat and sugar content in most products. But what should we make of common claims that eating some chocolate is actually good for you? Happily, there is a fair amount of evidence that shows, in the right circumstances, chocolate may be both beneficial for your heart and good for your mental state. In fact, chocolate – or more specifically cacao, the raw, unrefined bean – is a medicinal wonder. It contains many different active compounds which can evoke pharmacological effects within the body, like medicines or drugs. Compounds that lead to neurological effects in the brain have to be able to cross the <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-13443-2_7">blood-brain barrier</a>, the protective shield which prevents harmful substances – like toxins and bacteria – entering the delicate nervous tissue. One of these is the compound <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672386/">theobromine</a>, which is also found in tea and contributes towards its bitter taste. Tea and chocolate also contain caffeine, which theobromine is related to as part of the purine family of chemicals. These chemicals, among others, contribute to chocolate’s addictive nature. They have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they can influence the nervous system. They are therefore known as <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15549276/">psychoactive</a> chemicals. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HloqayQdR6M?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> What effects can chocolate have on mood? Well, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/71/10/665/1931144?login=false">a systematic review</a> looked at a group of studies which examined the feelings and emotions associated with consuming chocolate. Most demonstrated improvements in mood, anxiety, energy and states of arousal. Some noted the feeling of guilt, which is perhaps something we’ve all felt after one too many Dairy Milks. <h2>Health benefits of cocoa</h2> There are other organs, aside from the brain, that might benefit from the medicinal effects of cocoa. For centuries, chocolate has been used as a medicine to treat a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10917925/">long list of diseases</a> including anaemia, tuberculosis, gout and even low libido. These might be spurious claims but there is evidence to suggest that eating cacao has a positive effect on the cardiovascular system. First, it can prevent <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068178/">endothelial dysfunction</a>. This is the process through which arteries harden and get laden down with fatty plaques, which can in turn lead to heart attacks and strokes. Eating dark chocolate may also reduce <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1537189115001135?via%3Dihub">blood pressure</a>, which is another risk factor for developing arterial disease, and prevent formation of clots which block up blood vessels. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8VUcPCbSSCY?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Some studies have suggested that dark chocolate might be useful in adjusting ratios of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20968113/">high-density lipoprotein cholesterol</a>, which can help protect the heart. Others have examined insulin resistance, the phenomenon associated with Type 2 diabetes and weight gain. They suggest that the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996900000697#:%7E:text=Cocoa%20is%20rich%20in%20polyphenols%20particularly%20in%20catechins,and%20cocoa%20powder%20have%20been%20published%20only%20recently.">polyphenols</a> – chemical compounds present in plants – found in foodstuffs like chocolate may also lead to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29993262/">improved control of blood sugars</a>. <h2>Chocolate toxicity</h2> As much as chocolate might be considered a medicine for some, it can be a poison for others. It’s well documented that the ingestion of caffeine and theobromine is highly toxic for domestic animals. Dogs are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801869/">particularly affected</a> because of their often voracious appetites and generally unfussy natures. The culprit is often dark chocolate, which can provoke symptoms of agitation, rigid muscles and even seizures. In certain cases, if ingested in high enough quantities, it can lead to comas and abnormal, even fatal heart rhythms. Some of the compounds found in chocolate have also been found to have potentially negative effects in humans. Chocolate is a source of oxalate which, along with calcium, is one of the main components of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20301742/">kidney stones</a>. Some clinical groups have advised against consuming oxalate rich foods, such as spinach and rhubarb – and chocolate, for those who suffer from recurrent kidney stones. So, what should all this mean for our chocolate consumption habits? Science points in the direction of chocolate that has as high a cocoa solid content as possible, and the minimum of extras. The potentially harmful effects of chocolate are more related to fat and sugar, and may counteract any possible benefits. A daily dose of 20g-30g of plain or dark chocolate with cocoa solids above 70% – rather than milk chocolate, which contains fewer solids and white chocolate, which contains none – could lead to a greater health benefit, as well as a greater high. But whatever chocolate you go for, please don’t share it with the dog.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/226759/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dan-baumgardt-1451396">Dan Baumgardt</a>, Senior Lecturer, School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-bristol-1211">University of Bristol</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/eating-some-chocolate-really-might-be-good-for-you-heres-what-the-research-says-226759">original article</a>.

Body

Running or yoga can help beat depression, research shows – even if exercise is the last thing you feel like

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-noetel-147460">Michael Noetel</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> At least <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.665019/full">one in ten people</a> have depression at some point in their lives, with some estimates <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379720301793">closer to one in four</a>. It’s one of the worst things for someone’s wellbeing – worse than <a href="https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com/_files/ugd/928487_4a99b6e23f014f85b38495b7ab1ac24b.pdf">debt, divorce or diabetes</a>. <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-australians-taking-antidepressants-221857">One in seven</a> Australians take antidepressants. Psychologists are in <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-solve-australias-mental-health-emergency-if-we-dont-train-enough-psychologists-here-are-5-fixes-190135">high demand</a>. Still, only <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003901">half</a> of people with depression in high-income countries get treatment. Our <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-075847">new research</a> shows that exercise should be considered alongside therapy and antidepressants. It can be just as impactful in treating depression as therapy, but it matters what type of exercise you do and how you do it. <h2>Walk, run, lift, or dance away depression</h2> We found 218 randomised trials on exercise for depression, with 14,170 participants. We analysed them using a method called a network meta-analysis. This allowed us to see how different types of exercise compared, instead of lumping all types together. We found walking, running, strength training, yoga and mixed aerobic exercise were about as effective as <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-cognitive-behaviour-therapy-37351">cognitive behaviour therapy</a> – one of the <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00004/full">gold-standard treatments</a> for depression. The effects of dancing were also powerful. However, this came from analysing just five studies, mostly involving young women. Other exercise types had more evidence to back them. Walking, running, strength training, yoga and mixed aerobic exercise seemed more effective than antidepressant medication alone, and were about as effective as exercise alongside antidepressants. But of these exercises, people were most likely to stick with strength training and yoga. <iframe id="cZaWb" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/cZaWb/2/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> Antidepressants certainly help <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(17)32802-7/fulltext">some people</a>. And of course, anyone getting treatment for depression should talk to their doctor <a href="https://australia.cochrane.org/news/new-cochrane-review-explores-latest-evidence-approaches-stopping-long-term-antidepressants">before changing</a> what they are doing. Still, our evidence shows that if you have depression, you should get a psychologist and an exercise plan, whether or not you’re taking antidepressants. <h2>Join a program and go hard (with support)</h2> Before we analysed the data, we thought people with depression might need to “ease into it” with generic advice, <a href="https://www.who.int/initiatives/behealthy/physical-activity">such as</a> “some physical activity is better than doing none.” But we found it was far better to have a clear program that aimed to push you, at least a little. Programs with clear structure worked better, compared with those that gave people lots of freedom. Exercising by yourself might also make it hard to set the bar at the right level, given low self-esteem is a symptom of depression. We also found it didn’t matter how much people exercised, in terms of sessions or minutes a week. It also didn’t really matter how long the exercise program lasted. What mattered was the intensity of the exercise: the higher the intensity, the better the results. <h2>Yes, it’s hard to keep motivated</h2> We should exercise caution in interpreting the findings. Unlike drug trials, participants in exercise trials know which “treatment” they’ve been randomised to receive, so this may skew the results. Many people with depression have physical, psychological or social barriers to participating in formal exercise programs. And getting support to exercise isn’t free. We also still don’t know the best way to stay motivated to exercise, which can be even harder if you have depression. Our study tried to find out whether things like setting exercise goals helped, but we couldn’t get a clear result. Other reviews found it’s important to have a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31923898/">clear action plan</a> (for example, putting exercise in your calendar) and to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19916637/">track your progress</a> (for example, using an app or smartwatch). But predicting which of these interventions work is notoriously difficult. A <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04128-4">2021 mega-study</a> of more than 60,000 gym-goers <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04128-4/figures/1">found</a> experts struggled to predict which strategies might get people into the gym more often. Even making workouts fun didn’t seem to motivate people. However, listening to audiobooks while exercising helped a lot, which no experts predicted. Still, we can be confident that people benefit from personalised support and accountability. The support helps overcome the hurdles they’re sure to hit. The accountability keeps people going even when their brains are telling them to avoid it. So, when starting out, it seems wise to avoid going it alone. Instead: <ul> <li> join a fitness group or yoga studio </li> <li> get a trainer or an exercise physiologist </li> <li> ask a friend or family member to go for a walk with you. </li> </ul> Taking a few steps towards getting that support makes it more likely you’ll keep exercising. <h2>Let’s make this official</h2> Some countries see exercise as a backup plan for treating depression. For example, the American Psychological Association only <a href="https://www.apa.org/depression-guideline/">conditionally recommends</a> exercise as a “complementary and alternative treatment” when “psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy is either ineffective or unacceptable”. Based on our research, this recommendation is withholding a potent treatment from many people who need it. In contrast, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists <a href="https://www.ranzcp.org/getmedia/a4678cf4-91f5-4746-99d4-03dc7379ae51/mood-disorders-clinical-practice-guideline-2020.pdf">recommends</a> vigorous aerobic activity at least two to three times a week for all people with depression. Given how common depression is, and the number failing to receive care, other countries should follow suit and recommend exercise alongside front-line treatments for depression. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues Taren Sanders, Chris Lonsdale and the rest of the coauthors of the paper on which this article is based. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223441/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-noetel-147460">Michael Noetel</a>, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/running-or-yoga-can-help-beat-depression-research-shows-even-if-exercise-is-the-last-thing-you-feel-like-223441">original article</a>.

Body

Out of the rabbit hole: new research shows people can change their minds about conspiracy theories

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matt-williams-666794">Matt Williams</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/massey-university-806">Massey University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-kerr-1073102">John Kerr</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-otago-1304">University of Otago</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mathew-marques-14884">Mathew Marques</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a> Many people <a href="https://theconversation.com/was-phar-lap-killed-by-gangsters-new-research-shows-which-conspiracies-people-believe-in-and-why-158610">believe at least one</a> conspiracy theory. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing – conspiracies do happen. To take just one example, the CIA really did engage in <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/13/cia-mind-control-1266649">illegal experiments</a> in the 1950s to identify drugs and procedures that might produce confessions from captured spies. However, many conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence, yet still attract believers. For example, in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12746">previous study</a>, we found about 7% of New Zealanders and Australians agreed with the theory that <a href="https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/on-the-trail-of-contrails">visible trails behind aircraft</a> are “chemtrails” of chemical agents sprayed as part of a secret government program. That’s despite the theory being <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011">roundly rejected</a> by the scientific community. The fact that conspiracy theories attract believers despite a lack of credible evidence remains a puzzle for researchers in psychology and other academic disciplines. Indeed, there has been a great deal of research on conspiracy theories published in the past few years. We now know more about how many people believe them, as well as the psychological and political factors that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25617-0">correlate with that belief</a>. But we know much less about how often people change their minds. Do they do so frequently, or do they to stick tenaciously to their beliefs, regardless of what evidence they come across? <h2>From 9/11 to COVID</h2> We set out to answer this question using a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51653-z">longitudinal survey</a>. We recruited 498 Australians and New Zealanders (using the <a href="http://prolific.com">Prolific</a> website, which recruits people to take part in paid research). Each month from March to September 2021, we presented our sample group with a survey, including ten conspiracy theories, and asked them how much they agreed with each one. All of these theories related to claims about events that are either ongoing, or occurred this millennium: the September 11 attacks, the rollout of 5G telecommunications technology, and COVID-19, among others. While there were definitely some believers in our sample, most participants disagreed with each of the theories. The most popular theory was that “pharmaceutical companies (‘Big Pharma’) have suppressed a cure for cancer to protect their profits”. Some 18% of the sample group agreed when first asked. The least popular was the theory that “COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ contain microchips to monitor and control people”. Only 2% agreed. <h2>Conspiracy beliefs probably aren’t increasing</h2> Despite contemporary concerns about a “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7320252/">pandemic of misinformation</a>” or “<a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30461-X/fulltext">infodemic</a>”, we found no evidence that individual beliefs in conspiracy theories increased on average over time. This was despite our data collection happening during the tumultuous second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns were still happening occasionally in both <a href="https://www.timeout.com/melbourne/things-to-do/a-timeline-of-covid-19-in-australia-two-years-on">Australia</a> and <a href="https://covid19.govt.nz/about-our-covid-19-response/history-of-the-covid-19-alert-system/">New Zealand</a>, and anti-government sentiment was building. While we only tracked participants for six months, <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270429">other studies</a> over much longer time frames have also found little evidence that beliefs in conspiracy theories are increasing over time. <hr /> <iframe class="flourish-embed-iframe" style="width: 100%; height: 600px;" title="Interactive or visual content" src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/16665395/embed" width="100%" height="400" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe> <div style="width: 100%!; margin-top: 4px!important; text-align: right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/16665395/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/16665395" target="_top"><img src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg" alt="Made with Flourish" /></a></div> <hr /> Finally, we found that beliefs (or non-beliefs) in conspiracy theories were stable – but not completely fixed. For any given theory, the vast majority of participants were “consistent sceptics” – not agreeing with the theory at any point. There were also some “consistent believers” who agreed at every point in the survey they responded to. For most theories, this was the second-largest group. Yet for every conspiracy theory, there was also a small proportion of converts. They disagreed with the theory at the start of the study, but agreed with it by the end. There was also a small proportion of “apostates” who agreed with the theory at the start, but disagreed by the end. Nevertheless, the percentages of converts and apostates tended to balance each other pretty closely, leaving the percentage of believers fairly stable over time. <h2>Inside the ‘rabbit hole’</h2> This relative stability is interesting, because <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2564659">one criticism</a> of conspiracy theories is that they may not be “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability">falsifiable</a>”: what seems like evidence against a conspiracy theory can just be written off by believers as part of the cover up. Yet people clearly do sometimes decide to reject conspiracy theories they previously believed. Our findings bring into question the popular notion of the “rabbit hole” – that people rapidly develop beliefs in a succession of conspiracy theories, much as Alice tumbles down into Wonderland in Lewis Carroll’s <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11">famous story</a>. While it’s possible this does happen for a small number of people, our results suggest it isn’t a typical experience. For most, the <a href="https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2023/opinion/how-to-talk-to-someone-about-conspiracy-theories">journey into</a> conspiracy theory belief might involve a more gradual slope – a bit like a <a href="https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb05649.x">real rabbit burrow</a>, from which one can also emerge. <hr /> Mathew Ling (<a href="https://www.neaminational.org.au/">Neami National</a>), Stephen Hill (Massey University) and Edward Clarke (Philipps-Universität Marburg) contributed to the research referred to in this article.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222507/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <hr /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matt-williams-666794">Matt Williams</a>, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/massey-university-806">Massey University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-kerr-1073102">John Kerr</a>, Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-otago-1304">University of Otago</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mathew-marques-14884">Mathew Marques</a>, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/out-of-the-rabbit-hole-new-research-shows-people-can-change-their-minds-about-conspiracy-theories-222507">original article</a>.

Mind

Ballet flats are back. Here’s what the research says about how they affect your feet

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kristin-graham-1427672">Kristin Graham</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helen-banwell-305575">Helen Banwell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/saravana-kumar-181105">Saravana Kumar</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a> Ballet flat shoes – those thin-heeled lightweight slip-on shoes – are making a fashion <a href="https://www.vogue.com/slideshow/ballet-flats">comeback</a>. And it’s not hard to see why: they’re versatile, easy to wear, soft, flexible and often worn by celebrities. We have often been warned of the dangers of high-heeled shoes, so you might think ballet flats are problem-free. When you look at the research, however, a complicated picture emerges. There’s no definitive evidence to show ballet flats are generally harmful to foot health in the long-term. But ill-fitting ballet flats can be a problem. <h2>Make sure it fits, especially in the toe box</h2> An estimated <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30065787/">70%</a> of the population are wearing ill-fitting shoes. This mismatch between foot and shoe shape can increase foot pain, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17507530/">reduce stability</a>, and can mean more blisters, corns and calluses. And habitual wearing of tight shoes has been <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958259207000533">associated</a> with bone changes in the toes and feet over time. Many flats feature a shallow and narrow toe box (the part of the shoe where the toes go). A too-small toe box often doesn’t align with the shape of a foot and ends up squishing the toes. It can also <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958259206000770">increase</a> pressure on top of and under the foot, and <a href="https://jfootankleres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1757-1146-6-28">restrict</a> the movement of the forefoot during walking. But a too-big toe box is also a problem. Too much foot movement within the shoe can cause pressure and friction on the skin, which can also lead to calluses, corns, blisters, and wounds. A poorly fitting toe box can also cause micro trauma to toenails which, ultimately, can change <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anuva-Bansal/publication/347522694_Traumatic_Nail_Disorders/links/60d6135592851ca94487df7e/Traumatic-Nail-Disorders.pdf">their look and thickness</a>. So if you’re wearing flats, make sure you choose a shoe with the right sized toe box. <h2>What about the heel?</h2> Health professionals often recommend a small heel over a completely flat shoe. Very flat shoes can <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27498844/">place</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003307002082">more</a> strain on the soft tissues that support the foot arch – specifically, the plantar fascia. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27498844/">Research</a> has shown moving from a completely flat shoe to a small, raised heel reduces the tension force on the plantar fascia during standing activities. On the other hand, other <a href="https://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Fulltext/2009/01000/Effects_of_Shoe_Heel_Height_on_the_Roll_Over.7.aspx#:%7E:text=The%20roll%2Dover%20shapes%20seem,without%20a%20change%20in%20alignment.&text=Photographs%20of%20the%20prosthetic%20feet,shapes%20of%20these%20feet%20superimposed">research</a> has shown most people will adapt their ankle and knee motion to accommodate shoes of different heel heights. <h2>What about support?</h2> Ballet flats tend to have very flexible, thin soles and heel counters (the part, coloured red in this picture, that hugs the heel and the back part of the foot). These thin and flexible structures mean flats are often accused of lacking support. But debate rages among foot and shoe experts about how important support is in the first place. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27729290/">Research</a> on barefoot-style shoes has shown walking in these types of shoes significantly reduces some loads on the knee compared to more stable supportive shoes. Minimalist shoes have also been found to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30102872/">increase strength</a> in certain foot muscles used when we push off during walking, running or jumping. However, other research found stable supportive shoes can <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33428439/">improve knee pain</a> when walking more than flat flexible shoes. The thin soles in flats mean there is little cushioning under the foot. While more cushioning can improve comfort, and reduce stress and strain on your foot sole <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021929011001758?casa_token=gecXFCMi0LcAAAAA:TazyTd8TRaAl_bG0jprifYIUIlWRDwEH6bVeymBYTWups2iDGMuUjLs2gaNqsiNGHVJhHC3J9AdB">skin</a>, there is no evidence it reduces loads across the lower leg. In fact, walking in cushioned shoes has been shown to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20191571/">increase</a> the load on the knee compared to flat, flexible shoes. <h2>So, what’s the verdict?</h2> The verdict is mixed. Yes, there’s evidence poorly fitting shoes and a flat heel can be detrimental, with consequences seen in the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636221000199">rearfoot</a> (around the ankle) and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636218300687">knee</a>. But there’s also no hard evidence ballet flats cause long-term foot health problems. What matters is choosing a well-fitted shoe to suit your foot shape and needs. If you’re shopping for ballet flats, try to: <ul> <li> choose a pair with a toe box that does not cramp your toes and has a sole at least as wide as your foot </li> <li> choose flats that offer at least some structure and support </li> <li> choose a pair with a small heel rather being than completely flat.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207806/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kristin-graham-1427672">Kristin Graham</a>, Lecturer in Podiatry, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helen-banwell-305575">Helen Banwell</a>, Lecturer in Podiatry, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/saravana-kumar-181105">Saravana Kumar</a>, Professor in Allied Health and Health Services Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ballet-flats-are-back-heres-what-the-research-says-about-how-they-affect-your-feet-207806">original article</a>.

Beauty & Style

Research reveals who’s been hit hardest by global warming in their lifetime - and the answer may surprise you

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-king-103126">Andrew King</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ed-hawkins-104793">Ed Hawkins</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-reading-902">University of Reading</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-douglas-1460792">Hunter Douglas</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/te-herenga-waka-victoria-university-of-wellington-1200">Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-harrington-489028">Luke Harrington</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</a> Earth is warming and the signs of climate change are everywhere. We’ve seen it in the past few weeks as temperatures hit record highs around the world – both in the Northern Hemisphere and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-australia-having-such-a-warm-winter-a-climate-expert-explains-210693">warm Australian winter</a>. Global warming is caused by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions, which continue at <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-carbon-emissions-at-record-levels-with-no-signs-of-shrinking-new-data-shows-humanity-has-a-monumental-task-ahead-193108">near-record pace</a>. These emissions are predominantly generated by people in the world’s wealthiest regions. Our world-first analysis, <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/aceff2">published today</a>, examines the experience of global warming over the lifetimes of people around the world: young and old, rich and poor. We sought to identify who has perceived warmer temperatures most keenly. We found middle-aged people in equatorial regions have lived through the most perceptible warming in their lifetimes. But many young people in lower-income countries could experience unrecognisable changes in their local climate later in life, unless the world rapidly tackles climate change. <h2>Measuring the climate change experience</h2> We examined temperature data and population demographics information from around the world. Key to our analysis was the fact that not all warming is due to human activity. Some of it is caused by natural, year-to-year variations in Earth’s climate. These natural ups and downs are due to a number of factors. They include variations in the energy Earth receives from the sun, the effects of volcanic eruptions, and transfers of heat between the atmosphere and the ocean. This variability is stronger in mid-to-high-latitude parts of the world (those further from the equator) than in low-latitude areas (in equatorial regions). That’s because the weather systems further away from the equator draw in hot or cold air from neighbouring areas, but equatorial areas don’t receive cold air at all. That’s why, for example, the annual average temperature in New York is naturally more variable than in the city of Kinshasa (in the Democratic Republic of Congo). To account for this, we applied what’s known as the “<a href="https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/346.htm#:%7E:text=The%20%EF%BF%BDsignal%20to%20noise,to%20this%20natural%20variability%20noise.">signal-to-noise ratio</a>” at each location we studied. That allowed us to separate the strength of the climate change “signal” from the “noise” of natural variability. Making this distinction is important. The less naturally variable the temperature, the clearer the effects of warming. So warming in Kinshasa over the past 50 years has been much more perceptible than in New York. Our study examined two central questions. First, we wanted to know, for every location in the world, how clearly global warming could be perceived, relative to natural temperature variability. Second, we wanted to know where this perceived change was most clear over human lifetimes. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Annual-average temperatures at four major cities with signal-to-noise ratios shown for 20, 50 and 80 years up to 2021." /></a><figcaption>Annual-average temperatures at four major cities with signal-to-noise ratios shown for 20, 50 and 80 years up to 2021. Author provided</figcaption></figure> <h2>Our results</h2> So what did we find? As expected, the most perceptible warming is found in tropical regions – those near the equator. This includes developing parts of the world that constitute the Global South – such as Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia. Household incomes in the Global South are typically lower than in industrialised nations (known as the Global North). We might, then, conclude people in the poorest parts of the world have experienced the most perceptible global warming over their lifetimes. But that’s not always the case. Why? Because most parts of the Global South have younger populations than wealthier regions. And some people under the age of 20, including in northern India and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, haven’t experienced warming over their lifetimes. In these places, the lack of recent warming is likely down to a few factors: natural climate variability, and the local cooling effect of particles released into the atmosphere from <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3b7a">pollution</a> and changes in land use. There’s another complication. Some populated regions of the world also experienced slight cooling in the mid-20th century, primarily driven by human-caused <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10946">aerosol emissions</a>. So, many people born earlier than the 1950s have experienced less perceptible warming in their local area than those born in the 1960s and 1970s. This may seem counter-intuitive. But a cooling trend in the first few decades of one’s life means the warming experienced over an entire lifespan (from birth until today) is smaller and less detectable. So what does all this mean? People in equatorial areas born in the 1960s and 1970s – now aged between about 45 and 65 – have experienced more perceptible warming than anyone else on Earth. <h2>Rich countries must act</h2> Our findings are important, for several reasons. Identifying who has experienced significant global warming in their lives may help explain <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2660">attitudes to tackling climate change</a>. Our findings also raise significant issues of fairness and equity. Humanity will continue to warm the planet until we reach global net-zero emissions. This means many young people in lower-income countries may, later in life, experience a local climate that is unrecognisable to that of their youth. Of course, warming temperatures are not the only way people experience climate change. Others include sea-level rise, more intense drought and rainfall extremes. We know many of these impacts are felt most acutely by <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/5/11/climate-change-is-devastating-the-global-south">the most vulnerable populations</a>. Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are much higher in the Global North, due to economic development. To address this inequality, rich industrialised nations must take a leading role in reducing emissions to net-zero, and helping vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211108/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-king-103126">Andrew King</a>, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ed-hawkins-104793">Ed Hawkins</a>, Professor of Climate Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-reading-902">University of Reading</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-douglas-1460792">Hunter Douglas</a>, PhD Candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/te-herenga-waka-victoria-university-of-wellington-1200">Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-harrington-489028">Luke Harrington</a>, Senior Lecturer in Climate Change, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/research-reveals-whos-been-hit-hardest-by-global-warming-in-their-lifetime-and-the-answer-may-surprise-you-211108">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Ken’s rights? Our research shows Barbie is surprisingly accurate on how ‘men’s rights activists’ are radicalised

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-nicholas-145660">Lucy Nicholas</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a> In the Barbie movie, we open with a picture of a perfect Barbieland where (almost) everyone is happy, diversity and sisterhood are embraced, and Barbies hold all positions of power. The Kens however, reflecting the popularity of the dolls in the real world, play a mainly decorative role. Spoilers for Barbie follow. In the film, we see a disgruntled Ken (played hilariously by Ryan Gosling) follow “Stereotypical” Barbie (Margot Robbie) to the real world where she has to find her human owner. This is all to fix an error that is allowing the real world to seep into Barbie land, with symptoms such as Barbie having an existential crisis. In the real world, Ken discovers the concept of the patriarchy. This sees him take a journey that is clearly influenced by, and pokes fun at, many aspects of contemporary anti-feminist men’s rights culture. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pBk4NYhWNMM?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Barbieland and the matriarchy</h2> It has been proposed that <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-greta-gerwigs-barbie-land-the-matriarchy-can-be-just-as-bad-as-the-patriarchy-209317">Barbieland is a matriarchy</a>, but I would argue that their attitude to Kens is instead indifference. Ken was aggrieved that Barbie didn’t notice him and reciprocate his affections. This is not dissimilar to the grievances of some real-life men under contemporary feminism. Why don’t women’s lives revolve around them? And what can they do to address this perceived injustice? The movie cleverly parallels the emotions, narratives and logics that lead men to extreme antifeminist and misogynistic thinking, and in doing so exposes the flimsiness of their foundations. Having undertaken <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-12/apo-nid307612.pdf">research</a> on online antifeminist discourses, Ken’s journey from aggrievement to masculine “enlightenment” parallels themes we found in Men’s Rights Activist spaces. Radicalisation into this world is often motivated by a feeling among boys and men of being left behind by a feminist world or system that doesn’t value them. This then leads them to long for an imagined natural order of patriarchy where women are back in their place and men regain their entitlements. These logics underpin <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-the-incel-community-has-a-sexism-problem-but-we-can-do-something-about-it-207206">incel</a> culture, a movement that is increasingly understood as a terror threat, and has been associated with various acts of terror, such as the 2022 Aotearoa New Zealand <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/closest-to-an-incel-attack-nz-has-had-experts-concern-after-attempted-murder-of-auckland-schoolgirls/HYPEVZ6F4BFT3CV2O4SXS5FR7U/">Epsom crash case</a>. <h2>The manosphere and MRAS</h2> The “<a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-68360-7_2">manosphere</a>” can be understood as a loose coalition of antifeminist online subcultures. This includes MRAs (<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1097184X15574338">Men’s Rights Activists</a>) who claim reverse discrimination and that feminism has gone too far, and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1097184X18816118">Redpillers</a> who claim to have swallowed the “red pill” to see the truth about feminism’s dominance. PUAs (<a href="https://repository.upenn.edu/entities/publication/d8971ded-1ec3-4939-8c0a-ab248dad62ba">Pick up Artists</a>) teach men how to manipulate the women they feel they are entitled to, to give them sex; and MGTOWs (<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1751867">Men Going Their Own Way</a>), who are antifeminist separatists (from women). Some of the most well known members of the manosphere are incels (involuntary celibates) a misogynistic community of self identified “beta-males” who want an end to women’s rights which prevent them from getting sex. <h2>Ken’s grievances</h2> Like many MRAs, Ken struggles with a sense of entitlement romantically (rather than sexually in genital-free Barbieland), and in attitudes to power and respect. Ken was being “<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/friend%20zone">friend-zoned</a>” by Barbie, who despite being “boyfriend and girlfriend” wouldn’t let him stay over at the Dream House, because “every night is girl’s night”. This is coupled with a feeling of not being special, as Ken is essentially interchangeable with any other Ken. He is also “alpha’d” by other Kens: in the language of the manosphere, Barbie is a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/incels-inside-their-terrifying-online-world/9700932">“Stacy” and the other Ken is an alpha “Chad”</a> preventing him from getting what he wants. In <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-12/apo-nid307612.pdf">our data</a> we found women are often described as “overlords”, man-haters, misandrists and “feminazis”. Among other concerns, men perceive economic loss due to women’s participation in the workplace, and crucially a lack of men’s sexual access to women brought about by the gains of feminism such as the awareness raised around consent by the #metoo movement. These men all share a starting point of grievance at women and their perceived indifference towards them. When Ken goes to the real world, he discovers patriarchy and he LOVES it. He has been “redpilled”. Patriarchy explains his aggrievement, and affirms his feelings. He takes patriarchy back to Barbieland and transforms it to Kendom, where the men change it to a society oriented around men and their power (and horses…). <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y1IgAEejvqM?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Redpilled ken</h2> This redpilled Ken is a hilarious parody of the “neomasculinity” of the pick up artist (PUA) movement, that seeks to restore a masculine-centred world. Neomasculinity is about a belief in biological difference, traditional masculinity and heteronormative gender roles. The amusing depiction of the Kens trying to perform traditional <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/hypermasculinity">hypermasculinity</a> and needing their egos stroked – such as in a hilarious scene where the Kens are serenading the Barbies on the beach with an acoustic rendition of Matchbox Twenty’s <a href="https://youtu.be/HAkHqYlqops">Push</a> (“I wanna push you around … I wanna take you for granted”) – brilliantly shows the extent to which toxic masculinity is learned. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HAkHqYlqops?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Additionally, the competition among the Kens (that the Barbies ultimately stoke to overturn the Kentriarchy) is the perfect illustration of the damage toxic models of masculinity does to men. As Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell has long argued, almost no men can live up to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/27640853">masculine ideals</a>, resulting in negative outcomes not just for women but also for men themselves. <h2>Finding the real Ken</h2> The movie ends with Barbie, her human (America Ferrera), “Weird Barbie” (Kate McKinnon) and Allan (Michael Cera) deprogramming the brainwashed Barbies and turning the Kens against each other. But what of Just Beach Ken? And what can we learn from this for preventing or managing radicalisation of this feeling of aggrievement in real men or boys? Well, Barbie and Ken reach a middle ground. Barbie encourages Ken to work out who he is outside of his relation to Barbie, and to learn being Just Ken is enough. This isn’t dissimilar to the methods of men’s behaviour change programs and counselling for men who use violence, which use <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10926771.2023.2189043">trauma-informed motivational interviewing</a>, reflect on challenging gender norms and breaking down rigid thought processes, and developing emotional literacy and communication strategies. But it also illustrates that men and boys need alternative narratives to make sense of themselves in the world, and alternative communities for affirmation, before it gets to this stage. In <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-12/apo-nid307612.pdf">our report</a>, we recommended: "Providing alternative narratives and considering how far-right [or MRA] groups provide men with emotional support networks, with a view to providing better alternatives." Feminism has consistently been about separating attributes from their gendered associations, breaking down the Barbie/Ken binary. So if there is one thing we can take away from the Barbie movie, it is that hierarchy and rigid gender benefits nobody, and power and social roles have nothing to do with the genitals you are born with.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210273/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-nicholas-145660">Lucy Nicholas</a>, Associate professor Sexualities and Genders / Sociology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a> Image credits: Warner Bros. This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/kens-rights-our-research-shows-barbie-is-surprisingly-accurate-on-how-mens-rights-activists-are-radicalised-210273">original article</a>.

Caring

Keen to get off gas in your home, but struggling to make the switch? Research shows you’re not alone

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sangeetha-chandrashekeran-330214">Sangeetha Chandrashekeran</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julia-de-bruyn-1250694">Julia de Bruyn</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> More than five million households in Australia are connected to the gas network. Tackling climate change requires homes and businesses to move away from gas, and instead embrace electric appliances as the power grid shifts to renewable energy. People can <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Getting-off-gas-why-how-and-who-should-pay.pdf">save</a> considerable money by switching away from gas – even more so if they have solar panels installed. But still, millions of Australians haven’t yet made the move. Why? Our new research, <a href="https://www.bsl.org.au/research/publications/enabling-electrification/">released today</a>, seeks to shed light on this question. We focused on lower-income households in Victoria and found while most participants supported the transition from gas, few owned electric appliances for heating, cooking and hot water. There were two main barriers: people couldn’t afford the upfront cost of buying new electric appliances, or were renting and so had little or no say over what appliances were installed. Overcoming these and other challenges is crucial to ensure no-one gets left behind in Australia’s energy transition. <h2>Making it fair for all</h2> Victoria has <a href="https://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/climate-action-targets">committed</a> to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. To help achieve this, the state government is developing a <a href="https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap">plan</a> for the state to electrify. Other states and <a href="https://www.climatechoices.act.gov.au/energy/switching-from-gas#:%7E:text=The%20ACT%20will%20transition%20away%20from%20fossil%20fuel,ACT%20during%203%20March%20%E2%80%93%2020%20April%202023.">territories</a> are also moving in this direction. But to date, not enough research and policy attention has been paid to making this transition fair and equitable for everyone. Low-income households <a href="https://www.bsl.org.au/research/publications/energy-stressed-in-australia/">spend</a> a larger proportion of their income on energy bills compared to higher-income households. This is despite those households using less energy. The affordability of gas will become worse as more households electrify. That’s because part of a gas bill includes the fixed cost of running gas infrastructure – so as progressively fewer people use gas, the remaining users pay more. And those who don’t make the move away from gas miss out on the long-term economic benefits. <a href="https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0039/579882/Victorias-Gas-Substitution-Roadmap-Embracing-electricity-to-cut-your-bills-at-home.pdf">Analysis</a> last year suggested a typical Victorian household could reduce its annual energy costs by A$1,020 by replacing gas heating, cooking and hot water systems with electric ones. The figure rises to $1,250 for those with solar power. These savings will be amplified if the price of gas continues to rise relative to electricity. That’s why it’s important to help as many lower-income people as possible to make the switch to electric appliances. Our research set out to understand what might prevent or enable that shift. We studied households in Victoria: the state with the highest prevalence of residential gas use in Australia and where plans for an economy-wide transition away from fossil gas are underway. <h2>What we found</h2> We conducted an online survey, which received 220 eligible responses. We also undertook focus groups with 34 people. All participants were from lower-income households. Most participants – 88% – used gas in the home, reflecting its prevalence in Victoria. More than two-thirds indicated some level of support for a transition away from household gas to cleaner energy sources. Support was greater with higher levels of education. There was no significant difference based on financial stress, housing tenure, location or age. But this support had not translated into action. Just one in ten surveyed households had replaced gas appliances with electric ones within the past five years. Among those who had switched or planned to switch, the main reasons were lower running costs and environmental benefits. Respondents considered electric appliances to be safer and better for the environment. Gas appliances were considered better for heating and cooking. Many respondents were unsure about the relative benefits of electric versus gas appliances when it came to cost, reliability, safety and the environment. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538548/original/file-20230720-15-61nj78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538548/original/file-20230720-15-61nj78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538548/original/file-20230720-15-61nj78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538548/original/file-20230720-15-61nj78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538548/original/file-20230720-15-61nj78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=221&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538548/original/file-20230720-15-61nj78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=221&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538548/original/file-20230720-15-61nj78.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=221&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Graph showing the benefits of gas versus electric appliances, as perceived by participants in the study. Author provided</figcaption></figure> Preferences were strongly linked to what people were currently using. Most people preferred gas cooktops over electric ones, because of the perceived speed, ease and flexibility. However, few participants had used electric induction stoves, which can also offer these benefits. People who spoke a language other than English were significantly more likely to prefer gas for heating and hot water. For those who had not replaced gas appliances, being a renter was one of the biggest barriers to electrification. Some renters said they lived in poor housing, but were unwilling to request improvements in case the landlord increased the rent or evicted them. Respondents also said they would struggle to afford the upfront costs of electrification, such as buying new appliances and, in some cases, wiring upgrades and other building modifications. Many participants were aware of and had received state government assistance to help with energy bills. But far fewer people knew about or had used <a href="https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/home-heating-cooling-upgrades?redirectSrc=heatingupgrades.vic.gov.au">programs</a> that could support them to adopt electric appliances. <h2>Embracing the switch</h2> An overall strategy is needed to help all households make the shift to electric appliances and technology. Our research suggests this must include specific measures for lower-income households, such as: <ul> <li> targeted and well-promoted electrification programs </li> <li> more evidence-based information on the benefits of electric appliances </li> <li> incentives for landlords and standards requiring efficient electric appliances in rental homes </li> <li> means-tested rebates for electric appliances such as reverse cycle air-conditioners and heat pump hot water, and where appropriate, no- or low-interest loans. </li> </ul> These measures should, where possible, be linked to measures to improve household energy efficiency. And lower-income households, as well as others facing barriers to getting off gas, must be included when planning the transition. Researchers David Bryant and Damian Sullivan from the Brotherhood of St Laurence contributed to this article and co-authored the research upon which it is based.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209589/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sangeetha-chandrashekeran-330214">Sangeetha Chandrashekeran</a>, Senior Research Fellow, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/julia-de-bruyn-1250694">Julia de Bruyn</a>, Associate Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/keen-to-get-off-gas-in-your-home-but-struggling-to-make-the-switch-research-shows-youre-not-alone-209589">original article</a>.

Home & Garden

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-barnett-853">Adrian Barnett</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-clarke-1149967">Philip Clarke</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oxford-1260">University of Oxford</a> The <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/medical-research-future-fund">Medical Research Future Fund</a> (MRFF) is a A$20 billion fund to support Australian health and medical research. It was set up in 2015 to deliver practical benefits from medical research and innovation to as many Australians as possible. Unlike the other research funding agencies, such the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), most of the MRFF funding is priority-driven. It seeks to fund research in particular areas or topics rather than using open calls when researchers propose their own ideas for funding. As the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-how-you-run-a-1b-scheme-science-fund-backers-lead-chorus-for-reform-20230619-p5dhni.html">Nine newspapers</a> outlined this week, researchers have criticised the previous Coalition government’s allocation of MRFF funds. There is widespread consensus the former health minister had <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-centre-never-built-and-a-hospital-that-missed-out-the-coalition-s-unusual-20b-research-fund-20230619-p5dhng.html">too much influence</a> in the allocation of funds, and there was limited and sometimes no competition when funding was directly allocated to one research group. The current Health Minister, Mark Butler, has instituted a <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/billion-dollar-medical-research-grants-process-under-review/">review</a>. So how should the big decisions about how to spend the MRFF be made in the future to maximise its value and achieve its aims? <h2>Assess gaps in evidence</h2> Research priorities for the MRFF are set by the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/committees-and-groups/australian-medical-research-advisory-board-amrab?language=und">Australian Medical Research Advisory Board</a>, which widely consults with the research sector. However, most researchers and institutions will simply argue more funding is needed for their own research. If the board seeks to satisfy such lobbying, it will produce fragmented funding that aligns poorly with the health needs of Australians. A better approach would be to systematically assemble evidence about what is known and the key evidence gaps. Here, the board would benefit from what is known as a “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15484602/">value of information</a>” framework for decision-making. This framework systematically attempts to quantify the most valuable information that will reduce the uncertainty for health and medical decision-making. In other words, it would pinpoint which information we need to allow us to better make health and medical decisions. There have been <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30288400/">attempts</a> to use this method in Australia to help inform how we prioritise hospital-based research. However, we now need to apply such an approach more broadly. <h2>Seek public input</h2> A structured framework for engaging with the public is also missing in Australia. The public’s perspective on research prioritisation has often been overlooked, but as the ultimate consumers of research, they need to be heard. Research is a highly complex and specialised endeavour, so we can’t expect the public to create sensible priorities alone. One approach used overseas has been developed by the <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/">James Lind Alliance</a>, a group in the United Kingdom that combines the public’s views with researchers to create agreed-on priorities for research. This is done using an intensive process of question setting and discussion. Priorities are checked for feasibility and novelty, so there is no funding for research that’s impossible or already done. The priorities from the James Lind Alliance process can be surprising. The top priority in the area of <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/irritable-bowel-syndrome/top-10-priorities.htm">irritable bowel syndrome</a>, for example, is to discover if it’s one condition or many, while the second priority is to work on bowel urgency (a sudden urgent need to go to the toilet). While such everyday questions can struggle to get funding in traditional systems that often focus on novelty, funding research in these two priority areas could lead to the most benefits for people with irritable bowel syndrome. <h2>Consider our comparative advantages</h2> Australia is a relatively small player globally. To date, the MRFF has allocated around <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/medical-research-future-fund-mrff-grant-recipients?language=und">$2.6 billion</a>, just over 5% of what the United States allocates through the National Institute of Health funding in a <a href="https://www.who.int/observatories/global-observatory-on-health-research-and-development/monitoring/investments-on-grants-for-biomedical-research-by-funder-type-of-grant-health-category-and-recipient">single year</a>. A single research grant, even if it involves a few million dollars of funding, is unlikely to lead to a medical breakthrough. Instead, the MRFF should prioritise areas where Australia has a comparative advantage. This could involve building on past success (such as the research that led to the HPV, or human papillomavirus, vaccine to prevent cervical cancer), or where Australian researchers can play a critical role globally. However, there is an area where Australian researchers have an absolute advantage: using research to improve our own health system. A prime example would be finding ways to improve dental care access in Australia. For example, a randomised trial of different ways of providing insurance and dental services, similar to the <a href="https://www.rand.org/health-care/projects/hie.html">RAND Health Insurance Experiment</a> conducted in the United States in the 1970s. This could provide the evidence needed to design a sustainable dental scheme to complement Medicare. Now that is something the MRFF should consider as a funding priority.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209977/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-barnett-853">Adrian Barnett</a>, Professor of Statistics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847">Queensland University of Technology</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-clarke-1149967">Philip Clarke</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oxford-1260">University of Oxford</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/medical-research-future-fund-has-20-billion-to-spend-heres-how-we-prioritise-who-gets-what-209977">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wally-smith-1450210">Wally Smith</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-wadley-203663">Greg Wadley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Most of us <a href="https://wearesocial.com/au/blog/2022/02/digital-2022-australia-online-like-never-before/">go online</a> multiple times a day. About half of 18–29 year olds surveyed in a 2021 <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/03/26/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-say-they-are-almost-constantly-online/">Pew Research Study</a> said they are “almost constantly” connected. How are we to make sense of this significant digital dimension of modern life? Many questions have rightly been asked about its broader consequences for society and the economy. But there remains a simpler question about what motivates people across a range of ages, occupations and cultures to be so absorbed in digital connection. And we can turn this question on ourselves: why am I online? <h2>What are we doing when we go online?</h2> As the American sociologist Erving Goffman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/16/archives/frame-analysis.html">pointed out</a>, asking “What is it that’s going on here?” about human behaviour can yield answers framed at different levels. These range from our superficial motives to a deeper understanding of what we are “really” doing. Sometimes we might be content to explain our online behaviour in purely practical terms, like checking traffic routes or paying a bill. Other times we might struggle to articulate our reasons for going or remaining online. Why are we continually looking at our phones or computers, when we could be getting on with physical tasks, or exercising, or meditating, or engaging more fully with the people who are physically around us? <h2>The ever-present need to manage our emotions</h2> As researchers of human-computer interaction, we are exploring answers in terms of the ever-present need to manage our emotions. Psychologists refer to this activity as <a href="https://www.guilford.com/books/Handbook-of-Emotion-Regulation/James-Gross/9781462520732">emotion regulation</a>. Theories of the nature and function of emotions are complex and contested. However, it is safe to say they are expressions of felt needs and motivations that arise in us through some fusion of physiology and culture. During a typical day, we often feel a need to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271">alter our emotional state</a>. We may wish to feel more serious about a competitive task or more sad at a funeral. Perhaps we would like to be less sad about events of the past, less angry when meeting an errant family member, or more angry about something we know in our heart is wrong. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PQkNb4CLjJ8?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Digital emotion regulation is becoming increasingly common in our everyday lives.</figcaption></figure> One way to understand our frequent immersions into online experience is to see them as acts within a broader scheme of managing such daily emotional demands. Indeed, in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1071581922001732">earlier research</a> we found up to half of all smartphone use may be for the purpose of emotional regulation. <h2>Digital technologies are becoming key tools of emotion regulation</h2> Over the pandemic lockdowns of 2020–21 in Melbourne, Australia, we investigated how digital technologies are becoming <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491102.3517573">key tools of emotion regulation</a>. We were surprised to find that people readily talked of their technology use in these emotion-managing terms. Occasionally, this involved specially designed apps, for mindfulness and so on. But more often people relied on mundane tools, such as using social media alongside Zoom to combat feelings of boredom or isolation, browsing for “retail therapy”, playing phone games to de-stress, and searching online to alleviate anxiety about world events. To some extent, these uses of digital technology can be seen as re-packaging <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/026999399379285">traditional methods</a> of emotion management, such as listening to music, strengthening social connections, or enjoying the company of adorable animals. Indeed, people in our study used digital technologies to enact familiar strategies, such as immersion in selected situations, seeking distractions, and reappraising what a situation means. However, we also found indications that digital tools are changing the intensity and nature of how we regulate emotions. They provide emotional resources that are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing">nearly always available</a>, and virtual situations can be accessed, juxtaposed and navigated more deftly than their physical counterparts. Some participants in our study described how they built what we called “emotional toolkits”. These are collections of digital resources ready to be deployed when needed, each for a particular emotional effect. <h2>A new kind of digital emotional intelligence</h2> None of this is to say emotion regulation is automatically and always a good thing. It can be a means of avoiding important and meaningful endeavours and it can itself become dysfunctional. In our study of a small sample of Melburnians, we found that although digital applications appeared to be generally effective in this role, they are volatile and can lead to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/27/social-dilemma-media-facebook-twitter-society">unpredictable emotional outcomes</a>. A search for energising music or reassuring social contact, for example, can produce random or unwanted results. A new kind of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10187756/">digital emotional intelligence</a> might be needed to effectively navigate digital emotional landscapes. <h2>An historic shift in everyday life</h2> Returning to the question: what am I doing online? Emotion regulation may well be the part of the answer. You may be online for valid instrumental reasons. But equally, you are likely to be enacting your own strategies of <a href="https://cis.unimelb.edu.au/hci/projects/digitalemotionregulation">emotion regulation through digital means</a>. It is part of an historic shift playing out in how people negotiate the demands of everyday life. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208483/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wally-smith-1450210">Wally Smith</a>, Professor, School of Computing and Information Systems, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-wadley-203663">Greg Wadley</a>, Senior Lecturer, Computing and Information Systems, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-am-i-online-research-shows-its-often-about-managing-emotions-208483">original article</a>.

Technology

Australian researchers confirm world’s first case of dementia linked to repetitive brain trauma in a female athlete

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-townsend-501829">Stephen Townsend</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-pearce-734804">Alan Pearce</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-olive-944640">Rebecca Olive</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Researchers at the <a href="https://www.brainbank.org.au/">Australian Sports Brain Bank</a> have today reported the world’s first diagnosis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in a <a href="https://rdcu.be/dfQiz">female athlete</a>. With the consent of her family, the diagnosis was made on the brain of Heather Anderson, a 28-year-old AFLW athlete <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-14/adelaide-aflw-premiership-player-heather-anderson-dies-aged-28/101653188">who died</a> last November. Heather’s family donated her brain to the Australian Sports Brain Bank hoping to better understand why she died. The findings, which Professor Alan Pearce co-authored with the Australian Sports Brain Bank, raise questions about how a lifetime of contact sport may have contributed to her death. They come as Australia’s <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Headtraumainsport">Senate inquiry</a> works on its report into concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sport, due in August. Given how hard women have fought to participate in football codes and contact sports in recent years, this diagnosis has major implications for women’s sport in Australia. It also highlights the significant lack of research about women athletes in sport science and medicine. <h2>What is chronic traumatic encephalopathy?</h2> <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy/symptoms-causes/syc-20370921">CTE</a> is a devastating form of dementia which causes a decline in brain functioning and increased risk of mental illness. It is increasingly associated with athletes who play contact sports, such as football, boxing and martial arts. It is incurable and can only be <a href="https://www.brainbank.org.au/cte-diagnosis/">diagnosed post-mortem</a>. Recently, a number of high-profile former Australian footballers were found to have been suffering from CTE when they died, including former AFL stars <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-26/danny-frawley-family-urges-afl-to-act-on-cte-concussion/102269648">Danny Frawley</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-25/brain-disease-killed-shane-tuck-not-mental-health-says-sister/101362740">Shane Tuck</a>, and former NRL player and coach <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-22/qld-paul-green-brain-scans-reveal-brain-disease-cte-diagnosis/101566032">Paul Green</a>. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Adelaide AFLW premiership player Heather Anderson dies aged 28 <a href="https://t.co/ihy2i9UcRl">https://t.co/ihy2i9UcRl</a> — ABC News (@abcnews) <a href="https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1592079585201381377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2022</a></blockquote> Concussions in contact sports have long been associated with long-term neurodegeneration in <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.676463/full">Australia</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987576/">internationally</a>. While the public and researchers are rightly concerned about serious concussions, a study published last month in <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39183-0__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!FvAmUDcX-ESwwl8nG_BNNkRyB2J4TBq1oXkBTE1bBcdRGEQTl4u7qmgGsLguHpGNlFpWkz-SjKg3HGwdNYxIfEWW9U6ifytx%24">Nature Communications</a> confirmed that repetitive brain trauma over time – even seemingly mild head knocks or whiplash – is the strongest predictor for an athlete developing CTE. Athletes with long careers in contact sport are at particular risk, especially if they play from an early age. <h2>A sporting life</h2> Heather Anderson began playing rugby league at age five before transferring to Australian rules football in her early teens. She played representative football in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory before being drafted into the inaugural season of the AFLW in 2017. Anderson played a single season with the <a href="https://crowshistory.afc.com.au/aflw-players/heather-anderson#:%7E:text=Biography&text=An%20army%20medic%2C%20Heather%20Anderson,year%20and%20starred%20for%20Waratah.">Adelaide Crows</a>, during which she won a premiership and suffered a career-ending shoulder injury. She then returned to her role as a medic with the Australian Army, a physical career which also carries a <a href="https://www.defence.gov.au/adf-members-families/health-well-being/programs-initiatives/military-health-outcomes-program">heightened risk of brain injury</a>. Anderson’s family donated her brain in the hope of knowing whether a lifetime of exposure to repetitive head trauma contributed to her death. <h2>Was this diagnosis expected?</h2> Concussion researcher Anne McKee predicted earlier this year it was a <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/20/its-coming-experts-worried-about-female-athlete-brain-injuries/">matter of time</a> before CTE was found in the brain of a woman athlete. The Australian Sports Brain Bank team believe Anderson is a “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564388/">sentinel case</a>” we can learn from. She is the first female athlete diagnosed with CTE, but she will not be the last. Although Australian women have historically been excluded from the sports most associated with repeated head injuries, this is changing. In 2022, there were almost one million women and girls playing some form of <a href="https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/kb/women-in-sport">contact sport</a> in Australia. As women’s participation in contact sport continues to grow, so too does their risk of repetitive brain trauma. <h2>Are women more prone to CTE than men?</h2> There is emerging evidence that women are at significantly higher risk of mild traumatic brain injury (concussion) and may suffer more severe symptoms. Concussion alone does not cause CTE, but an athlete’s number of concussions is a reliable indicator of their cumulative exposure to brain trauma, which is the biggest predictor of CTE. While knowledge on the topic is still developing, researchers <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02089-2">propose a mix of physiological and social explanations</a> for women’s increased concussion risk. These include "[…] differences in the microstructure of the brain to the influence of hormones, coaching regimes, players’ level of experience and the management of injuries." More research is needed to understand sporting brain injuries specifically in women and girls. Given their growth in participation and the enhanced risks they face in sport, it is concerning that women and girls are <a href="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/56/17/981">underrepresented</a> in concussion research. This is representative of a <a href="https://journals-humankinetics-com.ap1.proxy.openathens.net/view/journals/wspaj/29/2/article-p146.xml">broader trend</a> in sport and exercise science research to exclude women from studies because their bodies are perceived as <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01435-8">more complex</a> than men’s and thus more difficult to accommodate in testing. <h2>A disease that does not discriminate</h2> This world-first report of CTE in a female athlete is proof the disease does not discriminate and lends urgency to calls for <a href="https://theconversation.com/sports-concussions-affect-men-and-women-differently-female-athletes-need-more-attention-in-brain-research-160097">greater representation</a> of women in brain injury studies. Efforts to reduce concussion in women’s sport must first address resource inequalities between men’s and women’s sport. This includes giving women access to quality training and coaching support, as well as <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-study-much-of-what-were-told-about-gym-exercises-and-resistance-training-is-from-studies-of-males-by-men-205753">greater attention</a> from sport science and medical research. The health of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14443058.2019.1575262">women athletes and women’s sport</a> will only progress if researchers, policymakers and sport governance bodies ensure the attention and resources required to address concussion and brain disease are not focused solely on men. <hr /> If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call <a href="https://www.lifeline.org.au/">Lifeline</a> on 13 11 14.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208929/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-townsend-501829">Stephen Townsend</a>, Lecturer, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-pearce-734804">Alan Pearce</a>, Professor, College of Science, Health, Engineering, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-olive-944640">Rebecca Olive</a>, Vice Chancellor's Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-researchers-confirm-worlds-first-case-of-dementia-linked-to-repetitive-brain-trauma-in-a-female-athlete-208929">original article</a>.

Caring

Why is it so damn cold right now? A weather researcher explains

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tess-parker-111039">Tess Parker</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> If you woke up this morning and thought “Gosh, it’s a bit brisk!”, you’re not alone. Temperatures plummeted across southeast Australia this week, with Weatherzone <a href="https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/coldest-morning-in-5-years-for-parts-of-nsw-qld-act/1342232">reporting</a> Canberra’s low of -7.2ºC was “its lowest temperature since 2018 and the lowest for June since 1986.” Sydney experienced its <a href="https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/coldest-morning-in-5-years-for-parts-of-nsw-qld-act/1342232">coldest June morning</a> today since 2010, with a temperature of 5.2ºC. In Victoria, temperatures of -7.2ºC were <a href="https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/coldest-morning-in-5-years-for-parts-of-nsw-qld-act/1342232">recorded</a>. So what’s going on? Here’s what you need to know. <h2>A big pool of Antarctic air</h2> It started off at the beginning of the week, when a low-pressure system saw a big cold front come through southeastern Australia on Sunday night. This basically means a lot of very cold air came from higher latitudes close to Antarctica, and swept across southeastern Australia. So everywhere from Melbourne to Sydney to South Australia was getting this big pool of incredibly cold air at the start of the week. Even though that cold front has now moved off over the Tasman Sea, it has left behind it a really big high-pressure system sitting over the southeast of Australia. This has led to calm conditions, where winds are very light and the skies are clear with not a lot of cloud during the day or night. So it’s getting really, really cold in the early mornings because there are no clouds to act as an insulating blanket for the Earth and trap the heat that the planet radiates to space overnight. The result, in many places, has been very cold temperatures before sunrise, often with a lot of frost. <h2>Remind me, what’s a low-pressure system? And what’s a high-pressure system?</h2> The air above the Earth’s surface has mass, but it’s not uniform everywhere. The way the atmosphere is moved around by what’s going on at upper levels will mean the mass of the atmosphere is redistributed. That transmits down to the surface where we live and causes low- and high-pressure systems. At some points the pressure is lower because there’s not as much mass of air above that point over the Earth. This is what we call a low-pressure system. Air rises in a low, reducing the pressure at the surface. The winds around the low are clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. So when that low is approaching Australia, the winds on the western side are bringing air from near Antarctica. That’s why a low-pressure system in Australia often means cooler conditions. At some points above the Earth, the pressure is higher because the mass of air above that area is greater. This is what we call a high-pressure system. Air descends in a high, raising the surface pressure. High-pressure systems tend to mean very calm weather; the wind isn’t very strong, the skies tend to be clear and there’s little to no cloud. In summer, that means the sun is baking down all day onto Earth with no protection from cloud. So a high-pressure system in summer can mean a heatwave. In winter, the lack of cloud in a high-pressure system means that much of the heat the Earth has absorbed during the day just re-radiates out to space again, as the cloud isn’t there to act as a blanket and keep all that heat in. That’s why a high-pressure system can mean very cold weather in winter, especially when there are lower levels of sunlight coming in to warm up the Earth in the first place.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208182/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tess-parker-111039">Tess Parker</a>, Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-damn-cold-right-now-a-weather-researcher-explains-208182">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Gorgeous iconic department stores throughout history 

Do you remember shops with names like Farmer’s, Boan’s, John Martin’s, Buckley & Nunn, or McWhirter’s? Or maybe you're more familiar with David Jones and Myer? If any of these names ring a bell, a team of historians wants to speak to you. Professor Robert Crawford leads a team of historians at RMIT University and Macquarie University that are researching the history of department stores in Australia since the Second World War. “Department stores have played such an important role in the lives of countless Australia, but their history has hardly been documented,” explains Professor Crawford. Supported by the Australian Research Council, the project aims to collect Australian stories and experiences of their department store. While the project is keen to collect stories from those who worked in these stores, it is equally interested in hearing from shoppers. “Shoppers are an essential part of this story – their custom makes or breaks any retail outlet and department stores are no different,” notes Professor Crawford. “By collecting the stories of shoppers and staff, this project offers a unique perspective of the department store,” he adds. The research team has already interviewed a range of people across the country. “This week I spoke to a lady about shopping with her mother at Grace Brothers in Sydney in 1947 and the next day I spoke to a man about taking his daughter to David Jones in suburban Brisbane in 1995,” recounts Crawford. Participants of the project have recalled a range of familiar and forgotten experiences. “Many have recounted their family’s unique rituals of going into to town and having lunch at the cafeteria, while others remember specific bits like the lift operators or the pneumatic tubes to transfer cash from the tills.” While the project has undertaken many interviews, the research team is eager to speak to more people about their unique memories and experiences, so that they can get a fuller picture of the past. If you’re interested in participating in the project or learning more about it, further details can be found at <a href="https://www.departmentstorehistory.org.au/">https://www.departmentstorehistory.org.au/</a> Image credit: WikiMedia

International Travel

What are the long-term effects of quitting social media? Almost nobody can log off long enough to find out

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-malouff-313652">John Malouff</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-new-england-919">University of New England</a> Being on social media has become synonymous with living in the 21st century. Year after year, we see new platforms and smarter algorithms roping us into highly addictive online worlds. Now, a growing number of people have noticed this trend and are actively making an effort to resist it. Anecdotally, a case can be made for quitting social media, and there are myriad reasons why someone might want to. But is there evidence that doing so is good for you in the long term? <h2>Drivers for quitting</h2> Although there are too many social media platforms to name, most people tend to think of the “big five”: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok. Research has found people have various reasons for quitting one or more of these apps. Many quit over concerns about negative impacts on their mental and physical health. For example, studies have shown adolescent girls in particular can experience negative body image as a result of viewing manipulated <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-all-heard-social-media-can-impact-womens-body-image-but-it-isnt-all-bad-205214">selfies on Instagram</a>. People also <a href="https://www.qscience.com/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2023.spt.3?crawler=true">choose to quit</a> due to disliking ads, feeling like they’re wasting time, or if they’re worried about their privacy. The question then is: does quitting social media resolve these concerns? <h2>Mixed research outcomes</h2> It’s difficult to determine whether there are clear and lasting benefits to quitting social media – and a look at the research explains why. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17459435.2020.1817140">One 2020 study</a> found people who had quit social media saw improvements in their close relationships, and were pleased to be free of comparison with others. But some also said they <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17459435.2020.1817140">missed</a> the informational and entertainment aspects of it. In a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328838624_No_More_FOMO_Limiting_Social_Media_Decreases_Loneliness_and_Depression">2018 study</a>, researchers assessed the psychological state of 143 American undergraduates before randomly assigning one group a daily ten-minute limit for Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, per platform. Three weeks later, those who limited their social media use showed significantly lower levels of loneliness and depression. However, there was no significant effect on anxiety, self-esteem or wellbeing. And in <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0217743&fbclid=IwAR1oLvPyeJDwMhD4WlODKU1A360ttIcaV_tManJs1_qEr-VAVZPsD0xQjq0">one 2019 study</a> with 78 participants, half were asked to take a one-week break from Facebook and Instagram. To the researchers’ surprise, the users in this group who were generally active on social media experienced less positive psychological effects than those in the control group. With research findings painting several different pictures, it’s safe to say our relationship with social media – and how it affects us – is very complex. <h2>Research constraints</h2> There appear to be no published studies that have assessed the long-term impacts of permanently quitting social media. This is probably because it’s difficult to find participants who will agree to be randomly assigned the task of dropping social media forever. One important consideration is that a percentage of individuals who quit social media will eventually <a href="https://cyberleninka.org/article/n/992039/viewer">go back</a>. Reasons for returning include feeling left out, fearing loss of connections, wanting to regain access to interesting or useful information, feeling social pressure to rejoin, or simply feeling that quitting wasn’t the right choice. Even if researchers do find a large enough group of people willing to quit social media for good, conducting long-term follow-ups would be highly resource-intensive. Beyond that, it would be difficult to figure out how much of a participant’s increase (or decrease) in life satisfaction is due to quitting social media, and not other factors. As such, there’s currently no evidence that quitting social media comes with concrete long-term benefits. And in the short term, results are mixed. <h2>To quit, or not to quit?</h2> However, that doesn’t mean quitting (for a short or long period) wouldn’t be beneficial for some people. It’s likely that any potential benefits will depend on the individual doing the quitting, and why they’re doing it. For instance, consensus that does emerge from the research is that <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-social-media-make-us-more-or-less-lonely-depends-on-how-you-use-it-128468">the way you use</a> social media plays a significant role in how negative or positive your experience is. By <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305120919105">using social media mindfully</a>, users can minimise potential harms while retaining the benefits. For some, it may only be one platform causing unease. If you strongly dislike Instagram’s tendency to be hyper-focused on people’s private lives, then you could simply stop using Instagram. Another technique is to curate your social media feeds by engaging only with content you find useful and positive. For instance, many young women take steps to avoid seeing <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-all-heard-social-media-can-impact-womens-body-image-but-it-isnt-all-bad-205214?fbclid=IwAR3cX7l116GAj0nnKDAk16x6GP6iRCxH_VutjIbxOiCij1yCqWmeOK0s0f0">perfect bodies all day</a> on their social media. If you’re still wondering whether quitting might be good for you, the simplest way to find out is to <a href="https://hbr.org/2018/10/i-ran-4-experiments-to-break-my-social-media-addiction-heres-what-worked">experiment</a> and do it. Take a break from one or more types of social media. After some time ask yourself whether the benefits seem worth it to you. If the answer is “yes”, make the break permanent. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-malouff-313652">John Malouff</a>, Associate Professor, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-new-england-919">University of New England</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-long-term-effects-of-quitting-social-media-almost-nobody-can-log-off-long-enough-to-find-out-205478">original article</a>. Images: Getty

Technology

Travelers will refuse an upgrade to sit near a loved one – new research into when people want to share experiences

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ximena-garcia-rada-1238853">Ximena Garcia-Rada</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/texas-aandm-university-1672">Texas A&M University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-norton-145591">Michael Norton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/harvard-university-1306">Harvard University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-k-ratner-1439964">Rebecca K. Ratner</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maryland-1347">University of Maryland</a> The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work. <h2>The big idea</h2> People will often sacrifice a better experience and opt for one that’s less enjoyable if it means they can do it alongside a loved one – whether that’s a romantic partner, close friend or relative. That’s the main finding of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1352">our research</a> published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in April 2023. For example, when taking a flight, two friends might decide to sit in adjacent seats in coach rather than accept a free upgrade to nonadjacent seats in first class. Failing to choose togetherness can have consequences, as in the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2JKXbVGq7A">Seinfeld” episode</a> in which Elaine suffers the indignities of economy class, leading to rage against Jerry after he chooses to accept an upgrade. We conducted five studies in a variety of settings and featuring different social bonds, including friendships and romantic relationships. In one study, just over half of people chose two adjacent seats far from the stage over two nonadjacent seats closer to the stage when imagining they were attending a Cirque du Soleil performance with a close friend, compared with only about one-third who chose the adjacent seats when imagining attending with an acquaintance. In another study, we asked students whether they wanted to eat one chocolate with another person – either a new friend or a stranger – or two chocolates alone. Half the people chose the shared experience – but only if the other person was a friend. Fewer people – 38% – opted for the shared experience if the other person was a stranger. <h2>Why it matters</h2> One reason people prioritize physical proximity with close partners is because they want to create shared memories. Importantly, people believe that physical distance can disrupt the creation of shared memories, and so they forgo enjoyable experiences apart from their loved one. This also matters for companies seeking to improve customer experience, such as an airline offering free upgrades or shorter wait times. Our findings suggest that, for example, consumers traveling with a companion might not take advantage of services like TSA PreCheck, an airline VIP lounge or a free upgrade if it is available only for themselves. It also helps explain why consumers do not like when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/travel/airlines-family-seating-dashboard.html">airlines split up families</a> in their seat assignments. However, we also tested a few initiatives marketers can use to encourage people to choose a higher-quality experience that requires them to be apart from their companion. In another experiment, we described a train ride as either a fun part of an excursion or as a practical way to reach a final destination. More participants accepted a free upgrade – even though it required sitting apart from their romantic partner – when they perceived the train ride as utilitarian. That’s because they cared less about creating shared memories during the experience. <h2>What still isn’t known</h2> We still don’t know how this preference affects relationship quality. For example, when can time apart from your partner actually strengthen the relationship? And how should couples split their time between lower-quality activities done together and higher-quality activities done alone? One option for separate activities, for example, might be when one partner’s desired activity does not interest the other. Also, given that people believe physical proximity is a prerequisite for creating shared memories, how can partners who live in different places also cultivate shared memories? This question is especially important in light of how COVID-19 has enabled more people to work and study remotely.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205363/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Image credit: Getty <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ximena-garcia-rada-1238853">Ximena Garcia-Rada</a>, Assistant Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/texas-aandm-university-1672">Texas A&M University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-norton-145591">Michael Norton</a>, Professor of Business Administration, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/harvard-university-1306">Harvard University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-k-ratner-1439964">Rebecca K. Ratner</a>, Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maryland-1347">University of Maryland</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/travelers-will-refuse-an-upgrade-to-sit-near-a-loved-one-new-research-into-when-people-want-to-share-experiences-205363">original article</a>.

International Travel

Huge news for Alzheimer’s sufferers

An experimental new drug by Eli Lilly has demonstrated an ability to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, according to new study reports. The pharmaceutical company has said that its drug, donanemab, met each goal of their 18-month trial, successfully slowing cognitive decline by 35 per cent compared to a placebo. 1,182 individuals in the early stages of Alzheimer’s participated in the study, with each patient receiving monthly infusions of donanemab. After 12 months, half of the participants showed no evidence of amyloid plaques, while 48 per cent of patients in the trial had no disease progression at 12 months, compared to 29 per cent from the placebo group. In the wake of the news, experts are optimistic, but still hold concerns about the risks moving forward. Dr Ronald Petersen, a Mayo Clinic Alzheimer research, told the ABC that “Lilly's trial is the third to show removing amyloid from the brain slows progression of the disease, which could put to rest some lingering doubts about the benefits of drugs in the class and the amyloid-lowering theory. "It's modest, but I think it's real and I think it's clinically meaningful." Washington University neurologist Dr Erik Musiek noted that mounting evidence was suggesting “that these drugs do work”. He also said that the findings were reminding them of the benefits of early treatment, explaining that “it really does suggest that you need to remove these plaques early, before the tau really gets going.” When it comes to the associated risks, Eli Lilly have said that the drug’s side effects could include brain swelling as well as bleeding, with serious swelling occurring in 1.6 per cent of patients. As Dr Eric Reiman, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute’s executive director, explained, “clearly one saw benefits here, but there is some risk that needs to be considered.” From there, Lily plan to file for US approval by the end of June, and to proceed with regulars from other countries in the time after. A spokesperson for the company is confident that a decision over approval in the US should occur by the end of 2023, or early in 2024. Experts in the field want to see the study’s full results, which are likely to be presented at an Amsterdam Alzheimer’s meeting later in the year. As for the cost, the company has not yet finalised a price point, but CEO David Ricks informed CNBC that they intend for it to be similar to other therapies in the same field. Images: Getty

Caring

New study reveals the lifetime health benefits of social interaction

A new meta-analysis study - undertaken by the Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing (otherwise known as the CHeBA) at the University of New South Wales - has revealed that social interaction could have benefits many would never have thought to predict, from a reduced risk of dementia to overall increased longevity. Researches were investigating the link between social connections in senior citizens and the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), as well as dementia and morality, compiling the results from 13 other international studies following individuals aged 65 years and up over extended periods of time - research published in <a href="https://u26892420.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=B8NE7CRkW4hCmh1dHfJbPqy22DjCz8-2Bq3ZidKWozGaZDoG-2FmVx-2BVsAja535jGrbQlYGwKkrcgY4HPBHrSRE-2Bpq1fwuJ0AQZcKTgnOiva5gsjqRFzNLSYGGzJ4hgT-2Bp0b-7Jp_W1g0lLgOQvKHpoedb1QOitWbx1JxegS3ChuQBoUMMSvQphp8oKfzCnK1hk7FLUZqqTLorFP-2FYQB6URmHLHx65PjMZSysYz3YQI-2BzvIxBhVdZr2Z1gRzt72cMfkaib4uVOYXTxECJWWsRmLyHtb8tdUoPs6u4lvqr8I7xD4zbJqJTqeP2zMO2vFFc6dcczrApzJnOWkq2tOchRyvzstzbQnlU1N4WSe4ZAMtqjmGx6sSvfxYICFLpppnmosd6kUUL-2B2zjjEQ61i38e9TYUaT6LZA5aIGcpHJw26Ob-2BXzuvv-2BuHbhihyIqh2AUTJ2WAYsCw6hpo5SJ7JKlgCF4nYeiekLQeVVLm4GRjjckYyIIN48-3D">Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association</a>. As author, clinical psychologist, and researcher Dr Suraj Samtani explained, “we know from previous research that social connections are important for our health and being isolated puts us at higher risk of dementia and death.” “Our goal was to find which social connections protect us from dementia and death.” Researches drew intel from studies in a number of countries - spanning low, middle, and high-income nations - and compiled a study population more diverse than the meta-analyses to come before, including the likes of Australia, European nations, North and South America, Asia, and Africa, as opposed to the previous North America and European study groups. From there, they looked at information about the connections between the participants, paying close attention to the types of social links (whether they were in a relationship, single, or married, or involved with their community), the function of them (whether or not they had social support on hand, or a close confidante), and the quality (how much satisfaction they did - or did not - receive from their relationships). With this information, they sought to find out if the participants had developed either MCI or dementia - as well as whether or not they had passed away. “We looked at social variables across these studies, such as living with others, interacting with friends and family, engaging in community activities, and social support,” Dr Samtani said. “We wanted to know which of these are associated with risk of getting dementia over time or dying.” And from their research, they discovered that positive social connections did appear to be linked to a lower risk of MCI, dementia, and death. “We found that frequent interactions - monthly or weekly - with family and friends and having someone to talk to reduced the risk of getting dementia. We also found that living with others and doing community activities reduced the risk of dying,” Dr Samtani noted. Recommendations from the researchers suggest that people should be prioritising their social connections if they hope to reduce their risk of cognitive decline - with the added benefit of living longer, too. “Try to meet with friends and family at least once a month, take part in community activities like volunteering or a rotary club, and open your heart to someone when you feel stressed,” Dr Samtani said. “Living with others, for example in an intergenerational household, is also helpful. “Connecting with others helps us to keep our bodies and minds healthy. “We hope that helping people to stay engaged in conversations and maintain healthy friendships and relationships will help them to stay healthy and happy.” Images: Getty

Relationships

Like father, like son: new research shows how young men ‘copy’ their fathers’ masculinity

Today’s men express their maleness in different ways. Some adhere to more traditional models of masculinity, characterised by beliefs in male superiority and endorsement of risky or violent behaviours. Others embrace more progressive stances. But how do men develop their ideas, beliefs and behaviours in relation to masculinity? Our <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-023-01364-y">new study</a> addresses this question by focusing on one important factor influencing how young men express their masculinity – their fathers. Our research set out to ask: do young men “copy” their fathers’ masculinity? We found that young men whose fathers support more traditional forms of masculinity are more likely to do so themselves. This highlights the critical role fathers play in steering boys towards healthier ideas about masculinity. <h2>Measuring masculinity</h2> We analysed data from 839 pairs of 15-to-20-year-old men and their fathers. These data were taken from a large, Australian <a href="https://tentomen.org.au/">national survey</a> on men’s health. The survey asked men a set of 22 <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft27381-000">scientifically validated questions</a> about how they felt and behaved in relation to many issues around masculinity. For example, they were asked about: <ul> <li> the significance of work and social status for their sense of identity </li> <li> their take on showing emotions and being self-reliant </li> <li> their endorsement of risk-taking and violent behaviours </li> <li> the importance they assigned to appearing heterosexual and having multiple sex partners </li> <li> and their beliefs about winning, dominance over others and men’s power over women. </li> </ul> Taken together, the answers to these questions offered us a window into whether the men participating in the survey adopted more of a traditional or progressive type of masculinity. They also enabled us to compare fathers’ and sons’ expressions of masculinity. <h2>What we found</h2> We found that, on average, young men are slightly more traditional in how they express their masculinity than their fathers. On a scale from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating high conformity to traditional masculinity and 0 indicating low conformity, the average masculinity score for young men was 44.1, and for their fathers, it was 41. Using statistical models, we then examined whether there was an association between how traditional a father’s masculinity is and how traditional their son’s masculinity is. To make sure we isolated the effect of fathers’ masculinity, the models took into account other factors that may also shape young men’s expressions of masculinity. These included their age, education, sexual orientation, religion, household income and place of residence, among others. The results were clear. Young men who scored highly on the traditional masculinity measures tended to have fathers who also scored highly. We identified similar results for 20 of the 22 individual masculinity questions. The strongest father-son associations emerged for questions about the endorsement of violence, importance of appearing heterosexual, and desirability of having multiple sexual partners. This indicates these aspects of masculinity are comparatively more likely to be “passed on” from fathers to sons. <h2>What our findings mean</h2> As is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X21000740?via%3Dihub">well-established</a>, social learning is important in shaping young people’s attitudes and behaviours. While fathers aren’t the only influence, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-023-01364-y">our study</a> suggests young men learn a lot about how to be a man from their dads. This is an intuitive finding, but we had little empirical evidence of it until now. Confirming that dads “pass on” their masculinity beliefs to their sons has far-reaching implications. For example, it goes a long way in explaining why traditional models of masculinity remain entrenched in today’s society. Our study indicates that breaking this cycle requires bringing fathers into the mix. Policies, interventions and programs aimed at promoting <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216955">healthy masculinity</a> among young people are more likely to work if they also target their dads. This proposition is consistent with a growing body of programs focused on <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31495253/">engaging fathers</a> in positive parenting. What’s more, our findings underscore the potential long-term effects of successful intervention. If a program manages to help young people develop <a href="https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/Adolescent-Boys-and-Young-Men-final-web_0.pdf">positive masculinity</a>, it’s likely that — as they themselves become fathers — their own children’s masculinity is also positively affected. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/like-father-like-son-new-research-shows-how-young-men-copy-their-fathers-masculinity-203834" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Family & Pets

The rich are pouring millions into life extension research – but does it have any ethical value?

Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/03/08/1069523/sam-altman-investment-180-million-retro-biosciences-longevity-death/">recently invested</a> US$180 million into Retro Biosciences – a company seeking to extend human lifespans by <a href="https://retro.bio/announcement/">ten healthy years</a>. One way it plans to achieve this is by “rejuvenating” blood. This idea is based on studies that found old mice <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/young-blood-renews-old-mice">showed signs of reversed ageing</a> when given the blood of young mice. Altman isn’t the only Silicon Valley entrepreneur supporting life extension efforts. PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Google cofounder Larry Page have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/feb/17/if-they-could-turn-back-time-how-tech-billionaires-are-trying-to-reverse-the-ageing-process">poured millions</a> into projects that could profoundly affect how we live our lives. The first question raised is scientific: could these technologies work? On this front the jury is still out, and there are grounds for both <a href="https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2021-01-14/How-close-are-we-to-radical-life-extension-and-is-it-a-good-idea--X03UFbnMWs/index.html">optimism</a> and scepticism. The second question is just as important: even if lifespan extension is feasible, would it be ethical? We explain why some common ethical arguments against lifespan extension aren’t as solid as they might seem – and put forth another, somewhat overlooked explanation for why trying to live forever might not be worth it. <h2>Is it worth it if you still die anyway?</h2> One might argue lifespan extension merely pushes back the inevitable: that we will die. However, the problem with this view is that any life saved will only be saved temporarily. A lifespan extension of ten years is akin to saving a drowning swimmer, only for them to die in a traffic accident ten years later. Although we might be sad about their eventual death, we’d still be glad we saved them. The same is true of conventional medicine. If a doctor cures my pneumonia, I will eventually die of something else, but that doesn’t mean the doctor or I will regret my being saved. It’s also worth taking a longer view of where lifespan extension research could lead us. In the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC423155/">most optimistic scenarios</a> put forth by experts, even modest short-term gains could help people add centuries to their life, since the benefits of each intervention could cascade. For example, each extra year of life would increase the likelihood of surviving until the next big breakthrough. <h2>Is it worth it if immortality could get boring?</h2> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953604004691">Many</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890406510000757">have argued</a> against lifespan extension on ethical grounds, saying they wouldn’t use these technologies. Why might somebody be opposed? One worry is that a very long life might be undesirable. Philosopher <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/problems-of-the-self/makropulos-case-reflections-on-the-tedium-of-immortality/9180185912980E017EE675254B2F4169">Bernard Williams</a> said life is made valuable through the satisfaction of what he calls “categorical desires”: desires that give us reason to want to live. Williams expects these desires relate to major life projects, such as raising a child, or writing a novel. He worries that, given a long enough life, we will run out of such projects. If so, immortality would become tedious. It’s unclear whether Williams is right. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09672559.2012.713383">Some philosophers</a> point out human memories are fallible, and certain desires could resurface as we forget earlier experiences. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-015-9203-8">Others</a> emphasise that our categorical desires evolve as our life experiences reshape our interests – and might continue to do so over the course of a very long life. In either case, our categorical desires, and hence our reason for living, would not be exhausted over a very long life. Even if immortality did get tedious, this wouldn’t count against modest lifespan extensions. Many would argue 80-something years isn’t enough time to explore one’s potential. Personally, we’d welcome another 20 or even 50 years to write a novel, or start a career as a DJ. <h2>Is it worth it if poor people miss out?</h2> Another worry regarding lifespan extension technologies is egalitarian. These technologies will be expensive; it seems unjust for Silicon Valley billionaires to celebrate their 150th birthdays while the rest of us mostly die in our 70s and 80s. This objection seems convincing. Most people welcome interventions that promote health equality, which is reflected in broader societal demands for universal healthcare. But there’s important nuance to consider here. Consider that universal healthcare systems promote equality by improving the situation of those who aren’t well off. On the other hand, preventing the development of lifespan extension technologies will worsen the situation of those who are well off. The ethical desirability of equality based on “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9329.00041">levelling down</a>” is unclear. The poorest Australians are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-poorest-australians-are-twice-as-likely-to-die-before-age-75-as-the-richest-and-the-gap-is-widening-139201">twice as likely</a> to die before age 75 than the richest. Yet few people would argue we should stop developing technologies to improve the health of those aged over 75. Moreover, the price of lifespan extension technologies would eventually likely come down. <h2>The real problem</h2> However, we think there’s one serious ethical objection that applies to extreme cases of life extension. If humans routinely lived very long lives, this could reduce how adaptable our populations are, and lead to social stagnation. Even modest increases in life expectancy would radically increase population size. To avoid overpopulation, we’d need to <a href="https://theconversation.com/thinking-of-having-a-baby-as-the-planet-collapses-first-ask-yourself-5-big-ethical-questions-196388">reduce birth rates</a>, which would drastically slow generational turnover. As one of us (Chris) has explored in previous <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article/40/6/696/2747126">research</a>, this could be incredibly harmful to societal progress, because it may: <ol> <li>increase our vulnerability to extinction threats</li> <li>jeopardise individual wellbeing, and</li> <li>impede moral advancement.</li> </ol> Many fields benefit from a regular influx of young minds coming in and building on the work of predecessors. Even if the brains of older scientists remained sharp, their “confirmation bias” – a tendency to seek and interpret information in ways that confirm one’s prior beliefs – could slow the uptake of new scientific theories. Moral beliefs are also prone to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1">confirmation bias</a>. In a world of extended lifespans, individuals whose moral views were set in their youth (perhaps more than 100 years ago) will remain in positions of power. It seems likely our society’s moral code is <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-015-9567-7">badly mistaken</a> in at least some respects. After all, we think past societies were catastrophically mistaken in theirs, such as when they endorsed slavery, or rendered homosexuality illegal. Slowing generational turnover could delay the point at which we recognise and fix our own moral catastrophes, especially those we can’t yet see. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rich-are-pouring-millions-into-life-extension-research-but-does-it-have-any-ethical-value-201774" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Caring

Attention plant killers: new research shows your plants could be silently screaming at you

If you’re like me, you’ve managed to kill even the hardiest of indoor plants (yes, despite a doctorate in plant biology). But imagine a world where your plants actually told you exactly when they needed watering. This thought, as it turns out, may not be so silly after all. You might be familiar with the growing body of work that <a href="https://theconversation.com/heard-it-on-the-grapevine-the-mysterious-chatter-of-plants-6292">provides evidence for</a> plants being able to sense sounds around them. Now, new research suggests they can also generate airborne sounds in response to stress (such as from drought, or being cut). A team led by experts at Tel Aviv University has shown tomato and tobacco plants, among others, not only make sounds, but do so loudly enough for other creatures to hear. Their findings, <a href="https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3">published today</a> in the journal Cell, are helping us tune into the rich acoustic world of plants – one that plays out all round us, yet never quite within human earshot. <h2>Plants can listen, but now they can talk!</h2> Plants are “sessile” organisms. They can’t run away from stressors such as herbivores or drought. Instead, they’ve evolved complex biochemical responses and the ability to dynamically alter their growth (and regrow body parts) in response to environmental signals including light, gravity, temperature, touch, and volatile chemicals produced by surrounding organisms. These signals help them maximise their growth and reproductive success, prepare for and resist stress, and form mutually beneficial relationships with other organisms such as fungi and bacteria. In 2019, <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/flowers-can-hear-bees-and-make-their-nectar-sweeter">researchers showed</a> the buzzing of bees can cause plants to produce sweeter nectar. Others <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592324.2017.1368938">have shown</a> white noise played to Arabidopsis, a flowering plant in the mustard family, can trigger a drought response. Now, a team led by Lilach Hadany, who also led the aforementioned bee-nectar study, has recorded airborne sounds produced by tomato and tobacco plants, and five other species (grapevine, henbit deadnettle, pincushion cactus, maize and wheat). These sounds were ultrasonic, in the range of 20-100 kilohertz, and therefore can’t be detected <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924/">by human ears</a>. <h2>Stressed plants chatter more</h2> To carry out their research, the team placed microphones 10cm from plant stems that were either exposed to drought (less than 5% soil moisture) or had been severed near the soil. They then compared the recorded sounds to those of unstressed plants, as well as empty pots, and found stressed plants emitted significantly more sounds than unstressed plants. In a cool addition to their paper, they also included a soundbite of a recording, downsampled to an audible range and sped up. The result is a distinguishable “pop” sound. The number of pops increased as drought stress increased (before starting to decline as the plant dried up). Moreover, the sounds could be detected from a distance of 3-5 metres – suggesting potential for long-range communication. <h2>But what actually causes these sounds?</h2> While this remains unconfirmed, the team’s findings suggest that “cavitation” may be at least partially responsible for the sounds. Cavitation is the process through which air bubbles expand and burst inside a plant’s water-conducting tissue, or “xylem”. This explanation makes sense if we consider that drought stress and cutting will both alter the water dynamics in a plant stem. Regardless of the mechanism, it seems the sounds produced by stressed plants were informative. Using machine learning algorithms, the researchers could distinguish not only which species produced the sound, but also what type of stress it was suffering from. It remains to be seen whether and how these sound signals might be involved in plant-to-plant communication or plant-to-environment communication. The research has so far failed to detect any sounds from the woody stems of woody species (which includes many tree species), although they could detect sounds from non-woody parts of a grapevine (a woody species). <h2>What could it mean for ecology, and us?</h2> It’s temping to speculate these airborne sounds could help plants communicate their stress more widely. Could this form of communication help plants, and perhaps wider ecosystems, adapt better to change? Or perhaps the sounds are used by other organisms to detect a plant’s health status. Moths, for example, hear within the ultrasonic range and lay their eggs on leaves, as the researchers point out. Then there’s the question of whether such findings could help with future food production. The <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondocuments/abares/publications/Outlook2012FoodDemand2050.pdf">global demand</a> for food will only rise. Tailoring water use to target individual plants or sections of field making the most “noise” could help us more sustainably intensify production and minimise waste. For me personally, if someone could give a microphone to my neglected veggie patch and have the notifications sent to my phone, that would be much appreciated! Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/attention-plant-killers-new-research-shows-your-plants-could-be-silently-screaming-at-you-202833" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Home & Garden

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Do optimists really live longer? Here’s what the research says

Eating some chocolate really might be good for you – here’s what the research says

Running or yoga can help beat depression, research shows – even if exercise is the last thing you feel like

Out of the rabbit hole: new research shows people can change their minds about conspiracy theories

Ballet flats are back. Here’s what the research says about how they affect your feet

Research reveals who’s been hit hardest by global warming in their lifetime - and the answer may surprise you

Ken’s rights? Our research shows Barbie is surprisingly accurate on how ‘men’s rights activists’ are radicalised

Keen to get off gas in your home, but struggling to make the switch? Research shows you’re not alone

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

Australian researchers confirm world’s first case of dementia linked to repetitive brain trauma in a female athlete

Why is it so damn cold right now? A weather researcher explains

Gorgeous iconic department stores throughout history

What are the long-term effects of quitting social media? Almost nobody can log off long enough to find out

Travelers will refuse an upgrade to sit near a loved one – new research into when people want to share experiences

Huge news for Alzheimer’s sufferers

New study reveals the lifetime health benefits of social interaction

Like father, like son: new research shows how young men ‘copy’ their fathers’ masculinity

The rich are pouring millions into life extension research – but does it have any ethical value?

Attention plant killers: new research shows your plants could be silently screaming at you

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Do optimists really live longer? Here’s what the research says

Eating some chocolate really might be good for you – here’s what the research says

Running or yoga can help beat depression, research shows – even if exercise is the last thing you feel like

Out of the rabbit hole: new research shows people can change their minds about conspiracy theories

Ballet flats are back. Here’s what the research says about how they affect your feet

Research reveals who’s been hit hardest by global warming in their lifetime - and the answer may surprise you

Ken’s rights? Our research shows Barbie is surprisingly accurate on how ‘men’s rights activists’ are radicalised

Keen to get off gas in your home, but struggling to make the switch? Research shows you’re not alone

Medical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

Australian researchers confirm world’s first case of dementia linked to repetitive brain trauma in a female athlete

Why is it so damn cold right now? A weather researcher explains

Gorgeous iconic department stores throughout history

What are the long-term effects of quitting social media? Almost nobody can log off long enough to find out

Travelers will refuse an upgrade to sit near a loved one – new research into when people want to share experiences

Huge news for Alzheimer’s sufferers

New study reveals the lifetime health benefits of social interaction

Like father, like son: new research shows how young men ‘copy’ their fathers’ masculinity

The rich are pouring millions into life extension research – but does it have any ethical value?

Attention plant killers: new research shows your plants could be silently screaming at you

Our Partners

Join Over60

Gorgeous iconic department stores throughout history 