Scrolling Through Sadness? How Social Media Might Be Affecting Your Mood

 

College is a whirlwind of new experiences, but with all the excitement can come feelings of isolation and loneliness. Social media is a perfect solution, a way to connect and stay informed. But what is all that scrolling is making you feel worse? Recent studies suggest a link between heavy mobile social media use and depression, especially among young adults. This is concerning, considering how much time we spend glued to our phones (Yan et al., 2024).

Today's blog post discusses a new study that explores this connection. Yan and colleagues (2024) examined how college students use mobile social media intensively and how this relates to their depressive moods. They also looked at two factors that might explain this link: upward social comparison, constantly comparing yourself to others who seem to have it all, and cognitive overload(feeling overwhelmed by the constant stream of information and interactions).

The Study Breakdown:

1. Over 600 college students from various universities participated, with a good mix of freshmen, sophomores, and even master's students. There were roughly equal numbers of men and women and students from urban and rural areas.
2. Researchers used questionnaires to measure how much time students spent on social media, how often they compared themselves to others online, and how overwhelmed they felt by social media. They also assessed symptoms of depression.

The study found a clear connection: the more time students spent glued to their phones using social media, the more likely they were to experience depressive symptoms. But here's the exciting part: this link needed to be more direct. It seems that two other factors played a role (Yan et al., 2024):

1. Upward Social Comparison: The study suggests that constantly comparing yourself to others who seem to have it all together on social media can contribute to feelings of depression.
2. Cognitive Overload: Feeling overwhelmed by the constant barrage of information and interactions on social media can also be a downer.

The strongest effect came from a combination of these two factors, according to Yan and colleagues (2024). In other words, spending a lot of time comparing yourself to others online, which can lead to feeling overwhelmed, can ultimately contribute to depression

References

• Yan, Ne & Long, Ying & Yuan, Huiling & Zhou, Xiaofei & Xie, Bin & Wang, Ying. (2024). The Impact of Mobile Social Media Use on Depressive Mood Among College Students: A Chain Mediating Effect of Upward Social Comparison and Cognitive Overload. Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 17. 2111-2120. 10.2147/PRBM.S447372

Lost in Translation: Why We Don't Speak the Same Language as AI Yet

 Have you ever felt like your AI assistant doesn't get you? You ask for a playlist to unwind, and it plays upbeat dance music. You tell your smart speaker to remind you to buy milk, and it adds everything from cheese to yogurt to your grocery list. The reality is that communication between humans and AI could be better.

Here is the glitch in the system: while AI can be unique at predicting our preferences and completing tasks, it often struggles to grasp the nuances of human intention. On the other hand, we need a more comprehensive understanding of how these complex algorithms work, making it difficult to adjust our expectations.

The secret weapon for smoother human-AI interaction might lie in a well-known psychological concept called the Theory of Mind (Wang &Ashok, 2022). Our ability to understand others' thoughts, feelings, and intentions allows us to navigate conversations and social interactions effectively. 

Imagine conversing with a virtual a
ssistant or chatbot that can answer your questions and understand how you perceive them. Researchers are working on that future, and a new study shows it's closer than we might think!

Wang and Ashok (2022) introduce the framework for a concept called Mutual Theory of Mind (MToM) and state that the mutual theory of mind framework is a way to improve communication between humans and AI systems, and it emphasizes how humans and AI can develop a shared understanding of each other throughout a conversation.  The researcher gave their MToM framework a spin.

The Study: Chatting with Jill Watson

Wang and Ashok (2022) placed a question-answering AI named Jill Watson in an online student discussion forum. Over a 10-week semester, students interacted with Jill Watson, asking questions and getting answers. The researchers tracked how the students perceived Jill Watson through surveys.

The Future of AI Communication

The big takeaway?  Wang and Ashok (2022
) concluded that with their MToM AI, Jill could pick up on clues in our communication to understand how we perceive it.

This study paves the way for AI to understand our questions and requests
and how we communicate them. This can lead to more natural and productive interactions between humans and AI in the future.

References

Wang, Qiaosi & Goel, Ashok. (2022). Mutual Theory of Mind for Human-AI Communication. 10.48550/arXiv.2210.03842

Safeguarding Vulnerable Populations

 Many illnesses, like Alzheimer's disease and chronic alcoholism, cause cognitive impairment, affecting millions in the United States. Research is crucial to improve understanding and treatment of these conditions. However, involving cognitively impaired individuals presents unique ethical challenges due to their vulnerability to coercion. This blog post explores these concerns and the safeguards in place to protect participants in research.

The Importance of Research and the Challenge of Informed Consent

Research with cognitively impaired individuals is vital for developing effective therapies. However, obtaining informed consent, a core ethical principle requiring participants to understand the risks and benefits of research, becomes difficult with cognitive impairment.

Safeguards for Protecting Participants

federal regulations (the common rule) provide additional safeguards for vulnerable populations, including those with cognitive impairment, and those safeguards include (Oruche 2009):

Advanced informed consent: Obtaining informed consent before a predictable decline in capacity occurs.

The durable power of attorney/proxy decision-making: Allowing a designated person to make research decisions on behalf of the participant.

Assent: Obtaining participants' agreement to participate, even if they cannot fully understand the research details.

Gaps in Regulations and Areas for Improvement

While these safeguards exist, there are gaps in federal regulations, and according to Oruche (2009), these gaps include:

Lack of clear guidelines for assessing decision-making capacity.

Variation by state on who can be legally authorized representative.

Potential for safeguards to unintentionally exclude participants from research advancements.

The Role of Nurse Researchers

Nurse researchers play a vital role in protecting participants with cognitive impairment. Here's how nurses can contribute (Oruche 2009): 

1. Advocating for proper screening: Identifying participants at risk for cognitive impairment.
2. Supporting objective tools: Ensuring decision-making capacity is assessed using standardized tools.
3. Enhancing informed consent: Presenting research information clearly and straightforwardly, considering the participant's learning style.

Conclusion

Research with cognitively impaired individuals is essential for progress. Nurse researchers can ensure the protection of these participants by understanding the ethical concerns and available safeguards while promoting equitable access to research opportunities.

References

Oruche, U. M. (2009). Research With Cognitively Impaired Participants. Journal of Nursing law, 13(3), 73227162. https://doi.org/10.1891/1073-7472.13.3.89

Rock Me, Amadeus!

Spiegel (2010) conducted a massive review of research on the popular idea that listening to classical music can boost intelligence, particularly in babies. The title "Mozart Effect, Schomazart Effect" pretty much sums up the conclusion: no evidence supports his claim.

But even though blasting Beethoven won't make you a genius, the story of the Mozart Effect's rise and fall offers valuable lessons about science, media, and ...death threats.

A Small Study, Big Hype

In 1993, psychologist Francis Rauscher conducted a study in which college students listened to Mozart, silence, or monotone speech, followed by a spatial reasoning test. The Mozart group scored slightly higher, but the effect only lasted 10 to 15 minutes. Aware of the limitations, Rauscher published a single-page paper in Nature (Spiegel 2010).

Here's where things get interesting. Rauscher received a call from the Associated Press before publishing her paper. Once the AP story broke, the media went wild. Rauscher found herself on national news, bombarded with calls and facing headlines like "Mozart Makes You Smart!  (Spiegel 2010)

From Molehill to Mountain

Speigel (2010) states that Rauscher's modest finding was massively distorted. The public was fixated on classical music boosting children's intelligence, leading to bizarre situations like Georgia giving free Mozart CDs to newborns (Spiegal 2010)!

Why the Hype?

Spiegel (2010) writes that Rauscher attributes the frenzy to a few factors: Americans' love of self-improvement and quick fixes and parents' natural desire to give their children every advantage.

The Real Takeaway

Spiegel (2010) writes that Rauscher maintains her original finding but clarifies that it's not about Mozart specifically. Any engaging music can provide a short-term cognitive boost compared to silence. The real key takeaway is to keep jamming to your favorites.

References

Spiegel, A. (2010, June 28). “Mozart Effect” Was Just What We Wanted To Hear. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2010/06/28/128104580/mozart-effect-was-just-what-we-wanted-to-hear

Brain Games: Helpful Tool or False Promise?

 Many of us seek ways to stay sharp and improve our cognitive function. This is where brain training games come in. They promise to boost memory and attention and even protect against age-related decline. But are these claims too good to be true?

This blog post dives into the recent case of Lumos Labs, the makers of the popular brain training program Lumosity, and their legal troubles with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Lumos Labs Settles Deceptive Advertising Charges

This is what Robbennolt (2016) informed us in their article:

• Lumos Labs settled the case without admitting any wrongdoing.
  
• They agreed to stop making these claims and to pay 2 million dollars.
• They must also now ensure any future claims about Lumosity's benefits are based on solid scientific research.

What Does the Science Say?

Robbennolt (2016) tell us:

1. The science of brain training games is still developing.
2. Researchers know that the brain is adaptable and can continue learning throughout life.
3. More research is needed to understand the specific effects of different brain training programs and whether these benefits translate to real-world improvements.
4. Alternative Strategies for Cognitive Health

Psychologists recommend other strategies for maintaining cognitive health, such as physical exercise and social engagement.  These activities not only benefit your mind but also your overall physical well-being. (Robbennolt 2016)

The Bottom Line

Brain training games may be a fun and engaging way to challenge your mind, but consumers should be wary of exaggerated claims. As research continues, companies like Lumosity need to ensure their advertising reflects the current state of scientific knowledge. In the meantime, consider alternative strategies backed by stronger scientific evidence to keep your mind sharp.

References

Robbennolt, J. (2016, September). “Brain games”: Helpful tool or false promise? Apa.org. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/09/jn

Your Daily Walk to the Abyss with Your Angel

 We all have those days when the world feels heavy, colors muted, and the space between your ribs seems to constrict with each inhale. It's on these precarious mental walks that some encounter a terrifying companion—the voice whispering thoughts of ending it all.

But here's the truth: you're not alone on this path. Alongside the darkness walks another presence, a guardian you might not even recognize—an angel. This angel doesn't have to be some ethereal being; it's the part of you that fights for survival, the voice urging you toward hope.

Recognizing Your Angel's Voice

Your angel's voice may be faint at first. It might be a flicker of self-preservation, a cherished memory that surfaces, or the hesitant call of a loved one. It's the undercurrent urging you to reach out, take a breath, and see another sunrise.

Here's the thing—sometimes, we mistake this whisper for weakness. We silence them with judgment, believing seeking help is a sign of defeat. But your angel's voice is the very essence of strength. It's the will to live, the fight to reclaim your mental space.

Taking Action with Your Angel

So, how do we empower this angel? Here are some steps:

1. Acknowledge the Darkness: Ignoring the suicidal thoughts only strengthens them. Acknowledge them, but don't engage. Talk to yourself like a friend going through a tough time - with compassion and understanding.
2. Engage Your Senses: Ground yourself in the present moment. Notice the details around you—the texture of your clothes, the scent of air, the taste of water. Simple sensory experiences can disrupt negative thought patterns.
3. Reach Out: This is where that voice shines the brightest. Call a friend, family member, or a crisis hotline.  There are people who care and want to help you walk away from the abyss.
   
4. Seek Professional Help: A therapist can be your partner in strengthening your angel's voice. They can equip you with coping mechanisms and help you understand the root of your suicidal thoughts.

Remember, your suicidal thoughts do not define you. They are visitors, not residents. With self-co passion and the support of your psychological angel, you can choose a different path towards healing and hope.

Here are some resources to help you on your journey:

• National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 988
• Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741
• The Trevor Project: 1-866-488-7386 (LGBTQ+ youth)

You are not alone. Your angel is with you. Take a step towards hope today.

Eyewitness Memory vs. Face Recognition Systems: Can Machines See Better Than We Do?

 Eyewitness misidentification is a well-documented problem that can have devastating consequences. While eyewitness accounts are often crucial in criminal investigations, scientific studies have shown that memory can be unreliable, especially under stressful circumstances. 

On the other hand, AI systems like Face Recognition Systems  (FRS) are becoming increasingly common in law enforcement. These systems can analyze footage from security cameras and other sources to identify suspects. But are they more reliable than human memory?

Kleider and colleagues' (2024) research addresses this critical question.  Their study compared the accuracy of FRS with human eyewitness identification in a controlled setting. Kleider and colleagues (2024) measured:

1. Discriminability is the ability to distinguish between the culprit and innocent suspects.
2.  Reliability is the relationship between confidence and accuracy.

Building a Diverse Sample

To investigate how well facial recognition systems compare to eyewitness memory, Kleider and colleagues (2024):

1. Recruited 237 participants through Georgia State University's undergraduate subject pool.
2. An online platform for research studies.
3. The participants were between 18 and 66 years old, and researchers aimed for a diverse group and reported their racial and gender makeup.

Can You Spot the Criminal? Testing Memory and Machines

The researchers pitted human memory against facial recognition technology in a two-part experiment, and here is how Kleider and colleagues (2024) did it:

1. Human participants watched crime scene videos online. After each video, they completed a distracting task before looking at a lineup with either the culprit or similar-looking innocent people; then, they had to identify the perpetrator or indicate they weren't present, along with their confidence level.
   
2. Secondly, the same videos and lineups were fed into the FRS, and just like law enforcement might do, the FRS grabbed a single frame of each culprit's face and compared it to every face in the lineup. It then generated a similarity score for each comparison.

Who Won the Face Recognition Showdown?

Kleider and colleagues (2024) concluded from their results:

1. The FRS generally did better than people, especially with blurry videos.
2. FRS and memory accuracy dropped for unclear videos, stressing the importance of good footage.
3. The tested FRS showed no racial bias, and surprisingly, eyewitness performance was alson't affected by race, possibly due to the study's diverse participants.
4. 
   The FRS ideally identified faces with the highest similarity scores, which suggests that prioritizing high-similarity matches in investigations could reduce mistakes.

The researchers caution that these results are based on one FRS and need confirmation with other systems and more video variations.  They also reveal that their research has implications for law enforcement:

• FRS as a Tool: FRS can be valuable, especially with low-quality videos. However, limitations and potential errors require cautious interpretation of results.
  
  
  
  

Interpreting FRS Outputs: Police officers should consider FRS similarity scores and other evidence.

Regulations and Training Needed: Law enforcement's widespread use of FRS demands clear rules and training programs to ensure proper use.

References

Kleider, Heather & Stevens, Beth & Mickes, Laura & Boogert, Stewart. (2024). Application of artificial intelligence to eyewitness identification. Cognitive research: principles and implications. 9. 19. 10.1186/s41235-024-00542-0.