Jayne Jubb

As we get older, one of the quiet frustrations is how early memories begin to blur. The vivid details of the never-ending summer holidays or the magical white Christmases can fade and melt like the ice-cream on that summer day…That leaves us wondering whether there’s a way to somehow bring them back.

Scientists call these recollections of personal life events autobiographical episodic memories—the mental time‑travel that lets us re‑experience what we once saw, heard, tasted, touched, smelled, and felt. But memories aren’t just about the world around us; they’re also tied to the bodies we inhabited at the time. With every moment, the brain receives a constant stream of sensory signals from the body. In theory, our memories should encode not only what happened but who we physically were when it happened. Surprisingly, this connection has barely been studied.

A team of neuroscientists lead by Jane Aspell, wondered whether tapping into this brain‑body link could help people access long‑lost memories—by briefly putting them “back inside” their younger selves. In a new experiment, they found that altering someone’s sense of their own body can unlock memories from specific periods of life. A subtle illusion—showing people a childlike version of their own face that moved exactly as they did, like a mirror—made early memories more vivid.

The brain constantly tracks the body, building internal maps of its shape, position, and state. This mental model, known as the bodily self, was once thought to be stable. But research shows it’s surprisingly flexible. When the brain receives conflicting sensory information, it can be tricked into updating its sense of the body. Classic illusions, like the rubber hand illusion (see references), show how easily ownership can shift. Virtual reality takes this further, allowing people to feel as though they inhabit an entirely different body. The enfacement illusion can even make another face feel like one’s own.

These illusions reveal that our bodily self is not fixed—it can be reshaped, at least temporarily, by changing what the brain perceives.

In the study, the researchers used this malleability to make people feel younger. Fifty adults took part in an online experiment where they saw a real‑time video of their face. Half saw their unaltered appearance; the other half saw a younger, childlike version created with an image filter. When participants moved their heads and saw the younger face move in perfect sync, many felt a strong sense of ownership over that younger version.

Afterward, participants recalled childhood and recent memories in detail. Independent raters, unaware of which condition each person experienced, scored the vividness of these recollections. People who saw the younger face retrieved significantly richer childhood memories—more sensory details, more emotion, more specificity. The effect didn’t extend to recent memories, suggesting the illusion taps into a deep link between body representation and memories formed long ago.

These findings suggest that the brain doesn’t store memories as isolated sensory fragments. Instead, it anchors them to the body we had when those memories were formed. The bodily self isn’t just background—it’s part of the structure of memory itself.

Beyond being a fascinating trick, this work hints at new possibilities. If early memories are tied to how we once perceived our bodies, then carefully designed illusions or sensory interventions might one day help people who struggle to access their past—such as those with dementia or brain injuries.

Memories aren’t simple data points. They’re woven from sensations, emotions, and the shifting sense of who we were at different stages of life. By reconnecting with the bodies of our past, we may reopen doors to the memories that shaped us. To me, as a therapist and healer, this could open up a door in the future to help people heal from trauma in an inventive therapeutic way.

REFERENCES:

Robyn Fivush. 2011. The Development of Autobiographical Memory. Annual Review Psychology. 62:559-582. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131702

Gupta, U., Bright, P., Clarke, A. et al. Illusory ownership of one’s younger face facilitates access to childhood episodic autobiographical memories. Sci Rep 15, 32564 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-17963-6

Legrand, D. The Bodily Self: The Sensori-Motor Roots of Pre-Reflective Self-Consciousness. Phenom Cogn Sci 5, 89–118 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-005-9015-6

Botvinick, M., Cohen, J. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 756 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/35784

Pyasik, M., Ciorli T., & Pia L. Full body illusion and cognition: A systematic review of the literature. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 143, 104926 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104926.

Skin remembers.

That scar on your chin from when you fell off your bike aged 7.

That freckle from the summer you turned 13.

Our skin is an archive of moments from our lives, and now scientists have found it really does remember. For people with inflammatory skin conditions such as psoriasis, the skin’s memory manifests in flare-ups in the same spots over and over. And now scientists think they know precisely why this happens.

In a new study in mice published less than a week ago in Science, researchers showed how skin cells inherit patterns of gene expression every time they regenerate. The team found not only that successive generations of skin cells maintain the memory of their DNA’s structure but also that the cells inherit chemical modifications to the DNA called epigenetic marks, which can turn on or off, or turn certain genes up and down in a process called gene expression.

Scientists knew that stem cells had the ability to change their behaviour and remember, but they didn’t know if it was through this epigenetic mechanism. What this current paper does is definitively demonstrate that it’s through marking of DNA that it allows that stem cell to now behave differently moving forward.

Skin stem cell memory can be beneficial: if you get a cut, for example, your skin will heal faster in that place if it is injured again because the cells remember the experience. But that becomes problematic in conditions like psoriasis, for which the memory of a flare-up can make the tissue overly sensitive to environmental triggers such as stress, leading to chronic inflammation.

Researchers now realise that our DNA can remember a past injury far longer than was thought that it could. For the study, an artificial intelligence model was used to help identify specific genetic sequences in mice that drive skin stem cell memory over the long term. They did this by asking the model to look at how regions of the cells’ DNA behaved at different time points before and after an injury—in this case, a ‘punch biopsy’, which involved making a very small incision on the mice’s back (ouch!). The AI findings were like “opening a black box” that the researchers then further verified.

And while mice are not humans, the biology the team has identified is highly conserved across animals.  This suggests the finding may have some applicability to humans.

The new research opens the door to testing it in humans. But these studies will be more difficult because, whereas mouse skin cells regenerate on timescales of days and chronic disease is measured in months or perhaps one to two years, human skin cells do so on the order of several weeks or months, and chronic disease can be lifelong.

What is increasingly clear from the evidence is that inflammation can change the trajectory of the body’s biology. The researchers are now starting to ask questions along the lines of ‘If we could reverse that experience/memory – and thus reverse the damage – you could really improve people’s health.’

I love it when science catches up! Welcome to healing and self-development :=)

REFERENCES:

Christopher J. Cowley et al. Distinctive DNA sequence features define epigenetic longevity of inflammatory memory. Science Vol. 391, issue 6792 (2026). DOI:10.1126/science.adz6830

Naik, E et al. Inflammatory memory sensitizes skin epithelial stem cells to tissue damage. Nature550, 475–480 (2017).

Naik, E. Fuchs, Inflammatory memory and tissue adaptation in sickness and in health. Nature 607, 249–255 (2022).

R. Holt, S. J. Kirk, M. C. Regan, M. Hurson, W. J. Lindblad, A. Barbul, Effect of age on wound healing in healthy human beings. Surgery112, 293–297 (1992).

Pain is universal, but it isn’t equal. Some people recover quickly after an injury, while others experience lingering discomfort that seems to outstay its welcome. For decades, scientists assumed these differences were mostly psychological or hormonal. But new research is revealing a far more intricate story — one in which the immune system, not just the nervous system, plays a starring role.

A 2026 study by Jaewon Sim and colleagues has uncovered a biological mechanism that helps explain why pain duration differs between males and females. Their work doesn’t just deepen our understanding of pain; it opens a window into how our bodies heal, how stress affects recovery, and why personalised wellbeing strategies matter more than ever.

The Immune System’s Unexpected Role in Pain

When we think of pain, we picture nerves firing, not immune cells circulating. Yet the immune system is deeply involved in how pain begins, intensifies, and eventually fades.

Sim and colleagues focused on monocytes, a type of white blood cell that rushes to sites of injury or inflammation. These cells release a cocktail of chemical signals — some that amplify pain, and others that help resolve it.

One molecule in particular stood out: interleukin‑10 (IL‑10).

IL‑10 is often described as an “anti‑inflammatory peacekeeper.” It calms overactive immune responses and helps tissues return to balance. But the study revealed something more nuanced: IL‑10 doesn’t behave the same way in males and females, and this difference shapes how long pain persists.

A Biological Basis for Sex Differences in Pain

The researchers discovered that male and female monocytes produce IL‑10 differently, and this leads to distinct pain trajectories:

• In one sex, IL‑10 is released in a way that efficiently resolves inflammation, shortening the duration of pain.
• In the other, IL‑10 production is less effective or differently timed, allowing pain signals to linger.

This isn’t about one sex being “better” at healing than the other — it’s about different immune strategies, shaped by evolution, hormones, and cellular communication patterns.

The takeaway is profound: Pain duration isn’t just psychological or hormonal — it’s immunological.

Why This Matters for Everyday Wellbeing

Understanding the immune system’s role in pain opens up new ways to think about self‑care, resilience, and recovery.

1. Your Body’s Stress Response Shapes Pain

Stress hormones influence immune cells, including monocytes. Chronic stress can disrupt IL‑10 production, making it harder for the body to “switch off” pain.

This means practices that regulate stress — mindfulness, sleep hygiene, breathwork, social connection — aren’t just feel‑good add‑ons. They’re biological tools that help your immune system resolve pain more effectively.

2. Men and Women May Need Different Recovery Strategies

Because IL‑10 behaves differently across sexes, the most effective pain‑management approaches may differ too. This doesn’t mean one-size-fits-all advice is useless — but it does mean personalised wellbeing is the future.

3. Inflammation Is a Whole‑Body Experience

Pain isn’t isolated to the site of injury. It’s a systemic conversation between immune cells, nerves, and the brain. Supporting your immune system through nutrition, movement, and rest can meaningfully influence how long pain sticks around.

The Science of Healing: A New Frontier

The study by Sim et al. is part of a growing movement in science: understanding health not as a set of isolated systems, but as an interconnected network.

Pain, immunity, stress, and wellbeing are not separate chapters — they’re one story.

This research suggests that future therapies might:

• Target monocytes directly
• Boost or modulate IL‑10 production
• Tailor treatments based on sex‑specific immune responses

But you don’t need futuristic medicine to benefit from these insights today. Simply recognising that your immune system plays a role in pain can shift how you approach recovery.

What This Means for You

If you’ve ever wondered why your pain lasts longer than someone else’s, or why recovery feels unpredictable, this research offers a compassionate reminder:

Your body isn’t failing you — it’s following its own biological script.

And that script is shaped by:

• Your immune system
• Your stress levels
• Your environment
• Your sex-specific biology
• Your lifestyle habits

Understanding these factors empowers you to work with your body rather than against it.

A More Human Understanding of Pain

Pain is not just a signal; it’s a story your body is telling about healing, protection, and balance. The discovery that monocyte‑derived IL‑10 drives sex differences in pain duration adds a new chapter to that story — one that blends cutting‑edge immunology with practical insights for everyday wellbeing.

Science is showing us that healing is not linear, not identical across individuals, and not purely neurological. It is a dynamic dance between the immune system and the nervous system, influenced by biology, stress, and environment.

And that means the path to feeling better is both deeply personal and deeply biological — a reminder that self‑development and self‑care are not luxuries, but essential partners in the science of healing.

REFERENCE:

Jaewon Sim et al., Monocyte-derived IL-10 drives sex differences in pain duration. Sci. Immunol.  (2026) 11, eadx0292. DOI:10.1126/sciimmunol.adx0292

Reiki has long occupied a curious space between personal healing practice and emerging scientific interest. While often categorised as a complementary or energy‑based therapy, its growing presence in hospitals, community centres, and wellness programs suggests something more than a passing trend. A recent exploratory study conducted across high‑stress communities in Chicago offers a compelling look at how even brief Reiki sessions may influence stress and pain—two of the most pervasive challenges in modern life.

 

Why Study Reiki Now?

A 2024 American Psychiatric Association poll found that 43% of adults felt more anxious than the previous year, citing political tension, economic instability, and gun violence as major contributors. High‑stress professions—such as police,ambulance peronal, educators, and community violence intervention workers—face even greater burdens. These groups often underutilise traditional mental‑health services due to stigma, accessibility issues, or fear of professional repercussions.

Reiki, a Japanese practice developed in 1922 by Mikao Usui, involves light touch or hands‑off energy work intended to support the body’s natural healing response. While its mechanisms remain debated, clinical research has increasingly documented reductions in anxiety, pain, fatigue, and stress across diverse populations. Hospitals—including many top American institutions—now incorporate Reiki programs, reporting benefits for patients undergoing surgery, cancer treatment, or palliative care.

Yet one question remains underexplored: Can very short, community‑based Reiki sessions—outside hospital settings—meaningfully reduce stress and pain?

 

Inside the Chicago Study

Between 2022 and 2024, volunteer practitioners offered ten‑minute Reiki sessions at 59 events across Chicago. Settings ranged from police academies and fire stations to college campuses, homeless veteran fairs, community violence intervention organisations, and juvenile detention centers. The environments varied dramatically—from quiet rooms with soft lighting to bustling outdoor fairs with DJs and food stalls.

A total of 1,724 participants received Reiki. Before and after each session, they rated their stress and pain on a 1–10 scale using simple emoji‑based visuals. Afterward, they also shared open‑ended feedback about how they felt.

No demographic data was collected, and the study did not include a control group—appropriate for an exploratory design focused on perceived experience rather than causal claims.

What Happened After 10 Minutes?

The results were striking:

• Stress decreased by an average of 72.6%.
• Pain decreased by an average of 63.3%.
• All reductions were statistically significant (p < 0.01).

These changes were consistent across all six community groups studied—first responders, trainees, veterans, academic communities, at‑risk neighborhoods, and individuals connected to the correctional system.

What People Said

A word‑frequency analysis of qualitative feedback revealed the most common responses:

• Deep relaxation
• Emotional release
• Reduced physical discomfort
• A sense of “lightness” or “something lifted”
• Gratitude and surprise

Many participants expressed surprise—sometimes profound—at how different they felt after such a short session. Some described a sense of “lightness,” emotional release, or the feeling that “something was removed.” Others referenced spiritual or religious experiences, though Reiki itself is not affiliated with any religion.

Interestingly, the ambience of the setting—calm vs. chaotic—did not significantly alter outcomes. Even in loud, crowded environments, participants reported substantial relief.

Why Might Reiki Help?

While the study did not investigate mechanisms, prior research offers clues:

• Stress and pain are deeply intertwined; chronic stress increases pain sensitivity, and chronic pain increases anxiety and depression.
• Reiki has been associated with reductions in sympathetic nervous system activation (the “fight‑or‑flight” response).
• Touch‑based or presence‑based therapies may enhance parasympathetic activity, promoting relaxation and pain modulation.

The Chicago findings align with a large body of clinical research showing Reiki’s potential benefits for anxiety, pain, fatigue, sleep, and quality of life.

 

What This Study Adds

Most Reiki research involves long sessions (30–90 minutes) in clinical settings. This study shows that:

• Even 10 minutes can make a measurable difference.
• Non‑clinical, community‑based delivery is feasible and impactful.
• Large‑scale volunteer programs can reach populations underserved by traditional mental‑health systems.

The study’s scale—over 1,700 participants—makes it one of the largest of its kind.

Limitations and Future Directions

As an exploratory study, it cannot establish causality. There was no control group, no demographic data, and qualitative analysis was descriptive rather than thematic. Still, the consistency and magnitude of the results suggest that brief Reiki sessions warrant more rigorous investigation.

Future research could explore:

• Controlled trials comparing Reiki to placebo or other relaxation techniques
• Longitudinal effects of repeated short sessions
• Physiological measures (heart rate variability, cortisol)
• Structured qualitative interviews for deeper insight

 

Why This Matters

In a world where stress is rising and access to mental‑health care remains uneven, low‑cost, low‑risk, community‑based interventions are invaluable. Reiki—simple to learn, gentle to receive, and adaptable to many environments—may offer a scalable tool for supporting well‑being in high‑stress populations.

The Chicago study doesn’t claim Reiki is a cure‑all. But it does suggest that even a brief moment of intentional, compassionate presence can shift someone’s internal state in meaningful ways. And that, in itself, is worth paying attention to.

REFERENCE:

McCutcheon and S.K Habiya (2025). Investigating perceived stress and pain reduction following brief Reiki sessions in high-stress communities: an exploratory study.Frontiers in Psychology,  Volume 16. DOI=10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1625414

For decades, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) has been considered the gold standard for treating depression and anxiety—conditions that will affect around one in five people during their lifetime. CBT has strong evidence behind it and, for many, it reduces distressing symptoms such as low mood, fear, and catastrophic thinking.

Yet there is a growing recognition within scientific circles that CBT does not work for everyone. Research shows that only about half of patients benefit, and only half of those experience lasting improvement. Crucially, while CBT often helps reduce negative emotions, it does not reliably restore positive ones—such as happiness, excitement, or a sense of aliveness.

Psychologists had always assumed that by reducing negative emotions—anger, fear, anxiety, sadness—the natural consequence would be for positive emotions to rise on their own. But…they don’t.. not reliably.

This insight has prompted a quiet but profound shift in therapeutic thinking.

Turning Therapy on Its Head

Rather than focusing primarily on correcting distorted thoughts or dampening distress, researchers like Michelle Craske at the University of California, Los Angeles are exploring therapies that actively cultivate positive emotional states—even when those states are fleeting, subtle, or initially uncomfortable.

These approaches borrow tools from CBT but reorient the goal: not merely reducing suffering, butstrengthening the nervous system’s capacity for pleasure, connection, and reward. Large-scale clinical trials in the U.S. and U.K. suggest this shift may be especially powerful for people who experience anhedonia—the blunting or loss of positive emotion that often accompanies depression and anxiety.

One of the most researched of these approaches is Positive Affect Treatment (PAT), developed by Craske and Alicia Meuret of Southern Methodist University. PAT has now been tested in multiple National Institutes of Health–funded trials, comparing it with a CBT-style approach called Negative Affect Treatment (NAT).

Participants in these studies all lived with depression and/or anxiety, and many struggled to feel pleasure at all. Results showed that PAT was significantly more effective than NAT for people with moderate to severe symptoms and pronounced anhedonia.

Reawakening the Brain’s Reward System

PAT is grounded in decades of research showing that people who struggle to feel pleasure are more vulnerable to anxiety and depression. Brain imaging studies reveal that, in many of these individuals, neural circuits involved in reward processing are underactive.

Craske and her colleagues focused on strengthening this system through three key stages of reward:

• Anticipation (wanting)
• Consumption (enjoying)
• Learning (remembering and integrating)

In simple terms: learning to look forward to, fully experience, and mentally store positive moments.

Imagine a teenage girl who hears Taylor Swift is coming to town and eagerly offers to clean the house for a month if her parents buy tickets. That’s anticipation. At the concert, she feels euphoric—that’s enjoyment. Later, she realises the cheaper seats were still great, making future concerts feel more accessible. That’s learning.

For someone with depression or anxiety, any one of these steps may be blocked.

From Correcting Thoughts to Savoring Experience

Consider a woman who tells her therapist she used to love having lunch with a friend, but now feels numb during the meal and worse afterward. After a recent lunch, she spirals into self-criticism—convinced she was boring, that her friend left early because of her, and that she’ll eventually be alone.

In traditional CBT, therapy would focus on challenging these beliefs, examining evidence, and calming the body’s fear response.

In PAT, the therapist takes a different route.

The woman is gently asked to identify anything enjoyable about the lunch—however small. Perhaps the aroma of food made her hungry. Perhaps her friend laughed at a story. Perhaps there was a warm hug at the end. She is then guided to linger with these moments, sensing them fully and imagining their return.

This deliberate savouring—combined with practices such as gratitude and generosity—helps retrain the brain to register and retain positive experiences, much like energy healing practices that attune awareness to subtle but life-giving sensations.

Beyond Positivity: A Practical Balance

Another emerging approach, Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT), overlaps with PAT but goes further. Developed by Barney Dunn at the University of Exeter in England, ADepT works pragmatically with both positive and negative emotions.

Rather than asking whether a thought is “true” (as CBT does), ADepT asks whether it is useful. If someone about to give a talk feels like an imposter, CBT might challenge the belief. ADepT might instead offer a stabilising alternative: “I know enough about this topic, and I will do an okay job.”

Clinical trials show that ADepT outperforms CBT not only in reducing symptoms, but in improving overall well-being. Eighty percent of participants improved, compared with sixty percent in CBT—and more importantly, they were more likely to stay well a year later.

This translates into: choosing to turn toward the positive helps get more people better, and helps them to stay better for longer.

Why Happiness Can Feel Unsafe

One challenge with positivity-focused therapies is that many people are deeply afraid of happiness. Some believe joy is fleeting and will be followed by disaster. Others feel undeserving. Many unconsciously suppress pleasure because it feels unfamiliar or unsafe. People with depression often employ a whole set of behaviours to snuff out the joy because it feels uncomfortable.

Anxiety adds another layer. Many anxious individuals believe that worrying protects them—that expecting the worst prevents emotional devastation. This phenomenon, known as contrast avoidance, causes people to dampen joy before it can fully arise.

To address this, researchers have developed tools like SkillJoy, an experimental phone app created by Lucas LaFreniere and Michelle Newman. The app encourages users to notice and remain with positive feelings—even when discomfort arises. Early trials show it significantly reduces contrast avoidance.

A New Gold Standard?

Other “positive therapies” are emerging, including amplification of positivity treatment (designed to improve social connection) and behavioural activation therapy, which has long been used to treat anhedonia.

Rather than replacing CBT, these approaches may become part of a hybrid future—one that recognises that some people need first to calm fear, while others long most deeply to feel joy, meaning, and vitality again.

As Craske notes, therapy should be tailored. Someone overwhelmed by panic may benefit most from CBT. Someone who feels empty, flat, or disconnected may need help turning gently toward pleasure. For patients, capturing these moments and building on them can be transformative.

As the year closes and a new one opens, perhaps healing is not only about releasing what hurts—but about learning, patiently and courageously, to let the good in.

REFERENCES

Craske, M. G. et  al. (2023). Positive affect treatment targets reward sensitivity: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 91(6), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000805

Dunn, Barnaby D. et al. (2023) Preliminary clinical and cost effectiveness of augmented depression therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of anhedonic depression (ADepT): a single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial. eClinicalMedicine, Volume 61, 102084. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102084

LaFreniere LS, Newman MG  (2023). Reducing contrast avoidance in GAD by savoring positive emotions: Outcome and mediation in a randomized controlled trial. J Anxiety Disord. Jan;93:102659.doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102659

Taylor, C. T. et al (2024). Amplification of Positivity Treatment for Anxiety and Depression: A Randomized Experimental Therapeutics Trial Targeting Social Reward Sensitivity to Enhance Social Connectedness. Biological Psychiatry,Volume 95, Issue 5, Pages 434-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2023.07.024

Cernasov, P. M. et al. (2024). A parallel-arm, randomized trial of Behavioral Activation Therapy for anhedonia versus mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for adults with anhedonia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume 182, 104620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2024.104620

Craske, M.G. et al. Positive affect and reward processing in the treatment of depression, anxiety and trauma. Nat Rev Psychol 3, 665–685 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00355-4

In therapy, healing and trauma work it’s long been known that our earliest relationships affect our later ones. We come into the world screaming and vulnerable—entirely dependent on adult caregivers to keep us safe and teach us how to connect with others. The nature of these earliest relationships influences how we behave towards others and see the world long after we’ve grown—but in more complex and nuanced ways than researchers previously thought, according to the results of a large, decades-long study examining how the quality of children’s interactions with parents and close peers went on to influence their relationships in adulthood.

In particular, early dynamics with mothers predicted future attachment styles for all the primary relationships in participants’ lives, including with their parents, best friends and romantic partners, the study found. It was found that people who felt closer to their mothers and had less conflict with their mothers in childhood tended to feel more secure in all of their relationships in adulthood. This is s a really striking finding because it demonstrates the enduring impact of that first person who is supposed to be there for you.

Early childhood friends also played a strong role in predicting how participants approached their future close friendships—and their romantic connections. Those first friendships at school help us practice give-and-take dynamics. Relationships in adulthood then mirror those dynamics.

The idea that earliest relationships have an outsized impact on our lives was popularized in psychology by Sigmund Freud. British psychiatrist John Bowlby later incorporated some core Freudian elements to create attachment theory, which helps explain variations in how people approach close relationships. Some people are quite comfortable depending on others, opening up to them and using them as a secure base, whereas other people lack that confidence and trust.

Researchers today define attachment styles by where people fall along two dimensions, each shaped by early experiences with caregivers. The first, attachment anxiety, measures your level of confidence in the availability and responsiveness of those you are close to. People high in attachment anxiety might have more intense fears of abandonment or need for reassurance. The second factor, attachment avoidance, involves how comfortable you feel opening up to others and depending on them for support. Those high in avoidance may believe that people cannot be counted on or trusted, so they avoid asking for help or emotional support—even if they need it. A relationship with high attachment anxiety, avoidance or both is defined as more insecure, while a relationship that is low in both attachment anxiety and avoidance is considered to be secure: You feel comfortable and close to the other person, you trust them to be there for you, and you feel supported.

It can be difficult to study exactly how early relationships go on to influence attachment style, though, because people’s retrospective reports of what happened to them in childhood are skewed by memory failings and emotional and cognitive biases. Of the relatively few studies that have examined associations between early caregiving experiences and adult attachment styles, she adds, all have focused almost exclusively on a single early relationship: the maternal one.

To more deeply understand how early relationships with a wider variety of people impact attachment styles, researchers Dugan, Fraley and their colleagues turned to a landmark longitudinal study of 1,364 children and their families from around the U.S. It began when the children were infants and ended when they were 15 years old. Once the young participants were old enough to speak, they were surveyed about the quality of their relationships with their fathers, mothers and best friends. Researchers also surveyed participants’ primary caregivers—who were mostly their mothers—and observed them interacting with their children. That study showed robust evidence that early experiences with caregivers matter for social development.

Between 2018 and 2022, 705 of the original participants, who by then were 26 to 31 years old, agreed to a follow-up study to collect information about their current relationships with their parents, best friends and romantic partners. For those 705 participants, Dugan and her colleagues analysed associations between the quality of early relationships and later attachment styles in adulthood. They found several notable patterns. First, a person’s relationship with their mother tended to set the stage for their later attachment style in general, as well as for their specific approaches to individual relationships with friends, romantic partners and fathers. For instance, people who had more conflict with their mothers, were less close to their mothers or had mothers who were reportedly harsher and showed less warmth during childhood and adolescence tended to feel more insecure in their adult relationships.

The researchers didn’t find many associations between participants’ relationships with their fathers and their future attachment styles—perhaps because most identified their mother as their primary caregiver. This cohort’s first assessment was in 1991, and even though the burden of caregiving still heavily falls on mothers, fathers were even less involved back then, on average. In cases where a father was the primary caregiver, the results might be flipped—but that data was not collected.

Early experiences with close friends, though, were an even stronger predicter than maternal relationships for determining participants’ approach to—specifically—romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood. In general, if you had high-quality friendships and felt connected to your friends in childhood, then you felt more secure in romantic relationships and friendships at age 30. People who enjoyed increasingly close and deepening friendships across childhood and adolescence also showed significant gains in those departments as adults.

The study’s decades-spanning data are uniquely valuable and allowed the authors to show, using sophisticated analyses, how early social experiences affect later adult personality and close interpersonal relationships.  There has been much praise for the new study because it is seen as exceptionally rigorous and methodologically sound. The scientists have been able to provide some of the strongest prospective evidence to date supporting a foundational assumption of attachment theory: that early relational experiences shape how adults relate to others—not just in general but also within specific types of relationships.

Since the participants were still in early adulthood in the most recent analysis, future work could examine whether the same early-life factors continue to be so influential throughout life—and how major life transitions, such as parenthood, bereavement or divorce, might reshape those dynamics. Single-parent families, multigenerational households and same-sex couples could also be studied in future research. Participants in the current study were nearly 80 percent white, so more racial and ethnic diversity is needed to get a truly representative sample.

Dugan also emphasises that the findings do not mean the past inexorably dictates the tone of a person’s relationships in adulthood. You are definitely not doomed! Evidence supports that adult attachment styles can change in response to later life events and can even fluctuate month to month in response to both positive and negative relationship experiences. These findings show attachment styles are malleable. So relax…you can have a not-so-great relationship with your parents and still develop a secure and healthy bond with a close friend or romantic partner in adulthood.

REFERENCES:

Dugan, K. A. et al (2025). A prospective longitudinal study of the associations between childhood and adolescent interpersonal experiences and adult attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000502

Love, S. (2023). Love and the Brain: Do Partnerships Really Make Us Happy? Here’s What the Science Says. https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/love-and-the-brain-do-partnerships-really-make-us-happy-heres-what-the-science-says/

Fraley, R. C. et al. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. J Pers Soc Psychol. Aug;109(2):354-68. Epub 2015 Jan 5. PMID: 25559192. https://doi: 10.1037/pspp0000027

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). The Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350

The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD). https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/documents/seccyd_06.pdf

Fraley, R. C. et al. (2021). Do life events lead to enduring changes in adult attachment styles? A naturalistic longitudinal investigation. J Pers Soc Psychol. Jun;120(6):1567-1606. Epub 2020 Aug 13. PMID: 32790474. https://doi: 10.1037/pspi0000326

Dugan, K. A. et al. (2025). Genetic and environmental contributions to adult attachment styles: Evidence from the Minnesota Twin Registry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(3), 639–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000516

There is no shortage of programs or practices that promise to increase happiness. People may meditate for 30 minutes every morning, block off full evenings to deeply connect with close friends or commit to a 12-week daily gratitude journaling exercise. Some of these activities, which emerged from the field of positive psychology, can reliably and sustainably boost psychological well-being, a technical term for happiness in life. But let’s be honest. Most people feel too busy, tired or overwhelmed to add on—and then keep up with—new and demanding routines in day-to-day life.

What if finding more happiness did not require a major time commitment or lifestyle overhaul? What if, instead, it could come from simple, brief actions such as texting a genuine “thank you” to a colleague, asking a friend to share something that made them feel proud, looking at the sky’s vastness with wonder, or marveling at the intricate details of a wildflower?

A group of scientists set out to explore this question by investigating whether brief daily activities, or “micro acts,” can affect overall happiness in life. They also investigated how doing happiness-promoting micro acts might ripple outward in ways that enhance mutual care, compassion, and generosity.

This research began as a spin-off from a film called Mission: Joy—Finding Happiness in Troubled Times (see https://missionjoy.org)  in which the 14th Dalai Lama and the late archbishop Desmond Tutu talked about their friendship and offered lessons on creating joy for oneself and others regardless of circumstances. The film’s producer and co-director Peggy Callahan and impact producer Jolene Smith teamed up with psychologists Elissa Epel and Emiliana Simon-Thomas to develop a meaningful way for people to act on the film’s messages.

The result was a free, globally available online resource called the Big Joy Project (see Freebie section below) carrried out from the University of California, Berkeley. People who signed up for this project received a daily email or text that included a link to instructions for a five- to 10-minute micro act, defined as a short, simple activity for building joy. The opening micro act, for example, invited participants to listen to a 42-second audio clip of different people laughing, including the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu. It’s a simple, uplifting moment designed to elicit a smile or chuckle. The rest of the activities are delivered each day for seven days and included making a gratitude list, doing something kind, reflecting on a core value, feeling loving kindness (or a state of tenderness and consideration to others), reframing a difficult experience, celebrating another person’s joy, and watching an awe-inspiring video.

People who joined the project also answered several questions along the way. On a scale from “not at all” to “a lot,” they rated how positively and how negatively they felt before starting and after completing each micro act. People could also reflect on their experience doing each micro act in writing both just afterward and during an evening check-in. Most people reported that they found the micro acts easy and appealing to do. Since its launch, more than 112,000 people across more than 215 countries or territories have joined the Big Joy Project and have done more than 450,000 micro acts. These numbers make it the largest-ever community science project on joy in the world.

The research team gradually expanded with collaborators at several institutions, and together the analysed the data. In two recently published articles, the scientists reported that the micro acts add up in meaningful ways. They compared people’s responses to 18 questions presented before starting the Big Joy Project with most of those questions presented again at the end of seven days. Analysing responses from 17,598 people from 169 countries and territories, they found that people reported higher emotional well-being, more positive emotions, lower stress, and even modest improvements in sleep quality and physical health.

It took surprisingly little time and effort for people to feel better. Although many well-being programs span eight weeks or more, the Big Joy project yielded meaningful changes after just one week. And the more of the micro acts people completed, the more their happiness improved.

Importantly, the benefits weren’t limited to those who had more privilege or access to resources and opportunities. People who reported greater levels of social disadvantage, such as increased financial strain, lower educational attainment and lower subjective social status, often noted greater boosts to well-being as well.

The Big Joy Project also increased people’s self-reported prosociality—that is, their innate impulse to help others and connect with communities. People said they felt more inclined to reach out, offer support and attend to the needs of people around them after completing the project. Once again, there was a clear “dose-response” relationship: the more micro acts a person did, the greater their improvement in prosocial tendencies was.

The biggest increases in this impulse were observed among the least expected groups. Men, whose prosociality scores were lower before beginning the project, showed the largest improvement after seven days. Increases were also more pronounced among people who rated themselves lower in socioeconomic status and for those living in Global South countries. These results suggest happiness-promoting micro acts can have a more pronounced effect where they may be needed most.

In a world grappling with loneliness, burnout and ideological division, small reminders of inspiration, kindness and connection can be powerful. When people experience more joy in their lives, they also tend to be more generous with their time and resources. And when people want to give more to one another, everyone benefits.

Certainly, there is still more for scientists to investigate. For example, the work relies on people reporting their own progress and feelings. It would also be interesting to run the study again but with a subgroup of “control” participants who do not complete daily micro acts. However, for the time being, the current  studies do make a compelling case for how modest steps can have remarkable benefits.

Why do such small actions work? The researchers think it’s because they activate the same psychological ingredients as longer, more involved programs: they boost positive emotions, inspire feelings of connection and help people feel more aligned with what brings them meaning and purpose. Indeed, many of these behaviours—practicing gratitude and being more sociable, for instance—have been well studied for years and found to be beneficial to the doer or giver. But the Big Joy Project is special in its simplicity. It’s low key. People who participated in Big Joy also developed a stronger sense of agency—a feeling that they can control their happiness and that they don’t have to wait for good things to happen to feel happy.

Perhaps that’s what makes the project so powerful. People mired in busyness wait impatiently for a promotion, holiday, new car/house/handbag or entertaining event, expecting to finally feel good. But this project teaches a different lesson. Simple, daily micro acts can ratchet up happiness in a more empowering way. Deliberately finding gratitude, offering kindness or giving ourselves moments to experience awe are not passive acts. They are courageous and effective ways of gently steering your own ship, even through stormy times.

REFERENCES:

D. Folk & E. Dunn. How Can People Become Happier? A Systematic Review of Preregistered Experiments.Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2024. 75:467–93. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-022423-030818

D. Guevarra et al. Scaling a Brief Digital Well-Being Intervention (the Big Joy Project) and Sociodemographic Moderators: Single-Group Pre-Post Study. J Med Internet Res 2025, 27:e72053. https://doi.org/10.2196/72053

H. Goel et al. Promoting Prosociality via Micro-acts of Joy: A Large-Scale Well-Being Intervention Study. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25).Article 721, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713947

For decades the term “Monday blues” has been shorthand for the collective groan that greets the start of each workweek. It’s also well documented in medical statistics. Mondays come with higher rates of anxiety,stress and even suicide compared with other days. Studies on the phenomenon across whole countries have found a 19 percent increase in the odds of sudden cardiac death from confirmed heart attacks and other cardiovascular events on Mondays, affecting men and women across age groups.

It now turns out that the effect of Mondays can extend well beyond fleeting fluctuations in mood. Researcher Tarani Chandola at the University of Hong Kong recently discovered that people who report feeling anxious on Mondays show evidence of heightened activity in the body’s stress-response system over months. More surprisingly, this effect persisted among older adults who were no longer in the workforce, suggesting that, for some people, the stress of Mondays is a lifelong burden.

The biological underpinnings of the “Monday effect” have long been unclear, however. Is the stress and anxiety experienced on Monday biologically distinct? And could this be leaving a mark on people’s body even after they stop working?

To answer these questions, Chandola focused on the stress hormone cortisol. The hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, a central stress pathway linking brain and body, manages much of people’s response to stress. When we experience a stressor—whether it’s something psychological, such as a looming deadline, or physical distress, such as a biting cold morning—the brain triggers the release of cortisol. The hormone helps us to manage short-term stress by mobilising energy and sharpening focus. But chronically high levels of cortisol disrupt the brain and bodily systems, increasing the risk of anxiety, depression, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity and impairing immune function.

Previous research had shown that cortisol levels can be higher on weekdays than weekends, but few studies had directly examined whether Mondays are uniquely stressful at a biological level. To investigate further, Chandola turned to the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA), which follows more than 10,000 adults aged 50 and older in England.

Chandola focused on a subset of these participants, asking them questions including, “Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?” People also reported which day of the week “yesterday” was. To assess the long-term biological toll of stressful days, the study analysed cortisol levels in participants’ hair samples in order to measure cumulative cortisol production over the past two to three months.

Of the 3,511 participants, 281 people reported feeling anxious on a Monday and 1,080 on another day of the week. Some of these volunteers also provided a hair sample, which let Chandola analyse how hair cortisol levels compared between groups. Crucially, the study also considered whether participants were still working or retired to see if the Monday effect was tied to the all-too-real demands of starting the workweek.

The results were striking. Older adults who reported feeling anxious on Mondays had, on average, 23 percent higher levels of cortisol in their hair samples collected up to two months later, compared with those who felt anxious on other days. This association was strongest among those with the highest cortisol levels—a group at particular risk for health problems associated with chronic stress.

In contrast, anxiety reported on other days of the week did not predict higher cortisol levels. And the effect was not limited to those still working; retirees who felt anxious on Mondays also showed elevated cortisol. In other words, the biological impact of Monday anxiety appears to persist even after the regimen of the workweek fades from daily life.

Some of the reason people show elevated cortisol on Mondays is that they feel more anxious on those days than others. But that’s not the whole explanation. The data show that the effect of anxiety on cortisol is magnified on Mondays. In other words, feeling anxious on the first day of the workweek has a much larger effect on the body’s stress hormones than feeling anxious on other days.

Why might Mondays, in particular, exert a powerful effect on the body? One possibility is that the transition from the weekend to the structured demands of the week is inherently stressful, and some people adapt to it better than others. Another is that Mondays present a higher level of uncertainty. Previous research from Becker  has indicated that anticipation and uncertainty represent key drivers of stress and anxiety. For those who don’t adapt to the weekly cycle, the repeated stress of Mondays may accumulate over the course of a lifetime, eventually leading to long-term problems in the body’s ability to regulate the stress system, which in turn can increase the risk of disease.

It is also possible that some people become anxious on Mondays so routinely that it becomes an automatic bodily response, one that persists even when the original trigger (such as a stressful job) is gone. This effect could reflect deeply ingrained habits of mind and body, shaped by decades of routine.

The recent findings indicate that, for some people, Monday blues are not a personal minor inconvenience but a persistent stressor with long-term—perhaps lifelong—detrimental effects on physical and mental health. The increased risk of heart attacks and other health events on Mondays is unlikely to be a random coincidence. Hospitals and clinics may need to plan for a surge in events at the start of the week, especially among older adults.

In addition, interventions aimed at helping people adapt to the start of the week might have long-term health benefits. The brain’s stress response is plastic, meaning that it can change. Practices that support emotion regulation, including meditation, mindfulness, regular physical activity or good sleep hygiene may help recondition the brain’s weekly cycle and attenuate stress-related health risks.

Finally, researchers will need to investigate why some people are resilient to Monday anxiety while others are not. That question could guide future studies and mental health strategies, opening the door to interventions that help people start the week not just with a groan but with greater resilience.

Also, with the shift in our working lives – following Covid – when many now work from home on a Monday, I wonder what that effect will have. Since companies often now ask their workers to be present on Tuesdays and Thursdays, will we in 20 years time have more stress associated with Tuesdays than Mondays? Now there’s food for thought.

REFERENCES:

Areni, C. S. et al. (2011). Factors Affecting the Extent of Monday Blues: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. Psychological Reports, 109(3), 723-733. https://doi.org/10.2466/13.20.PR0.109.6.723-733

Eunkyong, K. et al (2098). Blue Monday Is Real for Suicide: A Case–Control Study of 188,601 Suicides. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior Volume 49 (2), 393-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12429

Witte, D. et al. (2005). A Meta-analysis of excess cardiac mortality on Monday. Eur J Epidemiol Volume 20, 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-004-8783-6

Chandola, T. et al (2025). Are anxious Mondays associated with HPA-axis dysregulation? A longitudinal study of older adults in England. Journal of Affective Disorders, Volume 389, 119611.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119611.

Kunz-Ebrecht, S.R. et al. (2004). Differences in cortisol awakening response on work days and weekends in women and men from the Whitehall II cohort. Psychoneuroendocrinology. Volume 29(4), 516-28. https://doi/10.1016/s0306-4530(03)00072-6

Liu X, et al. (2024). A neural signature for the subjective experience of threat anticipation under uncertainty. Nat Commun. Feb 20;15(1):1544. https://doi/10.1038/s41467-024-45433-6

Creswell, D. J. Learning to Accept Discomfort Could Help You Thrive. Scientific American, 10 November 2023. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-accept-discomfort-could-help-you-thrive/

Young, L. J. Science-Backed Sleep Tips from 2024 to Help You Snooze Better. Scientific American, 13 December 2024. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-backed-sleep-tips-from-2024-to-help-you-snooze-better/

You’ve heard of armchair travel, right?

Well this is armchair travel with a twist. Cultures from around the world have cultivated well-being in many fascinating ways—and science agrees that they’re effective! Better yet? They won’t cost you a thing.

Self-care goes global!

1. Spanish siesta

Let’s start with a bit of winter warmth. In Spain and other Mediterranean places, as well as Latin America and some places in Asia, it’s common practice to take an after-lunch nap, called a “siesta” in Spanish. This afternoon nap time is not just for kids—adults do it too! It’s taken so seriously that museums, shops, and churches usually close for a couple of hours, and everything shuts down.

Adult nap time isn’t just a nice treat to indulge in. Researchers have found that, among generally healthy Greeks, those who partake in regular napping had a 37% lower chance of dying from heart disease within a few years of enrolling in the study. So if you have the ability to take a short nap during the day, try it out! As long as it doesn’t mess up your nighttime sleep, it may be a great way to get an extra boost of well-being.

 

2. Danish “hygge”

I love the cold. I love coming in after a walk feeling like an ice cube and then being welcomed (and defrosted) by my warm kitchen. And I love being able to curl up with a book on long winter nights. I  love hot baths.

But I know that there are many who definitely don’t share my love of freezing weather!

In 2016, Denmark ranked as the happiest nation in the world in the World Happiness Report. Then, Finland became number one for the next three years, with Norway and Sweden never far behind. Did you ever wonder at the fact that the five happiest countries in the world are almost always cold, Nordic countries. How do they do it?

Of course, there are likely many factors involved. These countries often have less income inequality, greater oil wealth, and breathtaking natural landscapes. But I wondered if there were any specific Nordic secrets to happiness and wellness—even during winter.

The Danish believe in hygge (pronounced “hoo-gah”), which loosely translates to “coziness” and sounds to me a lot like ‘hug’! The word originated from an Old Norwegian word meaning “well-being,” and it captures all that is cozy, warm, and enjoyable. Curling up under a soft blanket while holding a warm mug of cocoa is hygge. Chatting with friends and family around a fire is hygge. And simply enjoying the glow of a candle is hygge.

This concept of hygge not only gives practical inspiration for how to enjoy life—oversized scarves and hot drinks —but it also offers a philosophy for how to be with one’s environment instead of fighting against it. No wonder the Danes are happy in winter!

3. Japanese forest bathing

On the subject of being with the environment, we’ll ‘travel’ now eastwards to Japan, to take a dip in the woods. Not an actual swim, but rather, an immersion in nature called “shinrin-yoku,” loosely translated to “forest bathing.”

Forest bathing is exactly what it sounds like—being immersed in nature. Importantly, it’s not about going camping, hiking, or doing any hardcore exercise in a forest. In fact, it’s not a goal-oriented activity at all. It’s simply being with nature, with your senses open and your body as your guide.

Health researcher Dr. Qing Li and his colleagues have found that forest bathing enhances the immune system and encourages the expression of anti-cancer proteins. They also found that it decreases depression, fatigue, anxiety, and unsurprisingly, heart rate.

To take a forest bath yourself, you don’t need to seek out special destinations. You can simply find a spot of nature, even if it’s just a group of trees or a garden, and walk through the area slowly and aimlessly. Turn off your mobile phone and simply let the forest in through your five senses.

 

4. Indian laughter yoga

Who doesn’t enjoy a good belly laugh? But have you ever done it on purpose? The idea of (Indian) laughter yoga is that we don’t have to wait for something funny to happen in order to laugh. Instead, laughter can and should be practiced for its own sake.

Laughter yoga is often practiced in groups, where real playfulness and interaction between people can turn practiced laughs into real guffaws. And there seem to be real health benefits, even if the laughter is “fake.”

A recent meta-analysis found that simulated laughter may be even more effective than spontaneous, humorous laughter for improving mood. So why not give it a try—do a belly laugh like no one is watching. Or better yet, get together with others and laugh with them!

5. South African Ubuntu philosophy

Speaking of being with others, perhaps nothing captures our social human nature better than the South African philosophy of Ubuntu. This term from the Zulu language can be translated as “humanity towards others,” and it’s part of a phrase that means “a person is a person through other people.” This idea has been spread, in part, by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a South African theologian, and human rights activist.

The word Ubuntu can be translated as ‘humanity towards others,’ and is part of a phrase that means ‘a person is a person through other people.’

Ubuntu is different from the other items here because it’s not just a practice, but rather, a whole humanist philosophy that embraces diversity, compassion, warmth, and dignity for all.

This may be a philosophy we especially need right now, even if living by it might be a lifelong pursuit. We can begin by acknowledging the humanity of all people, being open to learning, and respecting all, even if we’re unfamiliar or in conflict with someone.

6. Jewish Sabbath

Observing the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, is a religious tradition in the practice of Judaism. The Shabbat—meaning “rest” or “cessation”—begins on Friday evening and ends on Saturday evening, during which people refrain from work. Instead, they honour the Sabbath with restful activities like meditation, contemplation, and having festive meals with family. This is what Christian cultures traditionally also do (or did) on  the Sunday – the day of rest.

Research has found that Sabbath-keeping is beneficial for physical and mental health. One Jewish writer, Menachem Kaiser, has referred to the Sabbath as “the only authentic form of leisure: the act and fulfillment of doing absolutely nothing productive” and “our best bet to enact lasting communities.” This sounds like a much-needed balm for our modern hurts.

Research has found that Sabbath-keeping is beneficial for physical and mental health. This is unsurprising, given that much research has established the benefits of rest, spirituality, and even simply eating meals together as a family. So even if you’re not religious, you can practice a secular version of Shabbat and let this weekly time out give you the chance to rest and connect with others. And if you manage to turn off your mobile phone for a day too then you’re really doing well!

Whether it’s through the quietness of forest bathing, or the exuberance of laughter yoga, so many wellness practices and philosophies from around the world get back to the basics—feeling connected to our bodies, our minds, and one another. None of the ideas require you to buy a single thing. All of them invite us to be mindful and connected. And that would be my Christmas and New Years wish for this year!

REFERENCES:

* Naska A, Oikonomou E, Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Trichopoulos D. Siesta in Healthy Adults and Coronary Mortality in the General Population. Arch Intern Med. 2007, 167(3):296–301. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.3.296

*World Happiness Report. https://worldhappiness.report

* Li, Q et al. Forest bathing enhances human natural killer activity and expression of anti-cancer proteins. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol, Apr-Jun 2007; 20(2 Suppl 2): pages 3-8.

* Li, Q et al. Effects of Forest Bathing on Cardiovascular and Metabolic Parameters in Middle-Aged Males. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016; 2016: 2587381

* Li, Q. Forest Bathing Is Great for Your Health. Here’s How To Do It. https://time.com/5259602/japanese-forest-bathing/

See also Dr Li’s book ‘Forest Bathing: How Trees Can Help You Find Health and Happiness’. Viking (Penguin Publishing Group), 2018.

* van der Wal, N.C and Kok, R.N. Laughter-inducing therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science & Medicine Volume 232, July 2019, Pages 473-488.

* Superville, D. J., Pargament, K. I., & Lee, J. W. (2014). Sabbath Keeping and Its Relationships to Health and Well-Being: A Mediational Analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 24(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2013.837655

* S. M. Fruh et al. The Surprising Benefits of the Family Meal. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 18-22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2010.04.017

Scientists have studied gossip for decades. That’s not surprising given how ‘normal’ it is in any social group, big or small.

It’s estimated that more than 90 percent of people in workplaces in Western Europe and North Americaindulge in such banter—defined as talking about someone not present. People in modern societies spend about an  hour a day in chin-wagging, one study reports. But investigators are now approaching this element of social life from a new perspective.

In past decades, researchers have focused primarily on the damage wrought by gossiping, and they zeroed in on either the gossip spreader or the target—the person being talked about. But currently they have changed course by looking more at the benefits of gossip and the dynamics of a three-part network that involves a gossiper, a listener and a target. This research is revealing the complex and diverse roles in shaping perceptions of self and others by looking at factors such as basic information, ego enhancement and social segregation within a group.

So what, if anything, can be good about gossip? Whenever someone confides something to you about someone you both know—whether the information is positive, negative or neutral—it brings the two of you closer, creating a social bond. According to one study, it even increases your liking for the spreader of the information. It helps you learn who to trust and who to avoid. It enforces group norms. For example, complaints about a co-worker who regularly leaves their lunch to rot in the fridge get back to them and let them know that doing so is not an office norm.

But gossip is a double-edged sword for each member of this equilateral triangle. Whether that sword aids or causes harm depends on a host of factors, including the relationships among gossiper, listener and target, the motives of each person and the trustworthiness of the imparted info.

The gossiper is the prime mover in this drama. So it’s not surprising that much of the social science research related to gossip has focused on why they do it, what they get out of it and what the attendant dangers are in doing it, if any. In its most benign form gossip creates a sense of connectedness and belonging. On the other hand, if what you’re sharing is injurious to the target, you may feel guilty. You may also feel anxious about repercussions, including retaliation. There’s the further risk that listeners may form unwelcome impressions about you.

Gossipers have been maligned from time immemorial as rumourmongers or talebearers, yet most of what they impart is actually true, research shows. Sociologist Francesca Giardini of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and her colleagues found this to be the case in a lab experiment in which students played a series of ‘public goods’ games. In this type of game, players benefit from monetary contributions that they make to a common pool as long as people behave altruistically, but individual players can choose instead to maximize their payoff by acting in their own self-interest. In the study, four players had the opportunity to earn up to €21 from the experimenters depending on how the participants played. If they contributed to their private account, they got what they put in plus a share of the group pot. Everyone benefited more if they all contributed to that pot because its holdings were multiplied by 1.5.

Over several games, players recognised the behaviour of the others, and they were offered opportunities to confidentially warn other players about someone who didn’t contribute to the group. The experimenters learned that the biggest contributors were, on average, also more willing to pass on gossip, here defined as information about self-interested players, that was truthful.

Another lab experiment conducted by social psychologist Terence Dores Cruz, then at Free University Amsterdam, showed that the gossiper passed on true information when they had no conflict of interest with the target of the gossip. When they had a rivalry or other conflict with the target, however, they were likelier to pass on things that were self-serving or outright false. Like a villain in a melodrama, a gossiper can take down a rival, for instance, by manipulating people’s impressions of them. To figure out the gossiper’s motives, the research advises listeners, “ask yourself: Who gains?”

However…even being friends with anyone else in the gossip triangle affects the information’s truthfulness. For example, a friend of the target may not pass on something negative. In addition, a gossiper may say something positive—but false—about a friend.

Despite complex motivations, humans on average are quite good at sizing up the intentions of others with whom they interact. They usually know the person and their place in the network. One study shows that the determining factor of how people interpret gossip is whether they believe someone is passing on gossip to help out the listener or to benefit themselves. If they perceive it to be the former, they trust the gossiper more.

Gossip can be vital to those who listen to it. Learning that a colleague could be leaving their job, for example, could motivate a listener to take on challenging, promotion-worthy assignments. For someone new to a group, gossip can be invaluable. In any large organisation, there are always smaller cliques, in-groups and out-groups. If you are LGBTQ+, for example, gossip from your co-workers about company events or decisions that people have supported or opposed can inform your own decisions.

There has been little research on how gossip affects people in minority groups, but at least one study suggests that it can be helpful in certain cases. Between 2015 and 2020 investigators interviewed residents of Riace, a town in southern Italy that has hosted a variety of refugees and migrants more than 20 years. They found that much of the local gossip occurred between people of different ethnic groups and promoted strong community relationships. Race was not a factor in that research. A study done in 2016 using similar methods at a historically white South African university, however, found that gossip about Black employees not present at meetings undermined their work performance and morale.

There is a common assumption that being the target of gossip is a bad thing, but this is not always the case. Psychologist Elena Martinescu, then at the University of Groningen, and her colleagues found that targets of positive gossip experienced positive emotions such as pride, but negative gossip was sometimes beneficial by inspiring efforts to repair problematic behaviour. The good side is that you may become more aware of how you’re perceived by others. You may adjust your behaviour accordingly. But, in line with popular perception, if people are bad-mouthing about you, they can harm your reputation, your career prospects and your own mental health.

Most of the studies examined gossip in the workplace, but the actual research was conducted in the laboratory or online. Cruz has conducted one of the few studies of how gossip functions in real-life situations. He recruited more than 300 people in a community in the Netherlands and asked them to list 15 people with whom they had frequent contact. Four times each day for 10 days, the subjects were prompted to report on any information that someone in their social network told them—or that they told someone—about a third person. In this exchange, people passed on evaluations of many aspects of a target—qualities such as trustworthiness, warmth and competence. Listeners overwhelmingly believed the gossip to be true, and they updated their beliefs about the person being discussed and adjusted their behaviour toward them.

One of the most beneficial results of gossip is that it helps people better understand the behaviour of others. For example, Cruz found, someone might complain about a co-worker who shows up late every day, but if they learn through gossip that the offending colleague is in the middle of a divorce or that this person’s young son has cancer, they are less likely to complain. Perhaps more important, they sympathise with the co-worker who is suffering a crisis and feel motivated to be more helpful to them. Overall, Cruz and his colleagues found in their study that most gossip in real life was neither positive nor negative, just newsy: someone became a grandparent; someone got engaged. To avoid biasing their subjects, the investigators never used the term gossip.

Gossip may have a bad name, but science shows it’s often not a bad thing.

Enjoy the Office Christmas Party!

REFERENCES:

Robbins, M. L., & Karan, A. (2020). Who Gossips and How in Everyday Life? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(2), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619837000

Tianjun Sun, Pauline Schilpzand, Yihao Liu (2023) .Workplace gossip: An integrative review of its antecedents, functions, and consequences. J. Organ. Behav. 44:311-334 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2653

Terence D Dores Cruz et al. (2021). Gossip and reputation in everyday life. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B376:20200301 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0301

Francesca Giardini et al. (2021). Gossip and competitive altruism support cooperation in a Public Good game. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B376:20200303 http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0303

D. Dores Cruz et al. (2024). Nasty and Noble Notes: Interdependence Structures Drive Self-Serving Gossip. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(11), 1596-1612. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231171054

Martina Testori et al. Punishing or praising gossipers: How people interpret the motives driving negative gossip shapes its consequences (2024). Social and Personality Psycholoigy Compass Vol 18 (2), e12924. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12924

Carrim, N.M.H. (2019). Minorities’ experiences of office gossip. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde 45(0), a1562. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1562

Ester Driel and Maykel Verkuyten (2022). Gossip, diversity and community cohesion: the case of multi-ethnic Riace. Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol. 45, No. 16, 591-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2114806

Carrim, N. M. H. (2016). ‘Shh … quiet! Here they come.’ Black employees as targets of office gossip. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(2), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2016.1163912

Martinescu et al. (2019) Self-.Evaluative and Other-Directed Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Gossip About the Self. Front. Psychol., Sec. Organizational Psychology, Volume 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02603

We’ve known for decades that the placebo effect is very real. This is seen in real-life observations and the best double-blinded randomised clinical trials researchers have devised for many diseases and conditions, especially pain. And yet, how and why the placebo effect occurs has remained a mystery. Now, neuroscientists have discovered a key piece of the placebo effect puzzle.

Publishing in Nature, researchers at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, along with colleagues from Stanford University, discovered a pain control pathway that links the cingulate cortex in the front of the brain, through the pons region of the brainstem, to cerebellum in the back of the brain.

The researchers, led by Greg Scherrer, then showed that certain neurons and synapses along this pathway are highly activated when mice expect pain relief and experience pain relief, even when there is no medication involved.

That neurons in our cerebral cortex communicate with the pons and cerebellum to adjust pain thresholds based on our expectations is completely unexpected – given the previous /current understanding of the pain circuitry – and incredibly exciting. Scherrer’s results open the possibility to activate this pathway through other therapeutic means, such as drugs or neurostimulation methods to treat pain.

Scherrer and colleagues hope this new research provides a new framework for investigating the brain pathways underlying other mind-body interactions and placebo effects beyond the ones involved in pain.

The Placebo Paradox

It is the human experience, in the face of pain, to want to feel better. As a result — and in conjunction with millennia of evolution — our brains can search for ways to help us feel better. It releases chemicals, which can be measured. Positive thinking and even prayer have been shown to benefit some patients. And the placebo effect — feeling better even though there was no “real” treatment — has been documented as a very real phenomenon for decades.

In clinical research, the placebo effect is often seen in what we call the “sham” treatment group. That is, individuals in this group receive a fake pill or intervention that is supposed to be inert; no one in the control group is supposed to see a benefit. Except that the brain is so powerful and individuals so desire to feel better that some experience a marked improvement in their symptoms. Some placebo effects are so strong that individuals are convinced they received a real treatment meant to help them.

In fact, it’s thought that some individuals in the “actual” treatment group also derive benefit from the placebo effect. This is one of the reasons why clinical research of therapeutics is so difficult and demands as many volunteers as possible so scientists can parse the treatment benefit from the sham. One way to help scientists do this is to first understand what precisely is happening in the brain of someone experiencing the placebo effect.

Enter the Scherrer lab

The authors of the Nature paper knew that the scientific community’s understanding of the biological underpinnings of pain relief through placebo analgesia — when the positive expectation of pain relief is sufficient for patients to feel better — came from human brain imaging studies, which showed activity in certain brain regions. But those imaging studies did not have enough precision to show what was actually happening in those brain regions. So Scherrer’s team designed a set of meticulous, complementary, and time-consuming experiments to learn in more detail, with single nerve cell precision, what was happening in those regions.

First, the researchers created an assay (=test) that generates in mice the expectation of pain relief and then very real placebo effect of pain relief. Then the researchers used a series of experimental methods to study the intricacies of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which had been previously associated with the pain placebo effect. While mice were experiencing the effect, the scientists used genetic tagging of neurons in the ACC, imaging of calcium in neurons of freely behaving mice, single-cell RNA sequencing techniques, electrophysiological recordings, and optogenetics — the use of light and fluorescent-tagged genes to manipulate cells.

These experiments helped them see and study the intricate neurobiology of the placebo effect down to the brain circuits, neurons, and synapses throughout the brain.

The scientists found that when mice expected pain relief, the rostral anterior cingulate cortex neurons projected their signals to the pontine nucleus, which had no previously established function in pain or pain relief. And they found that expectation of pain relief boosted signals along this pathway.

There is an abundance of opioid receptors in this pathway, which supports a role in pain modulation. When activity in this pathway was inhibited, the scientists realised that they were disrupting placebo analgesia and decreasing pain thresholds, giving rise to the experience of more pain. And then, in the absence of placebo conditioning, when we this pathway was activated, pain relief was produced/caused.

Lastly, the scientists found that Purkinje cells — a distinct class of large branch-like cells of the cerebellum — showed activity patterns similar to those of the ACC neurons during pain relief expectation. This is apparently cellular-level evidence for the cerebellum’s role in cognitive pain modulation.

In both the medical and para-medical work, it is widely known that we need better ways to treat chronic pain, particularly treatments without harmful side effects and addictive properties. Let’s hope that these newfindings open the door to targeting this novel neural pain pathway to treat people in a different but potentially more effective way.

 

REFERENCES:

Chen, C., Niehaus, J.K., Dinc, F. et al. Neural circuit basis of placebo pain relief. Nature, 632, 1092–1100 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07816-z

University of North Carolina Health Care. Neuroscientists discover brain circuitry of placebo effect for pain relief. ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 24 July 2024.

Bingel, U. et al. The effect of treatment expectation on drug efficacy: imaging the analgesic benefit of the opioid remifentanil. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 70ra14 (2011).

Fields, H. L. How expectations influence pain. Pain 159, S3–S10 (2018).

Chen, C. H. et al. A Purkinje cell to parabrachial nucleus pathway enables broad cerebellar influence over the forebrain. Nat. Neurosci. 26, 1929–1941 (2023).

It is the human experience, in the face of pain, to want to feel better.

As a result – and in conjunction with millennia of evolution – our brains can search for ways to help us feel better. It releases chemicals, which can be measured. Positive thinking and even prayer have been shown to benefit some patients. And the placebo effect — feeling better even though there was no “real” treatment — has been documented as a very real phenomenon for decades.

The placebo effect is thus very real.

Despite the best double-blinded randomised clinical trials researchers have devised for many diseases and conditions the ‘how and why’ the placebo effect occurs has remained quite a mystery.

The Placebo Paradox

In clinical research, the placebo effect is often seen in what we call the “sham” treatment group. That is, individuals in this group receive a fake pill or intervention that is supposed to be inert; no one in the control group is supposed to see a benefit. Except that the brain is so powerful and individuals so desire to feel better that some experience a marked improvement in their symptoms. Some placebo effects are so strong that individuals are convinced they received a real treatment meant to help them.

In fact, it’s thought that some individuals in the “actual” treatment group also derive benefit from the placebo effect. This is one of the reasons why clinical research of therapeutics is so difficult and demands as many volunteers as possible so scientists can separate out the treatment benefit (i.e. what is the real effect of the pharmaceutical pill) from the sham.

New Nondeceptive Research

 A study out of Michigan State University found that nondeceptive placebos, or placebos given with people fully knowing they are placebos, effectively manage stress — even when the placebos are administered remotely.

Researchers recruited volunteers experiencing prolonged stress from the COVID-19 pandemic for a two-week randomised controlled trial. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to a nondeceptive placebo group and the other half to the control group that took no pills.

The participants interacted with a researcher online through four virtual sessions on Zoom. Those in the nondeceptive placebo group received information on the placebo effect and were sent placebo pills in the mail along with and instructions on taking the pills. COVID-related stress, overall stress, anxiety, and depression were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of the study.

The study, published in Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, found that the nondeceptive group showed a significant decrease in stress, anxiety and depression in just two weeks compared to the no-treatment control group.

Participants also reported that the nondeceptive placebos were easy to use, not burdensome and appropriate for the situation. Compared with the control group, participants in the non-deceptive placebo group reported significant reductions from baseline in all primary affective outcomes after 2 weeks.

And now…

Exposure to long-term stress can impair a person’s ability to manage emotions and cause significant mental health problems long-term. It’s exciting to see that an intervention that takes minimal effort can still lead to significant benefits. This minimal burden makes nondeceptive placebos an attractive intervention for those with significant stress, anxiety and depression.

The researchers are particularly hopeful in the ability to remotely administer the nondeceptive placebos by health care providers. It increases scalability potential dramatically. Remotely administered nondeceptive placebos have the potential to help individuals struggling with mental health concerns who otherwise would not have access to traditional mental health services.

Future large-scale studies are needed to determine if non-deceptive placebos can be effective across different prolonged stress situations and for clinical populations.

REFERENCES:

J. Moser et al. Remotely administered non-deceptive placebos reduce COVID-related stress, anxiety, and depression. Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being. 14^th August 2024, Open Access. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12583