Psychology and Neuroscience

Hindsight may be 20/20, but people feel more strongly about the future

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 03 Oct 2025 21:57:27 +0000

Hindsight may be 20/20, but people feel more strongly about the future Rachel Sauer Fri, 10/03/2025 - 15:57

Blake Puscher

In reviewing psychological studies, CU Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven and colleagues find that people prioritize thinking about the future over the past

Although time travel has typically been the domain of science fiction, whenever you take a moment to remember the past or imagine the future in detail, you are in a sense travelling through time. In psychology, these processes are called retrospection and prospection. Retrospection is thinking about and creating mental representations of the past, while prospection is the same thing but for the future.

Some work in the field of psychology has suggested that retrospection and prospection are functionally interchangeable, but intuitively, they seem to be very different. After reviewing the research in a recently published paper, Leaf Van Boven, a �� professor and department chair of psychology and neuroscience, along with research colleagues Eugene Caruso and Sam Maglio, finds that people think about the past and future differently because of several assumptions that people make about the nature of time (referred to as temporal axioms in the paper), and that people prioritize thinking about the future—a conclusion with implications for how psychological research should be conducted going forward.

CU Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven, department chair of psychology and neuroscience, finds that people prioritize thinking about the future—a conclusion with implications for how psychological research should be conducted going forward.

Temporal axioms

The assumptions people make about time are called temporal axioms because they relate to time (temporal) and are self-evident (the primary definition of an axiom). There are some philosophies of time that disagree with the axioms; for example, block time theory argues that the past, present and future all exist simultaneously, like different places except separated by time instead of space. However, even if such philosophies are true, the axioms remain valid premises because they describe not only people’s perception of time but also their subjective experiences of the world. The authors propose three temporal axioms—one of direction, one of uncertainty and one of control.

The axiom of direction describes the way all things move through time. Specifically, everything moves only from past to future, with the reverse being—as far as humans know—impossible. For example, if you blow up a balloon with air and then open the end, not only will the air always come out, but it will also be impossible to get the air back in; the balloon can be re-inflated, but it won’t revert it to its original state because it will be filled with different air. In physics, this reality is called entropy, a term for the tendency of all things to progress from states of order to disorder (the collected air disperses) or high energy to low energy (the relatively high pressure inside the balloon is relieved). Entropy defines the direction of time.

The axiom of uncertainty details that as uncertain as people may be about the past, there is at least some information about it, whether in the form of memory or history. Meanwhile, to the extent that the future is known at all, it is because of inference based on information from the past. Therefore, even if people could make predictions with 100% certainty, the uncertainty about the future would be at least as great as the uncertainty about the past, and in reality, it is always greater because people cannot make perfect predictions. “There are always different possibilities for any point in the future,” Van Boven explains, “and there are not different possibilities that actually exist in the past. There were many possibilities, but one of them did happen.”

The axiom of control describes how, because time has direction, the future is more uncertain than the past. This uncertainty creates a sense of control—of being able to choose between different possibilities by acting differently. While there are arguments against people having control over the future, people tend to view the future as more controllable than the past because of its relative uncertainty. Relatedly, according to Van Boven, “people don’t think of themselves as having control over their interpretation of the past, which presents its own set of challenges about how we make sense of what has happened in our lives.”

Prioritizing proception

The way that people think about the future and past is often understood in terms of psychological distance, which is just what it sounds like: how removed a person feels from an event, whether it is in the future or past. “There are many theories of psychological distance,” Van Boven says, “and within social psychology, one of the more prominent theories is Construal Level Theory, which is the idea that when things are in the distant future, they are interpreted on a more abstract level, whereas when they are in the very near future, we tend to think of them more concretely.”

This principle is fairly intuitive. For example, when you are given an assignment, it may not even feel real until the due date rolls around. However, although people think more concretely and feel more strongly about an event three days in the future than one three weeks in the future, they don’t necessarily think and feel the same about an event three days in the future as one three days in the past. In fact, Van Boven and his colleagues found in their review that people do not.

People pay more attention to getting ready for events in the future, and as soon as they pass, that attention quickly fades so they can refocus on what is coming next, says CU Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven.

“When things are in the future,” Van Boven says, “our affective system is highly engaged. As soon as things move into the past, the affective system and our emotional reactions subside.

“A classic example would be, if you have an upcoming presentation, your emotional system will get really jacked up as it’s getting close, and then as soon as it has passed, even if it is still objectively close in time, the affective system down-regulates itself. The same is true with attention.” People pay more attention to getting ready for events in the future, and as soon as they pass, that attention quickly fades so they can refocus on what is coming next.

The underestimation of proception

One question the review raises is why the prioritization of proception isn’t an established psychological principle when research in the field often involves people thinking about real or hypothetical events, which are necessarily either in the future or the past.

“That has to do with research methods,” Van Boven says, referring to the example about the upcoming, stressful presentation: The fact that people feel more strongly about the event when it is in the future and then tend to move on shortly after it happens could be easily demonstrated in a laboratory setting, according to Van Boven. “The problem is getting a scientific understanding of what exactly is changing. There are many confounds in that event moving through time.

“When we have an upcoming presentation, we still don’t know exactly what is going to happen in that presentation. We don’t know what the room is going to be like, we don’t know what the audience is going to be like. There’s a possibility that we might bomb, and that would have negative consequences. What we do experimentally is we try to create these situations where everything is exactly the same, and the only thing that differs is whether you’re thinking of it as something that’s in the future or in the past.” This eliminates all of the temporal axioms except for direction; unlike in real life, in the lab there is no difference in uncertainty or control between past and future.

“This is kind of analogous to an active control placebo in medical research,” Van Boven explains. An active control placebo lacks the active ingredient of the actual medicine being tested but has similar non-treatment effects. This is intended to stop people from subconsciously distinguishing between the placebo and the medicine on the basis of the medicine’s expected side effects. “The carefully controlled study gives you a very precise estimate of how big the effect is for the specific medicine you’re interested in,” Van Boven says, “but that’s not how big the effect is that people experience when they take the medicine in real life, because they’re embracing the placebo effect.”

Changing tense

“People who psychologically prioritize the future are happier and healthier than those who prioritize the past."

This review has a major implication for other research, which has to do with the necessity of taking the difference between prospection and retrospection into account, especially during studies that rely on people imagining different scenarios.

“To a large extent, researchers ignore whether things are in the future versus in the past,” Van Boven says. “It’s just that it has not historically been a dimension that people are really concerned about. So, a very common research approach is to use scenario studies.” Scenario studies involve asking people to imagine different situations, then varying those scenarios to see how it affects people’s responses to them. For example, participants could be asked to imagine two people going on a date, then to say how well it went. The scenario would vary slightly between groups of participants—for example, who paid or how the bill was split may be different in each group’s scenario—and the experiment would measure the effect of this difference on how people viewed the situation.

Often in these kinds of experiments there is an implication as to whether the event already happened or is going to happen, even just based on the verb tense used to describe the scenario, and as Van Boven says, “People have been sort of haphazard in terms of whether they present those kinds of scenarios in the future tense versus the past tense. Part of what our review and framework shows is that there may be ways in which we’re understating the effects of different scenarios when we happen to put them in the past (rather) than when we happen to put them in the future. It may be the case that the tense matters a great deal, and it’s something that we haven’t noticed because we haven’t varied that within our experimental context.”

Changing one’s focus between future and past isn’t just important in the context of research, however. “People who psychologically prioritize the future are happier and healthier than those who prioritize the past,” Van Boven says. Broadly, an orientation towards the future has been associated with positive outcomes in several areas, including financial success, health outcomes and life satisfaction. “So,” Van Boven continues, “the axioms and resulting psychological patterns are not merely oddities or biases; they help people successfully navigate through life.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

In reviewing psychological studies, CU Boulder researcher Leaf Van Boven and colleagues find that people prioritize thinking about the future over the past.

Traditional

White

Why do some thoughts refuse to leave?

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 09 Sep 2025 23:38:52 +0000

Why do some thoughts refuse to leave? Rachel Sauer Tue, 09/09/2025 - 17:38

Cody DeBos

CU Boulder graduate student researcher Jacob DeRosa delves into the brain’s ability to remove unwanted thoughts

Imagine trying to fall asleep, but your brain won’t cooperate. You tell yourself to let go of the embarrassing conversation from earlier in the day that keeps looping through your head, for example, but you can’t stop thinking about it.

Why are some thoughts so hard to dismiss?

It’s a question �� psychology and neuroscience graduate student Jacob DeRosa has been pondering for years. Now, with a newly published study in NeuroImage. Clinical, DeRosa and his co-researchers may be closer than ever to understanding what makes some brains better at letting go of unwanted thoughts—and why other brains tend to get stuck.

Jacob DeRosa, a CU Boulder psychology and neuroscience graduate student, studies the question of why some thoughts are so hard to dismiss.

“Why is John really good at getting a thought out of his mind and going on with his day and I’m not?” DeRosa says. “This thought just seems to get stuck up in my head, and I’m thinking about it over and over and over again.”

That puzzle—why some people can suppress a thought and move on while others can’t—drove DeRosa to design a study that explores the neuroscience behind thought control.

The findings point to specific brain patterns and networks that may explain why some of us struggle to quiet our internal noise.

A question of control

Before tackling the nuances of thought control, DeRosa wanted to define what it actually means to “control” a thought. He and his team focused on four mental operations that are performed in working memory—the brain’s active thinking space.

The distinct tasks they studied included maintaining a thought, replacing it with a new one, suppressing it entirely or clearing the mind completely.

“What am I doing when someone tells me a phone number? Am I switching it with other information? Am I suppressing it? Or am I clearing my mind completely?” DeRosa asks.

To get to the bottom of it, study participants were asked to view and manipulate words in their working memory while undergoing functional MRI scans. This allowed researchers to observe when different parts of the brain activate and determine whether those patterns vary between people with and without self-reported difficulties in controlling unwanted thoughts.

They found that participants who reported more trouble controlling their thoughts showed less distinct neural activity across the four control operations.

“We’re basically creating a map of the brain,” says DeRosa, “and we’re looking at, well, how organized are these networks when someone is removing information?”

Hoping to better understand which regions play a role in thought removal, the team started looking closer at how they were recruited during different operations.

“What we found is that people who are really good at controlling their thoughts have really distinct color patterns for each operation. People who aren’t have a similar color pattern across the four operations, which tells us there’s not a lot of distinct activity happening,” DeRosa explains.

That lack of distinctness, when the brain isn’t clearly switching between tasks like suppression and replacement, could be why some people struggle to get rid of unwanted thoughts.

“It’s going to take some time to get more organization in your brain and get it working together to remove those thoughts, but it’s definitely possible,” says CU Boulder researcher Jacob DeRosa. (Photo: Pexels)

“There seems to be more of this blending across the brain in terms of what’s happening when someone is trying to remove a thought. What it tells us is that these individuals aren’t able to precisely implement a certain operation,” he adds.

In other words, your brain might try to use the same mental tool for every task—like using a hammer for every job, when what you really need is a screwdriver.

But perhaps more importantly, DeRosa’s study found that this neural blending didn’t show up when people were at rest. It only emerged when they were actively engaged in trying to remove or control a thought.

DeRosa says the nuance matters.

“It’s not that people’s brains are just disorganized in general. It’s actually when it comes time to remove the information where we see them having a harder time,” he notes.

Bridging brain scans and mental health

Although anyone can have difficulty controlling thoughts, it’s also a common symptom of a range of mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). DeRosa believes that mapping out the brain mechanisms responsible for thought control can help researchers identify objective markers for these disorders and even ways to track how treatments are working.

“What’s nice about this initial study is that it gives us a baseline. Now we can begin to compare between high- and low-internalizing populations and eventually move on to even more specific psychiatric populations like depression, anxiety and PTSD,” he says.

The good news for everyone is that thought control isn’t necessarily a fixed trait.

“Our biggest takeaway is that it’s possible for anyone to practice getting better at thought control. I think beginning to practice these operations when unwanted thoughts come in is helpful for people because they can begin to differentiate what’s working for them,” says DeRosa.

That idea reframes thought control not as a matter of brute force willpower or something in our genetics. Rather, it’s a skill that can be trained and supported, whether through mindfulness, cognitive behavioral techniques, journaling or simply paying attention to what works for you.

For anyone who’s ever felt stuck in a spiral of unwanted thoughts, DeRosa’s research offers a glimpse of both clarity and hope. Of course, he also cautions that improvement doesn’t happen overnight.

“It’s going to take some time to get more organization in your brain and get it working together to remove those thoughts, but it’s definitely possible.”

Researchers Harry Smolker, Hyojeong Kim, Boman Groff, Jarrod Lewis-Peacock and Marie Banich also contributed to this study.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

CU Boulder graduate student researcher Jacob DeRosa delves into the brain’s ability to remove unwanted thoughts.

Traditional

White

Video games don’t rot your brain—they train it

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 18 Aug 2025 20:06:22 +0000

Video games don’t rot your brain—they train it Rachel Sauer Mon, 08/18/2025 - 14:06

Blake Puscher

CU Boulder scientists find that playing video games comes with small but significant cognitive benefits

Ever since video games began to gain widespread popularity, some have questioned how playing them consistently affects people, especially mentally. Like with TV, the internet, social media and AI, the tendency has been to assume negative effects. However, a number of studies have suggested that playing video games can help strengthen people’s cognitive abilities.

Despite similar research findings, many of the studies disagree on the size of this effect and to which areas of cognition it applies—perhaps, in part, because of the limitations inherent to their typically cross-sectional approach.

A team of �� scientists including Shandell Pahlen, Anqing Zheng, Robin P. Corley, Naomi P. Friedman, Sally J. Wadsworth and Chandra A. Reynolds, all members of CU Boulder’s team within the CATSLife project, aim to address these uncertainties with a longitudinal study on video games and cognitive health. CATSLife stands for Colorado Adoption/Twin Study of Lifespan behavioral development and cognitive aging.

Chandra Reynolds, a CU Boulder professor of psychology and neuroscience, and her research colleagues found small, positive cognitive benefits of playing video games.

“We can leverage the twins and siblings’ similarities and differences to understand aspects of behaviors and cognitive abilities,” Reynolds explains, a CU Boulder professor of psychology and neuroscience, “especially as they relate to how well people maintain their cognitive functioning, not only now, but eventually we hope to continue following them as they transition into midlife.”

Video games and cognitive health

Video games are an accessible way to engage one’s mind for several reasons. Like board games, video games do not require much in the way of physical ability, unlike sports and other such ways to exercise the mind. Additionally, video games are widely popular, with 2.7 billion gamers worldwide as of early 2025, according to Statista.

These traits suggest that video games could be used as a tool to support cognitive health, but this assertion raises some questions: What are the specific abilities that comprise generalized cognitive functioning, and how can scientists determine whether video games serve this purpose?

The study covered three important cognitive domains: processing speed, working memory and spatial reasoning. It included 1,241 individuals from CATSLife between 28 and 49 years old who had taken at least one of these tests. Some of the participants played video games and some did not, so the effects of playing video games were determined based on what video games they played. These games were categorized broadly into Action+, Puzzle+, and Other genres. The plus signs refer to the fact that the categories include genres that are not usually described with the base name, like life simulation games being included in Puzzle+ even though they aren’t puzzle games.

Reverse selection

One argument against prior studies suggesting that video games provide a cognitive benefit is the concept of reverse causation. In this case, reverse causation refers to certain people’s cognitive skills making them more likely to play video games, as opposed to playing video games causing an increase in cognitive skills.

Reverse causation is therefore part of the nature vs. nurture discourse, and as such, the point is not that engaging in an activity can’t improve people’s abilities, but that part of the correlation between activity and ability comes from those who already have above-average abilities choosing to engage in activities that take advantage of them. For example, a hypothetical study that compared Olympic runners with people who never run without accounting for reverse causation would overestimate the physical benefits of running, because a large part of the gap between the two groups is baked in: Most people can’t reach the level of Olympic athletes just by exercising.

This study factored in the participants’ baseline cognitive ability by looking at their adolescent IQ scores. “We’re fortunate that we had a longitudinal design,” Reynolds says, “and that we’ve assessed our participants multiple times over their earlier development into adolescence. Most studies of video games are cross sectional, and they don’t have indices of people’s cognitive performance at earlier ages.”

The researchers also considered several variables associated with performance on specific cognitive tasks. These included age, sex and educational attainment. The first two of these are especially important, because the genre of video games that people play varies within these demographics. Specifically, women and older adults are more likely to play Puzzle+ games, and men and younger people are more likely to play Action+ games.

CU Boulder researcher Chandra Reynolds and her colleagues found that spatial reasoning benefited most consistently from playing video games. (Photo: Unsplash)

“There are some sociodemographic differences in what kinds of games people are playing,” Reynolds says, “and we wanted to account for that to isolate the differences that might arise from the gameplay itself.”

Increased processing speed

Spatial reasoning benefited most consistently from playing video games, with a significant effect measured in all three tests before and after adjustment for adolescent IQ, although the effect was about half as large after adjustment. There is also evidence that processing speed performance could increase after playing video games, as the results of one test remained significant even after adjustment. Working memory was the only domain that did not show evidence of improvement due to video game play, with non-significant numbers before and after adjustment.

Reynolds says that unimproved working memory results could be a consequence of the test used and the fact that only one test was used for this ability, compared to the three tests used for both processing speed and spatial reasoning.

“We can’t say a whole lot about working memory from one test,” he says. “In the future, we want to extend to other measures that would get more specifically at attention, working memory and other aspects of executive functioning.”

When video game play was broken down by the broad genre of game, there were some negative correlations: people who played Action+ games scored worse on processing speed, and those who played Puzzle+ games scored worse on spatial reasoning. However, these correlations were very small, and only statistically significant for one of the processing speed tests.

These results seem counterintuitive, which makes it particularly interesting to see if they will be replicated in other studies. As to benefits by genre, Action+ games had a particular association with spatial reasoning and Puzzle+ games had a particular association with processing speed.

According to the paper, the results for different tests may have been affected by how similar they are to video games. For example, with respect to spatial reasoning, Action+ gamers scored best on the Block Design test, which involves three-dimensional operations similar to those involved in playing many modern action games. By the same token, gamers may have performed worse on tests that were more divergent from video games due to their familiarity with related but substantially different tasks.

Future assessments

The researchers are currently collecting more data from the CATSLife sample, asking the same questions for further insight into how the observed effects change over the course of five or six years. “If people continue to play games, they’ll likely nominate newer games—it would be interesting to see if there is a long-standing influence or if new game play factors emerge,” Reynolds says.

Some changes could be made to the assessment of people’s gameplay to get more particular results. In the future, Reynolds says, “we would conduct more specific surveys of our participants: asking for more details about the games they play, the systems they use and how they approach gameplay. We asked questions that allowed us to get at the kinds of games they play, but not how they play them, and we’re making some inferences, so we’d want to dig deeper into that.”

“There has been some debate in the literature about the potential benefits or even detriments of video game play,” Reynolds explains, “but I think we found that, in a general sample that isn’t selected for pathological use or other characteristics related to playing video games, we found some salient, small positive effects.”

This brings up an important caveat, which is that even though there could be positive effects of playing video games, it is still possible to experience negative effects by engaging with them in a unhealthy manner. Because the positive effects are small, any negative effects due to playing video games irresponsibly, such as playing them for an excessive amount of time each day, are likely to outweigh the benefits.

“I think it will bear additional replication and future work,” Reynolds says, “but the benefits are quite interesting, and we’d like to see how this plays out with other kinds of activities as well.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

CU Boulder scientists find that playing video games comes with small but significant cognitive benefits.

Traditional

White

It takes a village of mothers

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 13 Aug 2025 20:56:42 +0000

It takes a village of mothers Rachel Sauer Wed, 08/13/2025 - 14:56

Sona Dimidjian and Anahi Collado

How mothers supporting mothers can help fill the health care worker shortage gap and other barriers to care

For generations, women have relied on informal networks of friends, family and neighbors to navigate the complexities of birth and motherhood. Today, research is finally catching up to what generations of women have known: Peer support can be a lifeline.

Despite growing evidence, the unique wisdom and strength that arise when mothers help mothers has been surprisingly under‑explored in the scientific literature, but that’s beginning to change. Peer-delivered programs are beginning to bring together long-standing community traditions and structured, evidence-based approaches to support the mental health of new and expectant moms.

We are clinical psychologists at the �� Renée Crown Wellness Institute. Our work and research weaves together psychological science and the wisdom of mothers supporting mothers. Our program, Alma, supports women in restoring well-being in ways that are community-rooted, evidence-based and scalable.

Through the Alma program, researchers Sona Dimidjian (left) and Anahi Collado (right) aim to support women in restoring well-being in ways that are community-rooted, evidence-based and scalable.

Pressure on parents

Nearly 50% of parents report feeling overwhelmed by stress on most days. An even larger share, about 65%, experience feelings of loneliness, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These feelings hit mothers especially hard, the report says.

In 2025, mothers in the United States continue to shoulder most of the caregiving of children while also managing work, personal health and household responsibilities. The transition to motherhood is often marked by emotional and psychological strain. In fact, 10% to 20% of women experience depression during pregnancy, the postpartum period or both. Depression is one of the most common complications of childbirth. A similar number of women also face significant anxiety.

In many communities, mental health resources are scarce and stigma around mental health issues persists; therefore, many mothers are left to navigate such challenges alone and in silence. Antidepressants are widely prescribed, but research suggests that many women stop using antidepressants during pregnancy – yet they don’t start therapy or an alternative treatment instead.

Psychotherapy is the most preferred care option among new and expectant mothers, but it is often inaccessible or nonexistent. This is due in part to a workforce shortage of mental health providers.

The shortage has contributed to long wait times, geographic disparities and cultural and language barriers between providers and patients. This is especially true for underserved populations. In fact, more than 75% of depressed mothers do not receive the care they need.

Science of peer support

The science of peer support is part of a larger field exploring community health workers as one way to address the shortage of mental health providers. Peer mentors are trusted individuals from the community who share common experiences or challenges with those they serve. Through specialized training, they are equipped to deliver education, offer mental health support and connect people with needed resources.

A study that analyzed 30 randomized clinical trials involving individuals with serious mental illness found that peer support was associated with significant improvements in clinical outcomes and personal recovery. Researchers have proposed that peer support creates space for learning and healing, especially when peers share lived experience, culture and language.

In 2025, mothers in the United States continue to shoulder most of the caregiving of children while also managing work, personal health and household responsibilities. (Photo: Shutterstock)

As clinical psychologists, we heard from mothers in our work and communities that wanted to help other moms recover from depression, navigate the challenges of motherhood and avoid feeling alone. This insight led us to co-create Alma, a peer-led mental health program based on behavioral activation.

Behavioral activation is a proven method for treating depression based on decades of randomized clinical trials, including in new and expectant mothers. It helps new and expectant mothers reengage in meaningful activities to improve mood and functioning.

The Alma program

Alma is based on the principle that depression must be understood in context and that changing what you do can change how you feel. One strategy we use is to help a mother identify an activity that brings a sense of accomplishment, connection or enjoyment – and then take small steps to schedule that activity. Mothers might also be guided on ways to ask for help and strengthen their support networks. Alma is offered in English and Spanish.

Peer mentors typically meet with moms once a week for six to eight sessions. Sessions can take place in person or virtually, allowing flexibility that honors each family’s needs. Traditionally, peer mentors have been recruited through long-standing relationships with trusted community organizations and word-of-mouth referrals. This approach has helped ensure that mentors are deeply rooted in the communities they serve. Alma peer mentors are compensated for their time, which recognizes the value of their lived expertise, their training and the work involved in providing peer mentoring and support.

“This was the first time I felt like someone understood me, without me having to explain everything,” shared one mother during a post-program interview that all participants complete after finishing Alma.

To date, more than 700 mothers in Colorado have participated in Alma. In one of our studies, we focused on 126 Spanish-speaking Latina mothers who often face significant barriers to care, such as language differences, cost and stigma. For nearly 2 out of 3 mothers, symptoms of depression decreased enough to be considered a true, measurable recovery — not just a small change.

Notably, most of the depression improvement occurred within the first three Alma meetings. We also observed that peer mentors delivered the Alma program consistently and as intended. This suggests the program could be reliably expanded and replicated in other settings with similar positive outcomes.

A second study, conducted through a national survey of Spanish-speaking Latina new and expectant mothers, found that peer-led mental health support was not only perceived as effective, but also highly acceptable and deeply valued. Mothers noted that they were interested in peer-led support because it met them where they were: with language, trust and cultural understanding.

Supporting mothers works

Supporting mothers’ mental health is essential because it directly benefits both mothers and their children. Those improvements foster healthier emotional, cognitive and social development in their children. This interconnected impact highlights why investing in maternal mental health yields lasting benefits for the entire family.

It also makes strong economic sense to address mood and anxiety disorders among new and expectant mothers, which cost an estimated US$32,000 for each mother and child from conception through five years postpartum. More than half of those costs occur within the first year, driven primarily by productivity losses, preterm births and increased maternal health care needs.

Beyond the impact on individual families, the broader economic toll of untreated mood and anxiety disorders among new and expectant mothers is substantial. For example, it’s estimated that $4.7 billion a year are lost to mothers who have to miss work or reduce their job performance because of symptoms like fatigue, anxiety and depression.

Together – as individuals, families, communities and institutions – we can cultivate a world where the challenges of parenting are met with comprehensive support, allowing the joy of parenting to be fully realized. Because no one should have to do this alone.

Sona Dimidjian is director of the Renée Crown Wellness Institute and a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the ��. Anahi Collado is a CU Boulder assistant research professor of psychology.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How mothers supporting mothers can help fill the health care worker shortage gap and other barriers to care.

Traditional

White

Study: Using cannabis and psilocybin together may increase dependence

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 07 Aug 2025 18:16:17 +0000

Study: Using cannabis and psilocybin together may increase dependence Rachel Sauer Thu, 08/07/2025 - 12:16

Bradley Worrell

CU Boulder researchers studied cannabis-psilocybin co-users and cannabis-only users to look for similarities and differences between the two groups, including drug-use motivations

In November 2022, Colorado voters approved Proposition 122, decriminalizing the personal use of mushrooms containing psilocybin, a psychedelic substance. That followed a decision by Colorado voters in 2014 to legalize recreational marijuana use.

Cannabis and psilocybin are becoming more commonly used, but there is still relatively little research on what happens when people use both, says Maddie Stanger, a �� Department of Psychology and Neuroscience researcher whose area of focus is motivations behind substance abuse and how people use substances to cope.

A recently published research paper co-authored by Stanger examined differences in cannabis dependence and reasons for using among individuals who regularly use marijuana and psilocybin versus marijuana-only users. In this case, co-use could either be the simultaneous use of cannabis and psilocybin or concurrent use over the same time period, Stanger explains.

Maddie Stanger is a CU Boulder Department of Psychology and Neuroscience researcher whose focus is motivations behind substance abuse and how people use substances to cope.

Stanger says this research is valuable because assessing individuals’ reasons for using substances can provide insight into potential harms, such as addiction or mental health issues. This is because motivations are related to quantity and frequency of use.

The researchers used a previous, larger study by the Center of Health and Neuroscience, Genes and Environment within the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience that investigated the effects of different cannabis strains on metabolic processes and insulin sensitivity.

From that study, researchers drew a test sample that included 97 regular cannabis users (those who used marijuana more than seven times a month) in Colorado. �� a third of those had used psilocybin in the past three months while the rest had not. The researchers compared these two groups to understand how psilocybin use might affect marijuana use motives and dependencies.

Study participants were, on average, about 35 years old, mostly male and white, healthy overall and predominantly from the Boulder area, with at least some higher education. They reported using cannabis 21.73 out of the previous 30 days.

The motivations of all participants were measured using the Comprehensive Marijuana Motives Questionnaire (CMMQ), which encompasses 12 possible motives, including enjoyment, coping, experiment, boredom, celebration, altered perception, social anxiety, sleep and availability. Participants were also assessed for cannabis dependence based upon an 11-item Marijuana Dependence Scale (MDS) scoring system, which asks users to self-evaluate if they believe their cannabis use is excessive.

Considering motivation

Stanger says she and her research colleagues hypothesized that recent psilocybin users would have higher MDS scores and more strongly endorse coping, expansion (also referred to as “altered perception”) and enhancement/enjoyment motives compared with non-recent psilocybin users. Additionally, the researchers hypothesized that there would be correlations between dependence and coping motives for both groups, but that these would be stronger for recent psilocybin users relative to non-recent users.

The prediction that recent psilocybin users would have higher dependence scores than non-recent users was borne out, Stanger says. As expected, the research data demonstrated that psilocybin users showed mild signs of marijuana dependence, while non-psilocybin users did not, she says.

“Interestingly, we found that recent psilocybin users had indicated they were more likely to use for enjoyment, boredom and availability—and boredom and availability are shown in previous literature to be linked to increased cannabis problems and mental health symptoms.”

Additionally, compared to cannabis-only users, Stanger says the psilocybin co-user group exhibited higher scores on the motivations of enjoyment, boredom relief and availability/access, which can be indicative of dependency problems.

“Interestingly, we found that recent psilocybin users had indicated they were more likely to use for enjoyment, boredom and availability—and boredom and availability are shown in previous literature to be linked to increased cannabis problems and mental health symptoms,” she says.

However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, Stanger says there was no difference in coping motives between the two groups.

The researchers note that these findings should be considered within the confines of the study limitations. Specifically, Stanger explains that the data came from a preexisting study and that this analysis was not the primary purpose of the larger project. Thus, there is no data on the dose of the psilocybin used and no information as to whether cannabis and psilocybin were used simultaneously versus concurrently. Additionally, the study ideally would have involved a more diverse group of participants, Stanger adds.

Still, Stanger says she believes the research is timely and valuable, as more states have followed Colorado since 2014 in legalizing marijuana sales for medicinal or recreational purposes, and it’s conceivable that states will follow the Centennial State in legalizing psilocybin in the coming years.

In addition to Stanger, co-authors of this paper include Professor Angela Bryan and Research Assistant Professor Carillon Skrzynski, both with the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience; and Researcher Harmony Soffer with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

CU Boulder researchers studied cannabis-psilocybin co-users and cannabis-only users to look for similarities and differences between the two groups, including drug-use motivations.

Traditional

White

'Your love will be your legacy'

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 23 Jul 2025 13:30:00 +0000

'Your love will be your legacy' Rachel Sauer Wed, 07/23/2025 - 07:30

Sarah Kuta

Losing her father to pancreatic cancer inspired CU Boulder undergraduate Giovanna Ruffolo to raise money for cancer research and pursue a career in medicine

Giovanna Ruffolo was a senior in high school when her dad died of pancreatic cancer.

While other students were looking forward to prom and graduation, Ruffolo was navigating a web of tangled emotions—shock, disbelief, sadness, anger, uncertainty.

“Losing a parent is probably the most intense pain someone can feel in their entire life,” she says. “It’s a terrible, terrible pain.”

Giovanna Ruffolo (second from right) with her brothers Leo (left, a 2024 CU Boulder graduate) and Joey (second from left, a CU Denver student) and their mom, Rosanna. (Photo: Giovanna Ruffolo)

Mostly, though, she just felt numb. Heading off to college so soon after her father’s death was the last thing she wanted to do. But she knew education was important to her dad, so she pushed through the pain and enrolled at CU Boulder.

Now a senior studying integrative physiology and psychology, Ruffolo is preparing for a career in medicine so that, someday, she can help support families just like hers. She hopes to work in pediatric oncology, providing compassionate care to children who are fighting cancer.

As a Buff, Ruffolo is also honoring her father’s legacy by raising money and awareness for cancer prevention research, an initiative she started just after her father got his diagnosis.

“I just want people to know they have a support system and a network that hates cancer as much as they do—that they’re not alone,” she says.

Helping others

Life was rolling along for the Ruffolo family when they got the news that would change their lives forever. In 2017, their beloved patriarch, John Ruffolo, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, a disease that is often fatal.

“It hit us like a bus,” says Ruffolo.

Pancreatic cancer is the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, according to the National Institutes of Health. Between 2015 and 2021, the five-year survival rate was just 13.3 percent—much lower than other types of cancer. In 2025, the American Cancer Society estimates 67,440 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 51,980 people will die from the disease.

“It’s the cancer that really gives cancer its bad name,” Ruffolo says.

Prospect Ridge Academy High School Students participate in a cancer fundraiser organized by Giovanna Ruffolo in 2019. (Photo: Giovanna Ruffolo)

Ruffolo was just 14 at the time, but she felt compelled to take action. As a sophomore at Prospect Ridge Academy High School, she created TeamRuffolo, a student-led initiative to raise money and awareness for cancer research.

In November 2018, her school hosted a “Purple Out”—a one-day event in which students were encouraged to wear purple to show their support for the cancer community and donate whatever they could toward prevention research. Students, teachers and administrators raised more than $1,000 for the American Cancer Society that day, and Ruffolo went home feeling inspired and hopeful.

She organized similar fundraisers at her high school in 2019 and 2020 (though the initiative had to go virtual because of the COVID-19 pandemic).

“It was such a wonderful feeling,” she says. “A lot of these people didn’t even know my dad, but they were still so supportive. Seeing people come together not only for him, but just to say, ‘You’re not alone,’ was tremendous for all of us.”

Balancing act

Meanwhile, despite undergoing various treatments and surgeries, her father’s cancer continued to progress. Four years after his diagnosis, he succumbed to the disease in January 2021 at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center.

Ruffolo was utterly devastated, but she knew she had to finish high school and get a college degree for her dad. And, wherever she ended up next, she wanted to continue her awareness-raising and fundraising events to support other cancer patients and their families.

CU Boulder participants run in the Stronger Together Annual 5K at CU in 2024, the event's most successful year. (Photo: Giovanna Ruffolo)

At CU Boulder, Ruffolo has thrown herself into her studies, with an ultimate goal of working in the medical field. From her father’s experience, Ruffolo learned first-hand that cancer affects more than just the body—it also influences a patient’s mind, spirit and emotions. With that in mind, she’s majoring in integrative physiology and psychology to create her own pre-health pathway.

“My father had trouble grasping being diagnosed with a terminal disease, as anyone rightfully would,” she says. “I want to understand people’s behaviors and thoughts better, so that when someone is going through a hardship, I can better support them.”

To further build her skill set, Ruffolo also completed CU’s emergency medical technician (EMT) program, an online, non-credit specialization that prepares students for national registry testing. She has also worked as a research assistant at CU Boulder and Children's Hospital Colorado.

In addition, Ruffolo has taken on a leadership role with the CU Boulder chapter of the American Medical Student Association, spending three years on the executive board before being elected president for the 2025-26 school year. Through the student group, Ruffolo has carried on her TeamRuffolo efforts—now called Stronger Together—by organizing 5-kilometer run/walk events to raise money for the American Cancer Society.

She is also a journey leader with New Student & Family Programs, where she helps incoming freshmen navigate the CU Boulder experience. Balancing her studies with her extracurricular activities—while also supporting her family and honoring her father’s legacy—has been challenging. But, for Ruffolo, it all comes back to staying true to herself.

“Pretty much my tippy-top value is helping others,” she says.

In class, Ruffolo has never been afraid to ask questions and speak up—even when that means talking about her father’s death in a large lecture hall full of hundreds of students. Jennifer Stratford, a CU Boulder teaching associate professor of psychology and neuroscience, says Ruffolo’s willingness to be vulnerable has opened the door for other students to share their experiences.

John Ruffolo died from pancreatic cancer in 2021. (Photo: Giovanna Ruffolo)

“She just kind of became an ambassador and a face for students who have lost parents,” says Stratford. “I’ve had a lot of feedback from students about how much they appreciated her bravery and how much they identified with some of the struggles she’d been through. It’s a once-in-a-decade or once-in-a-lifetime experience to see a single student have an impact on so many of her classmates.”

‘Your love will be your legacy’

Since high school, Ruffolo estimates she’s helped raise more than $20,000 for the American Cancer Society. And she’s not done yet. She hopes the CU Boulder AMSA chapter will continue organizing the 5K run/walk fundraisers, and that she’ll be able to host similar events during the next phase of her educational journey.

For now, Ruffolo is focused on finishing up her studies so she can graduate in the spring of 2026. From there, she hopes to continue her education in the medical field, likely as a doctor or physician assistant specializing in pediatric oncology.

“I really want to serve that specific community,” she says. “You’re treating little people who have lots of emotions and a little body. They get very scared easily. You really have to be empathetic and treat them and their families with kindness. I love the idea of sitting down with people, holding their hands, talking to them—not just giving them a death sentence, walking out the door and saying, ‘Best of luck.’”

That approach stems directly from her father’s experiences. As he neared the end of his life, Ruffolo remembers him breaking down and talking about how scared he was. She hopes to be the kind of practitioner who will help people like her dad move forward through their pain and fear, while also treating their underlying illness.

“Your love will be your legacy,” she says. “In a world where there’s no cure for cancer, investing your time in others is the only way you can live forever. And loving other people—giving them kindness and empathy—is one of the best ways to help fight any disease.”

Losing her father to pancreatic cancer inspired CU Boulder undergraduate Giovanna Ruffolo to raise money for cancer research and pursue a career in medicine.

Traditional

White

Top image: Giovanna Ruffolo (right) and her late father, John, representing Colorado cancer patients and survivors at Mile High Stadium at an event sponsored by the American Cancer Society in 2019. (Photo: Giovanna Ruffolo)

What rats can tell us about the opioid crisis

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 14 Jul 2025 13:30:00 +0000

What rats can tell us about the opioid crisis Rachel Sauer Mon, 07/14/2025 - 07:30

Blake Puscher

CU Boulder scientists estimate the heritability of opioid use disorder with a rodent study

Opioid use disorder is an ongoing global health crisis. In the United States alone, almost 108,000 people died from drug overdose in 2022, and about 75% of those deaths involved opioids.

Although many factors contribute to this crisis—and there are many approaches to addressing it as a result—one important line of research is into the genetic factors that increase people’s risk for developing an opioid use disorder (OUD). Once these risk factors are known, doctors may be able to prescribe opioids more strategically to people at higher risk of OUD, and such individuals could make more informed choices.

In recently published research, scientists from the ��—including Eamonn Duffy, Jack Ward, Luanne Hale, Kyle Brown and Ryan Bachtell of the Bachtell Laboratory, and Andrew Kwilasz, Erika Mehrhoff, Laura Saba and Marissa Ehringer—tested the influence of genetics on opioid-related behaviors, which include OUD. Specifically, they looked at its heritability by conducting an experiment in which rats were given the ability to self-administer oxycodone, a semi-synthetic opioid that is used medically to treat pain.

CU Boulder researchers tested the influence of genetics on opioid-related behaviors, specifically looking at its heritability by conducting an experiment in which rats were given the ability to self-administer oxycodone, a semi-synthetic opioid that is used medically to treat pain. (Photo: Jon Anders Wiken/Dreamstime.com)

Experimental design

More than 260 inbred rats from 15 strains were used for the study. In this case, an inbred strain is defined as a population produced by 20 or more generations of brother-sister mating. This was important for the study because the rats within inbred strain are isogenic: “They’re almost like clones; their genomes are identical, except for the X and Y chromosomes between males and females,” Duffy explains.

Like the use of identical-twin research involving humans, this makes the results more reliable. In a twin study, most differences between twins are caused by their environment, so researchers can determine the genetic influence on a trait by how much it varies. Similarly, within an inbred strain, most individual differences are caused by sex differences, and this provides insight into the importance of biological sex to a given trait. Between inbred strains, differences are attributable to either the strains’ different genes, sex differences, or a combination of the two.

The animals in the study could self-administer the oxycodone using levers, so their behaviors could be measured. There were two retractable levers in the testing chamber: one active, which would give the rats a dose of oxycodone after being pulled, and one inactive, which would do nothing.

After the active lever was pulled, there was a cooldown period of 20 seconds, during which time pulling the lever would not dispense another dose. Regardless of whether pulling a lever had an effect, it would be recorded. This allowed researchers to measure two substance-use behaviors in addition to the total amount of oxycodone consumed. These variables were referred to as “timeout responding” and “lever discrimination.”

Timeout responses were pulls on the active lever that happened during the cooldown period. Lever discrimination was a measure of how often rats pulled the inactive lever. Both essentially tracked the rats’ ability to self-administer substances in a regulated manner, although lever discrimination could have other associations. Attempting to get more oxycodone very quickly (timeout responding) and attempting to get it in an illogical way (low lever discrimination, especially once the animals had time to learn how the levers worked) are signs of dysregulated drug use.

These measures are important in addition to total dosage because the rats naturally consumed more oxycodone as they developed a tolerance to the drug, making it difficult to characterize their drug use on that basis alone. “With addiction,” Duffy says, “it’s a complicated story. They’re developing tolerance, and they’re showing dysregulated use.”

Push the lever, get the oxycodone

The tests were split into two phases: acquisition and escalation. Although the number of daily doses the rats received generally increased over time, especially between the two phases, their self-administration behaviors varied significantly by strain.

For example, in the escalation phase, the females of one strain pushed the lever for a total oxycodone dose of less than 100 mg/kg, whereas rats of another strain took a total of about 300. There was also variation between males and females within a strain, though not always: In some strains, males and females consumed a similar amount of oxycodone, while in others, consumption was notably divergent, with males consuming around 200 mg/kg more oxycodone overall.

Once the genetic factors that increase people's risk for developing an opioid use disorder (OUD) are known, doctors may be able to prescribe opioids more strategically to people at higher risk of OUD, and such individuals could make more informed choices. (Photo illustration: iStock)

This is evidence for a strain-sex interaction, meaning that the rats’ substance-use behaviors were determined by a combination of genetic background and biological sex, not either alone, according to the researchers. Although the obvious explanation for this would be different genes encoded on the sex chromosomes of the various strains, this isn’t necessarily the case.

“Some of our collaborators in San Diego have performed several genetic mapping studies,” Duffy says, “and they found that the Y chromosome didn’t appear to play much of a role in regulating behavioral traits.”

It is possible that X-chromosome genes are a greater factor. However, the biggest influence would probably be sex hormones or related differences, Duffy adds. For example, according a separate study, the sex hormone estradiol can increase oxycodone metabolism indirectly by raising the concentration of a protein in the brain.

Moreover, Duffy says, “there could be developmental aspects to the sex difference, so seeing if they’re exposed to testosterone versus estrogen as they’re growing up, that may affect how their brain is wired.”

Several other strains showed notably divergent behaviors. Some strains were fairly stable in their use, while others increased their oxycodone intake rapidly during the acquisition phase. Lever discrimination also varied by strain, with one strain increasing its lever discrimination quickly, for example, while another failed to increase its lever discrimination much over time.

The biggest discovery that emerged from the research was the discovery of how heritable several behaviors related to opioid use are.

The influence of genetics

Heritability is a measure of what part of the variation in a group is due to genetic or heritable characteristics.

“With heritability,” Duffy explains, “when you’re looking at everything that goes into some kind of trait, like opioid use disorder, the average genetic component will be your heritability. You also have environmental influences, which could be things such as diet.”

Taking OUC as an example, variation might be understood qualitatively in terms of how destructive the effects of drug use are on individuals, from having minimal effect on people’s lives to potentially causing overdoses and death, Duffy adds.

If the heritability of OUD were 0, the fact that some people use the drug safely and others die because of it would be explained entirely by non-genetic factors. If the heritability of OUD were 1, this fact would be explained entirely by genetics. However, as with most traits, OUD appears to be caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

According to the study, measures of oxycodone intake ranged between 0.26 and 0.54 heritability. The high end of this range is total oxycodone intake over the course of the experiment, while the low end is change in intake (increase in intake over the acquisition phase). The other behavioral phenotypes had heritability scores of 0.25 to 0.42, with timeout responding being more heritable than lever discrimination.

“�� half of that variability is due to genetic background,” Duffy says, referring to total intake. “That’s really strong heritability.” However, because these data come from rats, the heritability of these behavioral phenotypes may be different in humans. “We’re not going to capture everything about OUD in a rat model, but we can capture specific aspects and use that to put together a bigger picture.

“OUD is hard to study in humans because there aren’t as many people using opioids as alcohol or nicotine, and of that smaller population, we also have people using several types of drugs, so it’s harder to calculate these heritability values, but I believe ours do fall within the range for opioid dependence and opioid use disorder in humans.”

“With addiction, it’s a complicated story. They’re developing tolerance, and they’re showing dysregulated use.”

It's also important to recognize that heritability is a population-level statistic. This means that it does not represent the chance for any individual to develop a trait, even if that trait could be inherited from the individual’s parents. However, a higher heritability of some trait would correspond to a greater resemblance between parents and offspring in that respect throughout the population, Duffy says.

What genes contribute to OUD?

While it is useful to know how heritable opioid use disorder is, meaningfully assessing the risk for individuals requires knowing what genes contribute to it. This study doesn’t identify these genes, but progress has already been made to this end.

“There’ve been a number of studies in humans that have found that these SNPs, or single nucleotide polymorphisms, are associated with your risk of developing conditions like opioid dependence or opioid use disorder,” Duffy says. “There’s another group that is performing some genetic mapping in outbred rats, and that’s going to be the next stage of this project for us as well.”

One potential gene influencing OUD in mice is an SNP in the Oprm1 gene, which is explained in the study to affect the brain’s response to reward-related behavior generally and analgesics like oxycodone specifically. Common Oprm1 SNPs have also been associated with dysregulated use of an opioid in humans, specifically heroin.

Once relevant SNPs are identified, however, the situation remains complex. “It’s not going to be a simple answer,” Duffy says. “Like, you have this one SNP in Oprm1 and that’s going to increase or influence your risk for OUD. It’s probably going to be a multitude of SNPs, and those additive effects are going to influence the risk for this disorder.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about natural sciences? Show your support.

CU Boulder scientists estimate the heritability of opioid use disorder with a rodent study.

Traditional

White

When the homework is happiness

Rachel Sauer — Fri, 09 May 2025 13:30:00 +0000

When the homework is happiness Rachel Sauer Fri, 05/09/2025 - 07:30

Clint Talbott

June Gruber’s Science of Happiness course doesn’t map the way to unmitigated joy; on the contrary, the science of emotional wellness is more nuanced, and her students are sharing this message outside the classroom

The Declaration of Independence famously extols the “pursuit of happiness.” But what, exactly, is happiness, and how should one pursue it? Also, should we even view it as something to be pursued?

Those questions underlie countless magazine articles, TV documentaries and self-help courses. More rigorously, they’re the focus of a popular Science of Happiness course taught by June Gruber, a professor of psychology at the ��.

Gruber’s course does not unfold a map to unmitigated delight. Rather, Gruber’s course pores over the developing research—some of it Gruber’s own—that reveals a more nuanced view and even a “dark side to happiness.” The course also asks students to summarize and share the science of happiness for “outreach” to general audiences.

June Gruber (front row left, checked blazer) and her Science of Happiness students pause for a class photo on the last day of the semester. (Photo: June Gruber)

As Gruber has shown in her peer-reviewed research, a TEDx talk and this CU Boulder course, it is not that happiness is bad. Rather, evidence suggests that happiness is one of several human emotions to which people should be open, and excesses of apparent happiness can signal problems such as mania (or bipolar disorder), excessive spending, problem gambling or high-risk sexual encounters.

Perhaps counterintuitively, Gruber cites a growing body of evidence that the act of pursuing happiness can leave the pursuers, paradoxically, less happy. They report being less able to be emotionally present in moments that could be happy, and they are more likely to experience mood difficulties and anxiety. That’s one “dark side” of happiness.

New evidence for old advice

As it happens, modern science reflects ancient wisdom. In the final class of her spring 2025 semester, Gruber showed her class a quotation from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “Those who are not looking for happiness are the most likely to find it, because those who are searching forget that the surest way to be happy is to seek happiness for others.”

The English philosopher John Stuart Mill, whom Gruber quotes, said, “Those only are happy who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness: on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way.”

And that “pursuit of happiness” phrase from the Declaration of Independence was lifted from the philosopher John Locke, who said the “highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty.”

Locke himself was influenced by Aristotle and Epicurus, who viewed happiness as a laudable goal but who defined happiness as leading a purposeful and contemplative life. Happiness, Aristotle said, “is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”

Gruber discusses this older concept of happiness, sometimes called eudaimonic wellbeing, vs. hedonic wellbeing. Unlike purposeful and meaningful experiences, hedonic pleasures, which tend to be those people in Western societies equate with happiness, are peak experiences, like watching a stunning sunset or blissing out to the “Ode to Joy.”

Putting lessons into practice

In addition to reviewing researchers’ findings and ruminating on ancient wisdom, students in the Science of Happiness course (PSYC 4541) complete weekly “science-to-life” exercises, which apply the theories and practices learned in class to everyday existence.

For instance, students kept gratitude journals, performed random acts of kindness and completed the UPenn Authentic Happiness Inventory. Students also took “awe walks,” in which they visited novel, physically vast spaces and observed their surroundings mindfully.

Beyond the exercises and coursework, the students also have done outreach projects, the goal of which is to share the science of happiness outside the classroom and in the broader community.

One student, Franco Devecchi, produced a flyer highlighting research on the potential benefits of music therapy for those with autism. The flyer cites studies showing evidence that music therapy can strengthen autistic individuals’ sense of well-being, helping them feel more confident, accommodated and socially acceptable.

Devecchi conversed with people in campus buildings in which he distributed the flyers. In one case, Devecchi spoke with another person with autism, recalling, “We bonded over how developmentally important music was for us growing up and discussed the gap in research when it comes to autistic adults!”

Another student, Indiana Wagner, completed an outreach project on the intersection of awe, psychedelics and well-being. Wagner made a presentation to Naropa University’s Intro to Psychedelics Studies course.

Wagner noted that the transformational mechanisms of awe (which can foster happiness) “have a lot of crossover with the transformational mechanisms of the psychedelic experience.”

Wagner added, “Both awe-inducing experiences and psychedelic experiences have the ability to create a sense of ‘mystical experience,’ which can be followed by these transformations; there's a lot of interesting literature, particularly within Johns Hopkins University, on the mystical experience from psilocybin being associated with positive changes.”

Wagner said many of the Naropa students seemed very interested after the presentation and asked questions relating to the subject of awe, how to incorporate it, practice it and Wagner’s own experiences with it.

And student Kate Timothy produced an outreach project on the relationship between sleep, happiness and well-being. Timothy, who completed an honors thesis about sleep disruptions and their effect on Alzheimer’s biomarkers, wanted to further understand how sleep affects well-being and share that knowledge with others.

She developed a trivia event for college students in which the questions focused on how to improve sleep and thus happiness. Timothy is a dormitory worker, and her audience was the dormitory population. “I just asked students as they went by some trivia questions and also passed out some chocolate prizes,” she said. “It was a fun and easy way to get important information about sleep to my peers!”

Gruber has been recognized for her teaching. She is a President’s Teaching Scholar, has won the Boulder Faculty Assembly Teaching Excellence Award, the UROP Outstanding Mentor Award and the Cogswell Award for Inspirational Instruction. The last award is named for and funded by Craig Cogswell, a three-time alumnus of CU Boulder, who says Gruber is an “amazing educator and teacher.”

Gruber also has developed a free online Coursera #TalkMentalIllness course to tackle stigma and mental health and has written articles for Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science about the importance of teaching students about the positive side of psychological disorders. She also shares career and professional advice for students in Science Careers. She is currently co-authoring a textbook on the science of happiness with Dacher Keltner and colleagues at the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Traditional

White

How was it for you? Women are finally being asked

Rachel Sauer — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 20:10:57 +0000

How was it for you? Women are finally being asked Rachel Sauer Thu, 04/24/2025 - 14:10

Pam Moore

CU Boulder scientist Chelsea Kilimnik is one of a handful of researchers looking at the correlation between sexual trauma and ‘duty sex’

Driven by a long-held interest in the ways in which unwanted and nonconsensual sexual experiences can shape individuals’ future sexual experiences and overall well-being, Chelsea Kilimnik, a licensed clinical psychologist and assistant professor in the �� Department Psychology and Neuroscience and the Renée Crown Wellness Institute, teamed up with researchers at the University of Texas at Austin to study that very topic.

It’s not surprising that research has largely neglected how women’s trauma shapes their sex lives, considering that, as a culture, “we’ve only recently acknowledged that women are sexual beings,” says Kilimnik, who is the director of the Growth, Identity, and Sexual Trauma (GIST) Lab at CU Boulder.

CU Boulder researcher Chelsea Kilimnik, an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience, notes that that, as a culture, "we’ve only recently acknowledged that women are sexual beings."

Kilimnik’s and her colleagues’ research, published recently in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, provides foundational insights into women’s motivations for sex—an area of study that has long been overlooked by the scientific community.

An overlooked area of research

Although the tides are beginning to turn, for many healthcare providers, the idea of prioritizing women’s sexual pleasure is still novel. Many times, when women come to the doctor reporting pelvic pain or pain during sex, their experiences are invalidated and their healthcare needs ignored, says Kilimnik. Not only is this frustrating, but the lack of belief, offered agency and validation can exacerbate mental health difficulties for those with past experiences of sexual trauma.

Meanwhile, the body of data on women’s mental health and its connection to sexual health and well-being is “still in its infancy,” says Kilimnik, who is part of a small community of researchers studying it.

“Sexual trauma affects women at disproportionately higher rates than men and has a significant influence on their sex lives, yet this connection to sexuality is something that was ignored by the literature for centuries, so we need to document it in the literature,” she explains.

While we may think of sex as something that doesn’t affect our lives beyond the bedroom, our sexuality affects many aspects of our day-to-day lives, says Kilimnik. That’s because psychological and sexual well-being are deeply linked.

Psychological well-being encompasses multiple factors, including the presence or absence of mental health disorders, general mood and overall quality of life, says Kilimnik. Sexual well-being, on the other hand, can include your sexual satisfaction, how you feel about yourself as a sexual person, the way your body operates in sexual encounters, body image and the presence or absence of sexual disorders, she says.

“While psychological and sexual well-being are two distinct constructs, they are almost always related,” says Kilimnik. For example, if you’re depressed, that will impact your sex life. And if your sex life is unsatisfying or you struggle to view yourself as a sexual being, that can impact your self-esteem, and in turn, your mental health, she explains.

What the data say

The team of researchers explored the relationships between the frequency of duty sex (the act of engaging in sex out of a sense of obligation or duty), sexual functioning and nonconsensual sexual encounters (NSEs).

"Sexual trauma affects women at disproportionately higher rates than men and has a significant influence on their sex lives, yet this connection to sexuality is something that was ignored by the literature for centuries."

While duty sex is consensual, it’s motivated not by desire but by “the feeling that you have to,” says Kilimnik. That might be for reasons ranging from not wanting your partner to be angry to the fear that they might leave you, or the sense that you have a responsibility to your partner to engage in sex.

The data revealed that people with NSE histories reported higher frequency of duty sex. They also found that people with lower levels of sexual satisfaction and higher levels of sexual pain reported more frequent duty sex.

“These relationships can be bidirectional,” Kilimnik points out, particularly with regard to duty sex and sexual pain and dysfunction. In other words, people may have more duty sex because they don’t enjoy sex due to pain or discomfort, but it’s also true that people may not find their sex lives satisfying because they’re frequently engaging in duty sex.

When the researchers controlled for sexual functioning, they found that NSEs “have this unique impact on engaging in duty sex above and beyond what sexual functioning can account for,” says Kilimnik. This is consistent with existing research that indicates those with NSE histories often have more difficulty asserting their sexual boundaries, she says.

While this paper alone can’t tell us how to improve our sex lives—and, consequently, our overall well-being—it does support the existence of an important pattern, says Kilimnik. “That pattern supports this idea that if the primary reason you’re engaging in sex is out of a sense of obligation, it can be harmful for your sex life and well-being.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

CU Boulder scientist Chelsea Kilimnik is one of a handful of researchers looking at the correlation between sexual trauma and ‘duty sex.’

Traditional

White

Top photo: iStock

Who has the influence to curb gender bias in STEM?

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:30:00 +0000

Who has the influence to curb gender bias in STEM? Rachel Sauer Tue, 03/25/2025 - 07:30

Cody DeBos

Hint: It’s not women

When Charlotte Moser started graduate school, she was the only woman in a shared office with four male students. One day, a classmate casually remarked that he wished she weren’t there so the office could be all men.

Moser barely had time to process the sting of the exclusion before another male student cut in, calling out the remark as gender bias.

“It felt so great to have someone stand up for me,” Moser recalls. “I felt like someone had my back and I belonged in this space.”

Charlotte Moser, a research associate in CU Boulder’s Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, studies how allyship in male-dominated fields influences workplace culture.

That moment stayed with her—not just because of the personal validation, but because it led her to begin exploring a larger pattern in workplace dynamics.

Now as a research associate in the ��’s Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Moser studies how allyship in male-dominated fields influences workplace culture. Her findings reveal an unsettling but potentially useful truth: When men openly advocate for gender equality, their voices often carry more weight than women’s do.

The reason? Not necessarily gender, Moser says, but power and influence.

The social influence gap

Moser’s research suggests that in STEM workplaces, where men hold most leadership positions, male allies are perceived as more persuasive, more legitimate and more effective at creating a culture that supports gender equality than their female counterparts.

“We find that men who advocate for gender equality and act as allies tend to be better at signaling to women that they will belong and be respected in male-dominated STEM contexts than when women advocate for gender equality,” Moser says.

Her findings suggest that allyship in male-dominated workplaces isn’t just about intent or even gender. Rather, it’s about who is perceived as having the power to create change.

If a female scientist points out that women are often overlooked for leadership roles or promotions, she may be met with skepticism or dismissed as self-interested. But when a male colleague makes the same argument, research shows that their remark is more likely to be taken seriously and perceived as a norm-setting statement rather than a personal complaint.

“Other work has found that men tend to be perceived more positively than women when advocating for gender equality,” Moser explains. “Women tend to be viewed as whiners, complainers, and only acting in their own self-interest.”

The cost of exclusion

Gender bias in the workplace isn’t a theoretical issue. It has real repercussions.

Car-crash dummies designed to represent women’s bodies weren’t introduced until 2011. Even today, they are tested only in the passenger seat, not the driver’s seat. (Photo: Lin Pan/Wikimedia Commons)

“A huge consequence is the loss of the contributions from many brilliant women scientists,” Moser says.

Research shows that women are less likely to be retained in male-dominated fields due to factors like persistent bias, exclusion and a lack of support. With fewer women present to offer their perspective, blind spots emerge, and those gaps can have serious, even deadly, implications.

One striking example is the case of crash-test dummies.

“For decades, car-crash dummies were built to represent the average body of a man,” Moser says. “This led women to be much more likely to fall victim to serious injury and death in car crashes.”

Shockingly, car-crash dummies designed to represent women’s bodies weren’t introduced until 2011. Even today, they are tested only in the passenger seat, not the driver’s seat. Recent statistics show that women are 17% more likely to be killed in a car accident and 73% more likely to be seriously injured than male occupants.

This oversight isn’t an accident, but the denouement of decades of scientific decision-making that lacked diverse perspectives.

“More inclusive science is better for everyone—not just those who face bias,” Moser says.

Going beyond performative allyship

If allyship from men is perceived as more effective, what should they do to ensure their support is genuine and impactful?

Moser has a few recommendations.

“I would say that men who don’t know where to start could start within their own spheres. Pay attention to what’s going on, how people are treated, and listen to the women around you,” she says.

But listening is only the first step.

Moser emphasizes that standing up against gender bias isn’t just about making statements on social media or in private. Meaningful allyship requires action.

Calling out dismissive remarks in a team meeting or challenging biased hiring decisions can have an immediate effect. Those in leadership positions can stretch their influence further by advocating for equitable organizational policies and ensuring women have access to mentorship and career-advancement opportunities.

“One hurdle for men regarding allyship for gender equality is that they feel that it is ‘not their place,’” Moser says. “I hope that my work can show that allyship from men is not only wanted but very beneficial to women.”

However, Moser warns that inauthentic allyship—publicly claiming to support gender equality without backing it up—can make meaningful change even harder to achieve.

“The future of allyship isn’t just about who speaks. It’s about who gets listened to.”

“I have other work showing that it is worse to claim allyship but then do nothing to promote equality than if one had said nothing about inequality and allyship in the first place,” she says.

Who deserves to be heard?

Moser’s research makes clear the fact that eliminating gender bias in the workplace isn’t a matter of men versus women. Rather, it’s about recognizing and altering the systems that create credibility and influence.

“I think allyship can change the narrative of the widespread belief that most men don’t care about women and change the narrative that it’s women’s responsibility to make these workplaces work for them,” she says.

But the goal isn’t just getting men to use their influence—it’s about redistributing power so that women’s voices carry the same weight without needing male validation.

“The future of allyship isn’t just about who speaks,” Moser explains. “It’s about who gets listened to.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about psychology and neuroscience? Show your support.

Hint: It’s not women.

Zebra Striped

White

Psychology and Neuroscience

Hindsight may be 20/20, but people feel more strongly about the future

Related Articles

Why do some thoughts refuse to leave?

Related Articles

Video games don’t rot your brain—they train it

Related Articles

It takes a village of mothers

Related Articles

Study: Using cannabis and psilocybin together may increase dependence

Related Articles

'Your love will be your legacy'

Related Articles

What rats can tell us about the opioid crisis

Related Articles

When the homework is happiness

Related Articles

How was it for you? Women are finally being asked

Related Articles

Who has the influence to curb gender bias in STEM?

Related Articles