Researches Determine That Hormonal Changes in the Brain Can Impact Memory Loss

--Original published at Sherika's Psych Blog

Dr. Sarah Conner along with several other researchers affiliated with The Framingham Heart Study sought to answer the age-long question that their study proposed: can memory loss be impacted by a change in the brain’s chemistry?

In order to answer this question, researchers singled out a single hormone in the brain that they wanted to focus on for the duration of the study. Cortisol, or a hormone that regulates the bodies metabolism as well as immune system. Taking a large group of participants who were related to the original participants of the Framingham Heart Study, the researchers subjected the participants to a series of mentally stimulating tests and activities that were meant to stimulate the participants minds. Afterwards, researchers subjected the participants to CAT scans in order to see if there were any noticeable changes in the structure of their brains after the experiment.

It was found that long term, high exposure of cortisol in the brain can in fact weaken memory and contributes to memory loss. Researchers further found that this condition affected women more than it did men.


After taking several English courses at college, it’s been hammered and honed into me that people never read the entirety of an article, or better yet that the majority of people never read the entirety of it. Along with the fact that a huge portion of Americans (often times the readership base) tend to read at a High School level. In our current climate, it’s better to take the key core components of a piece that is being summarized and keep it short as possible. So that readers can simply skim through understand why something happened and how it was resolved or concluded. It’s important to keep the language simple as well, as pointed out earlier due to the fact that a large portion of American’s read at a High School level, complex language and words are simply going to go over peoples heads.

While it’s important in psychology to answer all five critical questions for reading research to some effect not all of those questions can be answered when it comes to summarizing and keeping an article based on a lengthy psychology research brief without losing the attention span and marketable traffic revenue that readers can bring to a site. If an article is too long or uses what is considered too much fluff language or even fails to summarize the main points of the research in a short and concise manner that aids the reader’s skimming, then the site will see a decline in traffic and in turn revenue.

So when it came to this article, I decided that it’s best to keep at least one researcher’s name from the study in this article with a following description that there were other researchers. Since a reader doesn’t want to feel inclined to read through several names of varying complexity. It was also important to include the fact that this study is connected to another and using participants who are connected to the Framingham study. Other information that I deemed important to include where the research methods and conclusion. I didn’t want to keep the research methods long or go into a heavy detail about them, because again, readers have a short attention span in a world where everything is at the tips of our fingers. While there are some similarities between the summarization found here and the study it’s summarizing itself, I feel that the study goes in depth on the topic.

But, for the sake of the readership as well as keeping the article itself short enough for people to be engaged in to read, there are some sacrifices that were made. Especially when it comes to trimming information and omitting some things altogether.

In all when it came to the three parts of this assignment and writing as a journalist who’s main emphasis is in writing about psychology, I felt that there was a duality needed in order to understand how readers of this current time period read in an increasingly advancing period and the ability to understand the psychological focused pieces that are being consumed for research.


Media Production Project; Psychology in the Media

--Original published at olivyahvanek

The article, “Holocaust Exposure Induced Intergenerational Effects on FKBP5 Methylation” researched and written by various authors researched the idea that the offspring of Holocaust survivors had inherited a type of “disability” from their parents’ trauma. This idea that children are inheriting a gene from their parents because of their trauma from the Holocaust was proved to be false, rather they are getting these mental illnesses as they get older from the way that they were raised by their parents. These children were raised differently than other children in their generation because of the trauma that their parents had experienced in their lives.

This research article focused on how the Holocaust had an effect on FKBP5 methylation in the survivors, which is a protein found in the human body that regulates the GR sensitivity. In Holocaust survivors methylation at site FKBP5 was higher than it was in people that were not impacted by the Holocaust. Although, in Holocaust offspring, methylation was lower than it was in people in the same generation that were not impacted by the Holocaust. These levels for parents and their offspring of the Holocaust were correlated, as when they were in the Holocaust the levels are higher than if they were not.

In conclusion, these researchers had found that it was not simply a gene being passed down from Holocaust survivors to their offspring, rather it was the way that the children were raised by the Holocaust survivors. If these children had suffered any physical, mental, or sexual abuse as a child, then their methylation at site FKBP5 was lower than children who had not experienced these things. This was more common in children of Holocaust survivors because of the way that they had been raised by their parents, not any type of gene that was being passed down.


As I was writing the summary for this research article, I had used the main ideas that were taken from the article to help and summarize it in the most simple way because their experiment had a very complicated procedure. Although from the summary, their idea seemed to be simple, it was very difficult to decide what aspects should be added into the summary, because the whole experiment was very complicated and full of the research that all of these authors had done. As I was writing the summary, I had left out more of the procedure and how this actual experiment was done because it was a more unimportant aspect to the whole research, and instead I added more about the results of their experiment because the whole procedure had many confusing parts to it and if you did not read the whole article, readers would have a hard time understanding exactly how the whole experiment was done. This article did answer the five critical questions to reading research.

The news article that lead to the research article was written in a much more simple way than the research article itself because it never went into specifics as to how their experiment was done to get to their results. The news article did provide some critical information needed for the research article, although it never went into specifics as to how their results were found. The research article then proved that the news article was false because genes cannot be passed down from trauma, like in the case of Holocaust survivors passing down their trauma genes to their offspring.

From these three assignments I have learned a lot about journalists’ writing. From the pop culture assignment, I learned that research can be done and supported, but then found to be false even though the researchers that did the experiment think that it was correct. This taught me that no matter how well researchers prevent their data, it is not always correct. From the research article critique I learned that it takes way more than a couple researchers to create a study and prove it to be correct, and although it seems easy to create a study, it takes a lot of time and research to make it become real and reliable. From this assignment, the media production project, I learned that being a journalist can be hard, as writing from the top of your head and creating and coming up with information from other people’s work can take a lot of effort, to find the correct information to share with your readers.

These three assignments made me have a new appreciation for journalists, because their job is not as easy as it seems to be. It takes a lot of hard work and time to get to the point of creating a piece of work that is able to be published, without getting any criticism. I enjoyed doing all of these assignments and learning more about how trauma can affect people and also more about the writing of a journalist.


Thomson, Helen. Study of Holocaust Survivors Finds Trauma Passed on to Children’s Genes. 2015,,_GuardUK_20150821.pdf.

Yehuda, R., Daskalakis, N., Bierer, L., Bader, H., Klengel, T., Holsboer, F., & Binder, E. (2017). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for Holocaust exposure induced intergenerational effects on FKBP5 methylation. F1000 – Post-publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature, 372-380. doi:10.3410/f.725812844.793527864

Media Production

--Original published at Noah'sPSY105blog

For a significant amount of time, individuals of all ages have stated that the mobile phone has had more of a negative impact on our society than it has a positive one. But, are there any signs that this is actually the case? Many scientists with numerous and diversity backgrounds in different fields of study set out to see if there was any truth behind these beliefs or if they were just people not adapting to the shift in technology.

The particular study that I have investigated, was a study conducted to see whether or not phone usage could cause a decline in the user’s mental capacity. Although experimenting with such a touchy and quite frankly an unethical subject, so the researchers decided to see if they could find any correlation between the way an individual uses a cell phone and a decline in memory by splitting individuals into groups by the way they use their cell phones, and see if there was any variance between these groups. The criteria they used to organize these groups were as follows: which side they hold their phone up to when they are making a call, if they used hands-free devices, and how long they tend to use their devices at a given time.

The results from the experiments that they had conducted, showed that there was a correlation between individuals who made calls on the right sides of their heads and a decline in mental capacity. The study also found that individuals who just used their phones to send texts, play games, or browsing the internet did not show any adverse effects to their memory.

Reflection: Throughout the time that I took writing this post on the particular article that I had read, I made sure that I kept the five critical questions in the back of my mind to help pull the article apart. This article tried to convey the information that was outlined within the study without going into too much detail. It may be understandable to quickly summarize the main points within a research report but I think that the journalist may have been able to strengthen this piece by providing a bit more information from the research report. However, they did make sure to provide a link to the original publication, which I found extremely helpful to understand the nature of the research that was completed.

Media Production

--Original published at JVershinski's Blog

Getting recommendations from someone is not something we put a lot of thought into. You’re looking for a suggestion to see if anyone else knows someone or something that could help to solve some kind of problem you have. Some people value others’ suggestions, and some people wave them aside. However, it is now being tested that a machine may give better suggestions than other people. New research indicates that machines do indeed give better recommendations in a field that is usually very human-like area, humor.

Participants in this study were given a series of jokes and asked to rate them on a scale from -10 to 10, with -10 being the least funny and 10 being the most funny. However, each experiment in this overall study had a slight difference in how the assessment was made as well as what additional questions were asked. For example, one of the experiments allowed the participants to know whether the recommendations they were being given were human or machine, while a different study told the participants the opposite source of where the joke truly came from. (Ex. If the joke came from a machine, the participants were told it came from a human and vice versa)

Participants from this study were selected from two different locations: the Museum of Science and Industry or’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were randomly selected, but some of the participants responses were dropped due to various reasons including: incomplete responses, failure to comply with instructions, failure to pass manipulation check, or giving the same rating to every joke. In total, there were about 3,750 participants recruited to partake in the study, but only 3,647 of the responses were recorded.

These results should have the ability to be applied to the general public because the participants were selected from the general public. I do not think that these results should be specified to only those from the museum or from the Turk because the people there are no different from the everyday person.

The results of all of the studies were quite interesting. First, it was determined that computer algorithms can generate better recommendations than actual people. This was based off of personal preference of the subjects. Second, the computer generated recommendations can be created from very little information. In the study, the computers that were generating the recommendations did not have any personal information about the person, beyond the ratings which they gave to the jokes. Finally, it was concluded that people preferred human recommendations over machine generated ones, despite the accuracy of the machines being higher. People seem to value human recommendations higher, which influences their opinion of the recommendation. This goes to show that even though it may not be as accurate as a machine, there could still be some value to human recommendations.


As I went through the article and wrote my summary of it, I decided to include some of the 5 critical questions, but not all of them. I thought it would be important to include the first two questions about selecting participants and operationalizing values because I thought that it would be useful information the reader should know. However, because the groups chosen were already the groups that would be partaking in the study, there was nothing to write about how the individuals were separated into groups. I also decided to not include whether or not the study allows for causal claims, because I think that based off of the information given, that answer can be figured out by the reader. Finally, I did include the ability of the study to generalize to the public. I think that this is important because it was not included in the study, but it is important because machine recommendations are already working their way into the life of millions of people, so I thought that it was important to point out.

Compared to the article, I think that my summary shares the most prevalent of the 5 critical questions. Both my summary and the article talk about how the study operationalized the values for the subjects, but that was the only question that was included in both. I decided to also share how the study could be generalized to the right population as well as how the participants were selected because I thought it was important in the study. Neither my summary or the article talked about how the participants were split into groups or if the study allowed for causal claims. I think this was a good move because the reader can determine from the information given the answer to both of those questions.

The pop culture article was written with what seemed to be the reader in mind. It had a small intro that allowed for a smooth transition between the topic of the research and the research itself. The scholarly article seemed to be written with the research in mind, and the reader secondary. It focused on the research very thoroughly and was not written to be read for entertainment. My summary was more like the pop culture article I think. I think I wrote my summary to tell the reader about the study, but also to be a little entertaining. It was more a strict summary of the research so that the reader could read my summary, and know what the study was about and the results of it. Three different approaches for the same study, but each with their own unique way of conveying the information across for different purposes.


“Why Ask a Machine for a Recommendation?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers,

Yeomans, M., Shah, A., Mullainathan, S., & Kleinberg, J. (2019). Making sense of recommendations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Advance online publication.

Psychology in the Media

--Original published at Courtney's College Blog


In 1973, John M. Darley and C. Daniel Batson published the study, “‘From Jerusalem to Jericho’: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.” This study was based off the Good Samaritan Bible story and used Princeton University seminary students as participants. First, the participants took questionnaires to determine their reasons for pursuing priesthood. This determined three categories: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and a quest for the meaning of life. Then, the students were told to prepare a speech about the possible jobs seminary students could pursue. Half of the students were told the story of the Good Samaritan prior to the next step. After the students had their speeches prepared, they individually walked to another building to continue the study. The independent variable had three groups depending on how much of a rush they were in to get to the second building. They encountered a fallen individual, with his head down, groaning, and coughing. The participants were graded on a scale from zero to five on how helpful they were to the troubled man. When they got to the second building, they were asked several questions about helping the needy, in order to validate the results. The results determined the amount of hurry to be the factor in determining the helpfulness of the participants. The presence of the Good Samaritan story and the motivation for priesthood had no effect. This determined that situational factors are more important than dispositional ones.


I decided to include all of the main points in my summary. The independent variables were stated along with how they were measured. I also included some background information about the study. I chose to include these details because I wish they were included in Glenn Geher’s “My Favorite Psychology Study.” I read this popular culture article before I read the scientific journal article. After I read the journal article, I noticed some details that should have been added, so I included them in my summary.

I included how the variables were operationalized. The independent variables were clearly stated, and the summary included how data collection was done. The participants were all seminary students at Princeton University, as stated at the beginning of the summary. The participants were assigned to several groups throughout the study, as clearly shown in the study. One of the groups were determined by personal motivations, and the others by random assignment. The independent variable that made a difference utilized random assignment, so it is credible. The method does not allow for causal claims because the independent variables are unrelated. The conclusions of this post are generalized to the correct population because it educates the class about a particular study. Although I do not have a degree in psychology (yet), it is acceptable because a blog post is casual way of conveying information.

The study, as published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, was much more detailed than Geher’s post. The journal had more sophisticated diction. The popular culture article stuck with a casual tone and defined terms that scientists would know. This is expected because a scientific journal attracts a scholarly audience, while a popular culture article targets the general population. The scientific journal answered all five of the critical questions. The popular culture article only answered a few. It described how variables were operationalized, how participants were selected, and how the participants were assigned to groups. They are similar because they explained the study in a chronological manner and conveyed the same conclusions.

Through analyzing the differences between the scientific journal and the website article, I noticed several differences between the style of writing. Scientists, as learned from the scientific journal, are more attentive to detail and explain the entire study. While analyzing the popular culture article, I noticed that these articles focus only on the important parts of the study, while using simple diction and defining complicated terms. In my blog post, I used a mixture of both styles. I made this decision because this post is not as scholarly as a scientific journal, but is still used for educational purposes.


Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). ‘From Jerusalem to Jericho’: A study of
     situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior [PDF].
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Media Production Project

--Original published at Robert's Psychology blog

 There is a study coming from the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry correlating between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and the volume of the caudate portion of the brain in 9 to 11-year-old boys of European descent. In this study the specific there were 5 psychiatric disorders, schizophrenic disorder (SCZ), bipolar disorder (BD), major depressive disorder (MDD), autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), and ADHD, and two cognitive traits, educational attainment (EA) and intelligence.

The participants for this study were selected from the Generation R Study, an ongoing study of a population based child development. In order to be studied, the participants needed to satisfy a few criteria. These criteria included; usable MRI’s, European ancestry, and usable genetic data. The study used an MRI to study the volume of the different parts of the brain, including cortical gray matter, total white matter, subcortical gray matter, ventricular volume, amygdala-hippocampus complex, caudate, putamen, and thalamus brain volumes. The study used polygenic risk scores based on genome-wide association studies, which identifies one’s genetic susceptibility for a given disorder or trait.

The study originally showed there to be a correlation between Major depression disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, educational attainment, and intelligence, but after the data was fitted the only correlations shown to be significant were ADHD in boys, educational attainment, and intelligence.

The author of this study stated there is not much research done in this field of study and the only way to understand the correlation between brain morphology and genetic susceptibility I children is to do more research. They also state, “Our results should be interpreted in the context of several strengths and limitations.” Meaning the study is a good start but it is not perfect and can be made better with a better understanding of the field.  

What Our Dreams Mean, According to Science.

--Original published at Jill Distler's Psychology Blog

“Every great dream begins with a dreamer,” Harriet Tubman. 

But where do our dreams really come from? There is actually a real science behind what goes on behind the scenes of the dreams that we create subconsciously while we are resting, and the physiological answer to this science is found within the Hippocampus of the brain.


The hippocampus is a neural center in the limbic system (neural center (including the amygdala, hypothalamus and hippocampus) located below the central hemisphere; associated with emotions and drives (Page 52 Myers & DeWall).) that helps to process explicit memories for storage. 

According to a group of scientists from Germany and Rhode Island, the process of moving memories to different storage centers during sleep, causes dreams to be produced from the experiences from the day that are being transferred to different storage locations. The hippocampus is essentially emptied every night while we sleep, to make room for more information coming the next day. It is believed that while the brain sorts through a day’s worth of experiences, that the brain is able to “steal” parts of these memories and fabricate them into some of our wildest/craziest dreams. 

Dreaming is also thought to be used as a purging method, since we can’t recall 90% of the dreams that our brains create overnight. This thought was also summarized by the famous Francis Crick, who in 1984 said, “We dream to forget,” in his development of his “garbage disposal theory”. 

Many people wonder what the crazy dreams they are having may mean, but there is no exact answer for why our minds create such specific and elusive visions to entertain us while we are in our most vulnerable state: sleep. Since we really don’t know how these images are created, we at least tried to understand how the brain is able to transfer memories to different areas of the brain. That ended up coming down to studying the electrical signals during sleep cycles, especially those signals being passed around in the structures within the limbic system, but mainly, the hippocampus and the neocortex. The neocortex being a section of the cerebral cortex (The most highly developed part of the brain that is associated with thinking, perceiving, producing, and understanding language.) that usually is known to be focused on sight and hearing, but while sleeping, helps to send memories to long-term storage.

While dreaming can be a confusing concept, they actually help the brain problem solve through endless possible experiences, both good and bad. The brain, while asleep, actually continues to work on its problems that it faced while awake. Creating dreams to allow us to “physically” work through the problems, but we only remember a few each night when we wake up the next day. The remembered dreams being the most extreme and bazaar solutions to these issues.

Although there is not a possible way to fully understand the complexity of the human mind, we can certainly try to find answers, and if we can’t, there is still many other things for scientists to discover along the way.


Media Project

--Original published at Phil's College Blog

Love is not easy. However, neither is telling someone that you do not love them anymore. This is a normal issue that many people deal with everyday, and there is something psychological that reveals why it can be problematic. A new study from psychologists from the University of Utah, Wayne State University, and the University or Toronto have found the explanation for this problem.
The issue is that the person who wants to break up is too concerned with how the other person will handle it. This will cause the individual who wants to break up to hold on to the relationship for the other person involved. These universities came to this conclusion by conducting two different studies to display their results to the public. The first study involved around 1400 participants and the second included an extra 500 from the previous 1400. Throughout the study, the participants were monitored by answering questions about their relationships. Then the participants were checked on over 10 weeks to see if they stayed with their partner. The second study was almost exactly the same however, it was used to see how many people thought of ending their relationship over the same time span. This allowed the researchers to have an in-depth look at both sides of the spectrum.
In both studies, the people that wanted the best for their ex-partner stayed longer than those who did not think about their ex-partner’s feelings. Furthermore, if the partner could see how much the other was putting into their relationship, they were inclined to stay in it longer because of the feelings for the other person.
In the end, people do break off relationships for different reasons, but it is true that partners do care about how their partner would feel if they left them. So next time you think your friend should break up with their partner, maybe you should give them time because maybe the process is already happening.

I found this article easy to summarize because it was about a topic I could understand because I had this happen to me. I was able to summarize the article easily because it did not have science specific definitions that would be hard to explain to the general public. However, I do feel that it was hard to fit in the reasons the scholarly article provides for why people could feel the way they did in the surveys and questions they answered. The answers such as the Prosocial Decision Making theory and Interdependence Theory could have been key bits of information that could have provided the reader with reasons why the participants felt the way they did. I believe that not having the space to put that type of information in hinders the piece’s affect. The reader was not able to see the complete side of the participants decision to break off their relationships because the reader could only see the results and not the explanation for them.

Furthermore, I decided to omit the same information as the original author as well because I would not have been able to conclude the article due to the space I was provided. The information that was left in my summary was just enough to get my point across. hat is all I wanted to put in my article because lay people do not want a long explanation with results, charts, and long definitions because that bores the reader. That is why I kept the information I did because it carried the story and kept the reader interested by not bogging them down with information that is not necessary.

Finally, my perspective on journalists have changed for the better because of this series. I never understood how hard it would be to keep an audience engaged and wanting to read without boring them with the unnecessary information. I never thought of how hard it would be to create a story with so much detail in the background but summarize the information into an article that makes sense in a defined length. Without doing this series, I never would have understood the editing of information required in order to release results to the public in a manner the public wants, while still keeping the integrity of the information by keeping the entire article credible with the information presented.


Media Production Project

--Original published at Bogo's Blog

            Doctor Elliot Ludvig from Warwick’s Department of Psychology, with colleagues at Princeton and Brown Universities, came up with an experiment that displays that forming good, or bad, habits depends on how often an action is performed rather than how much satisfaction the action ensues. The researchers created a computer simulation, where digital rodents were given a choice of two levers, one of which was associated with the chance of getting a reward. The lever with the reward was labelled the ‘correct’ lever, and the lever without the reward was labelled the ‘wrong’ lever. The reward was swapped between the two levers, and the simulated rodents were then trained to pick the ‘correct’ lever. Doctor Elliot Ludvig, Associate Professor in the University of Warwick’s Department of Psychology and one of the paper’s authors, commented, “Much of what we do is driven by habits, yet how habits are learned and formed is still somewhat mysterious. Our work sheds new light on this question by building a mathematical model of how simple repetition can lead to the types of habits we see in people and other creatures. “

            When the digital rodents were trained for a short period of time, they managed to pick the new, ‘correct’ lever when the lever with the reward changed. However, when they were trained extensively on just one lever, the digital rats stuck with the ‘wrong’ lever stubbornly, even when it had no chance of giving them a reward. Rather than having a chance of getting rewarded, the rodents stuck with the lever they were trained on. Dr Amitai Shenhav, Assistant Professor in Brown University’s Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences and one of the paper’s authors, commented, “Psychologists have been trying to understand what drives our habits for over a century, and one of the recurring questions is how much habits are a product of what we want versus what we do. Our model helps to answer that by suggesting that habits themselves are a product of our previous actions, but in certain situations those habits can be supplanted by our desire to get the best outcome.” This model could potentially be a small step towards understanding human habits more concisely.


            When I was writing the summary for the article, I did not really think too much about the five questions because I felt like a summary should stay true to its source. Changing the summary so it fits all five categories would be changing the story and, hence skewing the truth. I did have some difficulty in keeping the summary concise enough to fit the length of the article. The most difficulty was deciding which details to cut out and which to keep, while keeping the reader in mind. I did not want to have the length required but end up writing a confusing summary. To make sure the limited number of words were enough, I used quotes from the people who ran the experiments. My summary was aimed at the general public, so I tried my best to keep it to basic terms to avoid confusion. The main mission was to make sure that the summary was understandable by everyone and easily interpreted, so anyone could pick it up and know what is going on.

            Doing this has given me some appreciation for journalists because it is very difficult to make a summary on an experiment and keep it interesting. If I had to pick between my summary and the article, I think it would be the article because going over both, mine is missing something. The article seems to appeal more to me, possibly because it was written by someone with more experience. The article also had an interesting title that made you want to read it more, granted the title was clickbait and overstated the extent of the experiment I still find it effective.


University of Warwick. “Train the brain to form good habits through repetition.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 January 2019. <>.

Media Production Project: Correllation between Stress and Sleep

--Original published at Jessica K's College Blog

As far as anyone knows, sleep is a very important aspect of life. While it helps people feel refreshed and energized in the morning, it also helps repair the body and sort out old and new memories for the next day. However, there are different stressors in life that may disrupt a person’s good night sleep, leading to a stressful night and stressful morning.

A study performed by the University of Surrey tests a group of lab mice for the connection between lasting stress and the subsequent change of sleep cycles. In a nine-week period, the mice were introduced to the scent of a predator on random intervals, increasing stress measuring the changes in rapid-eye movement sleep (REM) and non-REM sleep (nREM). During that time, mice exposed to the stressor decrease social activity with other mice, and increase in depressive behavior.

As for sleep cycles, mild stress increases REM activity in the mices’ brain, while nREM stays the same. With the increase in REM sleep, which is in between wakefulness and sleep, generally prevents the body to repair itself and reduce stress in of itself, leading to less energy in the morning.

With the information made, the increase of mild stressors in life may lead to a stressful waking experience, and if the effect continues, may cause symptoms of antisocial behavior and depression.

So while people encounter their own forms of stress on a near-daily basis, too much stress can be just as detrimental as any tragedy, big or small.

For more information on the topic, visit the summarized study below.