Sleep/wake regularity and cognition in college students using antidepressants.

The current project examined sleep, sleep/wake regularity, and cognition in college students diagnosed with depression and using serotonergic antidepressants and in those without a depression diagnosis. Forty participants either using antidepressants (n = 20, 24.75 ± 6.82 years) or without a depression diagnosis (n = 20, 21.70 ± 2.74 years) wore actigraphs for two consecutive weeks (14 days). Cognitive tasks were completed on day 1 (along with demographic surveys) and day 14. Effect sizes indicated that compared to non-clinically depressed peers, participants using antidepressants exhibited slightly greater wake after sleep onset (d = 0.36) and lower sleep efficiency (d = 0.40); however, these differences were likely not noticed by the sleeper. No sleep regularity or cognitive differences were present between groups. Within the antidepressant group, higher dosage predicted greater time in bed (R2 = 0.77), but less total sleep time (R2 = 0.86). The time of day that participants took their antidepressant exhibited differential effects on certain cognitive parameters, such as procedural reaction time and spatial processing, and interactions with years of antidepressant use were found. Self-reported wake episodes also predicted better reaction time and inhibition in the antidepressant group. This study is the first to demonstrate that sleep/wake regularity is comparable between people using antidepressants and non-clinically depressed human samples. For individuals using antidepressants, years of use, dosage, and time of day of use have predictive qualities for reaction times, spatial processing, and inhibition.

Motivated reasoning: Election integrity beliefs, outcome acceptance, and polarization before, during, and after the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.

The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election required voters to not only form opinions of leading candidates, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, but also to make judgments about the integrity of the election itself and what-if anything-to do about it. However, partisan motivated reasoning theory (Leeper and Slothuus, Political Psychology, 35(Suppl 1): 129-156; Lodge and Taber, The rationalizing voter, Cambridge University Press, 2013) suggests judgments are often strongly influenced toward affectively desirable conclusions. Before, during, and after election projections were announced, partisan supporters of Trump and Biden rated: judgments about voter fraud and foreign interference, their acceptance of the results, and their support for recourse against the outcome (e.g., legal challenges, legislative overhauls, violence). Before the election, partisans were mildly concerned about election integrity but willing to accept the outcome without recourse. However, during vote counting, and especially after Biden was projected to be the winner, partisans dramatically changed their judgments in opposite directions, consistent with the affectively desirable conclusions relevant to each group. Biden supporters affirmed the election's integrity and accepted the results whereas Trump supporters disputed the integrity, rejected the results, and began to support recourse against the outcome. Data are consistent with partisan motivated reasoning. Discussion highlights the practical implications. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11031-022-09983-w.