Experts Matter. Find Yours.

VR Teaches the Danger of “Short-Fuse” Weather Events

Dr. Jase Bernhardt, associate professor of geology, environment, and sustainability and director of Hofstra University’s meteorology program, was interviewed by Newsday about the use of virtual reality technology to teach the public about the danger of driving in a snow squall.

The Double-Edged Scroll: Why Passive Screen Time Drains You More Than Active Use

Most conversations about “screen time” focus on hours. But newer research and what clinicians see in practice suggest how you use your phone may matter as much as how much you use it. A 2024 meta-analysis of 141 studies on active vs passive social media use found that, overall, effects are small, but there is a pattern: passive use (just scrolling and watching) is more consistently associated with worse emotional outcomes, while some forms of active use (commenting, messaging, posting) show small links to greater wellbeing and online social support. (OUP Academic) Other work from Frontiers in Psychology suggests that the emotional impact of passive use depends heavily on how you feel about the content: when it triggers envy, comparison or negativity, mental ill-being goes up; when it’s genuinely positive, the effect can be neutral or even slightly protective for some users. (Frontiers) Reviews also point to upward social comparison, FOMO and rumination as key pathways linking passive browsing to lower wellbeing. (ScienceDirect) Psychotherapist Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW works with teens and adults who feel “wiped out” by their feeds and draws a sharp line between passive and active tech use: “Don’t do passive tech use — that doom scrolling, or content just being thrown at you,” she says. “I want people to engage in active tech use. Go and search something up, choose the long-form video you actually want, talk to your friends. Don’t let the app decide everything you see — especially for kids, who are getting content they’re not ready for and didn’t sign up for.” She notes that many of her clients describe feeling “numb, anxious or wired” after long passive sessions, a sign that their nervous system is being pulled around by unpredictable, emotionally loaded content rather than chosen experiences. She also discussed the short term recall related to scrolling: "Some of my clients can't even remember what content they consumed right after scrolling. However, we know that what we pay attention to and what we show our brains has an impact on our thoughts, mindset, feelings and overall internal world." Offline.now founder Eli Singer frames this as a design problem, not a moral failing. The platform’s research shows people already spend about 10 of their 16 waking hours on screens; the realistic goal is to upgrade some of that time, not pretend we can all go offline. His advice: instead of vowing to “get off your phone,” start by swapping just 20 minutes a day from passive to active use; for example, messaging a friend to meet up, learning something specific, or planning an offline activity. “When people tell us they feel overwhelmed by their screen habits, it’s not laziness, it’s a crisis of confidence,” Singer says. “We don’t need perfect digital detoxes. We need small, winnable shifts, like taking one block of passive scrolling and turning it into something you actually chose.” For journalists, the story isn’t simply “screens are bad.” It’s that passive, algorithm-driven scrolling is where comparison, FOMO and emotional overload tend to pile up and that helping people change how they use their devices may be more realistic, and more effective, than focusing on raw minutes alone. Featured Experts Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW – Psychotherapist specializing in ADHD, anxiety, insomnia and digital dependency. She helps teens and adults understand how doomscrolling and passive feeds hijack dopamine and mood, and teaches practical shifts toward more intentional, “active” tech use. Eli Singer – Founder of Offline.now and author of Offline.now: A Practical Guide to Healthy Digital Balance. He brings proprietary data on digital overwhelm and the “confidence gap,” and shows how 20-minute “micro-wins” like upgrading one chunk of passive screen time can change people’s relationship with their phones without extreme detoxes. Expert interviews can be arranged through the Offline.now media team.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

UF works with Gainesville-based Peaceful Paths to educate the public about domestic abuse and cybersecurity

Domestic abuse affects millions of people every year, often in unseen and deeply personal ways, and online threats toward victims can be particularly harmful. To address this reality locally, the University of Florida’s Center for Privacy and Security for Marginalized and Vulnerable Populations, or PRISM, works with Gainesville-based domestic abuse support center Peaceful Paths to help people stay safe in the digital world. Kevin Butler, Ph.D., the director of PRISM and the Florida Institute for Cybersecurity Research at UF, has been researching issues related to security and privacy of technologies that affect survivors of intimate partner violence for years. He and his graduate students connected with Peaceful Paths in 2022, presenting their findings on cybersecurity and demonstrating how their research may help improve online safety for vulnerable populations. They developed a pilot study, a survey and interview protocols that are now helping those in need at the center. “[We aim to] develop principles of design that will allow for a robust technology design that really mitigates harms and improves benefits for all,” Butler said about PRISM. Educating abuse survivors has been a key component of the collaboration between UF and Peaceful Paths. For example, PRISM’s team has conducted research on the effects of stalkerware, also known as spyware, which is a type of software or app designed to be installed secretly on people’s devices to monitor their activities without their consent. Abusers may use this tool to track and harass victims, and stalkerware is regularly linked to domestic violence – a fact that is not widely known. "Even the first presentation [UF] gave enhanced our advocates' knowledge of security pieces, which helps them safety plan with survivors," said Peaceful Paths CEO Crystal Sorrow. “It actually increases the safety of everyone in the community we work with when we talk about red flags, digital dating abuse and healthy relationships.” While PRISM, which is supported by the National Science Foundation, is making an impact on the local community, its overall reach is much broader. PRISM was the first academic partner in the Coalition Against Stalkerware, which includes groups such as the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and the world.

We Don’t Realize How Much Time We Spend With AI. Because It’s Hiding in Our Phones

If you ask most people how often they use AI, they’ll say something like: “I tried ChatGPT a couple of times” or “I don’t really use AI.” But look at their phone, and the story is completely different. Digital wellness platform Offline.now has found that we already spend about 10 of our 16 waking hours on screens, roughly 63% of our day. Founder Eli Singer calls AI “the shadow roommate inside those 10 hours”: invisible most of the time, but involved in more of our everyday taps and swipes than we realize. And we now have data to prove it. A recent Talker Research survey of 2,000 U.S. adults, commissioned by Samsung, found that 90% of Americans use AI features on their phones, but only 38% realize it. Common features like weather alerts, call screening, autocorrect, night-mode camera enhancements and auto-brightness are all powered by AI — yet more than half of respondents initially said they don’t use AI at all. Once shown a list of features, 86% admitted they use AI tools daily. (Lifewire) Singer sees this as a classic “confidence gap” problem applied to AI. Beyond the “invisible AI” on our phones, generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude and image generators are spreading fast. A nationally representative U.S. survey from Harvard’s Kennedy School and the Real-Time Population Survey found that by August 2024, about 39% of adults aged 18–64 were using generative AI. More than 24% of workers had used it at least once in the previous week, and nearly 1 in 9 used it every single workday. (NBER) Globally, usage is enormous. A World Bank backed analysis of online activity estimated that, as of March 2024, the top 40 generative AI tools attracted nearly 3 billion visits per month from hundreds of millions of users. ChatGPT alone commanded about 82.5% of that traffic. (Open Knowledge Repository) From a mental-health perspective, psychotherapist Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW says the issue isn’t just the number of visits, it’s the way AI subtly shapes the texture of our day. “Every autocorrect, every AI-sorted inbox, every ‘magic’ photo fix is a tiny cognitive hand-off,” she explains. “Individually they feel helpful. But taken together, they keep your brain in a constant state of micro-decisions and micro-rewards, which is exhausting, especially if you already struggle with ADHD, anxiety or overwhelm.” She points out that many of her clients only think of “AI time” as the hours they spend in a chatbot window. In reality, AI is involved when: Their phone decides which notifications to surface A map app reroutes them automatically Spam filters silently screen hundreds of emails “By the time they open a dedicated AI app, their nervous system has already been engaging with AI-driven features all day,” Sritharan says. “That’s part of why people end the day feeling tapped out but can’t quite explain why.” Singer worries that this “shadow AI” is quietly eating into the same finite resource Offline.now tracks with screens in general: attention. “We already know 10 hours a day on screens is unsustainable for our focus and our relationships,” he says. “Layer AI on top — systems designed to predict and nudge our behavior — and you’re not just losing time. You’re outsourcing micro-chunks of judgment, memory and choice without even noticing.” So how much time are people spending with AI? Right now, no one has a perfect number and that’s exactly the point. The best data we have suggests: Most smartphone users are already interacting with AI daily, whether they know it or not. (Lifewire) Roughly 4 in 10 U.S. adults now use generative AI, with a growing share using it at work every week or every day. (Harvard Kennedy School) Globally, billions of monthly visits are flowing into AI tools on top of our existing 10-hour screen days. (Open Knowledge Repository) “The future isn’t AI or no AI,” Singer says. “It’s: Can you be conscious about how you use it — instead of letting it hijack your attention and manage your life?” Featured Experts Eli Singer – Founder of Offline.now and author of Offline.now: A Practical Guide to Healthy Digital Balance. He brings proprietary behavioral data on screen time and digital overwhelm, and a framework (the Offline.now Matrix) for rebuilding confidence through 20-minute, real-world steps instead of all-or-nothing “detox” advice. Harshi Sritharan, MSW, RSW – Psychotherapist specializing in ADHD, anxiety and digital dependency. She explains how AI-assisted micro-tasks interact with dopamine, attention and overwhelm, and offers brain-friendly ways to renegotiate your relationship with both screens and AI. Expert interviews can be arranged through the Offline.now media team.

What makes the NFL's biggest game so Super?

Why would someone pay $10,000 for a Super Bowl ticket? Why does the big game serve as a reason for a party – perhaps the only event to do so on a national level? How do teams lock in and play their best while the whole world is watching? University of Delaware experts can deliver answers to those and other questions long before the first chip hits the dip. Amit Kumar, an assistant professor of marketing and expert on happiness, said that part of the reason people derive hedonic benefits from buying tickets to sporting events like the Super Bowl is because of the memories they provide and the conversational value they generate. He pointed to his study on consuming experiences, which found that consumers derive more happiness from purchasing experiences than from buying possessions. Kumar can also talk about the benefits of Super Bowl parties and the psychology behind the social connections that take place at sports-related gatherings. Other UD experts who can comment on the Super Bowl include: • Kyle Emich, professor of management: The inner-working of teams, decision-making and how emotions influence cognitive processing. • John Allgood, instructor of sport management: Fan engagement and the economics of sports. • Nataliya Bredikhina, assistant professor of sport management: Athlete branding and event sponsorships. • Tim Deschriver, associate professor of sport management: Topics related to sports economics, finance and marketing. • Karin Sabernagel, professor of physical therapy: Specializes in lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries, sports medicine and tendon injuries (ankle, knee). To reach these experts directly and arrange interviews, visit their profiles and click on the "contact" button. Interested reporters can also contact MediaRelations@udel.edu.

The AI Journal: UF and other research universities will fuel AI. Here’s why

In the global AI race between small and major competitors, established companies versus new players, and ubiquitous versus niche uses, the next giant leap isn’t about faster chips or improved algorithms. Where AI agents have already vacuumed up so much of the information on the internet, the next great uncertainty is where they’ll find the next trove of big data. The answer is not in Silicon Valley. It’s all across the nation at our major research universities, which are key to maintaining global competitiveness against China. To teach an AI system to “think” requires it to draw on massive amounts of data to build models. At a recent conference, Ilya Sutskever, the former chief scientist at OpenAI — the creator of ChatGPT — called data the “fossil fuel of AI.” Just as we will use up fossil fuels because they are not renewable, he said we are running out of new data to mine to keep fueling the gains in AI. However, so much of this thinking assumes AI was created by private Silicon Valley start-ups and the like. AI’s history is actually deeply rooted in U.S. universities dating back to the 1940s, when early research laid the groundwork for the algorithms and tools used today. While the computing power to use those tools was created only recently, the foundation was laid after World War II, not in the private sector but at our universities. Contrary to a “fossil fuel problem,” I believe AI has its own renewable fuel source: the data and expertise generated from our comprehensive public academic institutions. In fact, at the major AI conferences driving the field, most papers come from academic institutions. Our AI systems learn about our world only from the data we offer them. Current AI models like ChatGPT are scraping information from some academic journal articles in open-access repositories, but there are enormous troves of untapped academic data that could be used to make all these models more meaningful. A way past data scarcity is to develop new AI methods that leverage all of our knowledge in all of its forms. Our research institutions have the varied expertise in all aspects of our society to do this. Here’s just one example: We are creating the next generation of “digital twin” technology. Digital twins are virtual recreations of places or systems in our world. Using AI, we can develop digital twins that gather all of our data and knowledge about a system — whether a city, a community or even a person — in one place and allow users to ask “what if” questions. The University of Florida, for example, is building a digital twin for the city of Jacksonville, which contains the profile of each building, elevation data throughout the city and even septic tank locations. The twin also embeds detailed state-of-the-art waterflow models. In that virtual world, we can test all sorts of ideas for improving Jacksonville’s hurricane evacuation planning and water quality before implementing them in the actual city. As we continue to layer more data into the twin — real-time traffic information, scans of road conditions and more — our ability to deploy city resources will be more informed and driven by real-time actionable data and modeling. Using an AI system backed by this digital twin, city leaders could ask, “How would a new road in downtown Jacksonville impact evacuation times? How would the added road modify water runoff?” and so on. The possibilities for this emerging area of AI are endless. We could create digital twins of humans to layer human biology knowledge with personalized medical histories and imaging scans to understand how individuals may respond to particular treatments. Universities are also acquiring increasingly powerful supercomputers that are supercharging their innovations, such as the University of Florida’s HiPerGator, recently acquired from NVIDIA, which is being used for problems across all disciplines. Oregon State University and the University of Missouri, for example, are using their own access to supercomputers to advance marine science discoveries and improve elder care. In short, to see the next big leap in AI, don’t immediately look to Silicon Valley. Start scanning the horizon for those research universities that have the computing horsepower and the unique ability to continually renew the data and knowledge that will supercharge the next big thing in AI. Read more...

Augusta University public health experts discuss building recovery through economic stability

In this candid conversation, Vahé Heboyan, PhD, and Marlo Vernon, PhD, talk about their work at the intersection of public health, economic stability and substance use disorder recovery. The interviews are centered on Augusta University's public health-driven small business training initiative and explore how recovery is strengthened when communities invest in people and provide practical paths to long-term stability. Heboyan, a professor in AU's School of Public Health and a public health expert with a background as an economist, explains that economic vulnerability often hinders recovery, especially in rural areas with limited resources where risk-taking can be costly. He translates economic research into public health practice, emphasizing that small businesses and microenterprises are about providing a sustainable income for individuals and families, not creating large corporations. This stability, he notes, can have a ripple effect, supporting local economies, job opportunities and community resilience. Vernon, whose research focuses on maternal and infant health, as well as substance use disorder recovery, highlights the human side of recovery and the importance of financial security for families. She notes that economic instability can increase the risk of relapse, especially for mothers in recovery who are supporting children. Her insights show that entrepreneurship can be a public health tool, addressing income, dignity, confidence and long-term wellbeing. Both interviews emphasize the key role of community in recovery. Heboyan points out the power of peer support and shared experience, noting how participants use their past challenges as strengths. Vernon agrees, emphasizing that effective public health work requires building relationships and engaging with communities over time, rather than just conducting short-term research. Together, the interviews show that recovery is part of a larger ecosystem that includes economic opportunity, mentorship and community trust. The video illustrates how combining economics, public health and lived experience can create lasting, meaningful impact for individuals in recovery and their communities. Looking to know more? Click on Dr. Vernon's profile below. To connect with Dr. Heboyan, simply contact AU's Communications team via email (mediarelations@augusta.edu) to arrange an interview today.