Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Villanova Professor Sees Costs and Benefits in Corporate and Federal Return-to-Office Mandates
In early February, federal agencies submitted plans in accordance with an executive order to initiate an estimated 1 million government employees’ full-time return to their duty stations. The departments’ actions are among the latest in a series of RTO moves enacted since the start of 2025. Notably, they follow policy changes by corporate giants Amazon, AT&T and JPMorgan, who in January began requiring five days of in-person work for select staffers, with justifications ranging from strengthening culture to improving performance. With more employers expected to require in-office work in the coming months, some predict that 2025 could be the “year of the RTO mandate.” But, given the arguments from those pushing for these policies, it’s worth asking: Are these return-to-office requirements truly justified? Do they actually improve communication, strengthen teams and boost productivity, as supporters claim? According to Kyoung Yong Kim, PhD, whose research focuses on telework, strategic human capital management and employee-organization relationships, the answer is complicated—and highly circumstantial. Dr. Kim says that, by gathering coworkers around the proverbial water cooler, RTO policies can in some cases facilitate dialogue, promote teambuilding and foster organizational success. Yet, in other instances, work-from-home (WFH) arrangements can significantly boost employee morale, efficiency and output. “In a recent paper, my colleague Ijeoma Ugwuanyi [a professor at Hong Kong Metropolitan University] and I examined how social distancing initiatives, which reduce interactions among people, impact working relationships,” says Dr. Kim. “We found that they can actually help improve negative ones, at least in employees’ minds.” Analyzing data collected on 105 working relationships among 43 full-time personnel at a South Korean healthcare company, Dr. Kim and Dr. Ugwuanyi discovered that, when afforded extended WFH privileges, colleagues previously at odds were given the space necessary to reassess their outlooks and improve their dynamics—especially when the individuals involved were viewed as competent and warm. As a result, these repaired relationships generally empowered more effective collaboration in the long run. Additionally, employees with positive in-person relationships maintained a solid rapport even when geographically apart. “These findings are particularly relevant as corporate and government workers increasingly return to their offices,” says Dr. Kim. “Managers need to remember that, according to the research, employees are willing to reset negative relationships they had previously. That said, returning to the office also offers a chance to strengthen relationships and make them more positive, which is crucial since team dynamics are a key determinant of team performance.” Per Dr. Kim, in order to best position themselves for success on the RTO front, organizations need to take a measured, sympathetic approach in facilitating their in-office policies, with an eye toward mitigating negativity. They need to remain cognizant of the logistical and interpersonal challenges that could emerge in the wake of a return, address their employees’ concerns in an attentive manner and foster a “supportive climate characterized by supportive behaviors.” It’s a situation that Dr. Kim says bears parallels—perhaps somewhat counterintuitively—to the mass shift to telework that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. As he found in his research on that phenomenon, employees responded best to changes in their working arrangements when organizational leaders and managers took the time to explain and actively discuss the reasoning behind them, especially in mission-driven terms. “Essentially, an important implication of the findings is that, to sustain employees’ positive attitudes and behaviors, it is crucial to frame these moves in a way that highlights how working in the office benefits both employees and the organization,” says Dr. Kim. In turn, RTO-focused organizations should recognize that their words and messages have a very real impact, particularly when scrutinized by workers who may not be happy about resuming their morning commutes. “Amazon, for instance, appears to be taking a thoughtful approach by emphasizing the value of collaboration with colleagues and the enrichment of organizational culture,” says Dr. Kim. “One potential drawback, however, lies in their message about the consequences of non-compliance, specifically that failure to adhere to the in-office policy could jeopardize employees’ chances of promotion. “A more positive framing, emphasizing how such policies support professional growth as well as employees’ well-being, could enhance favorable perceptions and work behaviors.” In the event organizations remain attuned to such situations—taking their employees’ perspectives into account, actively communicating their intentions and presenting clear value propositions—Dr. Kim thinks a year of the RTO mandate could potentially be a less daunting prospect. And maybe, with time, the transition back from Zoom to the boardroom could be a beneficial one.
Experts in the Media: Before Kickoff Media Went to the Experts at TCU for Some Super Bowl Insight
The lead up to last Sunday's Super Bowl was tremendous. All eyes and an enormous global audience were all fixated on the big game in New Orleans. With the Kansas City Chiefs looking to make history, the Philadelphia Eagles looking for revenge and with President Trump and Taylor Swift in attendance - the attention from media was overwhelming. When Newsweek needed some expert insight and perspective - they connected immediately with TCU's Dustin Hahn. Last year's Super Bowl LVIII ranked as the most-watched Super Bowl of all time, according to findings from Nielsen's National panel measurement. Dr. Dustin Hahn, associate professor of film, television and digital media in the Bob Schieffer College of Communication at Texas Christian University, told Newsweek the Super Bowl could see a decline in viewership because fans are tired of seeing the Chiefs in the Super Bowl. Plus, excitement about Taylor Swift's relationship with Chief's tight end Travis Kelce is less novel. However, Hahn said it's possible more people will be watching the Super Bowl to see if the Chiefs make history by winning the championship three times in a row, plus the possibility that Kelce could make a retirement announcement. February 09 - Newsweek Covering sports, media and major events? then let us help with your ongoing or future coverage. Dustin Hahn is associate professor of film, television and digital media in the Bob Schieffer College of Communication at Texas Christian University. Dustin is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Researchers looked at trust in scientists in 68 countries and found relatively high levels of trust everywhere The TISP Many Labs study of 71,922 people included those living in under-researched nations of the Global South The majority of survey participants believe that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. Public trust in scientists is still high, according to a survey carried out in 68 countries by an international team of 241 researchers, led by Dr Viktoria Cologna (Harvard University, ETH Zurich) and Dr Niels Mede (University of Zurich). The study found no evidence of the oft-repeated claim of a crisis of trust in science. The team, which included Aston University School of Psychology’s Dr James Reynolds and Dr Charlotte Pennington, also found that the majority of survey participants believed that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. This study is the result of the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study, a collaborative effort that allowed the authors to survey 71,922 people in 68 countries, including many under-researched countries in the ‘Global South’. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides global, representative survey data on the populations and regions of the world in which researchers are perceived to be most trustworthy, the extent to which they should engage with the public and whether science is prioritising important research issues. Dr Mede said: “The study is the most comprehensive post-pandemic snapshot of trust in scientists, societal expectations of their involvement in society and policymaking and public views on research priorities.” Across 68 countries, the study finds that the majority of the public has a relatively high level of trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale of 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust). The majority of respondents also perceive scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). However, the results also reveal some areas of concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to the views of others. Additionally, many people felt that the priorities of science are not always well-aligned with their own priorities. The researchers call upon scientists to take the results seriously and find ways to be more receptive to feedback and more open to dialogue. The findings confirm the results of previous studies that show significant differences between countries and population groups. In particular, people with right-wing political views in Western countries tend to have less trust in scientists than those with left-wing views. This suggests that attitudes toward science tend to polarise along political lines. In most countries, however, political orientation and trust in scientists were not related. A majority of respondents want science to play an active role in society and policymaking. Globally, 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate with the public about science, providing an impetus for increased science communication efforts. Only a minority (23%) believe that scientists should not actively advocate for specific policies. 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process. Participants gave high priority to research to improve public health, solve energy problems and reduce poverty. On the other hand, research to develop defence and military technology was given a lower priority. In fact, participants explicitly believe that science is prioritising the development of defence and military technology more than they would like, highlighting a potential misalignment between public and scientific priorities. Dr Cologna said: “Our results show that most people in most countries have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to play an active role in society and policymaking”. Dr Reynolds, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This research demonstrates that people from all around the globe still have high trust in science and want scientists involved in policymaking. When we face great challenges, such as threats to public health or energy crises, the public recognise the importance that scientists can play and want us involved. This is also true of the UK where levels of public trust in science is one of the highest globally.” Dr Pennington, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This project showcases the importance and power of big team science to answer fundamental questions about human behaviour. By pooling our expertise and resources, we were able to reach over 70,000 people and improve sample diversity and representation by recruiting from 68 countries. Overall, the study resulted in an optimistic finding – that people generally trust scientists and agree that they should engage more in society and policymaking. Such trust is important because it allows people to make research-informed decisions about their own lives.” Find out more about the research in Nature Human Behaviour by visiting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5.
Expert Spotlight: Suicide Prevention and Health Care Acccreditation
Recently, Michael Johnson, MA, CAP, CARF International Senior Managing Director of Behavioral Health joined Adam Chu, MPH, from the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, and Kasie Pickart, MPH, from Hope Network in an interesting panel discussion where they shared insights on implementing the Zero Suicide model and integrating CARF's comprehensive suicide prevention standards. The discussion highlighted these key elements: Introduction to Suicide Prevention Resource Center The center's mission is to advance suicide prevention across diverse populations using training, consultation, and resources. CARF accreditation standards: CARF's consultative approach emphasizes quality improvement through peer-surveyed standards. Alignment with the Zero Suicide framework, incorporating risk assessments, safety planning, and care transition protocols. Hope Network's implementation journey: Leveraged a SAMHSA grant to adopt Zero Suicide practices across 200+ Michigan locations. Aligned practices with CARF standards for comprehensive suicide prevention. Developed standardized tools and a suicide care pathway for consistent risk management. Outcomes and challenges: Improved training and organizational culture around suicide prevention. Challenges include ensuring cross-team communication and sustaining practices post-grant funding. View the webinar: The discussion concluded with insights into maintaining long-term quality improvement and the benefits of CARF accreditation for suicide prevention efforts. Michael Johnson is the CARF International Senior Managing Director of Behavioral Health. If you are looking to know more or connect with Michael, view his profile below to arrange an interview today.
GRANDSPLAINING...It's as Bad as it Sounds!
Summary: "Grandsplaining" is a playful term that captures the all-too-familiar situation where younger generations offer unsolicited advice to older family members, often in a manner that is as condescending as it is unhelpful. This behaviour can be perceived as disrespectful and potentially creates awkward communication barriers, emotional strain, and family tension. Rooted in ageist stereotypes, it can even undermine elders' self-esteem. Here, we explore alternatives to grandsplaining, including the radical concepts of genuinely listening, asking open-ended questions, demonstrating empathy, and avoiding assumptions. These suggestions aim to help adult children support their older family members—not merely swoop in with a "fix-it" attitude. The Disrespectful Impact of Condescending Advice on Seniors When I helped older Canadians navigate financing their retirements, I often witnessed what can only be described as "grandsplaining in the wild." Conversations between adult children and their elders usually felt less like dialogues and more like lectures—one-sided advice sessions that left everyone gritting their teeth. The younger relative, likely well-meaning, would offer suggestions like, “You should downsize and buy a condo,” “Sell and rent,” or, the pièce de resistance, “Move in with family!” Judging by the withering looks from their elders, it was clear this approach wasn’t winning any "Favorite Child" awards. The older family members often felt patronized, as though their decades of life experience had been conveniently forgotten. The advice was condescending, painfully obvious, and usually impractical or unwanted. The dynamic reminded me of the cringeworthy experience of being "mansplained." And that’s when it hit me: this is “grandsplaining.” Unfortunately, grandsplaining can turn retirement planning conversations into a crash course on how not to communicate! Fortunately, with a little effort (and much less lecturing), families can turn this ship around and build stronger, more respectful relationships. What is "Grandsplaining"? In an age where communication flows freely across digital platforms, I define "grandsplaining" as a colloquial expression to describe a situation where younger generations offer unsolicited advice to older individuals, often patronizing or condescendingly. Grandsplaining typically involves a younger person explaining something to an older individual in a way that belittles their experience or intelligence. The term combines "grand" (suggesting age or status) and "splaining" (a slang term for condescendingly explaining something). While the intention behind such advice may often be well-meaning, the delivery can be patronizing, reinforcing stereotypes about aging and competence. This behaviour can significantly undermine the dignity and autonomy of seniors, leading to feelings of frustration, resentment, and a sense of being marginalized. Understanding the nuances of grandsplaining sheds light on intergenerational dynamics in these conversations. We must find a better, more respectful, and effective way to communicate with our elders considering retiring. The phenomenon of grandsplaining can manifest in various contexts, not just financing retirement—whether it’s discussing technology, lifestyle choices, healthcare options, or even social norms. For instance, a grandchild might explain how to use a smartphone app to a grandparent, assuming that the older generation cannot understand it despite their own lifelong experience with technology in different forms. Communication Breakdown In an era where financial literacy and retirement planning are more crucial than ever, "grandsplaining" has become a significant barrier to effective communication between generations. Retirees often feel overwhelmed or dismissed when their relatives provide unsolicited advice, especially if it contradicts their wants or financial strategies. This can lead to a reluctance to engage in discussions about finances, creating a rift that undermines the potential for collaborative planning. When adult children dominate conversations with preconceived notions of financial management, it stifles the opportunity for seniors to express their feelings, share their knowledge, and collaborate on effective retirement strategies. The Generation Gap in Financial Understanding Adult children may rely on outdated financial paradigms that no longer apply to their elders' realities. The economic landscape has changed dramatically over the past few decades, with shifts in real estate markets, a lack of formal retirement plans, and longer life expectancies. This generational gap can lead to misguided advice that does not consider modern challenges such as retiring with debt, little or no pension income, or rising living costs. Emotional Strain and Family Tension When relatives impose their views, it can evoke frustration, resentment, or inadequacy in their elders. This dynamic can shift the conversation from one focused on financial empowerment to one steeped in emotional conflict and shame. Instead of fostering a supportive environment for discussing retirement goals, grandsplaining can create adversarial relationships where seniors feel belittled or pressured, further complicating an already sensitive topic. Erosion of Autonomy When relatives try to impose their methods or strategies, it can undermine the seniors’ independence, making them feel a lack of control over their finances. Financial decisions are deeply personal and often intertwined with individual circumstances, goals, and values. This loss of agency not only affects financial outcomes but can also impact the mental well-being of older adults, leading to feelings of incompetence or anxiety about their financial futures. The Context of Ageism The implications of ageism are particularly concerning in a rapidly changing world characterized by technological advancements and unprecedented changes in social norms. While younger generations may genuinely wish to assist their elders in navigating these changes, their actions can reinforce negative stereotypes rather than empower seniors. Grandsplaining highlights the generational divide, creating an "us versus them" mentality that hinders collaboration and mutual understanding. Grandsplaining is deeply intertwined with ageism, a pervasive societal attitude that discriminates against individuals based on their age. Ageism manifests in various forms, including stereotypes that depict older adults as technologically inept, resistant to change, or incapable of learning. These stereotypes can lead to the marginalization of seniors within families and communities. Not cool! When younger generations adopt a condescending tone, they inadvertently reinforce ageist stereotypes that portray older adults as out of touch or incapable. This affects individual relationships and perpetuates societal narratives devaluing older individuals' contributions and wisdom. The Impact on Relationships Grandsplaining can strain relationships between generations, fostering resentment and conflict. For many seniors, unsolicited advice can infringe on their autonomy, making them feel infantilized or disrespected. I've seen firsthand how parents can react defensively to younger family members and sometimes withdraw altogether from conversations. When assistance is delivered condescendingly, it can backfire. The resulting tension may prevent meaningful conversations about important topics, such as healthcare decisions or lifestyle changes, which are crucial for seniors' well-being. The Psychological Impact on Seniors Being on the receiving end of condescending advice can also lead to diminished self-esteem and increased feelings of inadequacy. Seniors may begin to internalize the belief that they are not capable of making sound decisions or understanding new concepts, which can further exacerbate issues related to aging, such as cognitive decline and depression. Encouraging Respectful Communication with Seniors Addressing the issue of grandsplaining requires a concerted effort from both younger and older generations to cultivate respectful communication. Here are several strategies to foster more positive intergenerational interactions: 1. Actively Listen: Younger people should prioritize active listening when engaging with seniors. This involves hearing what the older person says and validating their experiences and perspectives. Younger people can create a more respectful dialogue by acknowledging their knowledge and expertise. 2. Seek to Understand: Younger generations must approach conversations with empathy. To quote Stephen Covey's wise words, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." Recognizing seniors' challenges, such as health issues or technological gaps, can foster a sense of compassion. This approach can help bridge the generational divide and promote more constructive conversations. 3. Avoid Assumptions: The tendency to assume that older adults are out of touch or incapable can lead to grandsplaining. Instead, younger individuals should avoid making assumptions about seniors’ knowledge or abilities. Asking questions like “What do you think about this?” or “How do you feel about that?” can empower seniors to share their insights and experiences. 4. Offer Support, Not Solutions: Ask questions like, “What does a successful retirement look like to you? How do you plan to finance your retirement? Do you want to stay in this home? Are you open to moving? If so, where? Do you have enough in savings? How can I support you in having an independent and dignified retirement”? 5. Understand the Bigger Picture: Don’t assume that the traditional strategies of downsizing, selling, renting, or moving in with family are reasonable solutions for your elder in today’s economic environment. These retirement strategies are problematic for today’s seniors. In most cases, downsizing only works financially if the retiree is willing to move to a smaller, more affordable community. Most seniors want to stay in their communities and not move away from family, friends, churches, or familiar shops and services. Selling, renting, or moving in with family requires the sale of their significant appreciating asset. Given today's longer life expectancies, it's not always a wise choice. 6. Humour: By skillfully using humour, you can turn potentially patronizing situations into moments of connection and shared joy, ensuring that conversations with elders remain meaningful, respectful and memorable. For example, you could start the conversation this way; "The last thing I want to do is give you advice. That would be ridiculous. You’re the wise sensei here—I’m just the clueless apprentice trying to save enough downpayment to buy a shoebox of a house." This approach humorously flips the script, poking fun at the presumptuousness of unsolicited advice while emphasizing the elder's experience and wisdom. People often feel judged or vulnerable when discussing finances or significant life changes. Humour shifts the dynamic, showing that you approach the conversation as an ally, not an adversary. For example: "Talking about budgets isn’t fun for anyone—I mean, who loves math? But it’s worth it if we can figure out how to turn this retirement conversation into the fourth of July rather than Labour Day!" This playful approach lowers barriers, making the discussion feel collaborative rather than critical. Laughter fosters connection. Sharing a laugh creates a sense of camaraderie, making it easier for people to open up about sensitive topics. When elders feel that you’re not judging them but partnering with them—and can make them smile—they’re far more likely to trust your intentions and take your advice seriously. Humour invites the other person to join the conversation, breaking the ice and encouraging them to share their thoughts. It sets a tone that the conversation is a dialogue, not a lecture. Example: "You’ve been making great financial decisions for decades. I’m here to ensure we don’t accidentally end up with a basement full of K-tel Veg-O-Matics… unless that’s the plan?" This allows them to laugh, respond, and engage while respecting their autonomy. A word of caution. Humour is only effective when paired with genuine respect and sensitivity. Pay attention to your elder's reactions and adapt if they seem uncomfortable or unamused. The goal is to build rapport, not to win laughs at their expense. Using humour skillfully, you can turn potentially patronizing situations into moments of connection and shared joy, ensuring that conversations with elders are respectful and memorable. Before You Go Before You Go Grandsplaining: the art of lovingly over-explaining to elders as though they’ve been napping since the Great Depression. While it often comes from a place of care, the unintended consequences can include derailed retirement conversations, strained family dinners, and a spike in eye-rolling from grandparents everywhere. Good financial planning thrives on clear communication, but grandsplaining tends to turn productive discussions into monologues that undermine elder autonomy and trigger emotional static. To create a more harmonious environment, families should swap their megaphones for listening ears and embrace a collaborative approach that respects seniors' wisdom and frames younger relatives’ financial theories as conversation starters, not TED Talks. After all, when it comes to navigating retirement planning, a little less "know-it-all" and a bit more "let’s figure it out together" can go a long way. Think of it as building a bridge, not a lecture podium—because nothing says "family unity" like tackling compound interest together! Don't Retire---Re-Wire! Sue
Expert: Meta ditches fact checking, a major loss for the American people
Meta moving away from fact-checking towards a "community notes" model is the equivalent of crowd-sourcing truth, says the University of Delaware's Dannagal Young. This shift in policy is a victory for intuition, common sense and lived experience over data, expertise and evidence. It also stands as another example of media institutions acting preemptively to avoid political and economic fallout under the incoming administration. Young, director of UD's Center for Political Communication and professor of communication, can talk about epistemology (how people understand the world) and how it relates to populism and populist leaders like incoming President Donald Trump. Young can also discuss the following: • The contents of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's announcement video, in which he explains that recent elections mark a "cultural tipping point" in the direction of "free speech." "He's acknowledging that this policy change isn't a principled stance Meta is now taking, as much as a response to what he thinks the public is calling for (a dubious conclusion to draw from a narrow electoral victory)," Young said. • Zuckerberg's new stance, and how it will allow him to curry favor with the incoming administration because it allows Meta to avoid having to moderate Trump-friendly content. • Why content moderation and fact checking are expensive, and how moving away from that model is a "WIN-WIN-WIN for Meta: politically, culturally, and economically. And a LOSE LOSE LOSE for the American people: socially, culturally, and democratically," Young said.
Researchers at the Institute for Water and Health (IWH) at Georgia Southern University initiated a new project in Marion, Alabama, to address the city’s aging water infrastructure and its impact on human health with a focus on community-based research, workforce development and environmental justice. The pilot project in Marion, Alabama, is a collaborative effort between Georgia Southern and the University of Alabama. IWH Director Asli Aslan, Ph.D., is the principal investigator (PI) and Lacey Huffling, Ph.D., from Georgia Southern’s College of Education, and Lanna Nations, director for education and outreach for the Alabama Water Institute at the University of Alabama, are co-PIs. In partnership with the city of Eastman, Georgia, the project includes an internship program for next-generation water operators and a peer mentorship program for current water managers. Project leaders seek to improve communication and foster trust between local authorities and residents, contributing to long-term environmental health and equitable access to safe drinking water. Aslan sees workforce readiness as a critical component to maintaining standards in water management. “Nationwide, community water systems are managed by specialized professionals to ensure safe water every time we turn on the tap,” noted Aslan. According to her, about 50% of water operators working at these facilities will retire in the next decade, but only 10% are expected to be replaced. Training the next generation of water operators and developing leaders for rural water systems is a matter of national security. “The Institute for Water and Health is committed to launching a regional program to equip future water managers with the necessary skills to ensure safe water for all,” Aslan continued. “This pilot project will lay the foundation for this goal and aims to expand the program throughout the southeastern United States.” The project is funded by Alabama Power and Partnership for Inclusive Innovation, a Georgia-based program that funds and supports networks through resources across businesses, research universities and government entities. To learn more about this project and other IWH research and educational programs visit here. To connect with IWH Director Asli Aslan, simply click on her icon now to arrange an invterview today.
Exploring language as an early behavioral marker of Alzheimer's Disease
Professors from the University of Delaware and Carnegie Mellon University will use a $3.7 million RF1 grant from the National Institute on Aging (NIA) to examine language as an early behavioral marker of Alzheimer’s Disease. If successful, this research could pave the way for earlier interventions. “Identifying these individuals as early as possible gets them into preventive treatments sooner,” said Alyssa Lanzi, assistant professor of Communications Sciences & Disorders at UD. The study builds on pilot data gathered by Anna Saylor, a third-year doctoral student in the communication sciences and disorders doctoral program, housed in the UD's College of Health Sciences. “We know a lot about how language develops in childhood but not much about how it changes in older adults,” Saylor said. “Our data suggest subtle language changes might signal future cognitive decline.” To explore these changes on a larger scale, Lanzi is collaborating with MacWhinney, who founded TalkBank, open science database of language samples. Within TalkBank is DementiaBank, a shared database of multimedia interactions for studying communication in dementia. However, DementiaBank is outdated and limited in demographics, and the quality and rigor of the data need improvement. Lanzi is seeking to change that. Her five-year study seeks 300 older adults aged 60-90 nationwide from underrepresented backgrounds or populations vulnerable to health disparities. “Current DementiaBank data is representative of Caucasians of a higher socioeconomic status,” Lanzi said. “We must intentionally recruit people who are at the greatest risk — for example, adults who are Black, Asian, Hispanic, Latin and those living in rural areas.” The recruitment strategy, rooted in community engagement at locations in Wilmington, Delaware, is part of the novelty of Lanzi’s grant. “This is a feasibility study to see if our approach in Wilmington can be replicated in other states,” Lanzi said. Lanzi has also established an advisory committee of nationwide faculty with relevant expertise on specific priority populations. Their input will tailor plans to population needs while data is collected through a central site at UD. The Delaware Center for Cognitive Aging Research (DECCAR) also provides critical infrastructure for the study. “This project is an example of the success of DECCAR, and our impact extends far beyond state lines,” said Lanzi, an executive committee member with DECCAR. Participants selected for the study will participate in a comprehensive cognitive and language testing battery via telehealth, so they don’t have to travel to UD’s campus, which is novel and unique to this study. “To study their language, they’ll see pictures and be asked to describe them and share stories from their past,” Lanzi said. Study participants will receive a gift card for participating and feedback about their memory to share with their healthcare provider. “Building trust and giving back are key elements of our strategy,” Lanzi said. Lanzi is already preparing for the next phase of her research, supported by an additional $800,000 grant from the NIA. This phase will test the effects of an online treatment Lanzi developed for individuals identified as at risk. “If we find that language is an early marker of disease, I want to take this research to the next level and develop treatments that teach strategies to enhance independence and improve the quality of life for those at risk of developing dementia,” she said.
The social media platform TikTok is on the verge of a U.S. ban—unless it can be stopped by President-elect Donald Trump. The policy will take effect on January 19, requiring that TikTok find a U.S. parent company or face a ban in the United States. This comes after concerns about user data falling into possession of the Chinese government and fears that they could use TikTok to spread misinformation. Derrick Green, communication expert at Cedarville University, has spoken about the motive behind this ban and why Trump may reverse it. Here are three key points from his recent interview: Trump has pointed out that he would not let TikTok be banned, if elected as president. How could he actually implement this and block this ban from taking effect? The President-elect used TikTok as a part of his campaigning strategy and found success on the app, this coming after he proposed to ban it in 2020. Did his use of TikTok influence his desire to save the app? The proposed ban of TikTok was based on national security and the mental health of young people in the United States. If TikTok was shut down in the United States, what would the effects be? If you are a journalist covering the TikTok ban or the effects of social media, our experts are here to help with all of your questions and stories. Derrick Green is the Chair of the Department of Communication at Cedarville University. Green is available to speak with the media regarding digital media and its effects. Simply click on his icon or email mweinstein@cedarville.edu to arrange an interview.
Dangers of the Metaverse and VR for U.S. Youth Revealed in New Study
The metaverse, a space where the lines between physical and digital realities blur, is rising among younger populations. As of March, 33% of teens own a virtual reality (VR) device and 13% use it weekly. With the metaverse offering richer emotional experiences, youth may be particularly vulnerable to significant harm in these immersive spaces, underscoring the need to explore potential risks. Unfortunately, research of online victimization in the metaverse is sorely lacking. A new study by Florida Atlantic University , in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, is one of the first to examine the experiences of harm in the metaverse among youth in the United States. Using a nationally-representative sample of 5,005 13 to 17 year olds in the U.S., researchers focused on their experiences with VR devices, including 12 specific types of harm experienced, protective strategies employed, and differences in experiences between boys and girls. Results of the study, published in the journal New Media & Society, found a significant percentage of youth reported experiencing various forms of harm in these spaces, including hate speech, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, grooming behaviors (predators building trust with minors), and unwanted exposure to violent or sexual content. The study also revealed notable gender differences in experiences. Among the study findings: 32.6% of youth own a VR headset (41% of boys vs. 25.1% of girls) More than 44% received hate speech/slurs (8.9% many times); 37.6% experienced bullying; and 35% faced harassment Almost 19% experienced sexual harassment; 43.3% dealt with trolling; 31.6% were maliciously obstructed; and 29.5% experienced threats More than 18% were doxed (publicly revealing someone’s personal information without their consent); and 22.8% were catfished (creating a false identity online to deceive someone, typically for romantic purposes) Nearly 21% faced unwanted violent or sexual content; 18.1% experienced grooming or predatory behavior; and 30% were targeted for factors like weight, sexual preference, sexual orientation or political affiliation Boys and girls experienced similar patterns of mistreatment, but girls experienced sexual harassment and grooming/ predatory behavior more frequently than boys. Boys and girls were equally as likely to be targeted because of their voice, avatar, race, religion or disability. “Certain populations of youth are disproportionately susceptible to harm such grooming, especially those who suffer from emotional distress or mental health problems, low self-esteem, poor parental relationships and weak family cohesion,” said Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., first author, a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice within FAU’s College of Social Work and Criminal Justice, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. “Due to the unique characteristics of metaverse environments, young people may need extra attention and support. The immersive nature of these spaces can amplify experiences and emotions, highlighting the importance of tailored resources to ensure their safety and well-being.” Findings also reveal that girls employed in-platform safety measures significantly more so than boys such as “Space Bubble,” “Personal Boundary” and “Safe Zone.” “We found that girls are more likely to select avatars designed to reduce the risk of harassment and to use in-platform tools to maintain a safe distance from others. Additionally, both boys and girls feel comfortable leaving metaverse rooms or channels like switching servers in response to potential or actual victimization, although overall, youth tend to use these safety features infrequently,” said Hinduja. Among the recommendations offered to youth by the researchers include: Using platform-provided safety features to restrict unwanted interactions and infringements upon their personal space. It is also essential that youth understand and take advantage of the safety features available within metaverse experiences, including blocking, muting, and reporting functionalities. Continued research and development in these areas to determine how to meet the needs of users in potential or actual victimization contexts Streamlining platform reporting mechanisms to ensure swift action is taken against perpetrators Age-gating mechanisms for metaverse environments where mature content and interactions proliferate Encouraging parents and guardians to take the time to familiarize themselves with available parental control features on VR devices and metaverse platforms to set boundaries, monitor activities, and restrict certain features as needed. An active mediation approach is ideal, where they engage in open and supportive dialogue with children about their metaverse experiences. The integration of updated, relevant, and accessible digital citizenship and media literacy modules into school curricula to provide youth with the necessary knowledge and skills to navigate VR and other emerging technologies safely and responsibly Consideration by content creators of the ethical implications of their metaverse creations, ensuring that they promote inclusivity, respect, and discourage any form of harassment. They should strive to make their virtual experiences accessible to users from diverse backgrounds, languages, cultures and abilities. “VR concerns of parents and guardians generally reflect and align with their historical anxieties about video games, excessive device use, its sedentary nature, cognitive development, and stranger danger,” said Hinduja. “There remains so much promise with these new technologies, but vigilance is required when it comes to the unique challenges they present as well as the unique vulnerabilities that certain youth users may have. As such, it’s ‘all hands on deck’ to build a safer and more inclusive metaverse as it continues to evolve.” If you're looking to know more - let us help. Sameer Hinduja, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University and co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center. He is recognized internationally for his groundbreaking work on the subjects of cyberbullying and safe social media use, concerns that have paralleled the exponential growth in online communication by young people. He has written seven books, and his interdisciplinary research is widely published and has been cited more than 18,000 times. Simply click on Sameer's icon now to set up an interview today.
