Who’s to blame? How narcissists and ex-partners of narcissists make sense of romantic breakup

Objective: past research has shown relationship problems associated with narcissists’ excessive self-centeredness and lacking concern for others. Using romantic relationships as opportunities to self-enhance rather than caring about intimacy, narcissists are sensitive to shortcomings in their partners and quick to withdraw investment once relationships turn out to be less than perfect. Our research aimed to reveal whether narcissists are aware of their destructive relationship behavior or tend to put the blame for a failed relationship on their ex-partners. Conversely, do ex-partners of narcissists take the blame and feel responsible for the breakup or walk away convinced their narcissistic ex-partners’ behavior was just too unbearable? Method: 120 participants (19-59 yrs) who reported a recent romantic breakup completed a battery of questionnaires online, including measures of narcissism and self-esteem, as well as newly created scales assessing attributions for breakup. In addition to self-reports, participants retrospectively rated their ex-partners on adapted versions of the same measures. Results: narcissists made attributions to lacking relationship investment mostly in themselves and to a lesser extent in their partners. However, this pattern was reversed when self-esteem was controlled, with attributions to partner shortcomings outnumbering aspects of own destructive behavior. Narcissism perceived in the ex-partner was related to reports of lacking investment in oneself as well as the ex-partner, but controlling for self-esteem reduced the number of attributions to own shortcomings. Conclusion: our analyses revealed that narcissists do show some awareness of their contribution to a failed relationship, although controlling for self-esteem increased their blame of the ex-partner. In contrast, associations between perceived partner-narcissism and aspects of own lacking relationship investment became fewer when self-esteem was controlled for.

"Too Cool to Smoke": Using Puppets to Make Learning Fun

Introduction: According to the American Cancer Society, each day, more than 4,000 teens try cigarettes for the first time, and another 2,000 become daily smokers. One-half of these teens eventually will die from a smoking-related disease. [See PDF for complete abstract]

Structural brain changes related to bilingualism: does immersion make a difference?

Abstract Within the field of neuroscientific research on second language learning, considerable attention has been devoted to functional and recently also structural changes related to second language acquisition. The present literature review summarizes studies that investigated structural changes related to bilingualism. Furthermore, as recent evidence has suggested that native-like exposure to a second language (i.e., a naturalistic learning setting or immersion) considerably impacts second language learning, all findings are reflected with respect to the learning environment. Aggregating the existing evidence, we conclude that structural changes in left inferior frontal and inferior parietal regions have been observed in studies on cortical gray matter changes, while the anterior parts of the corpus callosum have been repeatedly found to reflect bilingualism in studies on white matter (WM) connectivity. Regarding the learning environment, no cortical alterations can be attributed specifically to naturalistic or classroom learning. With regard to WM changes, one might tentatively propose that changes in IFOF and SLF are possibly more prominently observed in studies investigating bilinguals with a naturalistic learning experience. However, future studies are needed to replicate and strengthen the existing evidence and to directly test the impact of naturalistic exposure on structural brain plasticity.

Trying to make sense in nonsense-mediated mRNA decay

Despite over 30 years of research, the molecular mechanisms of nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) are still not well understood. NMD appears to exist in most eukaryotes and is intensively studied in S. cerevisiae, C. elegans, D. melanogaster and in mammalian cells. Current evidence suggests that the core of NMD – involving UPF1, UPF2 and UPF3 – is evolutionarily conserved, but that different species may have evolved slightly different ways to identify target mRNAs for NMD and to degrade them. Our lab has shown that the exon junction complex (EJC) is not absolutely required for NMD in human cells (Bühler et al., NSMB 2006) and that it is neither restricted to CBP80-bound mRNAs as classical models claim (Rufener & Mühlemann, NSMB 2013). Together with the finding that long 3’ UTRs often are an NMD-inducing feature (Eberle et al, PLoS Biol 2008; Yepiskoposyan et al., RNA 2011), our data is consistent with much of the data from other species and hence has led to a “unified” working model for NMD (Stalder & Mühlemann, Trends Cell Biol 2008; Schweingruber et al., Biochim Biophys Acta 2013). Our recent iCLIP experiments with endogenous UPF1 indicate that UPF1 binds mRNAs indiscriminately with respect to being an NMD target or not before they engage with ribosomes (Zünd et al., NSMB 2013). After onset of translation, UPF1 is cleared from the coding region but remains bound to the 3’ UTR of mRNAs. Why this 3’ UTR-associated in some cases induces NMD and in others not is currently being investigated and not yet understood. Following assembly of a phospho-UPF1-containing NMD complex, decay adaptors (SMG5, SMG7, PNRC2) and/or the endonuclease SMG6 are recruited. While the latter cleaves the mRNA in the vicinity of the termination codon, the former proteins induce deadenylation, decapping and exonucleolytic degradation of the mRNA. In my talk, I will give an overview about the latest developments in NMD – with a focus on our own work – and try to integrate the bits and pieces into a somewhat coherent working model.