Simply telling teenagers ‘just don’t send nudes’ does not work

 Blunt warnings telling teenagers not to share sexual images are failing to protect them and can make victims of image-based sexual abuse feel blamed, ashamed and unable to seek help, according to new research from the University of Surrey. 

The study, published in Sexualities, found that current responses from schools, safeguarding services and the justice system are often fragmented, punitive and poorly equipped to address rapidly evolving threats such as sexual deepfakes and sextortion (blackmail involving sexual images). 

Researchers argue that blanket ‘just say no’ messages ignore the reality that image-sharing can form part of young people’s relationships, intimacy and social lives. By treating all sharing in the same way, these approaches can shift responsibility onto victims rather than those who violate consent. 

The research reviewed existing evidence alongside insights from a 2025 workshop involving 38 professionals from education, law enforcement, frontline services, academia, policy and the technology sector. 

Participants reported that institutions can focus more heavily on confiscating devices, preserving evidence or protecting their reputations than addressing the emotional and social harm experienced by young people. Confusing legal and safeguarding frameworks can also mean the same incident could betreated as a consensual exchange, a safeguarding concern or a criminal offence depending on who handles it. 

Dr Emily Setty, Associate Professor in Criminology at the University of Surrey, said: 

“Telling young people to ‘just don’t send nudes’ is no longer a credible safeguarding response. It ignores how digital intimacy actually works and places the burden of preventing abuse on potential victims. With AI-generated images, a young person can now be targeted even when they have never created or shared an intimate image.” 

Researchers propose an approach called ‘safe uncertainty’, which allows professionals to act decisively while considering the circumstances, relationships and needs involved in each case. Rather than relying only on rigid rules or checklists, schools and safeguarding services would examine issues such as coercion, breached trust, shame, peer pressure and the young person’s emotional safety. 

Dr Setty continued: 

“Young people who disclose abuse need to be met with care, not suspicion or a lecture about their choices. Schools and safeguarding professionals must be able to respond to the harm in front of them, even when a case does not fit neatly into an existing category. The priority should be restoring safety, dignity and trust.” 

---

Journal

Sexualities

DOI

10.1177/136346072614672 

Primary school pupils who use an AI-supported learning tool learn arithmetic more quickly

Primary school pupils who use an AI-supported learning tool learn arithmetic more quickly than children who do not use such a tool. This is the finding of a multi-year study by Radboud University involving nearly eight thousand children. However, the researchers warn that it's no miracle cure, as the teacher’s role remains essential even with AI.

The researchers examined the development of numeracy skills among 7,885 Dutch primary school pupils over a three-year period, when these systems were first used between 2014 and 2017. They compared classes that used an adaptive learning system with classes that taught numeracy without such a system. Such a system automatically adapts exercises to the level of an individual pupil. Pupils are given more difficult tasks if they perform well and simpler tasks if they get stuck. On average, pupils who used the system showed more positive growth in their maths performance over the years.

Large-scale study

‘It is one of the first studies to examine the long-term effects of adaptive learning tools. Until now, research into these kinds of systems has mainly focused on short-term effects, or has been conducted on a smaller scale,’ explains Susanne de Mooij, an education researcher and one of the study’s authors.

‘Adaptive learning systems have been in use for almost fifteen years in more than half of all Dutch primary schools. Nevertheless, some fear that this type of adaptive learning tool leads to pupils learning less effectively, as digital learning materials are thought to be less effective than paper-based ones. This study shows that, in cognitive terms at least, this is not the case.’

Greater success at large schools

The effects found are modest, De Mooij emphasises. ‘We have found small effects, but generally a positive trend. Moreover, the positive effect is particularly evident in large schools and in vulnerable schools with many pupils from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds. There is often greater variation between pupils in such settings. Adaptive technology can then help to better tailor teaching to individual needs,’ says De Mooij.

This means that an adaptive learning tool is primarily something that supports teachers, rather than replacing them. ‘A teacher cannot adapt the lesson content to thirty pupils at the same time. But with a tool like this, you can improve pupils’ maths skills whilst also reducing a teacher’s workload.’ The researchers emphasise that the teacher always remains in control: ‘The teacher draws up the lesson plan, decides what pupils learn and oversees what happens in the classroom. Such learning technology is fed solely by the data stored in the system, whereas a teacher has access to much more information.’

---

Journal

Learning and Instruction

DOI

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102480 

Busy college students less likely to be depressed, and get better grades

 When it comes to mental health, it may not be how much time you have that matters, but rather, how you feel about the time you have.

That’s one key takeaway of a new University of Colorado Boulder study examining the relationship between time and mental health.

The study of 646 undergraduates, published in the Journal of American College Health, found that those with the busiest schedules were significantly less likely to be depressed, and—contrary to some common assumptions—they got better grades. Those who felt a chronic sense of rush or “time pressure” had higher rates of anxiety and depression, regardless of what their schedules looked like.

Additionally, those who scored higher on measures of mindfulness (the ability to be present and aware in the moment) appeared to be able to take on a heftier schedule without compromising their mental health.

“We have a tendency to think, ‘Oh, things will get better, and I won’t be stressed if I can just take some things off of my plate,’” said first author Caitlin McKimmy, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience. “These data show that it’s not that simple — that outside of what is actually on our calendar we need to heal our relationship with time.”

Time pressure vs. time scarcity

Previous research shows that people can experience time differently, depending on what they’re doing with it.

One study found that people who give their time away, through things like volunteering or helping friends, tend to feel less stressed about time than those who spend time on themselves or waste time. Other research has shown that when someone is fully immersed in a task they care about, also known as a “flow state,” time seems to speed by.

Deep breathing and other mindfulness practices have been shown to increase one’s sense that their time is abundant.

For the new study, McKimmy, a busy mother of two, wanted to examine the impact of two distinct elements of time: “time pressure” (or the subjective sense of rush); and “time scarcity” (the objective lack of non-committed hours).

In her survey, she gathered data on how many hours per week the student participants spent in class, preparing for class, working a job, commuting and doing other activities. Survey questions also assessed how much time pressure they felt, how anxious or depressed they were and their level of mindfulness.

The participants agreed to provide their GPAs and access to their academic records.

McKimmy was surprised to find that time scarcity was strongly associated with both better grades and lower rates of depression.  Heightened time pressure, on the other hand, was strongly associated with more anxiety, depression and lower grades.

Importantly, those short on time didn’t necessarily feel time pressure.

“You can have a very busy person who has a harmonious relationship with time and someone else who, objectively speaking, has a calendar with some space in it but is really stressed out about time,” McKimmy said.

When asked what they would do with it if they did have more time, students listed self-care, including mental healthcare, as No. 1.

What causes what?

McKimmy stresses that the findings don’t prove that staying busy causes people to be happier. It could be that those with better mental health naturally seek out more experiences while those struggling with low mood say no more. There could also be shared underlying factors that influence both how someone perceives time and their mental health. For instance, some research suggests that depression itself can influence perception of time, potentially making it feel unmanageable.

What we can infer from these data, she said, is that the common less-is-more narrative may not always hold.

For instance, while a student might be inclined to skip taking a part-time job, for fear it might hurt their GPA, the study found no evidence that adding more to a schedule will hurt academic performance or mental health. While someone might retreat socially when their grades or work start to slip, this could potentially backfire, leading to a monotonous schedule—that can make time crawl by—and a sense of loneliness, warns McKimmy.

“These data support the idea that doing more and being engaged can not only lead to better mental health but could also support academic and professional success,” she said.

This is not to say that there’s no such thing as being overscheduled, she stressed. Often, for reasons they can’t control, people have less free time than is ideal.

Notably, the study showed that people who scored higher on measures of mindfulness had less negative mental health impacts when they were stressed about time.

“There appears to be something about attuning to the present moment that protects you against the negative impact of time pressure,” she said.

Her advice to those feeling stressed about their schedule: If you must fill it, try to fill it with things in line with your passions and values; try to be in the moment, not thinking about the future or past.

If you notice you are feeling stressed, take a moment to focus on your breath and ground yourself in your body and in the moment.

“The amount of time we have in our week isn’t super malleable,” she said. “But the way we think about time is.”

***

---

Journal

Journal of American College Health

DOI

10.1080/07448481.2026.2681092 

Parenting profiles and children's behavioral and emotional problems

 

Certain parenting approaches, such as lower supervision and inconsistent discipline, are associated with a higher likelihood that children will show behavioral and emotional problems, such as attention difficulties, anxiety, and depression

There's no one right way to raise a child, but different patterns of parenting are associated with how kids behave. A new study, published on September 30, 2026 in the open access journal PLOS One, identified data-driven profiles of parenting practices and investigated how these relate to children's behavioral and emotional problems, generally grouped into internalizing behaviors (e.g., withdrawal, anxiety, depression) and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression, oppositional behavior, attention problems). The research team led by Dr. Xiaoye Xu, an Assistant Professor of Psychology at SUNY Cortland, US, found that several parenting factors, including low supervision and inconsistent discipline, were linked to a higher likelihood that children would exhibit these behaviors.

The researchers assessed these behaviors in more than 2,700 children between the ages of five and 18, using data assembled by the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Program. Parents filled out surveys about their approach to parenting and their children's behavior.

Across these responses, the researchers identified three parenting profiles. The first was high positive parenting with better supervision — the term "positive parenting" describes warm, responsive caregiving, such as praising good behavior and engaging supportively with the child. The other two profiles were lower positive parenting with medium supervision, and medium positive parenting with poorer supervision. While these profiles do not represent the full spectrum of parenting approaches, this range let the researchers analyze the effects of positive parenting and level of supervision together.

Externalizing and internalizing behaviors were lowest among children raised with high positive parenting and better supervision. These behaviors were more common in the lower positive parenting with medium supervision profile, and highest among children in the medium positive parenting with poorer supervision profile.

Separately, the researchers also examined each parenting behavior individually rather than as part of a broader profile. This analysis showed that inconsistent discipline — how unpredictably parents enforced rules — was linked to both more internalizing and more externalizing problems, regardless of a family's broader parenting profile. Poor supervision, examined this way, was linked to more externalizing problems specifically, such as aggression and attention difficulties, but was not significantly linked to internalizing problems like anxiety and depression.

The results of this study do not give a full picture of a child's rearing and its possible influences. The data are based on self-report — mostly mothers filled out the survey, with only 52 fathers participating, and other family or community members involved in the child's rearing were not included. The researchers also only had a snapshot of the current parent-child relationship, which makes it difficult to establish cause and effect, as both parenting tactics and child behavior can develop and change in response to one another.

The authors add: “In a large, diverse sample of children across the US, we found that certain patterns of parenting – not just individual behaviors – matter for children's emotional and behavioral wellbeing. Children tended to have fewer emotional and behavioral problems when parents were consistently positive, provided steady discipline, and stayed closely engaged in their day-to-day lives. It's a reminder that small, everyday parenting behaviors can add up to meaningful differences for children.”

 The freely available article in PLOS One: https://plos.io/4rdE7OQ

PERSONAL FINANCE EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

  

 

A new report projects that in five years, 29 states will guarantee personal finance education for every graduating public high school student. Less than two decades ago, just three states offered a guarantee. The 2026 National Report Card on State Efforts to Improve Financial Literacy in High SchoolsTM , issued by the National Endowment for Financial Education® (NEFE®), projects that by 2031, 73% of public high school students will live in a state where a semester-long course in personal finance will be guaranteed to every graduating student.

 

The 2026 report card shows that 10 states have already earned an A grade, and 19 are projected to earn an A grade by 2031. The percentage of states receiving C, D and F grades dropped from 40% to 14% in this year’s report card. By 2031, just two states are expected to have an F grade on the report card.

 

NEFE is issuing this sixth report card, which reflects how well personal finance is taught in high schools. The previous five report cards were issued by the Center for Financial Literacy (CFL) at Champlain College in Burlington, Vt. The first report was issued in 2013. Beginning with this latest edition, NEFE assumes responsibility for the report card, expanding its reach and influence as a leading measure of state-level financial education policy for years to come.

 

“The National Endowment for Financial Education is committed to ensuring access to effective financial education for all Americans, and research tells us requiring foundational personal finance instruction in high school is among the most impactful ways to do so,” says Billy Hensley, Ph.D., president and CEO of NEFE. “The progress across our field is encouraging, but the work ahead requires continued collaboration, evidence building and investment in the systems that support learners and educators. The report card is one of the most compelling tools available to build and sustain momentum across states to adopt and effectively implement these critical programs.”

 

John Pelletier, senior fellow at NEFE, projects that when the Class of 2031 graduates, 29 states will require high school students to take a standalone personal finance course, with an estimated 73% of public high school students who graduate in 2031 taking a substantive personal finance course prior to graduation. When the first report card was issued in 2013, only three states earned an A grade, representing just 5% of students in the nation’s public schools.

 

“Financial literacy is linked to positive outcomes like wealth accumulation, stock market participation, effective retirement planning and avoiding high-cost alternative financial services. Conversely, poor financial literacy and negative financial behaviors often go hand in hand,” says Pelletier. “High school personal finance education can help alleviate the cycle of poverty that exists in our nation. Requiring all students to take a standalone financial literacy course, regardless of their race, ethnicity or economic status, is an important step our nation can take toward reducing inequality.”

 

A 2025 nationwide opinion poll from NEFE found that 83% of U.S. adults believe the state they live in should require a semester- or year-long course focused on personal finance as a graduation requirement, while 82% of respondents who attended high school say they wish they were required to complete a personal finance class while they were in school.

 

“NEFE’s data reflect strong public support for financial education in high school. The vast majority of Americans agree their state should require a semester- or year-long course for graduation, and that personal finance is equally as important as core subjects like math, science and English. Furthermore, most Americans believe the quality of their financial life would be better had they received financial education in school,” Hensley adds.

 

As momentum for personal finance education grows, teacher training will become more important. The CFL projects that 37,000 highly trained personal finance educators in just the grade A and B states will be needed by 2031. To produce the report card, NEFE conducted detailed reviews of high school graduation requirements, state academic standards for personal finance education, and laws, regulations and guidelines related to how each state delivers personal finance education in its public high schools. A national map with information on the 50 states and the District of Columbia and a downloadable copy of the full report card is available here.

How States and Districts Carry Out Career and Technical Education Under Perkins V

IES has released a new evaluation report, National Evaluation of Career and Technical Education Under Perkins V, that provides a nationwide descriptive picture of how states and districts implemented the law’s priorities during the 2022–23 school year. Perkins V introduced changes designed to expand access to and participation in career and technical education for all students, enhance Career and Technical Education (CTE) program quality through new mechanisms for program improvement and labor market alignment, and increase flexibility in Perkins funding and accountability. The report examines how states and districts sought to carry out these priorities, including common barriers and variation in implementation. The evaluation draws on surveys of state CTE directors and a nationally representative sample of Perkins-funded districts and independent area CTE schools. Findings include: Most states and districts sponsored activities to expand CTE access and participation, but these efforts were typically not among their highest priorities for CTE. States and districts widely implemented Perkins V mechanisms to improve CTE program quality and strengthen alignment with labor market needs, but Comprehensive Local Needs Assessment requirements sometimes limited district implementation. Most states used funding flexibilities to support local priorities, but fewer used accountability flexibilities, such as adopting multiple program quality indicators. To access the report, please visit: https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/report/evaluation-report/national-evaluation-career-and-technical-education-under-perkins-v.

Young adults using the AI for health issues more likely to have anxiety and depression

 Young adults who use generative artificial intelligence to ask health-related questions are more likely to screen positive for clinically significant anxiety and depression than those not using the AI tool for health issues, according to a new study led by University of Florida researcher Yusen Zhai. 

The study, one of the first large U.S. studies to examine the relationship between generative AI use and mental health, analyzed data from nearly 100,000 young adults. Researchers found that the odds of screening positive for clinically significant anxiety and depression were 52% and 46% greater for people who reported using generative AI tools like ChatGPT or Claude for health-related questions.

The findings show an association between the two behaviors. They do not establish that using generative AI causes anxiety or depression, or that people with anxiety or depression are necessarily more likely to use AI for health questions.

Zhai, Ph.D., an assistant professor in the UF College of Education, said he was intrigued by the findings because concerns about AI in education often center on how the students use it for assignments and productivity. His research focuses on AI, mental health and the ways technology can be used to identify and address mental health risks.

“We are learning that young people are turning to AI, especially generative AI systems, when they feel worried or vulnerable or are trying to understand their health symptoms,” he said. “We need to understand if there are underlying issues or associations, which is what the current study begins to address.”

Among people in the study who used generative AI for health-related questions, about 52% screened positive for anxiety, compared with about 43% among those who did not use AI for health questions. For depression, the figures were about 47% and 38%, respectively.

The association remained after researchers accounted for factors including age, race and ethnicity, biological sex and socioeconomic status.

Zhai said the results raise questions about what happens when people repeatedly turn to AI while they are worried about their health.

One possible pattern begins with uncertainty about symptoms. A person asks for reassurance from an AI system, receives an answer and then develops additional questions or uncertainties. That can lead to another question, followed by another answer and potentially another round of questioning.

“That kind of repeated cycle could reinforce rumination, health anxiety or other distress,” Zhai said.

The conversational nature of generative AI makes that cycle different from a traditional internet search, he said. A search engine generally provides links to information, while generative AI can synthesize information and respond directly to follow-up questions.

That interaction can feel persuasive because AI responses are often conversational and confident, even when the information is incomplete, inaccurate or misleading.

“The scary part to me is that young people may have difficulty identifying an incorrect piece of information when it is blended into an otherwise plausible response,” Zhai said.

The study is based on data collected from 2023 to 2024, relatively early in the widespread adoption of generative AI. These AI chatbots had only become more broadly available when the survey was conducted, Zhai said. As use of generative AI has expanded since then, the behavior may have become more common.

That makes the findings an early indication rather than a complete picture of how young people use AI for health information today, he said.

The direction of the relationship also requires future investigations. Young people experiencing anxiety or depression may be more likely to turn to AI as a first step in seeking information or support. At the same time, repeatedly seeking reassurance from AI could potentially reinforce worry for some users.

“It’s hard to say AI is bad or wrong,” Zhai said. “AI could be a way for students to seek help.”

He said the more important question is how people use the technology, and he recommends that young people pay attention to how they feel after using generative AI for health questions.

“If an interaction leaves someone feeling more informed and able to take a constructive next step,” Zhai said, “that may be different from an interaction that prompts a desire to repeatedly ask the same questions — and that awareness is part of developing AI literacy.”

Mental health professionals also may need to ask clients how they are using generative AI and help them evaluate information they receive from it, Zhai said.

Universities could incorporate similar guidance into broader AI literacy efforts, including helping students identify trustworthy health information and understand the limitations of AI-generated answers.

“The problem is not generative AI itself,” Zhai said. “It’s the ‘how’ question — how people use it.”

---

Journal

Journal of Counseling & Development

DOI

10.1002/jcad.70064