Favorite Social Psychologists
Dr G.: cuz she uses the word 'sexy'
Dan Gilbert: Because his writing style is very engaging
Milgram: Because he's not just famous, but he's also notorious for his experiment
Zajonc: Because he has a cool/funny name (and I pronounced it 'zuh junk' for a while, which is hilarious)
Sherif: because his experiment was so environmentally realistic (robber's cave at a camp) (you could put asch here too)
Mark Leary: Because he's also a very good writer and can dumb down involved concepts and theories
Favorite Theories/ Concepts
self-perception theory- its just amazing, it shows how little access we have to ourselves, that we treat ourselves like we do others when trying figure out our emotions or motives
central/peripheral routes - I've always wondered why some people make decision based on reason and others based on weird, superficial stuff, and it always angered me and now that I know a term I can attack it
relative deprivation - it hits head on one of the stupidest parts of our existence, that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence
availability heuristic - these kinds of consistent fallacies of human reasoning are just intriguing
cognitive dissonance - it shows how we fool ourselves all the time, and don't even know it, that we don't know the reasons for our attitudes is so shocking that the only conclusion one can draw is our sense of self and control (even freedom) is all just a nice little illusion neatly held together by any number of processes like cognitive dissonance
Friday, December 5, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Book Project: Podcast Blog
This is the full version of my podcast blog which I did on the book I read, The Curse of the Self, by Mark Leary. The purpose of this project was to bring the material into a compact, digestible form to college students while making it clear why this material was applicable and important to their lives.
This is the shortened version.
This is the shortened version.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Wealth Re-distributor
Don't ask me why I'm still talking about Obama and the election, I swear I really don't think about it all that much now that he's won, it just seems like campaigns offer so many interesting social psychological concepts to draw on. Maybe I was also primed by the JFK quote on page 287.
Public goods dilemmas (Olson, 1965) are when everyone in a group must contribute to a common resource pool in order to keep some kind of service or benefit going. Individuals must struggle between what is good for them immediately (keeping what they have instead of contributing) with what may be good for them in the long run, which is cooperating and contributing.
Taxes are a perfect example. Towards the end of the election, right after the Joe the Plumber craze McCain sparked, the republicans began to attack Obama for a comment he made during a debate as the "Wealth Re-distributor". Once again, blue collar voters were outraged at the idea. They wanted to keep what was theirs (even though Obama said nothing about taking anything away from them). McCain argued that Obama was focused on redistributing wealth and not in creating more wealth, or growing the economy. The ironic thing is that any new wealth that is created would most likely go to the wealthy. We've seen in this country that the richer get richer and the poorer poorer.
Anyway, the people value individual property and individual gain in this country. It stems from the fact that we idealize capitalism as 'the way to go'. Why? Because anyone can become anything, even rich, in one's lifetime, no matter how poor you are born. Nowadays we can even fix looks. The point is, that the number of people who break those kinds of boundaries number about as many as win a lottery, while the rest of the people must find ways to live with the current situation of health care, mortgages, insurance, etc. What is clearly in everyone's best interest is if we re-distribute wealth, we who aren't rich aren't going to see too much more wealth period. Especially if we kept going down the path of de-regulation, lobbying, etc.
But the thing which makes a capitalist economy run is competition. Cooperation is not valued, in fact is too foreign to conceive as a plausible option. I remember hearing somewhere someone tell me that an Asian speaker once asked where in our values (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) did cooperation and harmony come in.
I guess many blue collar voters have decided it doesn't, even though the current system is what has brought them all their troubles.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Public goods dilemmas (Olson, 1965) are when everyone in a group must contribute to a common resource pool in order to keep some kind of service or benefit going. Individuals must struggle between what is good for them immediately (keeping what they have instead of contributing) with what may be good for them in the long run, which is cooperating and contributing.
Taxes are a perfect example. Towards the end of the election, right after the Joe the Plumber craze McCain sparked, the republicans began to attack Obama for a comment he made during a debate as the "Wealth Re-distributor". Once again, blue collar voters were outraged at the idea. They wanted to keep what was theirs (even though Obama said nothing about taking anything away from them). McCain argued that Obama was focused on redistributing wealth and not in creating more wealth, or growing the economy. The ironic thing is that any new wealth that is created would most likely go to the wealthy. We've seen in this country that the richer get richer and the poorer poorer.
Anyway, the people value individual property and individual gain in this country. It stems from the fact that we idealize capitalism as 'the way to go'. Why? Because anyone can become anything, even rich, in one's lifetime, no matter how poor you are born. Nowadays we can even fix looks. The point is, that the number of people who break those kinds of boundaries number about as many as win a lottery, while the rest of the people must find ways to live with the current situation of health care, mortgages, insurance, etc. What is clearly in everyone's best interest is if we re-distribute wealth, we who aren't rich aren't going to see too much more wealth period. Especially if we kept going down the path of de-regulation, lobbying, etc.
But the thing which makes a capitalist economy run is competition. Cooperation is not valued, in fact is too foreign to conceive as a plausible option. I remember hearing somewhere someone tell me that an Asian speaker once asked where in our values (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) did cooperation and harmony come in.
I guess many blue collar voters have decided it doesn't, even though the current system is what has brought them all their troubles.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
That's Not All!
The 'That's not All' technique (Burger, 1986) takes advantage of our need to reciprocate by increasing our willingness to comply with a request, such as buying a product, by sweetening the deal. This technique is the predominant one found in infomercials, where one price for a product is offered, and then free stuff is thrown in (though it was intended to be thrown in all along). The value is increased but the price stays the same, what a deal!
Several weeks ago a friend and I were selling "Undefeated Since 1950" shirts for $12 each. We weren't having any luck, many had already bought some and most didn't have money on them, so Chris started fooling around. He made a sales pitch that no one could refuse.
"Hurry! Act now! Buy one of these awesome Undefeated Since 1950 shirts for only $70! But wait, that's not all, if you buy now I'll throw in two extra shirts at no extra charge, and I'LL CUT THE PRICE IN HALF!!!! That's only $37.50, and saves you over $150!"
It was all in jest, of course. But he demonstrated this technique perfectly. No one in their right minds would have bought a shirt at the original price, but afterwards, it was only $1.50 more than buying the three shirts at the price we were really offering them. So the concept is sound, raise the price initially, then give in right away to the price you thought was already compelling. The perception of you conceding would be powerful enough to increase sales than merely selling them at the end price.
So, though our sales didn't increase, if we had a name brand behind us, like Ralph Lauren, I think people would've fallen for thinking a cheaply made shirt with slightly overpriced end tag was a bargain if the original price was outrageously high like the sort that I demonstrated above.
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283.
Several weeks ago a friend and I were selling "Undefeated Since 1950" shirts for $12 each. We weren't having any luck, many had already bought some and most didn't have money on them, so Chris started fooling around. He made a sales pitch that no one could refuse.
"Hurry! Act now! Buy one of these awesome Undefeated Since 1950 shirts for only $70! But wait, that's not all, if you buy now I'll throw in two extra shirts at no extra charge, and I'LL CUT THE PRICE IN HALF!!!! That's only $37.50, and saves you over $150!"
It was all in jest, of course. But he demonstrated this technique perfectly. No one in their right minds would have bought a shirt at the original price, but afterwards, it was only $1.50 more than buying the three shirts at the price we were really offering them. So the concept is sound, raise the price initially, then give in right away to the price you thought was already compelling. The perception of you conceding would be powerful enough to increase sales than merely selling them at the end price.
So, though our sales didn't increase, if we had a name brand behind us, like Ralph Lauren, I think people would've fallen for thinking a cheaply made shirt with slightly overpriced end tag was a bargain if the original price was outrageously high like the sort that I demonstrated above.
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283.
Barack! Barack!
We live in an age of advertising. Every day we are bombarded with the frantic, desperate attempts of companies to change our attitudes about their products so that we will buy them. However, there are a lot of difficulties in accomplishing this, for people's attitudes are surprisingly resilient for a number of reasons, especially when they perceive that someone is purposely trying to persuade them.
We had an election on Tuesday and elected our next president. What will be studies for years to come is the myriad of ways that the campaigns, first in the primaries and then in the general election, tried to change people's attitudes about their respective candidates. What worked? What didn't? Why?
There are two ways advertisers or campaigns may try to get an audience to change its attitude towards a target. One form of persuasion involves a central route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where the audience is persuaded through the strength and quality of the arguments presented. In a campaign, this would be a focus on issues and specific policies to address those issues. The other route is called the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where people focus on more superficial cues than the argument.
One of the important factors in determining which route an audience will take is the perceived importance of the decision and thus the motivation of the individual. If highly motivated, people will take the central route, if not, the peripheral. Many if not most people thought of this election as particularly important, so one would assume that many people took a central route to making their decision.
A very demonstrative use of peripheral and central routes by the candidates can be seen in the 'Joe the Plumber' argument used by McCain. McCain and Palin addressed tens of thousands of blue collar workers and preached the woes of Joe the Plumber. This argument relied on the ommission of Obama's economic policy plans. Where Obama intended to give tax cuts to families and businesses making less than $250,000 of income or profit (95% of families and 98% of small businesses), McCain persuaded his blue collar workers that Obama intended to raise their taxes by relying on the peripheral cues of his argument. McCain's very effective accusations never addressed the specific policies that Obama intended to enact, and were never supported by anything substantial. They simply held their own because of the perception of Democrats as tax raisers.
What is also important to realize is that the central and peripheral routes can represent a continuum, and not a dichotomy. Some routes people take can lean toward one or the other. To demonstrate this, I video taped a friend on election day to get a feel of how he perceived the candidates, and how he constructed these attitudes and their justifications in his mind. I tried my best to make him really 'flesh out' his ideas, and we had a ten minute interview. However, time and time again my friend would somehow start talking about the Bush and Reagan administrations and leave the candidates behind. I had to edit the video to make it shorter, but I assure you, it stays true to the conversation we had.
Not once could my friend list a specific policy proposed by either candidate. He said that he had money in the economy and he was hit hard by our economic situation. There was no evidence, despite his eloquence and ostensible understanding of Reaganomics and the conservative agenda, that he had sat down one day and asked himself, "What precisely do these candidates intend to do," and it showed. He would digress and move away from the questions I asked him, which were insightful as to how he has structured his arguments to himself, but one can tell that if he were saying this to persuade someone, the argument would be weak. Many conclusions and views are taken at face value and not supported, and even though I gave him time to produce those specifics on his own, I finally had to ask him outright if there was anything specific he could support his views with, and he could not produce anything.
Whether or not his information was correct or founded or unfounded is another argument. He seemed intelligent and like he knew a lot of things about economics and politics, this is not the point. The point is, the things he knew did not extend to specifics about the platforms of the candidates. This is clearly leaning toward a peripheral route to his decision. After all, how can you really know what a candidate really thinks of the economy or any other issue if you know not his or her propositions for those issues?
To demonstrate something that takes a bit more of a central route, I had someone (who shall remain anonymous- Stacy) video me and ask me the same questions I tried to ask my friend. I quickly found out though, that I was putting myself on the spot! It had been so long since I had done my research on the candidates, and I had never really delved into McCain's plans as thoroughly as Obama's, that I was hardly better off than my friend. However, I did have specific propositions by both candidates, though the numbers I quote could be remembered incorrectly. Therefore, I still think that this following video shows a bit more of a central route. I will say right now, though, that no central route would have coaxed me out of my cynicism and mistrust of the government. Obama's words and eloquence wooed me out of my disappointment with the government and its people about a year and a half ago. My original support for Obama was entirely based on peripheral cues. The fact that he said things which people didn't necessarily want to hear, like the place of the personal responsibility of parents in education, and the moving speeches of the arc of the universe bending towards justice derived from Dr. King did more any mere discussion of policy ever could.
So I admit that here, just to show that I only made this video for the contrast with the one above.
Oh, and please disregard that ridiculous looking face on the still frame. I had to edit this too and somehow THAT is what ended up on the still frame. I almost feel like not putting it up here for the world to see. But I put too much work editing these videos to turn back now.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
We had an election on Tuesday and elected our next president. What will be studies for years to come is the myriad of ways that the campaigns, first in the primaries and then in the general election, tried to change people's attitudes about their respective candidates. What worked? What didn't? Why?
There are two ways advertisers or campaigns may try to get an audience to change its attitude towards a target. One form of persuasion involves a central route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where the audience is persuaded through the strength and quality of the arguments presented. In a campaign, this would be a focus on issues and specific policies to address those issues. The other route is called the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where people focus on more superficial cues than the argument.
One of the important factors in determining which route an audience will take is the perceived importance of the decision and thus the motivation of the individual. If highly motivated, people will take the central route, if not, the peripheral. Many if not most people thought of this election as particularly important, so one would assume that many people took a central route to making their decision.
A very demonstrative use of peripheral and central routes by the candidates can be seen in the 'Joe the Plumber' argument used by McCain. McCain and Palin addressed tens of thousands of blue collar workers and preached the woes of Joe the Plumber. This argument relied on the ommission of Obama's economic policy plans. Where Obama intended to give tax cuts to families and businesses making less than $250,000 of income or profit (95% of families and 98% of small businesses), McCain persuaded his blue collar workers that Obama intended to raise their taxes by relying on the peripheral cues of his argument. McCain's very effective accusations never addressed the specific policies that Obama intended to enact, and were never supported by anything substantial. They simply held their own because of the perception of Democrats as tax raisers.
What is also important to realize is that the central and peripheral routes can represent a continuum, and not a dichotomy. Some routes people take can lean toward one or the other. To demonstrate this, I video taped a friend on election day to get a feel of how he perceived the candidates, and how he constructed these attitudes and their justifications in his mind. I tried my best to make him really 'flesh out' his ideas, and we had a ten minute interview. However, time and time again my friend would somehow start talking about the Bush and Reagan administrations and leave the candidates behind. I had to edit the video to make it shorter, but I assure you, it stays true to the conversation we had.
Not once could my friend list a specific policy proposed by either candidate. He said that he had money in the economy and he was hit hard by our economic situation. There was no evidence, despite his eloquence and ostensible understanding of Reaganomics and the conservative agenda, that he had sat down one day and asked himself, "What precisely do these candidates intend to do," and it showed. He would digress and move away from the questions I asked him, which were insightful as to how he has structured his arguments to himself, but one can tell that if he were saying this to persuade someone, the argument would be weak. Many conclusions and views are taken at face value and not supported, and even though I gave him time to produce those specifics on his own, I finally had to ask him outright if there was anything specific he could support his views with, and he could not produce anything.
Whether or not his information was correct or founded or unfounded is another argument. He seemed intelligent and like he knew a lot of things about economics and politics, this is not the point. The point is, the things he knew did not extend to specifics about the platforms of the candidates. This is clearly leaning toward a peripheral route to his decision. After all, how can you really know what a candidate really thinks of the economy or any other issue if you know not his or her propositions for those issues?
To demonstrate something that takes a bit more of a central route, I had someone (who shall remain anonymous- Stacy) video me and ask me the same questions I tried to ask my friend. I quickly found out though, that I was putting myself on the spot! It had been so long since I had done my research on the candidates, and I had never really delved into McCain's plans as thoroughly as Obama's, that I was hardly better off than my friend. However, I did have specific propositions by both candidates, though the numbers I quote could be remembered incorrectly. Therefore, I still think that this following video shows a bit more of a central route. I will say right now, though, that no central route would have coaxed me out of my cynicism and mistrust of the government. Obama's words and eloquence wooed me out of my disappointment with the government and its people about a year and a half ago. My original support for Obama was entirely based on peripheral cues. The fact that he said things which people didn't necessarily want to hear, like the place of the personal responsibility of parents in education, and the moving speeches of the arc of the universe bending towards justice derived from Dr. King did more any mere discussion of policy ever could.
So I admit that here, just to show that I only made this video for the contrast with the one above.
Oh, and please disregard that ridiculous looking face on the still frame. I had to edit this too and somehow THAT is what ended up on the still frame. I almost feel like not putting it up here for the world to see. But I put too much work editing these videos to turn back now.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
What Was That? Come Again?
Effort justification (Aronson & Mills, 1959) is when you begin to really like something that you suffer for. This can come about from an initiation into a group, having to pay something yourself instead of being given it, or suffering emotionally or psychologically for some one, thing, or ideal. It is brought about by the discrepancy between the cost and the benefits. We want to believe that the benefits match if not outweigh the costs. So, the more we pay for something, the more we rationalize to ourselves that it is worth, so that we do not experience cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) from the discrepancy between the costs and the benefits.
Okay, so- let's flashback to a fourteen year-old me for a second.
I remember the first girl I asked out. It was sophomore year in high school. Yeah, a little late, but I thought dating in middle school was pointless and girls tended to be a bit bold and make the moves on me. Anyway, moving on, her name was Sarah, and we had been friends since freshman year.
When I decided to ask Sarah out my feelings toward her were complicated. I knew that I liked her, but I wasn't crazy for her. I was, however, determined to finally grow some balls and ask someone out.
I planned it all out, I would do it when we went to Fiesta Texas with ROTC (I had joined it for her). So as the day came I got more and more apprehensive, and by the time Fiesta Texas came, I was in a nervous wreck. I tried not to think about it all day but that was unsuccessful, I thought about it every second. I dreaded the moment, though I knew not when I would finally do it. I was hyper aware of people and of Sarah, trying to catch her alone and waiting for the 'right moment'.
At one point everyone wanted to go on the bumper carts and Sarah didn't want to go, so I stayed behind with her. We were the only two who hadn't gone. The line was long. So I sat down and experienced the most acute psychological stress I had ever felt in my life, and then finally went something to the extent of, "Hey, why don't we go out?"
"What?"
"Well we're really good friends, and we hang out a lot, so I figured- why don't we go out?"
"Wait, one more time?"
"Will you go out with me?"
Well, every time I had to repeat it I suffered exponentially more acute stress! I couldn't even think.
So my question is- guess how much I liked Sarah at the moment I voiced the third proposition? I was madly into her. She was the object of my every desire. Her saying yes would be like God lifting me up straight into Heaven. I realized that without her I would be lost.
A strikingly different picture from how I felt about her before I decided to ask her out. Where I once liked her, I was now infatuated with her. According to effort justification, this makes perfect sense. Asking her out was AGONY, of course my feelings for her knew no bounds! I HAD to be that into her, otherwise, why would I be subjecting myself to the most brutal experience of my life? (do I exaggerate? 14 year old me would think not)
So I guess I can't leave it at that, huh? Do you want to know what she said? Hmm? What was that? Come again? Hehe, just kidding.
"No."
I'm not sure how many awws I'm going to get, depends on how well I made the story, which might not be very well. But to those who like happy endings, I will say that she said no because her friend liked me and it was against the code. But two days later she called me up and said, "Hey, you know what you said the other day? You still want to go out?"
Aaaaand considering this was after two miserable and depressed days full of yet more agony- guess what I said?
Aronson, e., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, C.A: Stanford University Press.
Okay, so- let's flashback to a fourteen year-old me for a second.
I remember the first girl I asked out. It was sophomore year in high school. Yeah, a little late, but I thought dating in middle school was pointless and girls tended to be a bit bold and make the moves on me. Anyway, moving on, her name was Sarah, and we had been friends since freshman year.
When I decided to ask Sarah out my feelings toward her were complicated. I knew that I liked her, but I wasn't crazy for her. I was, however, determined to finally grow some balls and ask someone out.
I planned it all out, I would do it when we went to Fiesta Texas with ROTC (I had joined it for her). So as the day came I got more and more apprehensive, and by the time Fiesta Texas came, I was in a nervous wreck. I tried not to think about it all day but that was unsuccessful, I thought about it every second. I dreaded the moment, though I knew not when I would finally do it. I was hyper aware of people and of Sarah, trying to catch her alone and waiting for the 'right moment'.
At one point everyone wanted to go on the bumper carts and Sarah didn't want to go, so I stayed behind with her. We were the only two who hadn't gone. The line was long. So I sat down and experienced the most acute psychological stress I had ever felt in my life, and then finally went something to the extent of, "Hey, why don't we go out?"
"What?"
"Well we're really good friends, and we hang out a lot, so I figured- why don't we go out?"
"Wait, one more time?"
"Will you go out with me?"
Well, every time I had to repeat it I suffered exponentially more acute stress! I couldn't even think.
So my question is- guess how much I liked Sarah at the moment I voiced the third proposition? I was madly into her. She was the object of my every desire. Her saying yes would be like God lifting me up straight into Heaven. I realized that without her I would be lost.
A strikingly different picture from how I felt about her before I decided to ask her out. Where I once liked her, I was now infatuated with her. According to effort justification, this makes perfect sense. Asking her out was AGONY, of course my feelings for her knew no bounds! I HAD to be that into her, otherwise, why would I be subjecting myself to the most brutal experience of my life? (do I exaggerate? 14 year old me would think not)
So I guess I can't leave it at that, huh? Do you want to know what she said? Hmm? What was that? Come again? Hehe, just kidding.
"No."
I'm not sure how many awws I'm going to get, depends on how well I made the story, which might not be very well. But to those who like happy endings, I will say that she said no because her friend liked me and it was against the code. But two days later she called me up and said, "Hey, you know what you said the other day? You still want to go out?"
Aaaaand considering this was after two miserable and depressed days full of yet more agony- guess what I said?
Aronson, e., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, C.A: Stanford University Press.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Persuasion and Teenagers
I can remember a time that I exhibited psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981), where one reacts to the fact someone is trying to change their mind by moving in the opposite direction argued (with respect to one's personal attitude).
When I was a sophomore in high school I started dating this girl named Sarah. I didn't know too much about her when we started dating, but I soon knew more than I wanted to. Anyway, my mother found a letter I had from her and freaked out because it contained some stuff about Sarah's past, and she tried to make me stop seeing her. Well, I didn't have a car and we lived half an hour from my high school so I was only seeing her at school as it was, and when I interpreted my mother's yelling as trying to persuade me of something, I moved in the opposite direction.
"No way I'm breaking up with her!" I told myself. Even though I knew it was probably a smart move, my mother trying to persuade me made me react and try to cling to my independence and freedom by stubbornly, against my own reason, insisting that I keep dating her.
I remember this happening a lot in those years. Adolescents are told they aren't children and they aren't adults. The only freedoms adults give adolescents are responsibilities. Your old enough to be responsible, but not to know what is good for you, or just plain what is good. I'm sure everyone displayed psychological reactance in their adolescent youth, many times.
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
When I was a sophomore in high school I started dating this girl named Sarah. I didn't know too much about her when we started dating, but I soon knew more than I wanted to. Anyway, my mother found a letter I had from her and freaked out because it contained some stuff about Sarah's past, and she tried to make me stop seeing her. Well, I didn't have a car and we lived half an hour from my high school so I was only seeing her at school as it was, and when I interpreted my mother's yelling as trying to persuade me of something, I moved in the opposite direction.
"No way I'm breaking up with her!" I told myself. Even though I knew it was probably a smart move, my mother trying to persuade me made me react and try to cling to my independence and freedom by stubbornly, against my own reason, insisting that I keep dating her.
I remember this happening a lot in those years. Adolescents are told they aren't children and they aren't adults. The only freedoms adults give adolescents are responsibilities. Your old enough to be responsible, but not to know what is good for you, or just plain what is good. I'm sure everyone displayed psychological reactance in their adolescent youth, many times.
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)