Survivor Guilt

In the wake of horrific genocides and even less less-scale tragedies, often there are those left behind who wonder why they are alive while others- friends, family, peers, and even strangers- have been killed. The term survivor guilt has been created to describe “an unpleasant emotion associated with surviving a tragic event involving much loss of life.”

Certain historical events have been evaluated numerously with respect to survivor guilt- for example, the Holocaust and World Wars in general, or the September 11^th terrorist attacks. Guilt is thus an interpersonal emotion. Survivor guilt in particular may be partly constructive by making the survivor motivated to help others in relief efforts and commiserating in grief.

For a more recent occurrence, consider the Virginia Tech shootings. Students who survived the attacks often experienced survivor guilt. A particularly heart-wrenching instance of this was the fourth-year student Colin Goddard, who was even wounded by three bullets (and needed surgery afterwards) yet still survived.

A study on hospitalized Nigerian army veterans brings the discussion about soldier’s survivor guilt back to the forefront. The study was designed to investigate post-traumatic stress disorder, survivor guilt, and substance use. 38% of respondees showed significant instances of survivor guilt. In addition, survivor guilt was associated with avoidance of trauma-related stimuli, but not with duration of combat exposure. This finding suggests that one long-lasting effect of this type of guilt is avoidance of stimuli reminding the individual of the past event. This is somewhat opposite to the idea that survivor guilt can sometimes inspire individuals to put their efforts towards constructive measures in the aftermath of the incident.

Ultimately, survivor guilt and the behaviors it causes in an individual depend largely on the characteristics of the survivor. However, it has been shown that such guilt can bring about both positive and negative reactions, both of which have the capability to influence others. Survivor guilt, like guilt in general, is a highly interpersonal emotion.

Web of Science Article: http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=7&SID=3Ck1FkfDiJd23nAOjIo&page=1&doc=9

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-162533668.html

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

The Bad Apple Effect

Have you ever been called a bad apple? Lets hope not. The bad apple effect refers to “the idea that one person who breaks the rules can inspire other people to break the rules also.” In many ways, this effect is similar to that of a social loafer; one individual’s negative actions can cause others in the group to behave in the same way. Generally, people in groups will avoid bad behavior for fear of rejection or creating deviance among their group. However, once one member has digressed from the group norm, it apparently is a lot easier for subsequent members to do so as well.

An informative publication put out by Highland Business Research brings insight about bad apples into the realm of tourism. The company conducts research about tourist destinations and customer satisfaction. As a disinterested third party, the researchers have heard numerous frank stories about the horrors of poor travel hosts, and as they say, they really “get to see just how strong the emotional reaction is to the negative experience.” The research is therefore a good exploration of the effects of “bad apple” tourism locales upon individuals.

After giving a few customer testimonials about negative customer service experiences, the article ties in the bad apple phenomenon by reminding other marketers and tourism businesses that one bad apple can spread the customer’s negative reaction and direct it towards subsequent endeavors. Even if the second hotel a family stays in has nothing to do whatsoever with the first, if the first hotel was infested with bugs, it is likely that this negative experience will serve as a bad apple and soil the reputation of the second hotel, in the same way that poor behavior might inspire similar reactions in others. Also, the negative behaviors of the inflicted tourist have the capability of spreading to other customers in the same locations. Seeing another hotel guest in the lobby complaining about funny smells and carpet lint may inspire observers to begin inspecting their surroundings carefully for such traits as well. Bad customer experiences are therefore a larger problem for a tourist industry that simply one business losing one customer.

One last appealing article describes how the bad apple effect may be incorrectly applied. In the specific case detailed, prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, the author states that social psychologists have been frequently analyzing the event with the belief that evil tendencies were rooted only in individuals, so the problem was a classic instance of the bad apple effect (the effects of those evil individuals spreading). However, he suggests that psychologists should first examine the situational aspects that produced the first bad behaviors. What if rather than being a few bad apples, the first individuals were good apples in a bad barrel?

“Beware of bad apples- are other businesses spoiling your customer’s experience?”

http://blog.highlandbusinessresearch.com/2008/09/18/beware-of-bad-apples-are-other-businesses-spoiling-your-customers-experience/>

Shermer, Michael. “Bad Apples and Bad Barrels: Lessons in Evil from Stanford to Abu Ghraib.”<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bad-apples-and-bad-barrels

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Effort Justification

Cognitive dissonance theory, or “the theory that inconsistencies produce psychological discomfort, leading people to rationalize their behavior or change their attitudes,” remains one of the most influential and well-known psychological phenomena. One concept tied to dissonance theory is that of effort justification, “the finding that when people suffer or work hard or make sacrifices, they will try to convince themselves that it is worthwhile.”

Several experiments have shown that people will tend to justify their exertions, presumably in order to relieve discomfort (“cognitive dissonance”) that would be associated with the idea that their efforts all went to an unworthy or insignificant cause. As a personal example, in high school I occasionally ran in benefit 5K runs, but didn’t spend the time raising money through sponsors beforehand. To justify the effort of the run, I adjusted my thinking by telling myself the effort was worth the good physical exercise.

An old study by Aronson and Mills on effort justification is particularly relevant to college students. These researchers wanted to test two competing opinions about hazing rituals for fraternities and sororities- one, held by the students, which said hazing increases loyalty to the groups, and the other, held mainly by administrators, which implies hazing was demeaning and did not serve such a useful purpose. The study showed that hazing rituals indeed increase feelings of loyalty and help forge new bonds between group members. This is because of effort justification: students accepted the temporary humiliation and suffering they endured because it was justified by their new ingroup status.

A more recent investigation defines effort justification as “a form of cognitive dissonance in which the subjective value of an outcome is directly related to the effort that went into obtaining it.” It suggests that, in certain cases (and in fact, one example they offer is efforts to obtain group membership) people may infer that an outcome requiring greater input effort actually has a greater value. The researchers think that further developments should be made to distinguish between the effort required to obtain the outcome and the value of the outcome itself.

Another recent, intriguing publication portrays an experiment that verifies cognitive dissonance theory (in particular, effort justification) and disproves ideas laid out by impression management theory. The subjects were students who had to complete a simple task for either an attractive or unattractive researcher. As predicted, effort justification occurred only with the presence of the unattractive researcher; presumably, no additional justification was needed for the other students because their effort was happily expended for the attractive researcher.

Effort justification is relevant in everyday life, more so than you may think. For instance, one student made a video on YouTube showing how a prelaw student utilizes effort justification when preparing for the LSATs. Check out the video using the link below!

“Effort Justification and LSAT Prep Courses.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJfZMxL8Xas

Cognitive Dissonance and Impression Management Explanations for Effort Justification. Rosenfeld et al. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1984; 10: 394-401.

Web Of Science Article: http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=4&SID=3Ck1FkfDiJd23nAOjIo&page=1&doc=5

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

The Bystander Effect

Crises often occur in secret, usually to conceal a bad deed- for instance, break-ins often happen when a house is unoccupied and it is dark out. However, sometimes the opposite is true- a situation causing someone to need help or rescue from others may occur out in the open, right in front of a group of observers. Unfortunately, there is a common finding that people are less likely to offer their help when they are in a group compared to when they are alone. This finding has been coined the bystander effect.

Take, for example, the widely-publicized tragedy of the murder of the young woman Kitty Genovese outside of her apartment in Queens in 1964. When the woman was attacked, she screamed desperate pleas for help, and her cries captured the attention of 38 neighbors. However, after 35 minutes, no help had arrived, and Kitty was dead. How can this happen?

There are many steps between a person looking at a problematic situation and that person actually administering help as a result. If any one of these steps goes wrong, the bystander effect will occur. First, people must notice that an event is occurring; often, in crowded places, it is possible to miss what is going on around you. Second, the observer must interpret the event as an emergency. If you happen to walk by a child sitting on the ground, for instance, how are you to know for certain if the child has fallen or is just resting? Next, the observer must take on the personal responsibility for providing help. This is most likely where the mere presence of other individuals may cause the bystander effect, by way of a finding known as pluralistic ignorance, which basically states that everyone else expects somebody else to take on the responsibility, and in reality nobody does. Finally, the observer must decide how to provide help, and then go through with it. Therefore, the presence of others may cause the bystander effect by inhibiting any of these crucial steps to providing help.

Certain aspects about a situation have been shown to increase (or decrease) the chances that someone will provide help. For instance, a study by Abraham Ross tested the frequency with which help was offered when male undergraduates encountered an adult needing help while they were alone, an adult needing help while they were with others, and children needing help. Consistent with the bystander effect, more males provided help for the adults when they were alone, rather than with others. However, they also provided more help for children than adults. This finding, along with many other similar studies, suggests that other characteristics about the helper, recipient, or situation may also come into play. For example, other studies have shown that attractiveness influences how much help is given.

Interestingly, a recent CNN article is aimed at disproving many of the “facts” of the Kitty Genovese murder, which is well known as a primary establisher of the bystander effect. For instance, records indicate that there were two attacks on the woman rather than three, and that the second was hidden from view. In addition, the article suggests that only about a half dozen (rather than 38) witnesses were found, and that calls had in fact been made to the police (but were ignored). The authors of this article seem to imply that by pointing out these discrepancies, it will bring more awareness to positive ways in which groups may intervene. However, the article concludes with a bitter remark that it will be nearly impossible to change the commonly held views about the famous murder. Interestingly, while reading this article, I wondered if it was a more removed, dilute form of the bystander effect- or, at the very least, diffusion of responsibility. Pointing out these discrepancies admittedly will not produce a huge change, so why spend such effort to do it? The data provided all seem, to me at least, a self-serving bias. The authors implicate false reporters and the police (pluralistic ignorance, perhaps?) and in general, do not do anything helpful themselves (which is the basis of the bystander effect, is it not?)

Effect of increased responsibility on bystander intervention: The presence of children. Ross, Abraham S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 19(3), Sep 1971, 306-310.

“New article casts doubt on ‘bystander effect.’” CNN.com 3 Dec 2008.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

The Hedonic Treadmill

What would you do if you won the lottery? Would you spend some on a fantastic vacation? Would you invest it? Would you be happy?

For most people, the answer to the last question would be a resounding yes. However, sudden changes in happiness that individuals may experience have not been proven to be durable or long-lasting. According to a concept called the hedonic treadmill says that “people stay at about the same level of happiness regardless of what happens to them.” In a study by Brickman et. al, two groups of people were observed over time: those that won the lottery and those that were suddenly paralyzed. They were interested in seeing what the long-term effects of these objective events in a person’s life might be. Interestingly, after a year both groups seemed to have regressed to their former level of happiness- if they were happy before, they were happy a year later, and if they were unhappy before the event, they were generally unhappy a year later. Like a person on a treadmill, large steps (changes) may be taken, but the individual always ends up back where they started, at their set point.

One article points out how the hedonic treadmill can lead to increased expenditures, because “habit converts luxurious enjoyments into dull and daily necessities,” and people spend money to buy new sources of excitement. This, the author implies, is the basis for the well-known idea that money can’t buy happiness. She encourages individuals to prevent extra expenditures by reminding them: “instead of running forward on the never-ending treadmill, we can rediscover things we already have.”

A different article seems focused on combating the negative view that hedonic treadmill theory “implies that individual and societal efforts to increase happiness are doomed to failure.” Diener, Lucas, and Scollon then propose five revisions to the theory that offers more hope for those attempting to decrease human misery. The five points include that individual’s set point is not hedonically neutral, that set points differ between individuals, that a single person can have more than one happiness set point, that set points may change in certain cases, and that people differ in their reactions to events. The authors hope these slight modifications will offer a more hopeful view of methods to increase happiness.

I begin to wonder, knowing that we have a tendency to regress to our hedonic set points, is it possible to combat this effect? Obviously, an individual can’t stay ecstatically happy for months on end, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that significant events have no capability of fostering a permanent change in happiness level.

“Saving money by circumventing the hedonic treadmill.” http://www.mrsmicah.com/2008/02/25/saving-money-by-circumventing-the-hedonic-treadmill/

Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. Diener, Ed; Lucas, Richard E.;

Scollon, Christie Napa. American Psychologist. Vol 61(4), May-Jun 2006, 305-314.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Social Comparisons

Imagine you are feeling particularly motivated one day and decide to go jog a mile. You come back panting and see that your running time was about 10 minutes. Is that good or bad?

Generally, people can answer this question through a common strategy: comparing it to the times of other runners, especially those similar to oneself. Festinger’s theory of social comparison suggests that we learn much about ourselves through comparisons- either upward or downward- with other individuals. Like the idea of the “looking-glass self,” the theory of social comparison demonstrates how much of what we know about ourselves is formulated and learned about through other people. Humans, as a cultural animal, learn where they stand in reference to others by comparing themselves to one another. When these comparisons are upwards, they may be encouraging, though too high of a comparison can be disappointing rather than constructive. Downward comparisons, similarly, can feel rewarding, but too low of a comparison hardly seems to achieve much. The best comparisons are to those who are most similar to ourselves.

Another article suggests that Festinger’s theory applies to personally held opinions as well as more concrete concepts (such as running times). Attitudes, opinions, and beliefs are often compared to establish a sense of unity within a group; groups tend to be polarized towards certain opinions, and discrepancies among opinions held by group members are often remedied quickly to maintain solidarity.

Previous research suggests that preschoolers do not experience such pressure to compare oneself to peers. However, a surprising new study from the University of Michigan seems to say just the opposite. Researchers Rhodes and Brickman showed that preschoolers responded negatively after learning that they performed worse on a tracing task than a schoolmate. Even more interesting is that the children felt worse only if the classmate they were compared to was of the opposite gender. After being compared to a classmate of the same sex or an unidentified sex, preschoolers showed increased performance on future tasks, but after comparison to the opposite sex, performance decreased- most likely because of deflated self-esteem and motivation. This attests to the dual nature of social comparison- depending on who you compare yourself to, the result may be constructive or defeating. The researchers concluded their findings by stating that “these findings have implications for the origins of social comparison, category-based reasoning, and the development of gender stereotypes and achievement motivation.”

Isanski, Barbara. "Preschoolers' Response to Social Comparisons Involving Relative Failure" 30 Oct 2008

Festinger, L., A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 1954, 114-140

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Normative Influence

It is well known that human beings have an innate need to belong. One consequence of this drive is that people will often behave in certain ways that will allow them to be liked and accepted by a group. Normative influence is simply “going along with the crowd in order to be liked and accepted.” This is similar to the idea of peer pressure. The actions of the majority of a group can be used as a default option for those wishing to be accepted by the group, because it is assumed that if everyone is doing the same actions, they are acceptable and normal. These types of behaviors are generally good for the group as a whole, because they reduce ingroup threats and encourage conformity to group ideals.

A classic study by Asch demonstrated the power of normative influence. Participants often went along with confederates by providing a very obviously incorrect answer to a simple line judging task. They did this, presumably, in order to not stand out and to be accepted by the rest of the group for going along with the actions of the majority.

A recent event involving a hotel showed that normative influence is even more powerful than “ecofriendly” appeal. Hotels often encourage customers to reuse bath towels to conserve water and energy, and often signs are displayed in hotel rooms for this purpose. Researchers led by Noah Goldstein at UCLA decided to investigate what might be a more effective way to get people to reuse their towels. They created two signs: one with the standard message asking guests to reuse towels for the sake of the environment, and the other telling guests that previous customers had reused their towels. The researchers thought that because in ambiguous situations people often tend to follow the social norm, the second sign should be more effective. Perhaps not surprisingly, this was precisely the case. Reusage increased even further if the sign suggested that the guests who were previously in the exact same hotel room had reused towels. Normative influence therefore has been demonstrated to be even more powerful than environmental motivation when getting people to behave in this positive behavior.

So does that mean that humans are bound to follow the pack day in and day out? Not quite. Surprisingly, another study about apparel purchasing shows that normative influence is not the main factor when college students go shopping. Although normative influence was a predictor of what the students ultimately purchased, attitudinal components of behavior were more significant predictors than normative influence. Nonetheless, in many uncertain circumstances, normative influence has proved powerful in determining behavior.

What about you- would you choose to reuse a towel for the environment, or because the person before you did it?

Krakovsky, Marina. "Hotel Case Study: Peer Pressure's Impact on the Environment." SciAm online, Oct 2008.

Chang, Younhwa, Burns, Leslie D., Noel, Charles J.
Attitudinal Versus Normative Influence in the Purchase of Brand-Name Casual Apparel
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 1996 25: 79-109

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Self-Handicapping

Self-handicapping behaviors are described as “impediments to performance that people construct to protect or enhance their perceived competence.” Such self-imposed obstacles are often used by individuals who wish to establish an excuse that may direct attributions of success or failure away from themselves. The idea is to establish an external attribution to avoid internal attributions from others.

A recent article by Temple University researcher David A. Hoffman focuses on the usage of self-handicapping by business managers, particularly those high achievers who are under a greater pressure to duplicate past successes. The widely held opinion of corporate jurists seems to be that legislation can establish methods to deter the presence of self-handicapping managers, and more recently there is a movement to instate further legal sanctions that increase personal liability.

However, Hoffman warns that increasing liability may actually lead to unpredictable changes in managing behaviors, including a possible increase in self-handicapping. The researcher suggests that an idea called the Rational Choice Model helps explain where many instances of bad management may stem from. This model says that disloyalty is a main motivator of bad management, because “managers lack incentives and sanctions that align their incentives with the shareholders.” New business practices are often designed, therefore, to increase managers’ personal interests and liability for company success, through such principles as stock allocations, targeted fees, and legal sanctions.

These practices may in fact backfire: managers slack as a method of self-handicapping in response to increased liability and personal involvement. One study by Berglas and Jones using a placebo drug shows how people will willingly decide to take a drug that claims to either boost or decrease intellectual performance as a method of self-handicapping. Similarly, managers may perform inadequately and seek to create external attributions for company failures as a result of increased pressure to perform well.

A good compromise could most likely be reached by giving management some- but not too much- personal liability, and holding individuals accountable for their actions to discourage self-handicapping.

Hoffman, David A.,Self-Handicapping and Managers' Duty of Care. Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 42, p. 803, 2007; Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007-09. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=978200

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Just World Phenomenon

The recent terrorist attacks on Mumbai have once again shaken an entire population's faith in a world that is inherently just. Over 60 terrorist men took over nine separate, public locations at the end of November 2008 with weapons ranging from guns to grenades. By the time the killing spree was over, at least 151 people from 11 different countries were dead, along with upwards of 350 injured. In tragic events such as these, often individuals begin to question the justice of the world they live in.
One commentator on the incident writes:
"What kind of a mind would willingly turn its body into a grave? What kind of a twisted but exalted motivation is at work in a suicide mission, where marksmen and target both are annihilated to charred shreds."

The idea of "belief in a just world," otherwise known as the Just World Phenomenon, is a common assumption "that life is essentially fair, that people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get." Belief in a just world is a technique that is often implicated in the aftermath of a disaster or difficult situation as a coping strategy. When terrible things happen, people may begin to lose faith in the idea that their world is fair and good as a whole, which often causes feelings of despair and hopelessness. For instance, a rape victim may be able to overcome their traumatic experience by convincing themselves that the perpetrator will endure appropriate consequences for his actions.

However, the Just World Phenomenon has often been criticized for its tendency to blame the victim. One study by Rubin and Peplau utilized the "Just-World Scale" to test how 19-year olds dealing with a national draft lottery in 1971 felt about those who were drafted. Those who scored high on the JWS (indicating a strong belief in a just world) had higher levels of resentment toward the draftees, rather than sympathy. The researchers believed this was due to their belief in a just world causing them to blame the victims (the draftees) for their misfortune, even though the draft was a random lottery. Similar situations occur with regard to AIDS and rape victims.

Belief in a just world is therefore somewhat of a double-edged sword. It often helps people cope with stresses such as poverty, rape, racism, and disease by giving them world views that let them believe that in the end, justice has been served. However, the same views often can be made to blame victims- often unfairly. One way to resolve these differences could be to carefully look at how much personal control a victim had over a situation. It is unfair to simply jump to conclusions by blaming innocent victims for others’ crimes.

Taylor, Alan. Mumbai under attack. 28 Nov 2008. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/mumbai_under_attack.html

Waller, James. Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Imagine sitting down and watching a popular sitcom- Seinfeld, for instance. If you are like the majority of Americans, you probably imagine to some degree that your favorite characters resemble the true personalities of their actors. Despite the fact that sitcom viewers know that actors are performing written scripts, they often come to believe that the personas presented by an actor or actress is real.

One interview with a group of actors from a well-known soap opera verifies this finding:

"Someone once told me: 'you are so disgusting, you are so nasty, you pushed her from the roof, how did you dare do such a thing?'"

"Someone once wrote 'bitch' on my car. I started to be afraid of opening my door."

Or, on a more positive note:

"There are those people who just run to me and hug me powerfully."

What this phenomenon boils down to is an issue of how human beings attribute the causes of one another's behaviors. When it comes to one's own behaviors, an overwhelming majority of individuals tend to exhibit self-serving bias: the tendency to take credit for success and deny blame for failure. When it comes to other people's behavior, there is a wide range of attributions that may take place.

Several theories and principles have been investigated by social psychologists with respect to attribution. For instance, the actor/observer bias applies whenever one individual is observing another’s behavior. The actor will tend to make external attributions for their actions, whereas the observer tends to make internal attributions. A theory by researcher Harold Kelley suggests that people make attributions using the covariation principle. This principle states that people associate a specific cause with a specific behavior if the behavior is present when the cause is present, and absent when the cause is absent. A particularly influential theory focuses only on the observer side of the actor/observer bias, called the fundamental attribution error. This refers to the “the tendency for others to attribute other people’s behavior to internal or dispositional causes and to downplay situational causes.” People often attribute behavior more readily to internal causes because it is more blatantly obvious, and situational aspects are downplayed from the point of the viewer.

Recently, researchers have implicated the fundamental attribution error when investigating the common habit for people to associate characters with their real-life personalities. It is possible that the sitcom itself inadvertently fuels this common mistake, since external environments and situations are usually designed to be unobtrusive to direct attention exclusively towards the characters. Another interesting idea is that the fundamental attribution error is explained by Transportation Theory- the notion that viewers may become so focused and absorbed with the narrative that it begins to take the place of present reality. A study using high school students that manipulated the level of transportation showed that the attribution error was more prevalent when the viewer felt more highly transported into the narrative. Another study showed that the tendency for people to make internal attributions about others is so strong that it prevails even when a viewer watches the same actor play two distinct roles. These findings tie together theories developed with regard to real-life behaviors and an individual’s actions when engaging in audiovisual fiction.

So, if Kramer were to walk in your front door, what do you think he would do? Where might that idea have come from?

Tal-Or, Nurit. and Papirman, Yael. "The Fundamental Attribution Error in Attributing Fictional Figures' Characteristics to the Actors" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton New York, New York City, NY, . 2008-10-10 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p13476_index.html>

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.