DUE 9/21/2020 by 11:30 PM (EST) APA Format at least 1,800 words (excluding title, abstract and reference pages)
Why Do People Bend The Rules?
In a provocative popular press (non-academic) article entitled ARE THESE Rules WORTH BREAKING?, (PDF attached) author Pincott explored some of the reasons why people bend or break rules on a regular basis. Review the premise of the article and then conduct your own review of the academic literature to identify psychological theories that explain why people find it acceptable to behave unethically.
In a paper of at least 1,800 words (excluding title, abstract and reference pages), address the following:
Discuss what compels some people to make unethical or immoral decisions in the workplace. What is the psychological basis for choosing unethical, immoral decisions and behaviors? Is it personal gain, lack of awareness, the ability to get away with something, innate deviance, moral corruption, or, perhaps, some other rationale entirely? Support your discussion of psychological theories with evidence from relevant empirical (research-based) studies.
Consider the practical implication of rule bending and unethical behavior in the work environment. What are some of the challenges that arise when people decide to act unethically and bend the rules in the workplace?
Ethical behavior is a reflection of values and morals. Evaluate the extent to which people in the United States are guided by a set of personal morals and values. Is the United States more or less moral in the early part of the twenty-first century than it was in the early twentieth century? Why? What impact do morals and values have on people behaving ethically in the workplace?
In addition to required readings and any websites from which you access information, reference at least four additional academic sources (academic journal articles) to support your analysis, evaluation and recommendations.
NO SOLICITING
EMPLOYEES MUST
WASH HANDS
NO
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES
ALLOWED
THEREWASATIME in my early thir
ties when I used a very old, expired grad student ID card to buy
movie tickets at a discount. It was easy: 1 just peeled off the date
sticker. I used it so often and so successfully that I rarely gave it
a second thought. If I did, Id say to myself, Im buying a ticket
I wouldnt have otherwise bought, one must be resourceful in
an overpriced city, and nobody pays full price anyway, right?
If, like me, you break rules from time to time, you under
stand the paradox here. We think of ourselves as good and
honest citizens despite daily acts (one to two on average) of
cheating, lying, or otherwise
breaking the rules in seemingly
innocuous ways. We might exag
gerate our own performance to our
supervisor or look for loopholes on
our taxes; we stand in the express
line with too many groceries, lit
ter, text while driving, play hooky
from work, buy clothes to wear to
a party and then return them for a
refund; we knowingly accept too
much change from a cashier, board
planes before our seat is called,
enjoy pirated movies and tunes,
blow past speed limits, or lie to give
our kids an advantage.
Morally speaking, the under
forty set is worse than those older,
reported a 2012 survey at the
Josephson Institute for Ethics.
About half admitted to cheating
on a test at least once or fibbing to
save money; over three-quarters
MORALITY
IS SO
MALLEABLE
THATJUST
THINKING
ABOUT
BREAKING
ARULE CAN
CHANGE
THE WAY WE
BEHAVE.
had lied to a parent about something significant; and about a
fifth had stolen something from a store. The kicker: Almost all
claimed they were satisfied with their overall character.
But the closer researchers look at everyday transgressions,
the more theyre convinced theres something to rule break
ing. Character isnt the real driver; its social and situational
forces that strongly influence bad behavior. Often, not a lot
of conscious awareness goes into when or to what extent we
push ethical boundaries. We might break the rules under some
conditions and in some mindsets, but not in others. Morality
is so malleable that just thinking about breaking a rule can
change the way we behave. And, of course, in knowing why we
transgress, we can defend our actionsfor better and for worse.
THE CREATIVITY DEFENSE
SEVERAL YEARS AGO, Francesca Gino, an associate pro
fessor at Harvard, and Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at
Duke and MIT, wondered whether people with higher IQs are
more likely than people with lower IQs to attempt to reconcile
the internal conflict that accompanies wrongdoing. Are smart
people more deceptive and more willing to cheat? To find out,
the duo recruited volunteers, tested their intelligence and other
attributes, and then tempted them to cheat on a test.
They found that smarts didnt correlate with dishonesty.
But another trait did: creativity. Cheaters scored higher on a test
of divergent thinking than honest folk, and those who cheated
the most were more creative than those who cheated only a 1 ittle.
In another experiment, Ariely and Gino posed ethical dilemmas
to employees in an advertising firm and discovered that those
with the most creative jobsthe copywriters and designers
were more likely to break the rules
than, for instance, the accountants.
The ability of people to
behave dishonestly might be
bounded by their ability to cheat
and at the same time feel they are
moral individuals, the authors
explain. The more creative you are,
the easier it is to retell the story of
what happened when you behaved
dishonestly, or to justify why its
morally permissible. Deception
works best when the rules are
ambiguous and when its hard to
discern a victim in the crime.
Test yourself. Why, for
instance, did you pilfer office sup
plies from work? You might say that
you felt disrespected when the boss
asked you to xerox his personal doc
uments, that you worked through
lunch, that businesses get the stuff
cheaply, or that youre not stealing
70 Psychology Today November/December 201A
P
R
E
VIO
U
S
S
P
R
E
A
D
: H
E
A
D
LIN
E
ILLU
S
TR
A
TIO
N
. M
D
I D
IG
ITA
L
M
3R
0
-.
3
H
3H
T
U
O
T
O
M
O
Q
M
3R
O
O
T
3H
3H
T
U
3
TO
M
O
Q
M
_
–
y
‘ T
U
O
T
O
M
O
Q
Dep- *ut of tbs Treai
‘ come Taxj
Jint Filers I1040E Z
CMBNo. 1545-0034
Your soci,’ security number
Spouse’s social, -urity number
Wages, salaries, and lips. Thi: ~hojld be shown in box 1
Attach your Formfs) W-2.
3 MAW TW3MTflAS30
0 8 0 ‘
,OW TS1303SYB O3VI303R
1 OT)(yjmo JHMMoafiaq aasmoi .u * Ya c i v t
3 3 3 3 ^ f iV .
City, lorn p. I office, sue. S ip’Sile. I W h*iit5S 5
y M f i m V – I M * –
Mak sure the
above are ec ;
Presidential Section Cwnpagn
Che* here i you, cb yoa spoused fling
joirtiy. want $3 to o fftfe fund. Checks-.:
a box betow wi r yo, *nor
M J Vn & **
2 Taxahl- rest. If ii Hal is o 300. you cannot u
W.3S2
1.573
:onan aska Permanent Fund dr. nkii
Payments,
Credits,
and Tax
4 Add lines 1.2, and 3.T; youradjusted gross income.
5 If some,me can claim you (or youi spouse if a joint return) as a depend, at, check
the pplicaWe box(es) below and enter the amount from the worksheet on back.
You | H S(. if
If no one can claim you (or u s|xmjeif ajointrcnim), enter $10^)00 if smgli ;;
__ _ >-0-000 if married filing jt y. Sec back for explanation.
6 Subtract line 5 from line 4. It i te 5 is larger than line 4, enter -0-.
This is your taxable income.
> 1 7 1 5
> ederal income lax withheld from Fbrm(s) W-2 and 1099. 5 7 , 7 2 5
&t harm-Tincome credit (EIC) (sec instructions).
b Nontasable com to pay election^
Refu. 1
H tve it dii
‘ posited’
i Struct inn* ami
ill in I lb. He,
nd l Id or
Add lines 7 and 8a. These are your total payments and credits.________
1 ax. Use the amount on line 6 above to find your tax in the tax tabic in the
instructions. Then, enter the tax from the table on this line
Err
If line 9 is larger (ban line |0, subtract Hoc 10 from line 9 This is your refund.
If Form 8888 is attached.check here | |
number
Amount
You Owe
.Cl\fl I I 1 3 .1 71 B E J 3 * 9 T y p c :^ Checkins Savin;-
d Accounl numher L.g| 6 | ? M f | 3 |_? I 7 U I C l i f t 9 I3U M I i I
Third Party
^ s ig n e e
qn
He 3
Joint rtirn? See
instruct!’ ns.
Kcrj) a cop* for
your records.
If line 10 is larger than line 9, subtract line 9 from line 10. This is
-in-unt you owe. F– details on how to pay, see inslruclions.—– ——–, uvv iiiauu(.UUlli.
Do you watt to allow another to discuss this return with tire IRS (see instruct
Designer
.icuTat^h5?* ^ 2clare ,ha,J have exammed uws return and amounts and sources of income I rec ad during the on all information of which the greparer has any knowi. v
Your sg nature.
Yes. Complete below j ] I
C T
the oreparer has any k
iVnonol idrntificaiiofl
number (PIN)
edge and bebef, it is ueTcu,
Tiarer (other than the taxpay.
Spotjse’8 signatur^ra k>int return, both must sign.
Paid
Preparer
Use Only
Print/Type preparnr’s name
* firm’s name
Preparer’s sign Oate
Jheck [~
sed-emp ye
.! I irm’s address
For Disclosure, Privacy Act,and Paperwork Reduction At Cal. No. 1I329W m1040EZ (X
J
DO
MO
l c
m H
EB
E 1
0 O
bE
M
seeaoo% ^
money, after all. Behold the whitewash of a good storyline.
Those on the creative side of the spectrum may find it
effortless to reframe an event. But all thats actually required
of anyone is a casual mindset. And that, Gino found, is easy
to induce in almost anyonejust by using subtle cues. When
players in a money-making game were primed to think more
flexibly (by planting words like original, novel, and imaginative
in a text they read), they cheated more often than did those not
given the prompts.
Imagine working for an
organization that stresses the
importance of being creative,
innovative, and original, Gino
says. That describes many com
panies that have playful working
environments. What we dont
expect is that the use of power
ful creative primes can have an
impact on morals, on both an
individual and a societal level.
Should we encourage less cre
ativity in banking? Ariely won
ders. And is there a downside to
memes like Apples Think Dif
ferent campaign?
Further, Gino argues, creativ-
g ity and criminality are mutually
|i reinforcing. The more creative you
are, the more you break the rules,
and the more rules you break, the
more creative you get. Gino, along
with Scott Wiltermuth at the Uni
versity of South Carolina, offered
test takers the opportunity to earn
money for every question they
answered correctly. Those who
were induced to cheat (by mak-
Ih ing it easy to inflate their scores)* came up with far more innovative
solutions to problems in subse
quent testsand cared less about
rules, in generaleven after the
researchers accounted for differ
ences in baseline creativity.
Rule breakingat least
minor rule breakingoffers two
immediate rewards. First, a cheat
ers high: A study at the Univer
sity of Washington showed that
people think theyll feel guilty
or remorseful after cheating, but
often find themselves in an unex
pectedly good mood. They also
feel smarter and more capable,
in general. The second is a brief
sense of freedom from all rules
a view outside the proverbial box. In this freer mindset we may
make random, remote associations that arent apparent when
were rule-bound.
So, perhaps billing for more hours than you actually
worked might help you come up with more innovative solu
tions for your clients. Driving over the speed limit or having
sex on a park bench could remove your writers block. Perhaps
a Catfish-inspired experimentusing a fake identity online, as
72 Psychology Today N ovem ber/Decem ber 2014
IS
TO
C
KP
H
O
TO
(J
O
B
S
).
R
EX
U
S
A
(A
LL
O
TH
ER
IM
AG
ES
)
in the moviemay inspire a whole new career move.
Or so you might tell yourself.
THE STATUS DEFENSE
IMAGINE TWO ACCOUNTANTS whove been alerted to
suspicious entries in the books. The first takes the violation seri
ously. The second pooh-poohs it: Now and then you can break
the rules, if necessary. So which accountant has more clout?
When psychologist Gerban Van Kleef at the University of
Amsterdam, asked study participants that question, there was
no contest. Most chose the second accountant. Powerful people
break the rulesergo, breaking the rules makes one seem more
powerful (or inspiring or sexy).
Think of anyone with a cult following. Thelma and Louise,
in the eponymous film, gain their power by violating stereotypes
and the law: The ladies shoot and swindle. If Lady Gaga werent
so transgressiveher perfume brand contains notes of blood,
semen, and poisonshe might have languished as just another
talented-yet-struggling singer-songwriter. Walter White, the
chemistry teacher/family man-turned-murderous drug lord in
BreakingBad, may play out (to an extreme) the subversive, rebel
lious tendencies we all have but hold back.
In its modest form, rule breaking is actually healthy, says
Zhen Zhang of Arizona State University. His survey found that
(at least among his white male subjects) relatively minor Ferris
Bueller-style infractions committed in adolescencedamag
ing property, playing hooky (if not actually soaring through the
air in a stolen Ferrari)predicted an esteemed occupation in
adulthood: entrepreneurship.
When young men, in particular, take a risk and it pans out,
testosterone levels surge. The hormone may underlie whats
known as the winner effect, say researchers John Coates and
Joe Herbert of the University of Cambridge, who tracked the
hormonal activity of stock option traders (again, all male) over
their good and bad days in the market. Each successful gamble,
they found, primed the brain for further risk taking. The win
ners felt emboldened. The more wins, the higher the hormone
level, the greater the confidence, the bigger the risks, and so on.
Thecycle is empowering, itsadriverofsuccess. AsT.S. Eliot
put it, Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find
out how far one can go. But theres a catch. At a certain point
in a prolonged testosterone high, Coates and Herbert warn,
confidence bleeds into overconfidence. The risk taking that fol
lows can be irrational, even reckless or ruthless.
As individuals gain power, Zhang explains, their behav
ior becomes even more liberated, possibly leading to more norm
violations. Eventually, he says, this can cause ethical num b
ing. Consider Steve Jobs and Apple: As Apple grew, so did its
antitrust, options-backdating, and antipoaching lawsuits.
The more people care about power and winning, and the
more they feel threatened by competition, the faster their val
ues fall to the wayside. Yes, this too especially applies to men,
concluded a joint study at University of Californias Berkeley
and Riverside campuses. When status-conscious males felt chal
lenged in negotiation scenarios, they were more likely to tell a
lie, break their word, or use shady tactics. Women, perhaps less
concerned about protecting their status or dominance, didnt
sell out for monetary or social gains so easily.
Not that women are paragons of virtue. Being wealthy,
for instance, takes a moral toll no matter ones gender, found
Dacher Keltner, a psychologist at the University of California
at Berkeley, and his colleague, psychologist Paul Piff. In their
studies, the $150,000-plus-per-annum set were four times as
likely to cheat as those making less than $15,000 a year when
playing a game to win a $50 cash prize. The rich didnt wait their
turn at a four-way intersection or stop for pedestrians at a cross
walk nearly as often as less-wealthy drivers. The affluent were
even likelier to take candy earmarked for children. Democrat
or Republican, the findings were the same: The wealthy acted
more entitled, less empathetic, and generally more immune to
basic rules of social behavior. This held true even when people
were just told to role playthat is, they werent rich in real life.
Its environment, not an intrinsic quality like personality,
that abets rule breaking, argues Andy Yap, a lecturer at MITs
Sloan School of Management. Put the same person in a differ
ent context and watch his or her values shift. Yap and his col
leagues asked volunteers to sit in an SU V-size drivers seat versus
a cramped one, or an executive-size office space versus a cubicle,
and then tested their response to various moral scenarios. In
RULE BENDERS
AND THEIR MISDEMEANORS,
BOTHREALANDSURREAL
FORBES FAMILY: Admits to a culture of nepotism
STEVE JOBS: Not a bean counter
HUEYNEWTON: Black Panther protagonist
ROSA PARKS: Sat where she wanted
RON W 00D R 00F: Black market AIDs drug distributor
ROBIN HOOD: Stole from rich, gave to poor
DIRTY HARRY: The unforgiving vigilante
THELMAAND LOUISE: Took the law into their hands
WALTER WHITE: Teacher-turned-badass drug lord
GRU, DESPICABLE ME: Tried to steal the moon
Novem ber/Decem ber 2014 Psychology Today 73
the roomier settings men and women reported feeling more
powerful and were also likelier to steal money, cheat on a test,
and commit traffic violations in a driving simulation.
It may be that we simply conform to the expectations of
whatever role we find ourselves in. Just as Stanford University
psychologist Philip Zimbardos how-normal-people-turn-bad
experiments showed that military-style uniforms make people
more aggressive when role playing, so an expansive seat might
make us act as if were more powerful (just stretching our legs
and assuming a power pose increases testosterone 20 percent
in two minutes). In a similar example of role fulfillment, Gino
found that people who donned faux Gucci sunglasses perceived
themselves as slightly shady and were therefore more likely to
cheat than when they wore the real deal.
Change our environment, take away an inflated sense of
power, and well go back to keeping ourselves in check.
i ng for the benefit of other group members, even when personal
sacrifice is involved. In Gino and Pierces experiment involving
a Boggle-like game, graders were more likely to give credit for
ambiguous or invalid words to players who, like themselves,
hadnt made money in previous roundseven when they lost
theirown money in the judgment. Unethical behavior becomes
more acceptable if it serves other people, a cause, or a principle.
(Robin Hood was a thief, after all.)
Whats surprising is, at least among Americans, how little it
takes to feel close enough to others to follow their norms: the
same name, birthplace, hometown, even a birthday month. In a
series of experiments, Gino instructed study participants to read
a story about cheaters who steal money and to see life through the
cheaters eyes. The participants ended up justifying the cheaters
bad behavior, judging it as not so shameful. Strikingly, they were
also likely to copy the wrongdoers in a subsequent experiment,
whether they were aware of it or not.
THE BONDING
DEFENSE
IN HIS BOOK Moral Tribes,
Harvard University psychologist
Joshua Greene corrects a common
misconception. We arent born
with an enlightened, universal
sense of fairness for all, he explains,
but a parochial one. We evolved as
tribal animals who cooperated and
followed the rules within small
groups (Us) but not with the rest of
the world (Them). Yale University
psychologist Paul Bloom famously
found that babies as young as six
months demonstrate underpin
nings of morality: Theyre com
passionate, they like and reward
helpers, and they punish selfish rule
breakers. But they also show a strong bias in favor of those who
share a familiar race, language, and taste in food.
We may be born with a crude sense of right and wrong, but
our culture shapes and refines moral judgment. This allows for a
lot of nuance when it comes to rules (their values vs. our values)
and accounts for why some violations seem more legitimate
than others. (I once met a Finnish hacker, a member of a group
thatbrokeall mannerofinternational laws, who, without irony,
was outraged by foreigners who walked in Helsinkis bike lanes
or exceeded the citys glacial speed limit.)
Common sense tells usand studies confirmthat most
humans follow the norm within their culture (or company),
even at the expense of society as a whole. If your tribe downloads
pirated music, cheats on tests, sells dubious stocks, flouts the
no-smoking ban, or accepts bribes, then youre likely to go with
the flow or at least cover up for peers.
The spirit of Us inspires empathic cheating, or rule break-
CHEATERS
WHO
CHEATED THE
MOSTWERE
MORE
CREATIVE
THAN THOSE
WHO CHEATED
ONLY A LITTLE.
THE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD
DEFENSE
NOW IMAGINE YOU just
witnessed a testosterone-fueled
type cutting in line or tearing
through a red light (nearly running
over you and the toddler holding
your hand). Or a colleague received
a promotion after boozing with the
boss, whi le you toi led and got noth
ing. Chances are, youll experience
a knee-jerk reaction: to get even
or at least to level the field. Rules
seem especially worth breaking in
the name of fairness.
To test the fairness instinct,
Harvard researcher Leslie John,
along with two colleagues, told a group of volunteers that oth
ers in the room were making more money than they were for
getting questions right on a self-corrected trivia test. Guess what
happened? That group, which perceived itself as disadvantaged,
cheated more than those who believed that everyone received
an equal payment.
Theres logic here. If other people get away with littering in
the park, why should you pack out your trash? If everyone else is
sharing answers on the final exam, how can you afford not to?
(Asked whether lying and cheating are necessary to succeed in
life, teenagers were five times more likely than those over 50 to
say yes, according to the Josephson Institute.)
Or you might have a Rosa Parks moment in which you
determine that rule breaking is actually the right and moral
thing to do. Edward Snowden leaked top-secret government
RULES continued on page 88
74 Psychology Today November/December 20U
P
R
O
P
S
TY
LIN
G
: LIN
D
A
K
E
IL/H
A
LLE
Y
R
ESO
U
R
C
E
S
RULES continuedfrom page 74
surveillance data because, he claimed, powerful wrongdoers
werent held accountable to the law, which is corrosive to the
basic fairness of society.
THE SELF-AWARENESS
SOLUTION
THE REAL THREAT posed by rule breaking isnt an occa
sional fall from grace. Its the slippery slope, minor transgres
sions that are so frequent and habitual that they snowball into
cataclysmic ones. Moral erosion, Gino warns, can happen so
slowly that its often difficult for us to notice whats happening.
You can imagine Madoff, A-Rod, or Armstrong in the begin
ning, saying just this one time. OK, just one more time. And
eventually, they just dont th ink
about it.
Studies confirm th a t rule
breaking worsens over time. Kids
who cheat on high school exams are
three times as likely as adults to lie
to a customer or i nflate an insurance
claim compared with noncheaters,
according to the Josephson Insti
tute. Theyre also twice as apt to
deceive their boss and lie to get their
kid into a good school.
Behavioral psychology offers
a few antidotes. Many of these rely
on self-control, but there are other
safeguards: Keep yourself fed and
well-rested were likelier to lapse
when hungry or tired. Stay in the
light, literally: Were more dishon
est in dimly lit settings; like infants,
we unconsciously think others cant see us if we cant see them.
Imagine there is a conscience on your shoulderits often
sleeping and not paying attention. You need to find ways to wake
it up, Ariely says. One is to reflect on how your actions would
look through the eyes of others. In a now-famous experiment
at the University of Newcastle, England, a pair of hand-drawn
eyeballs mounted over a collection box at a corporate coffee bar
successfully enforced the honor system.
Its im portant to give ourselves moral reminders at the
time we feel most tempted, Gino stresses. She found that when
people sign an ethics pledge at the beginning rather than the
end of documents like tax forms, job applications, or claims
that is, before they have the opportunity to cheatthey are
significantly less likely to do so. The same goes when asked to
recall the Ten Commandments before a test, which Ariely found
works even among the nonreligious. Similarly, looking at pic
tures of children inspires thoughts of purity and innocence.
Even reminders of time passing might save us from a moment
of temptation. Focus shifts away from immediate gratification
and more to the long view of our lives.
Its also crucial to reflect on past bad behavior, says Ariely,
which means finding ways to reset and redeem ourselves, to
wipe the slate clean. The Catholic confession, the Jewish Yom
Kippurwe need more of these, he says. They can help us to
snap back to a moral baseline and keep our risk-taking inclina
tions more or less in check. (There is, however, such a thing as
a moral offset effect wherein we feel weve amassed so much
moral capital that we can afford to commit afew naughty deeds.)
Most of us need to feel that we lead good and honest lives;
we need to see ourselves in a positive light. The harder it is to do,
the less inclined we are to lie and cheat, concluded a Stanford
study in which participants were tempted to claim money they
didnt deserve. When researchers used the verb to cheatplease
dont cheatthe participants still cheated freely because they felt
distanced from the act. But when the noun cheater was used
dont be a cheaternot a single person cheated. Cheating can be
reframed easily enough; thinking
of oneself as the C-word is harder
to shrug off. It cuts to the very core
of identity.
Should I, or shouldnt I? Ulti
mately, when you find yourself
debating whether or not to break a
rule, Gino offers a counterintuitive
approach, based on her research
with colleague Joshua Margolis and
graduate student Ting Zhang: Drop
the should mindset in favor ofa could
mindset. She explains that asking
yourself W hat could I do? avoids
pitting moral imperatives against
each other. Instead, could encour
ages greater exploration of possi
bilities and increases your ability
to discover practical solutions to
moral dilemmas.
So, what could you do? If, for instance, your friend asks for a
crooked favor? Ifyou could make the windfall your family needs
by doing something you shouldnt? If youre inspired to hook up
on a business trip three time zones from your spouse? Ifyour boss
tells you to bill clients for more hours than you worked? Ifyour
rival broke the rules and youre inspired to do the same? What
could you do? In lieu of using creativity to reframe a wrongdoing,
apply it beforehand to see if a workaround is possible.
Sometimes it is; sometimes its not. The novelist Wallace
Stegner summed it up in his novel, All the Little Live Things: It
is the beginning of wisdom when you recognize that the best
you can do is choose which rules you want to live by. To which
he added: Its persistent and aggravated imbecility to pretend
you can live without any.
JE N A P IN C O TT is a science writer and the author of the books
Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies? and Do Gentlemen Really
Prefer Blondes?
BREAKING
THE RULES
CAN MAKE YOU
SEEM MORE
POWERFUL OR
INSPIRING
OR SEXY.
88 Psychology Today Novem ber/Decem ber 2014 THERAPISTS: Interested in receivingContinuingEd credit fo r reading this article? Visit NBCC.org
Copyright of Psychology Today is the property of Sussex Publishers LLC and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
