Podcasts about Social psychology

Dr. Kurt Gray, social psychologist, award-winning researcher and teacher, and author of Outraged, joins me on this episode. Kurt is the Weary Foundation Endowed Chair in the Social Psychology of Polarization and Misinformation at The Ohio State University, where he directs the Deepest Beliefs Lab and the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding. He was also appointed to lead the university's Collaborative for the Science of Polarization and Misinformation (C-SPAM). He earned his PhD from Harvard University. In this fascinating conversation, we explore the psychology behind outrage, conflict, and why disagreements escalate so quickly in today's world.

For 70 years, a simple idea has shaped efforts to reduce prejudice: put people from different groups together under the right conditions, and contact reduces prejudice. Gordon Allport proposed it in 1954. A landmark 2006 meta-analysis of 515 studies seemed to confirm it, reporting an average effect of 0.4 standard deviations on prejudice measures. That paper has been cited more than 14,000 times. The credibility revolution has undermined this evidence, by correcting for publication bias that meant null results were seldom published. Matt Lowe of the Vancouver School of Economics has published a new review of 41 pre-registered studies, and he finds the average effect is one-tenth of a standard deviation. Those 41 pre-registered intergroup contact experiments cover nearly 40,000 participants across a wide range of countries, roughly half of them in the Global South. He tells Tim Phillips that the effects are real, consistently positive … but consistently small. Contact interventions are a waste of time. Costs can be low, and the alternatives have not yet been held to the same rigorous standard. But the gap between what the old literature promised and what careful experiments deliver is large enough to matter for anyone designing programmes to reduce prejudice between groups.The research behind this episode:Lowe, Matt. 2025. "Has Intergroup Contact Delivered?" Annual Review of Economics 17.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim. 2026. "Has Intergroup Contact Delivered?" VoxDev Talk (podcast). Assign this as extra listening: the citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.About Matt LoweMatt Lowe is an assistant professor at the Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia, a CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholar, and a J-PAL faculty affiliate whose research spans intergroup relations, development, and political economy. His website is at mattjlowe.github.io. He has previously been published in VoxDev discussing his field experiment on collaborative and adversarial caste integration through cricket leagues in India.Research cited in this episodeAllport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley. The founding text of intergroup contact theory, which proposed that contact between groups reduces prejudice when it meets four conditions: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support from authorities.Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. 2006. "A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5). The 515-study meta-analysis that established the 0.4 standard deviation benchmark for contact effects and became the dominant reference point for the field.Paluck, Elizabeth Levy, Roni Porat, Chelsey S. Clark, and Donald P. Green. 2021. "Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges." Annual Review of Psychology 72. A review of 418 experiments on prejudice reduction from 2007 to 2019, identifying troubling signs of publication bias and finding that most studies evaluate light-touch, small-scale interventions with uncertain long-term effects.Scacco, Alexandra, and Shana S. Warren. 2018. "Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria." American Political Science Review 112 (3). A randomised field experiment mixing Christian and Muslim young men in a vocational training programme in Kaduna, Nigeria. Contact reduced discriminatory behaviour but did not change attitudes.Mousa, Salma. 2020. "Building Social Cohesion between Christians and Muslims through Soccer in Post-ISIS Iraq." Science 369 (6505). Randomly assigned Iraqi Christian displaced persons to football teams with Muslim teammates. Effects were positive on behaviours within the intervention but did not generalise to interactions with Muslim strangers outside it.Chakraborty, Anujit, Arkadev Ghosh, Matt Lowe, and Gareth Nellis. 2024. "Learning About Outgroups: The Impact of Broad Versus Deep Interactions." SSRN Working Paper. A field experiment in India finding that broad contact (meeting many different outgroup members) corrects misperceptions about outgroups, while deep contact (sustained interaction with one person) builds social and economic ties. Neither type generalises fully to the wider outgroup.Lowe, Matt. 2021. "Types of Contact: A Field Experiment on Collaborative and Adversarial Caste Integration." American Economic Review 111 (6). Randomly assigned Indian men from different castes to cricket teams or control groups, finding that collaborative contact increased cross-caste friendships and efficiency in trade while adversarial contact reduced them.More VoxDev Talks on this topicPromoting national integration in Nigeria: Tim Phillips talks to Oyebola Okunogbe about her research on the Nigerian National Youth Service Corps, which posts university graduates to states other than their own to promote national integration through intergroup contact.Peacemaking, peacebuilding and post-war reconstruction: Salma Mousa and Lisa Hultman discuss what the evidence shows about building peace and social cohesion after conflict, including which interventions hold up and which do not.Building social cohesion in ethnically mixed schools: an intervention in Turkey: Sule Alan discusses a programme designed to build cohesion between children from different ethnic backgrounds in Turkish schools, with effects on peer violence, reciprocity, and interethnic friendships.Related reading on VoxDevHow competition between villages helped divided communities in Indonesia: in ethnically diverse or divided settings, shared efforts towards a collective external goal can help bridge internal divides and build a shared identity.Reducing prejudice towards forced migrants through perspective taking: evidence on how perspective-taking interventions affect attitudes towards refugees and displaced populations.How a documentary film fostered interethnic harmony in Bangladesh: a media-based approach to reducing intergroup prejudice, examining what content and delivery can shift attitudes at scale.

The best decision-makers aren't better at deciding. They're better at controlling when, where, and how they decide. It took me twenty years to figure that out. Most people spend that time trying harder: more discipline, more willpower, more resolve to think clearly under pressure. It doesn't work. That's when mindjacking wins. Not through force. Through the door you left unguarded. The answer isn't trying harder. It's building systems that protect your thinking before the pressure hits. By the end of this episode, you'll have four concrete strategies for doing exactly that, and a one-page system you'll build before we're done. And I have something else to share at the end. Something I've been working toward for twenty years. Let's get into it. Why Willpower Fails and Design Works Ulysses knew his ship would pass the island of the Sirens. He also knew the song was irresistible. Sailors who heard it became incapacitated and drove straight into the rocks. He didn't try to be stronger than it. He had his crew fill their ears with wax and tie him to the mast, with strict orders not to release him, no matter what he said when the music reached him. His calm self setting rules for his compromised self. That's the core of everything in this episode. These are called commitment devices. The decision gets made early, when your thinking is clear, before you're tempted to take the wrong path. Studies tracking self-imposed contracts found that when people added meaningful stakes to their commitments, their follow-through nearly doubled. Not because they became more virtuous, but because they'd taken the choice off the table at the moment they were most likely to get it wrong. Stop asking "How do I resist?" Start asking, "What can I decide now, so I don't have to decide under pressure?" Before you can build the right commitments, you need to know exactly where your thinking breaks down. Not decision-making in general. Yours. Finding Your Personal Vulnerability Think back across the last few months. Where did your thinking most clearly cost you? Some people stall. They keep researching past the point of useful information, using "I need more data" as cover for avoiding a commitment they know they need to make. Others make their worst calls at the end of long days. Saying yes when they mean no, because no requires energy they've already spent. Some get caught by urgency. A deadline appears, the pressure closes off their thinking, and they move fast. Only later do they discover the deadline was manufactured to do exactly that. Others walk into a room with a clear position and walk out agreeing with the loudest voice, unable to explain exactly when they shifted. And some defend decisions past the point where the evidence says stop, because stopping would mean admitting something about themselves they're not ready to face. Identify yours. Write it down before we go further. Your primary vulnerability is a design target, not a character flaw. You can't build around something you haven't named. Four Strategies for Protecting Your Judgment Strategy 1: Control When You Decide Every morning I put on the same thing: a black golf shirt, blue jeans, and cowboy boots. Same brands, same routine, no decisions. My wife tolerates it. I've stopped apologizing for it. It's not a fashion choice. It's a cognitive load choice. Your brain has a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day. Every trivial choice draws from the same reserve you need for the decisions that actually matter. What to wear, what to eat, which route to take. Eliminating those choices doesn't just save time. It protects the mental fuel you'll need later. Decision-making capacity isn't flat across the day. It peaks early, when you're rested and fresh. It degrades, measurably, as conditions erode. The same call made at 8 a.m. and at the end of your seventh consecutive meeting aren't equivalent. Same person, different machine. Pull up your calendar from the last two weeks. Look at when your biggest decisions actually happened. For most people, it's not in a calm moment with a clear head. It's in the hallway, on a rushed call, in the last fifteen minutes of a meeting that ran over. That's not bad luck. That's the default you haven't changed yet. Write a standing rule: no significant, hard-to-reverse commitments after a certain hour or after a certain number of back-to-back meetings without a mandatory pause. Hold it like a policy, not a preference. Because preferences are exactly what disappear under the conditions where you need them most. Strategy 2: Build Your Kitchen Cabinet One of the things I credit most for whatever success I've had in my career isn't a framework or a methodology. It's four people. I call them my kitchen cabinet. They've seen my best decisions and my worst ones. They know when I'm rationalizing. They know when I'm avoiding. And they are not afraid to call me out when I'm off the tracks. Here's what surprises people when I describe them. They're not senior executives. They're not peers from inside my industry. They don't work in any organization I've ever worked for. They're a deliberate mix: different backgrounds, different areas of expertise, different ways of seeing the world. One of them has been in my cabinet for nearly thirty years. I trust them completely, and everything we discuss stays between us. That independence is the whole point. The people inside your organization have something at stake in your decisions. Your peers have their own agendas, even when they don't mean to. Your boss has a preferred outcome. None of that makes them bad advisors. It just means they can't give you the one thing you need most when a decision gets hard: a perspective with no skin in the game. Your kitchen cabinet can. Because they have nothing to gain or lose from what you decide, they can ask the question everyone else in the room is avoiding. They can tell you what you don't want to hear. And they'll do it before you've committed, when it still matters, not after the fact, when all they can do is watch. Build yours deliberately. Four to six people is enough. Prioritize independence over seniority. Look for people who will push back, not people who will reassure. And make the relationship reciprocal. You show up for their decisions too. The cabinet only works if the trust runs both ways and the conversations stay private. You don't need them for every decision. You need them for the ones where you're most at risk of fooling yourself. Strategy 3: Write Your Position Before the Room Fills Up I've sat in enough rooms where I walked in with a clear position and walked out having said almost none of it. Not because I was wrong. Because by the time the senior voice spoke and the heads started nodding, my own analysis felt less certain than it did twenty minutes earlier. The brain doesn't just nudge your answer when social pressure arrives. It rewrites your perception. What you saw before entering the room changes to match what the room already believes, before you've consciously registered the pressure. Before any consequential group decision, write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe. What evidence supports it. What would genuinely change your mind. A note on your phone is enough. It doesn't need to be formal. It needs to be external, because your memory will quietly revise itself once the social pressure arrives. Those three sentences are a record of what you actually concluded before the room had a chance to work on you. When the discussion moves toward a position, you can then distinguish between "I'm updating because I heard something new" and "I'm caving because the silence is uncomfortable." Without that record, those two experiences feel identical in the moment, and one of them will reliably win. Strategy 4: Assume the Failure Before You Commit In August 2016, Delta Air Lines ran a routine scheduled test of the backup generator at their Atlanta data center. A transformer caught fire. Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers, improperly connected to a single power source, went dark. They couldn't fail over to backups. The servers that stayed online couldn't communicate with the ones that hadn't. The entire system collapsed: passenger check-in, baggage, websites, kiosks, and airport displays. Gone. Delta cancelled 2,100 flights over three days. $150 million in losses. Thousands of passengers slept on airport floors. The system had redundancy designed in. The backup had been tested. The specific failure mode, servers with no alternate power connection, was a known vulnerability that nobody had ever stopped to question. A year before the fire, cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem, had written a thought experiment describing almost this exact scenario. Imagine, he wrote, that an airline CEO gathered top management and asked: "Every one of our flights around the world has been cancelled for two straight days. Why?" People would think terrorism first. The real progress, Klein said, would come from mundane answers: a reservation system down, a backup that didn't activate, a cascade nobody had traced in advance. Delta built what Klein described. Without running the question that would have found it. The pre-mortem is that question. Before you commit to a significant decision, assume it's six months later, and the decision failed. Not possibly, but definitely. Then ask: What went wrong? What did you know but not say? What did someone sense but find too awkward to raise in the room? "What could go wrong?" produces hedged answers. People soften concerns to preserve harmony. "It failed. What happened?" changes the psychology entirely. You're not being negative. You're being forensic. The things that surface, the concerns that felt impolitic, the risks that seemed too small to mention, are frequently the ones that end up mattering most. Each of these four strategies is a designed defense against the same thing: the systematic capture of your judgment before you notice it happening. That's mindjacking. And now you have four ways to make it harder. But strategies only work if you remember to use them. And you won't remember. Not when you're depleted at 7pm, not when the room is staring at you, not when your identity is on the line. That's not a character flaw. That's just how it works. So we're going to take everything you just learned and put it on one page. A page you'll sign. A page you'll keep somewhere you'll actually see it. Your calm self, right now, is building the system your future self will thank you for. The people who shape outcomes consistently aren't necessarily the sharpest thinkers in the room. They're the ones whose judgment is still intact when everyone else's has degraded. That's a practice, not a talent. The full video and written deep-dive on mindjacking are linked below at philmckinney.com/mindjacking. Your Decision Constitution Remember the Ulysses insight from the beginning of this episode. Your calm self setting rules for your compromised self. That's exactly what this is. A Decision Constitution is one page. Five commitments. Written when your thinking is clear, so the version of you under pressure has something to stand on. Not a to-do list. Not a productivity hack. A contract with yourself. Here's what goes in it. Your Timing Rule. You already know that your judgment degrades as the day runs long. So name it. What are the specific conditions (time of day, number of back-to-back meetings, hours of sleep) that disqualify you from making a high-stakes, hard-to-reverse call without a mandatory pause first? Write that line. Hold it like a policy. Your Pre-Decision List. Think of the situations where you consistently make choices you later regret. The late-day request you said yes to when you meant no. The urgency that overrode your better judgment. Pick three. Write a standing rule for each, specific enough that you can invoke it without having to think. "I don't make new commitments without sleeping on it." That's a rule. "I'll try to be more careful" is not. Your Pre-Meeting Anchor. Before any meeting where a significant decision will be made, you write down where you stand. Three sentences. What you believe, what evidence supports it, and what would genuinely change your mind. Not in the car on the way. Before. That record is what protects your thinking from the room. Your Pre-Mortem Trigger. Name the threshold that makes a decision significant enough to require a pre-mortem. A dollar amount. An impact on more than a certain number of people. A commitment lasting longer than six months. Whatever your threshold is, write it down. Once a decision crosses it, the pre-mortem is non-negotiable. Your Kitchen Cabinet Trigger. Your cabinet is only useful if you engage them before you've decided, not after. So name the conditions that require you to bring a decision to them first. A decision that's hard to reverse. A situation where you have significant personal stakes in the outcome. A moment where you notice everyone around you wants you to decide a certain way. A decision you find yourself avoiding thinking about clearly. Any one of those is enough. Two or more is non-negotiable. Now print out your decision constitution. Sign it. Put it somewhere you'll actually see it before the moments that count. This is your Ulysses contract. Your clear-headed self, right now, is setting the terms your compromised self will have to honor when the pressure is real, and the easy path is pointing the wrong way. Closing That's Part 2 of the Thinking 101 series. Fifteen episodes. If you've been here from the beginning, you've built something real. The series has been running for 21 weeks. The show behind it has been running for 20 years. And how we got here traces back to a single conversation. Twenty years ago, a mentor of mine, Bob Davis, gave me a challenge I couldn't shake. I'd asked him how I could ever repay him for what he'd done for my career. He laughed and said I couldn't. The only option, he said, was to pay it forward. That's why this show exists. That's why it has always existed. The show was called Killer Innovations because that's what felt right in 2005. Bold, a little provocative, built for a moment when podcasting was brand new, and nobody knew what it was supposed to be. Tens of millions of downloads later, we're still here. We have regular listeners in more than 50 countries. Some of you are younger than the podcast itself. But somewhere along the way, the show became something more specific. It stopped being about innovation tips and started being about the innovation decisions that actually shape outcomes. About the patterns underneath the decisions. About the skills that matter most when the pressure is real. On March 23rd, the show's 20th anniversary, we're making major changes. The podcast. The YouTube channel. All of it. And if you have thoughts about where we've been or where we're going, I want to hear them. There's a contact form at philmckinney.com. Send me a note. I'll see you on the 23rd.   Endnotes  "their follow-through nearly doubled": Gharad Bryan, Dean S. Karlan, and Scott Nelson, "Commitment Contracts," Yale Economics Department Working Paper No. 73 / Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 980 (October 23, 2009). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1493378. The research draws on Karlan and co-founders' development of StickK.com, a commitment contract platform launched in 2008 at Yale. Platform data consistently shows that users who add meaningful stakes — financial or reputational — to their commitments achieve their goals at roughly double the rate of those who don't. The underlying mechanism was established in Karlan's earlier field research in the Philippines: Nava Ashraf, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin, "Tying Odysseus to the Mast: Evidence From a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 2 (May 2006): 635–672. doi:10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.635. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/121/2/635/1884028. Pre-commitment works not by increasing virtue but by removing the decision from the moment of temptation. For accessible application, see Ian Ayres, Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (New York: Bantam, 2010), ISBN 978-0-553-80763-9. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/6794/carrots-and-sticks-by-ian-ayres/.   "a finite amount of decision-making capacity each day": Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Mark Muraven, and Dianne M. Tice, "Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 5 (1998): 1252–1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252. https://roybaumeister.com/1998/03/16/ego-depletion-is-the-active-self-a-limited-resource/. Also see Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (New York: Penguin, 2011). Baumeister's strength model of self-control proposes that willpower, decision-making, and self-regulation all draw from a single, depletable resource — what he termed "ego depletion." Subsequent work has debated the precise mechanism, with some researchers arguing the effect is motivational rather than metabolic. The practical implication, however, is consistent across studies: decision quality degrades as the day progresses, and the effect is most pronounced for complex, high-stakes choices. For a summary of the current scientific debate on the mechanism, see Michael Inzlicht and Brandon J. Schmeichel, "What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control," Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, no. 5 (2012): 450–463. doi:10.1177/1745691612454134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168503/.   "It rewrites your perception": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/.  This fMRI study at Emory University extended Solomon Asch's classic conformity experiments by imaging participants' brains as they conformed to or resisted incorrect group answers. The key finding: when participants went along with the group, the activity appeared not in the prefrontal cortex — the seat of conscious decision-making — but in the occipital-parietal network responsible for visual and spatial perception. In other words, participants who conformed weren't consciously deciding to lie; the group had altered what they actually perceived. Standing alone, by contrast, activated the amygdala, a region associated with emotional distress — consistent with the experience of social dissent as genuinely uncomfortable rather than merely inconvenient.   "Three hundred of Delta's 7,000 servers": Yevgeniy Sverdlik, "Delta: Data Center Outage Cost Us $150M," Data Center Knowledge, September 8, 2016. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/outages/delta-data-center-outage-cost-us-150m.  Also see W. H. Highleyman, "Delta Air Lines Cancels 2,100 Flights Due to Power Outage," Availability Digest (September 2016). https://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/1109/delta.pdf. On the morning of August 8, 2016, a fire triggered during a routine backup generator test at Delta's Atlanta data center caused a transformer failure. Approximately 300 of Delta's 7,000 servers were improperly connected to a single power source with no alternate feed, and when that feed failed, those servers went dark. Because those servers couldn't communicate with the rest of the system, the entire network collapsed. Delta cancelled roughly 2,100 flights over three days, leaving an estimated 250,000 passengers stranded. Total losses reached $150 million.   "cognitive psychologist Gary Klein, the researcher who developed the pre-mortem": Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Premortem," Harvard Business Review 85, no. 9 (September 2007): 18–19. https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem.  Klein developed the pre-mortem method over several decades of applied research in naturalistic decision-making. The technique asks teams to assume, before committing to a plan, that the plan has already failed — definitively, not possibly — and then work backward to identify causes. Klein's research found that this reframing dramatically increases the willingness of team members to surface concerns they would otherwise suppress to preserve group harmony. The method has since been endorsed by Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Richard Thaler as a practical tool for reducing overconfidence in planning. For Klein's broader framework of naturalistic decision-making, see Gary Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262343251/sources-of-power/. 

One third of Americans believe the world will end in their lifetime. Astronomers discover 100 black holes devouring a star cluster. Oklahoma family reports Class A Bigfoot sighting. Scientists warn we're creating consciousness faster than we can understand it.Study published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reveals apocalyptic thinking is now mainstream, not just fringe conspiracy theorists. Five psychological dimensions identified: imminence, causation (human vs divine), personal control, emotional outlook, and vision of what the end looks like. Researchers say this affects voting, policy, and how society responds to crises.Palomar 5 star cluster being consumed by swarm of 100+ black holes, each 20 times the mass of our sun. Located 80,000 light years from Earth with a 30,000 light year tidal stream. In a billion years, only black holes will remain orbiting the Milky Way.Family in Oklahoma witnesses massive bipedal creature crossing power line easement in broad daylight northwest of Durant. BFRO classifies as Class A encounter—credible witnesses, close range, no misidentification.Deep dive: Scientists warning of existential risk from creating consciousness faster than we understand it. Lab-grown brain organoids that might be aware. AI systems that could be conscious with no way to recognize it. Ethical disasters we're not prepared to handle. What happens when we can't tell if something is conscious?https://www.youtube.com/@InfiniteRabbitHolePodcastInfiniteRabbitHole.com

Ever feel like staying healthy today requires constant effort, planning, and discipline?You're not imagining it. Modern life is designed in ways that make health harder than it used to be. From ultra-processed foods and sedentary jobs to a culture built around convenience and constant access to calories, our environment often works against our biology.In this episode, we break down why maintaining your health today can feel like an uphill battle—and why that doesn't mean you're failing. It means you're navigating what public health researchers call an “obesogenic environment”: surroundings that make overconsumption easy and physical activity harder.You'll learn how changes in our food system, movement patterns, and daily routines have reshaped the health landscape—and most importantly, what you can do about it.In this episode:Why modern environments promote overeatingHow ultra-processed foods increase calorie intakeWhy sedentary lifestyles changed daily energy expenditureThe hidden role of convenience and “friction” in eating behaviorWhy health requires more intention todayFive practical strategies to make healthy choices easierThe goal isn't perfection—it's awareness and creating an environment that supports your health instead of working against it.You're not failing. You're navigating a system that wasn't built for human health. ReferencesBaumeister, R. F., et al. (1998). Ego depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Ducrot, P., et al. (2017). Meal planning, diet quality and body weight. Int. Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. Hall, K. D., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed diets increase calorie intake and weight gain. Cell Metabolism. Juul, F., et al. (2022). Ultra-processed food consumption and obesity in the U.S. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Levine, J. A. (2002). Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. Martínez Steele, E., et al. (2016). Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the U.S. diet. BMJ Open. Matthews, C. E., et al. (2008). Sedentary behavior and health outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology. Pontzer, H. (2015). Constrained energy expenditure model. Current Biology. Pontzer, H. (2021). Burn: New Research Blows the Lid Off How We Really Burn Calories. Swinburn, B., et al. (1999). Obesogenic environments. Preventive Medicine. Young, L. R., & Nestle, M. (2002). Expanding portion sizes. American Journal of Public Health.Support the showGet Weekly Health Tips: thrivehealthcoachllc.com Join the Thrive Collective Facebook group Let's Connect:@‌ashleythrivehealthcoach or via email: ashley@thrivehealthcoachingllc.com Podcast Produced by Virtually You!

Jest kultowa scena w filmie Lejdis, w której bohaterka mówi że empatia to taka zupa z Azji, a ja sobie myślę, że w popkulturze stała się niestrawnym wywarem sto razy przemielonym przez ledwo drożne trzewia i zdarza się, że rozumiemy ją mylnie. Więc na warsztat dzisiaj bierzemy umiłowane, odmieniane przez przypadki słowo EMPATIA.Wielkie i gromkie brawa dla Patronów i Patronek, bo to właśnie oni ten odcinek wyprodukowali. Za ich ciężko zarobione pieniądze powstał ten podcast ku uciesze, mam nadzieję, wszystkich słuchających, zróbcie proszę hałas w komentarzach i subach oraz wszelkich formach wirtualnej sympatii (nie mylić z empatią - posłuchajcie, zrozumiecie ;) )Montaż: Eugeniusz KarlovLITERATURA:Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A Review of the Concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144-153.Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022187Humphrey, R. H. (2013). The benefits of emotional intelligence and empathy to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(3), 287-294.McDonald, E. M., Tobin, K. E., Cooper, A. M., & Tully, E. C. (2026). A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Social Media Use and Empathy in Adolescence. Journal of Adolescence.Mossner, C., & Walter, S. (2024). Shaping Social Media Minds: Scaffolding Empathy in Digitally Mediated Interactions?. Topoi, 43(3), 645-658.Rumble, A. C., Van Lange, P. A., & Parks, C. D. (2010). The benefits of empathy: When empathy may sustain cooperation in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(5), 856-866.

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.  In today's episode, Chris and Dr. Abbie discuss decision fatigue—how making too many choices throughout the day drains mental energy and affects judgment. They explain how stress and lack of sleep make it worse, how it differs from burnout, and why leaders and parents are especially vulnerable. The episode also shares simple, practical strategies to reduce daily decisions, protect mental energy, and prioritize recovery.  [Mar 2, 2026]  00:00 - Intro  00:56 - Show Updates and Sponsors  02:35 - What Decision Fatigue Is  03:34 - Stress, Sleep, and Mental Energy  05:12 - Mental vs. Physical Limits  07:13 - Decision Fatigue vs. Burnout  10:22 - Leadership, Empathy, and Hard Decisions  14:33 - Prevention: Routines and Breaks  20:43 - Advisors and AI Caution  24:38 - Everyday Life and Parenting Load  27:23 - Recovery Outlets and Wrap-Up  28:49 - Closing and Next Month's Topic (Diet Culture)    Find us online:    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd    Instagram: @DoctorAbbieofficial    LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy    References:   Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252   Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. Penguin Press.   Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108   Davidson, R. J., & McEwen, B. S. (2012). Social influences on neuroplasticity: Stress and interventions to promote well-being. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3093   Fleming, S. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). The neural basis of metacognitive ability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1338–1349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0417   Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486   Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.  

Kritik gehört zu jedem menschlichen Miteinander. Und doch erleben viele Menschen sie wie einen Schlag ins Gesicht. Im Folgenden geht es darum, was bei Kritik in Psyche und Gehirn tatsächlich passiert, warum manche Menschen besonders empfindlich reagieren, welche typischen Muster in Beziehungen entstehen und wie man Schritt für Schritt lernen kann, Kritik weniger als Vernichtungsurteil und mehr als Information zu begreifen, ohne alles „hinzunehmen“.Wenn du mich und den Podcast unterstützen möchtest, dann bewerte den Podcast gerne und schicke ihn an jemanden weiter, der sich auch dafür interessieren würde. Mein neues Buch hilft dir besser zu kommunizieren, deine Muster zu verändern und wieder Nähe herzustellen. Du hast Feedback oder Fragen? Dann schreib mir auf Instagram.Du möchtest eine persönliche (Online)Beratung oder Paartherapie mit mir? Dann schreib mir eine Mail an: kontakt@paartherapiebonn.com.Mehr zu mir und meiner Arbeit findest du ⁠⁠hier⁠⁠.Studien zu dem Thema:Eichholz, A., Schlegl, S., Brähler, E., & Voderholzer, U. (2020). Self‐compassion and emotion regulation difficulties in obsessive–compulsive disorder. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 27(5), 630–640.Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292.Chwyl, C., Chen, P., & Zaki, J. (2021). Beliefs about self-compassion: Implications for coping and self-improvement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(9), 1327–1342.Laurenceau, J.-P., Feldman Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251.Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530.Miedl, S. F., Blechert, J., Klackl, J., Wiggert, N., Reichenberger, J., Derntl, B., & Wilhelm, F. H. (2016). Criticism hurts everybody, praise only some: Common and specific neural responses to approving and disapproving social-evaluative videos. NeuroImage, 132, 138–147.Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101.Piotrowski, K., Bojanowska, A., & Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. (2021). Perfectionism and community-identity integration: The mediating role of shame, guilt and self-esteem. Current Psychology, 42, 10871–10882.Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford Press.Wakelin, K. E., Perman, G., & Simonds, L. M. (2022). Effectiveness of self-compassion-related interventions for reducing self-criticism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(2), 543–559.

What if AI companions are inserting themselves between children and the very people meant to guide them? In this episode of The Morning Brief, host Anirban Chowdhury speaks to Dr. Sonia Livingstone, Professor of Social Psychology, Department of Media and Communications, The London School of Economics and Political Science and Dr Usha Raman, former professor,Dept of Communication, University of Hyderabad about the uncharted territory where generative AI meets childhood development. The conversation explores why AI systems sometimes offer dangerous advice to young users, how class and language create disparities in AI access across India, and whether the assumption of "inevitable" tech adoption overshadows critical ethical discussions. Tune InYou can follow Anirban Chowdhury on his social media: X and LinkedinCheck out other interesting episodes like: How Will a Volatile ₹ Impact You in 2026?, How Quick Commerce is Triggering a Health Crisis for Gen Z, India’s Labour Law Reboot, Viral to Valuation: Building Women’s Cricket as a Brand and much more.Catch the latest episode of ‘The Morning Brief’ on The Economic Times Online, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Amazon Music and Youtube.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Truth, Lies & Work, the award-winning workplace podcast where behavioural science meets workplace culture. This week, we explore the "silent disengagement" trend, the surprising truth about Gen Z and the office, and the psychological reason why the end of a project feels harder than the beginning. Plus, we settle the ultimate workplace debate: do people leave managers or jobs? Stories Covered 1. The Rise of "Silent Disengagement" Is office culture dying, or is it just getting quieter? We look at silent disengagement, where employees do the work but mentally pull back, speaking less in meetings and avoiding new projects. Leanne argues this isn't a new remote work problem, but a long-standing issue of employees not feeling valued or challenged. Source: Silent Disengagement: The work trend explained 2. Gen Z: Leading the Charge Back to the Office? Forget the lazy stereotypes. New data suggests Gen Z is actually leading the return to the office for social connection and development. We share the story of a 24-year-old commuting four hours a day just to be in the room. It turns out, different life stages need different work models—and flexibility increases engagement for everyone. 3. Why the "Last Stretch" Feels the Hardest Ever noticed how the final 10% of a project feels more draining than the first 90%? A new study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology explains that fatigue heightens as we become more aware of the effort we've already invested. The fix? Zoom out and frame the task as part of a bigger goal. Read the paper: More done, more drained (Zeng et al., 2025) BPS Digest: How to get through the last push Truth or Lie: Do people really leave managers, not jobs? It is one of the most common beliefs in business: "People don't leave bad jobs, they leave bad managers." Leanne digs into the research from Gallup, McKinsey, and Facebook to find the truth. While poor leadership dramatically increases the odds of someone quitting, we reveal the other factors that actually drive the Great Resignation. Workplace Surgery This week, we tackle three tough questions from our listeners: Unlimited Holiday: Is it a brilliant trust-building exercise or a recipe for anxiety and "leavism"? Lifting Morale: How do you rebuild energy in a team that is flat after a draining year of changes and stress? The "30-Second" Interview: What do you do when you know a candidate isn't right within seconds of meeting them? Connect with Al & Leanne LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/truthlieswork Al Elliott: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thisisalelliott Leanne Elliott: https://www.linkedin.com/in/meetleanne Email: hello@truthliesandwork.com Book a call: https://savvycal.com/meetleanne/chat Mental health support UK & ROI — Samaritans: Call 116 123 or visit https://www.samaritans.org UK — Mind: Call 0300 123 3393 or visit https://www.mind.org.uk US — Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: Call or text 988 or visit https://988lifeline.org Australia — Lifeline: Call 13 11 14 or visit https://www.lifeline.org.au Global helplines: https://findahelpline.com Truth, Lies & Work is proud to be part of the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals.

When neuroscientists scanned the brains of people going along with a group, they expected to find lying. What they found instead was something far stranger. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. We'll get to that study in a minute. But first, I want you to remember the last time you were in a meeting, and you knew something was wrong. The numbers didn't add up. The risk was being underestimated. And someone needed to say it. Then the most senior person in the room spoke first: "I think this is exactly what we need." Heads nodded. Finance agreed. Marketing agreed. The consultant agreed. And by the time it was your turn, you heard yourself saying, "I have some minor concerns, but overall I think it's solid." You're not alone. Research shows that roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern. And among those who stayed quiet, 40% estimated they wasted 2 weeks or more replaying what they didn't say. Two weeks. Mentally rehearsing the point they should have made in a meeting that's already over. That silence isn't a character flaw. It's your neurology working against you. And today I'm going to show you exactly why it happens and how to stop it.  It starts with what was happening inside your head during that meeting you just remembered. Why Your Brain Surrenders to the Group Most people know about the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s. People were asked to match line lengths, and seventy-five percent went along with answers that were obviously wrong. That result gets cited everywhere. But the more important study came fifty years later, and it revealed something the Asch experiment never could. In 2005, neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine and ran a similar conformity task, this time with three-dimensional shape rotation. Like Asch, he planted actors who gave wrong answers. But unlike Asch, he could watch what was happening inside people's brains while the conformity was occurring. Berns expected the MRI to show activity in the prefrontal cortex, the brain's decision-making center, when people went along with wrong answers. That would mean they were knowingly lying to fit in. Just a social calculation. That's not what the scans showed. People who conformed showed no increased activity in decision-making regions. Instead, the activity showed up in the parts of the brain that handle visual and spatial perception, the occipital and parietal areas. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. Their brains were rewriting their experience to match the room. And the people who resisted the group? Their scans told a different story. Heightened activity in the amygdala, the brain's threat detection center. The same circuitry that fires when you encounter physical danger lit up when someone disagreed with the group. Berns put it plainly. The fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival. When you caved in that meeting, your neurology wasn't malfunctioning. It was doing exactly what it was designed to do. Keep you safe inside the tribe. This is why what I call mindjacking works so well. Algorithms manufacture social proof by showing you what's trending, what your friends liked, and what similar people chose. Your wiring responds the same way it does at the conference table. You're fighting your own threat-detection system every time you try to hold an independent position within a group. You can't turn off the wiring. But you can learn to catch it in the act. And that starts with one critical distinction. The First Skill: Separating Updating from Caving Sometimes the people around you know something you don't. Changing your mind in a group isn't always a surrender. Sometimes it's the smartest move in the room. The real skill is knowing which one just happened. You can test this in real time. When you feel your position shifting in a group, ask yourself three questions. First: Did someone introduce information I didn't have before? If the CFO reveals a data point that genuinely changes the calculus, updating your view isn't a weakness. It's intelligence. That's new evidence. Second: Can I articulate why I changed my mind, in specific terms? If you can say, "I shifted because of the margin data in Q3 that I hadn't seen," that's a real update. If you can only say, "I don't know, everyone seemed to think it was fine," that's capitulation. Third: Would I have reached this same conclusion alone, with the same information? This is the killer question. If the answer is no, and you only arrived at this position because others were already there, you haven't updated. You've surrendered. Getting this wrong is costly. And not just the one time. When you capitulate and call it updating, you train yourself to stop trusting your own analysis. Do it enough times, and you won't even bother preparing, because you already know you're going to defer. That's how capable people slowly become passengers in rooms where they should be driving. Capture those three questions somewhere you'll see them. They're your real-time check on whether you're being open-minded or spineless. Those questions work when you're already in the meeting and the pressure is live. But what if you could protect your thinking before the pressure even starts? The Pre-Meeting Lock-In The most important thing you can do to protect your independent thinking doesn't happen during the meeting. It happens before. I call it the Pre-Meeting Lock-In, and it takes less than two minutes. Before any meeting where a decision will be made, write down three things:  Your position  Two or three key reasons supporting it What would it take to change your mind Put it on paper. Put it in a note on your phone. Just get it out of your head and into a form you can reference. Why does this work? Because once the discussion starts, your mind is going to quietly edit your memories of what you believed. You'll start thinking, "Well, I wasn't really sure about that point anyway." Your pre-meeting notes are an anchor against that self-deception. They're a record of what you actually thought before the social pressure arrived. You want to see what happens when someone has the analysis but doesn't lock it in?  The night before the Challenger launch in January 1986, engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data. They knew the O-ring seals were dangerous in cold weather. They'd written memos. They'd run the numbers. They recommended against launching. But when NASA pushed back hard on the teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus and excluded the engineers from the room. When the call resumed, management reversed the recommendation. Boisjoly had the analysis. His managers had heard it. But under pressure from their biggest customer, the conclusion got edited in real time. Boisjoly later described it as an unethical forum driven by what he called "intense customer intimidation." He fought like hell, but the room won. That's the most extreme version of the problem. Life and death. But the mechanics are the same in every conference room. The analysis exists. The pressure arrives. And without something anchoring you to what you actually concluded, the room rewrites the story. There's a bonus effect to the Lock-In, too. When you've documented what it would take to change your mind, you've given yourself permission to be genuinely open. You're not being stubborn for the sake of it. You're saying, "Show me evidence that meets this threshold, and I'll update." That's intellectual honesty with a backbone. But you can know exactly what you think and still fail if you can't get anyone else to hear it. How to Dissent and Actually Be Heard Most dissent fails not because it's wrong, but because it's delivered badly.  Blurting out "I think this is a mistake" when the group is already aligned feels like an attack. People get defensive. Your point gets ignored, not because it lacked merit, but because your delivery threatened the group's cohesion. You triggered the same threat response in them that you've been learning to manage in yourself. Charlan Nemeth, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, has studied dissent for decades. You'd expect her research to show that dissent helps groups when the dissenter is right. When someone spots a flaw that everyone else missed. That makes intuitive sense. But that's not what she found. Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully. They consider more information, examine more alternatives, and reach better conclusions. And the group benefits even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong. Even when you're wrong, the act of dissenting makes the group smarter. Your disagreement forces everyone out of autopilot. Decades of research by Moscovici supports this. Minority voices don't just influence people in the moment. They shift perception afterward, in private, long after the meeting ends. That's the good news. The catch is in how the dissent happens. Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic, when someone plays devil's advocate because they were told to. It doesn't produce the same effect. Groups can tell when disagreement is performative. The cognitive benefits only show up when the dissent is authentic. When someone actually believes what they're saying. That means the goal isn't just to voice disagreement. It's to voice it in a way that people can actually receive. And the hardest version of this isn't when you have a minor concern about an otherwise good plan. It's when the whole direction is wrong, and finding something to praise would be dishonest. In those moments, the move is to separate the people from the position. "I respect the work that went into this, and I know this isn't what anyone wants to hear, but I think we're solving the wrong problem." You're honoring the effort while challenging the direction. You're not attacking the tribe. You're trying to save it from a bad bet. When the stakes are lower, and you do see genuine merit, you can lead with that. "The market timing argument is strong, and I want to make sure we've stress-tested one thing before we commit." Same principle. You're working with their wiring instead of against it. Either way, your dissent has value beyond being right. Remember that. It's worth holding onto when your amygdala is screaming at you to stay quiet. Everything so far has assumed you're in a room with other people. Your amygdala can't tell the difference between a conference table and a phone screen. The Rooms You Can't See You're not just in meetings. You're in invisible rooms all day long. And most of the time, you don't even know you've walked into one. Every time you scroll past a post with ten thousand likes and think, "I guess that's the right take." Every time you read three articles with the same conclusion and stop questioning it. Every time an algorithm shows you what similar people chose, and you choose it too. Those are rooms full of nodding heads. And your amygdala responds to them the same way it responds to the conference table. Think about the last time you researched a major purchase. You probably started with some idea of what you wanted. Then you read reviews. Then you checked what was trending. Then you asked friends. By the time you decided, how much of that decision was yours? How much of it was the room? Or think about how you form opinions on topics you haven't studied deeply. You read a few articles. They mostly agree. You adopt the consensus. That feels like research. But Berns' scans tell us what's actually happening. Your brain isn't independently weighing the evidence. It's detecting a consensus and rewriting your perception to match. The same process that happens at the conference table is happening every time you open your phone. Mindjacking doesn't need to override your thinking. It just needs to make sure you never finish thinking for yourself before the crowd's answer arrives. And once it arrives, your neurology does the rest. The group doesn't just influence your answer; it shapes it. It rewrites your perception. The Lock-In works for these invisible rooms, too. Before you research a major purchase, write down what you actually want and what you're willing to pay. Before you dive into reviews and opinions, commit your criteria to paper. Before you ask friends what they think about a decision you've already analyzed, record your conclusion. Give yourself the same protection from algorithmic conformity that you'd want before walking into a boardroom. The skill isn't being contrarian. It's being first. First, to your own conclusion, before the room, any room, gets a vote. This is your challenge for the week. Think of one meeting you have coming up where a decision will be made. Before you walk in, open your notes app and type three lines. Line one: what you think. Line two: why. Line three: what would change your mind. That's it. Then sit in that meeting and watch what happens to your thinking when the room pushes back. I think you'll surprise yourself. What if the person you can't resist isn't your boss, your colleagues, or the algorithm? What if it's you? What happens when the decision you need to make threatens something deeper, when being wrong would mean something unbearable about who you are? That's where we're headed next. Closing If this episode gave you something useful, hit that subscribe button. I'm building a complete thinking toolkit here in the Thinking 101 series. If you got value today, share it with someone who could use it, especially anyone heading into a big meeting this week. Drop a comment and tell me: what's the hardest group you've ever had to disagree with? I read every comment and reply. Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next episode. Endnotes/References "roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern" / "forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more": VitalSmarts, Costly Conversations: Why The Way Employees Communicate Will Make or Break Your Bottom Line (Provo, UT: VitalSmarts, December 2016). In a study of 1,025 employees, 70 percent reported instances where they or others failed to speak up effectively when a peer did not pull their weight. Half wasted seven days or more avoiding crucial conversations. Forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more ruminating about the problem. A 2021 follow-up study by Crucial Learning (formerly VitalSmarts) of 1,100 people found the rumination figure had risen to 43 percent. The script's "roughly half" is drawn from the VitalSmarts finding that the majority of the workforce reported conversation failures, with half losing seven or more days to avoidance behaviors. Primary source: https://www.vitalsmarts.com/press/2016/12/costly-conversations-why-the-way-employees-communicate-will-make-or-break-your-bottom-line/. Follow-up study: https://cruciallearning.com/press/costly-conversations-how-lack-of-communication-is-costing-organizations-thousands-in-revenue/ "the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s": Solomon E. Asch, "Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," in Groups, Leadership and Men, ed. Harold Guetzkow (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951), 177–190. The expanded report was published as Solomon E. Asch, "Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority," Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70, no. 9 (1956): 1–70. Asch conducted the line-judgment experiments at Swarthmore College. Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, with confederates unanimously giving incorrect answers on critical trials. Across conditions, approximately 75 percent of participants conformed at least once, and the mean conformity rate was approximately one-third of critical trials. Group sizes varied across experiments, typically with 6–8 confederates and one real participant. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-00803-001 "neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging with a mental rotation task. Participants (n=32, ages 19–41) judged whether three-dimensional shapes were rotated versions of each other while four confederates provided answers. Conformity was associated with functional changes in the occipital-parietal network (visual and spatial perception regions), not the prefrontal cortex. Independence was associated with heightened activity in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus, regions linked to emotional salience and threat detection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. The researchers isolated the specifically social element of conformity by comparing brain activation when wrong answers came from a group of people versus when they came from computers. Conformity to group-sourced wrong answers produced greater activation bilaterally in visual cortex and right intraparietal sulcus, overlapping the baseline mental rotation network. Berns interpreted this as evidence that social conformity operates at a perceptual level rather than merely at a decision-making level. Full text PDF: https://pdodds.w3.uvm.edu/files/papers/others/2005/berns2005.pdf "Heightened activity in the amygdala": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. Participants who gave independent (correct) answers when the group was wrong showed significantly increased activation in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus. The amygdala is associated with processing emotionally salient stimuli and threats. Berns described these findings as "consistent with the assumptions of social norm theory about the behavioral saliency of standing alone." The script's characterization that "the fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival" is an accessible paraphrase of this finding, consistent with the broader social pain literature (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), though Berns' paper does not use that exact language. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data": Roger M. Boisjoly, "Ethical Decisions — Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" (paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Annual Meeting, December 13–18, 1987). First presented as a talk at MIT in January 1987. Boisjoly, a specialist in O-ring seals and rocket joints at Morton Thiokol, documented how engineers recommended against the January 28, 1986 launch based on concerns about O-ring performance in cold temperatures. During the pre-launch teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus, excluded the engineers, and reversed the no-launch recommendation under pressure from NASA. Boisjoly described the forum as constituting "the unethical decision-making forum" driven by customer pressure. He was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Online Ethics Center at the National Academy of Engineering hosts Boisjoly's full account: https://onlineethics.org/cases/ethical-decisions-morton-thiokol-and-space-shuttle-challenger-disaster-introduction. See also Russell P. Boisjoly, Ellen Foster Curtis, and Eugene Mellican, "Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions," Journal of Business Ethics 8, no. 4 (April 1989): 217–230. doi:10.1007/BF00383335. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00383335 "Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully": Charlan J. Nemeth, In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (New York: Basic Books, 2018). Nemeth's research program at UC Berkeley, spanning four decades, demonstrated that exposure to minority dissent stimulates divergent thinking, broader information search, consideration of more alternatives, and higher-quality group decisions. The finding that dissent improves group performance even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong is documented across multiple studies. See also Charlan J. Nemeth, "Minority Influence Theory," IRLE Working Paper No. 218-10 (Berkeley: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, May 2010). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1pz676t7 "Decades of research by Moscovici": Serge Moscovici, Elisabeth Lage, and Martine Naffrechoux, "Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task," Sociometry 32, no. 4 (December 1969): 365–380. In the original experiment, participants viewed blue slides while two confederates consistently called them green. The consistent minority condition produced a shift in approximately 8 percent of majority judgments toward the minority position, and roughly one-third of participants conformed at least once. In the inconsistent minority condition, the effect was negligible (approximately 1.25 percent). The script's claim that "minority voices don't just influence people in the moment — they shift perception afterward, in private" draws on Moscovici's subsequent conversion theory and research on the delayed and private effects of minority influence, including afterimage studies showing genuine perceptual shifts. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786541 "Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic": Charlan J. Nemeth, Joanie B. Connell, John D. Rogers, and Keith S. Brown, "Improving Decision Making by Means of Dissent," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, no. 1 (2001): 48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. Groups deliberated a personal injury case under three conditions: authentic dissent (a genuine minority viewpoint), assigned devil's advocate (a member told to argue the opposing side), and no dissent. Authentic dissent was superior in stimulating consideration of opposing positions, original thought, and direct attitude change. The devil's advocate condition did not produce the same cognitive benefits, suggesting that groups detect and discount performative disagreement. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. See also Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown, and John Rogers, "Devil's Advocate versus Authentic Dissent: Stimulating Quantity and Quality," European Journal of Social Psychology 31, no. 6 (2001): 707–720. doi:10.1002/ejsp.58.

Maslows Bedürfnispyramide kennt fast jede:r – aber was, wenn sie so nie gedacht war? Woher kommt sie eigentlich, warum ist sie bis heute so mächtig und was daran ist wissenschaftlich haltbar? In dieser Folge nehmen Leon und Atze eine der berühmtesten Ideen der Psychologie auseinander. Dabei sprechen sie über Leitern statt Pyramiden, Segelboote mit Leck, falsche Vereinfachungen und die Frage, ob Menschen wirklich erst „oben ankommen“ müssen, um zu wachsen. Eine Folge über Mythen, gute Ideen, schlechte Grafiken – und darüber, was wir wirklich brauchen, um ein erfülltes Leben zu führen. Fühlt euch gut betreut Leon & Atze Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/leonwindscheid/ https://www.instagram.com/atzeschroeder_offiziell/ Mehr zu unseren Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/betreutesfuehlen Tickets: Atze: https://www.atzeschroeder.de/#termine Leon: https://leonwindscheid.de/tour/ Vorverkauf 2026: https://betreutes-fuehlen.ticket.io/ Quellen Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Ballard, J. (2019). Who built Maslow's pyramid? A history of the creation of management studies' most famous symbol and its implications for management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0351 Compton, W. C. (2024). Self-actualization myths: What did Maslow really say? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 64(5), 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167818761929 Cooke, B., & Mills, A. J. (2008). The fabrication of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2008(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2008.33633768 Davis, K. (1957). Human relations in business. McGraw-Hill. Hoffman, E. (1988). The right to be human: A biography of Abraham Maslow. Addison-Wesley. Kaufman, S. B. (2020). Transcend: The new science of self-actualization. TarcherPerigee. Kaufman, S. B. (2023). Self-actualizing people in the 21st century: Integration with contemporary theory and research on personality and well-being. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 63(1), 51–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167818809187 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.; Original work published 1954). Harper & Row. McDermid, C. (1960). How money motivates men. Business Horizons, 3(4), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(60)90004-3 McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill. Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 980–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992511006 Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325 Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023779 Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 212–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90038-6 Redaktion: Dr. Leon Windscheid Produktion: Murmel Produktions

Alicia hat nach der Trennung von ihrem Ex-Freund erst mal weiter mit ihm zusammengewohnt. Für ein gutes Miteinander sind Grenzen wichtig – emotionale und strukturelle. Daraus kann auch etwas Neues entstehen. **********Ihr hört: Gesprächspartnerin: Alicia, hat nach der Trennung über drei Monate mit ihrem Ex-Partner zusammen gewohnt Gesprächspartner: Markus Kaindl, Soziologe, Universität Wien Gesprächspartnerin: Lena Kager, Beziehungscoach und Paarberaterin Autor und Host: Przemek Żuk Redaktion: Bettina Brecke, Yevgeniya Shcherbakova, Ivy Nortey, Friederike Seeger, Anne Bohlmann Produktion: Philipp Adelmann**********Quellen:Kaindl, M. & Neuwirth, N. (2024). Living Apart Together. Eine Vorstufe zum Zusammenwohnen im gemeinsamen Haushalt oder eine langfristige Form der Partnerschaft?. Österreichisches Institut für Familienforschung Working Paper 99.Yucel, D., & Latshaw, B. A. (2022). Mental Health Across the Life Course for Men and Women in Married, Cohabiting, and Living Apart Together Relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 44(8), 2025-2053.van Scheppingen, M. A., Olaru, G., & Leopold, T. (2025). Personality trait similarity in recently cohabiting couples: Partner choice, convergence, or selective breakup? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(4), 887–904.Rault, W, & Régnier-Loilier, A. (2020). Continued Cohabitation After the Decision to Separate: “Living Together Apart” in France. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 1073-1088.**********Mehr zum Thema bei Deutschlandfunk Nova:Haushalt, Geld, Nähe: Wie klappt unser Zusammenziehen als Paar?Beziehung: Zusammen wohnen, getrennte SchlafzimmerCommitment: Wenn wir für die Liebe umziehen**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .**********Meldet euch!Ihr könnt das Team von Facts & Feelings über Whatsapp erreichen.Uns interessiert: Was beschäftigt euch? Habt ihr ein Thema, über das wir unbedingt in der Sendung und im Podcast sprechen sollen?Schickt uns eine Sprachnachricht oder schreibt uns per 0160-91360852 oder an factsundfeelings@deutschlandradio.de.Wichtig: Wenn ihr diese Nummer speichert und uns eine Nachricht schickt, akzeptiert ihr unsere Regeln zum Datenschutz und bei Whatsapp die Datenschutzrichtlinien von Whatsapp.

Slovakia consistently ranks among countries with high levels of belief in conspiracy theories. But what drives this phenomenon? In this episode, we look beyond misinformation and focus on feelings. Based on new research conducted by a team of researchers from the Institute of Experimental Psychology of the Center for Social and Psychological Sciences of the Slovak Academy of Sciences published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, we discuss with researcher of this project Magdalena Adamus how conspiracy narratives teach people to perceive the world as hostile and unstable — and why this matters for public trust and democracy.

Slovakia consistently ranks among countries with high levels of belief in conspiracy theories. But what drives this phenomenon? In this episode, we look beyond misinformation and focus on feelings. Based on new research conducted by a team of researchers from the Institute of Experimental Psychology of the Center for Social and Psychological Sciences of the Slovak Academy of Sciences published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, we discuss with researcher of this project Magdalena Adamus how conspiracy narratives teach people to perceive the world as hostile and unstable — and why this matters for public trust and democracy.

Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? That thing a psychology lecturer might have explained to you once upon a time, likely using the same UFO cult example everyone else uses. Well, a new paper by Thomas Kelly suggests that the UFO cult example might have been ever so slightly oversold.Kelly's archival work suggests that the researchers didn't just observe the cult as reported. Instead, they infiltrated it, faked supernatural experiences, assumed quasi-leadership roles, and then wrote up the results as if the group had spontaneously doubled down on their failed prophecy, which they had not. Because the leader recanted, and the group fell apart shortly after the failed prophecy. Minor details.Matt and Chris discuss this paper, a 2024 multilab replication, and some other papers by Kelly, considering the ever-reliable tendency of researchers to find exactly what they are looking for.It's cognitive dissonance all the way down, folks.The full episode is available to Patreon subscribers (1 hour, 10 minutes).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusDecoding Academia 34: When Prophecy Fails Debunked?00:00 Introduction02:04 Cognitive Dissonance Theory06:41 Classic lab evidence: effort justification & the ‘severe initiation' study08:33 When Prophecy Fails: The Original Account10:54 The debunking: archival evidence, misconduct claims, and ethical red flags20:22 Replication reality check: multi-lab results and ‘strong vs weak' dissonance31:40 Beyond one case: survivorship bias, failed prophecies, and early Christianity parallels35:51 Christianity as Historical Anomaly or Cognitive Dissonance Exemplar?41:48 Thomas Kelly: Interesting biosafety takes and a possible Christian lens45:43 The importance of seeking for disconfirming evidence50:23 Conspiracy-theory dynamics & narrative elaboration56:30 Classical Psychological Theories and Personal Motivations01:03:07 Steps that can be taken to reduce biases01:05:01 Stay tentative, check evidence, and don't pick sides too fast01:06:30 A lesson from Scott Alexander!SourcesAcademic Papers and BooksFestinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. University of Minnesota Press.Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593 (The original induced-compliance/$1/$20 study)Kelly, T. (2026). Debunking "When Prophecy Fails." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 62(1), e70043. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.70043Kelly, T. (2025). Failed prophecies are fatal. International Journal for the Study of New Religions, 14(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsnr.33085Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on...

I watched Home Alone and suddenly started hearing the theme tune everywhere.  I thought I was going insane.  But Tom Bowden-Green and Luan Wise explained that I actually fell for a fairly well-known bias.  A bias you've almost certainly experienced as well.  ---  Come to Uplift Live: https://uplift-live.com/ (Use code NUDGE to get £50 off)  Tom and Luan's book: https://amzn.to/49aZnh3 Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Join 10,428 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  ---  Today's sources:  Costello, J. P., Garvey, A. M., Germann, F., & Wilkie, J. E. B. (2024). The Uptrend Effect: Encouraging healthy behaviors through greater inferred normativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 61(1), 110–127. Cruz, R. E., Leonhardt, J. M., & Pezzuti, T. (2017). Second person pronouns enhance consumer involvement and brand attitude. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39(1), 104–116. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259–266. Lim, S., van Osselaer, S. M., Goodman, J. K., Fuchs, C., & Schreier, M. (2024). The Starbucks effect: When name-based order identification increases customers' store preference and service satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 100(2), 316–329. Sahni, N. S., Wheeler, S. C., & Chintagunta, P. (2018). Personalization in email marketing: The role of noninformative advertising content. Marketing Science, 37(2), 236–258. Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 66–76. van der Meulen, M. (2022). Are we indeed so illuded? Recency and frequency illusions in Dutch prescriptivism. Languages, 7(1), 42. Zwicky, A. (2006). Why are we so illuded. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/LSA07illude.abst.pdf

Textual Analysis and Literature Review In Waiting: ©2026 .mp3ABSTRACTIn Waiting: Varies from Strategic, Professional Patience to Creative, Contemplative, or Spiritual Discipline Copyright2026 (ISBN: 978-976-97826-7-9), Dr. William Anderson Gittens, D.D. explores the multifaceted concept of waiting, framing it as an active practice across various domains, including professional, creative, and spiritual realms. Gittens argues that waiting should not be viewed merely as a passive experience but rather as an intentional process involving reflection, preparation, and observation. This paper delves into the historical, cultural, and biblical connotations of waiting, analyzing its evolving linguistic meaning and exploring its theological implications through key biblical figures like Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. Dr.Gittens also draws on psychological insights, particularly the concept of "productive waiting," to underscore its role in fostering personal and professional growth. The analysis further explores how waiting can function as a strategic tool in decision-making and creativity, offering opportunities for mindfulness, spiritual discipline, and resilience. Ultimately, the work challenges the conventional perception of waiting and proposes that it can serve as a dynamic and transformative practice that cultivates virtues such as patience, endurance, and trust in both human and divine timing. By embracing waiting as an active process, individuals can cultivate deeper personal insight, professional success, and spiritual maturity. It should be noted that the genesis of this intellectual conversation waiting, is grounded in professional patience, spiritual discipline, creative practice, biblical perspectives, psychological insights, personal growthDr. William Anderson Gittens, D.D.ReferencesAnderson, R. (2024). The psychology of deferred gratification: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(3), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000456Chen, L., & O'Malley, P. (2025). Historical conceptions of patience in Western and Eastern philosophical traditions. Philosophy East and West, 75(1), 112–135.Gittens, W. A. (2025). The experience of waiting: A journey through frustration and reflection. Devgro Media Arts Services Publishing ® 2015 Summary of Abraham's 25 Years in the Bible and Bible Verses. (n.d.). Bible Pure. Retrieved from https://biblepure.com/abrahams-25-years-in-the-bibleGittens, W. A. (2026). In waiting: Varies from strategic, professional patience to creative, contemplative, or spiritual discipline. (ISBN 978-976-97826-7-9).Gittens, W. A. (2026). In waiting: Varies from strategic, professional patience to creative, contemplative,Support the showCultural Factors Influence Academic Achievements© 2024 ISBN978-976-97385-7-7 A_MEMOIR_OF_Dr_William_Anderson_Gittens_D_D_2024_ISBNISBN978_976_97385_0_8 Academic.edu. Chief of Audio Visual Aids Officer Mr. Michael Owen Chief of Audio Visual Aids Officer Mr. Selwyn Belle Commissioner of Police Mr. Orville Durant Dr. William Anderson Gittens, D.D En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning Hackett Philip Media Resource Development Officer Holder, B,Anthony Episcopal Priest, https://brainly.com/question/36353773 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning#cite_note-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning#cite_note-:2-18 https://independent.academia.edu/WilliamGittens/Books https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=william+anderson+gittens+barbados&oq=william+anderson+gittens https://www.academia.edu/123754463/ https://www.buzzsprout.com/429292/episodes. https://www.youtube.com/@williamandersongittens1714. Mr.Greene, Rupert

This split in preferences reveals a fascinating double standard in how people think about honesty. Research published in the British Journal of Social Psychology shows that a clear majority of people want truthful feedback for themselves. The trend of “AI-washing,” is where companies will cite AI as the reason for layoffs that might actually be caused by other factors, like over-hiring during the pandemic. AI was the stated reason for more than 50,000 layoffs in 2025, with Amazon and Pinterest among the tech companies that blamed the technology for recent cuts. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This split in preferences reveals a fascinating double standard in how people think about honesty. Research published in the British Journal of Social Psychology shows that a clear majority of people want truthful feedback for themselves. The trend of “AI-washing,” is where companies will cite AI as the reason for layoffs that might actually be caused by other factors, like over-hiring during the pandemic. AI was the stated reason for more than 50,000 layoffs in 2025, with Amazon and Pinterest among the tech companies that blamed the technology for recent cuts. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Most of us are completely oblivious to the cognitive biases that dictate how we live our lives.  Today, with Tom Bowden-Green and Luan Wise, we cover seven cognitive biases that all of us fall for.  ---  Tom and Luan's book: https://amzn.to/49aZnh3 Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults See Agent Spark in action at ⁠gwi.com/spark⁠ Join 10,428 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  ---  Today's sources:  Chambers, J. R. (2008). Explaining false uniqueness: Why we are both better and worse than others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 878–894. Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 247–296). Academic Press. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychological Review, 85(5), 395–416. Helmreich, R., Aronson, E., & LeFan, J. (1970). To err is humanizing sometimes: Effects of self-esteem, competence, and a pratfall on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 259–264. Koskie, M. M., & Locander, W. B. (2023). Cool brands and hot attachments: Their effect on consumers' willingness to pay more. European Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 905–929. Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381. Van Hoorens, V. (1993). Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 113–139. White, G. L., Fishbein, M., & Rutstein, R. C. (1981). Passionate love and the misattribution of arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 56–62.

Martha Beck is a sociologist, life coach, speaker, and also a New York Times Bestselling author many times over. She holds Bachelor's, Master's and PhD degrees from Harvard, where she also taught Sociology, Social Psychology, Organizational Behavior, and Business Management. Martha has been featured on Oprah and Good Morning America, and has published several New York Times International Bestsellers including Finding Your Own North Star, The Joy Diet, and Expecting Adam.Her newest books are Beyond Anxiety: Curiosity, Creativity and Finding Your Life's Purpose, and The Way of Integrity: Finding the Path to Your True Self, which explores why integrity - being in harmony with ourselves - is the key to a meaningful and joyful life.Follow To Dine For:Official Website: ToDineForTV.comFacebook: Facebook.com/ToDineForTVInstagram: @ToDineForTVTwitter: @KateSullivanTVEmail: ToDineForTV@gmail.com Thank You to our Sponsors!American National InsuranceFollow Our Guest:Official Site: MarthaBeck.comFacebook: Martha BeckInstagram: @TheMarthaBeckFollow The Restaurant:Official Website: The Original Pancake House - Scottsdale, AZ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There's ONE word that's absolutely destroying your progress in recovery. One word that's keeping you stuck, paralyzed, and living in a constant state of shame and disappointment. That word? Should. And sis, you need to stop shoulding all over yourself. Like, right now. Today. Because every time you tell yourself what you "should" be doing, what you "should" have accomplished by now, where you "should" be in your recovery—you're not motivating yourself. You're actually making it HARDER to take action. In this episode, I'm breaking down the science behind why "should" keeps you stuck, where all these "shoulds" come from in the first place, and giving you 5 powerful reframes you can start using TODAY to break free from the shame cycle and actually move forward. In this episode, you'll discover: The ONE word you need to stop using if you want to become the best version of yourself Where your "shoulds" come from (diet culture, perfectionism, family expectations, trauma, comparison) The science: Why "should" is the language of obligation, not empowerment Research from Stanford showing how "should" keeps your brain stuck in self-criticism instead of problem-solving How "shoulding" shows up specifically in eating disorder recovery Lindsey's personal story: "I should be over this by now" (like a bad boyfriend from 3 months ago) 5 powerful reframes to replace your "shoulds" with choice and compassion Why you're not behind, not failing, and not broken The edge: How to stop using "should" as an excuse to stay stuck A tangible homework assignment to catch yourself "shoulding" and reframe it If you've ever thought "I should eat this," "I should start today," "I should be further along," or "I should be over this by now"—this episode is your wake-up call. Stop shoulding. Start choosing. Become who you're BECOMING, not who you "should" be. KEY QUOTES FROM THIS EPISODE

You've got a decision you've been putting off. Maybe it's a career move. An investment. A difficult conversation you keep rehearsing in your head but never starting. You tell yourself you need more information. More data. More time to think. But you're not gathering information. You're hiding behind it. What looks like due diligence is actually overthinking in disguise. The certainty you're waiting for doesn't exist. It won't exist until after you decide and see what happens. I call this mindjacking: when something hijacks your ability to think for yourself. Sometimes it's external. Algorithms, experts, crowds thinking for you. But sometimes you're the one doing it. That endless research? It feels like diligence. It functions as delay. You're not being thorough. You're mindjacking yourself. Today, you'll learn a framework for knowing when you have enough information, even when it doesn't feel like enough. Because deciding before you're ready isn't recklessness. It's a skill. And for most people, that skill has completely atrophied. The Real Cost of Waiting At a California supermarket, researchers set up a tasting booth for gourmet jams. Some days, the display showed 24 varieties. Other days, just six. The bigger display attracted more attention. Sixty percent of people stopped to look. But only three percent actually bought jam. When shoppers saw just six options? Thirty percent purchased. Ten times the conversion rate. More options didn't help people choose. More options paralyzed them. The jam study has been replicated across dozens of categories since then. The pattern holds. More choices, more overthinking, fewer decisions. Think about your postponed decision. How many options are you juggling? How many articles have you read? Every expert you consult, every scenario you play out in your head... you're not getting closer to certainty. You're adding jams to the display. And while you're researching, the world keeps moving. Opportunities close. Competitors act. Your own situation shifts. The decision you're avoiding today won't even be the same decision six months from now. Waiting has a cost. Most people dramatically underestimate it. The Two-Door Framework So how do you know when you have enough information? Jeff Bezos uses a mental model that's useful here. Picture every decision as a door you're about to walk through. Some doors are one-way: once you're through, you can't come back. Selling your company. Getting married. Signing a ten-year lease. These deserve serious deliberation. Most decisions, though, are two-way doors. You walk through, look around, and if you don't like what you see, you walk back out. Starting a side project. Trying a new marketing strategy. Having that difficult conversation. The consequences are real, but they're not permanent. The mistake most people make is treating two-way doors like one-way doors. They apply the same level of analysis to choosing project management software as acquiring a company. They're not being thorough. They're overthinking reversible choices. That's how organizations grind to a halt. That's how careers stall. That's how opportunities evaporate while you're still "thinking about it." Before you gather more information, ask yourself: Can I reverse this? If yes, even if reversing would be annoying, you're probably overthinking it. The 40-70 Rule General Colin Powell used a decision framework he called the 40-70 rule. Military leaders and executives have adopted it for decades. The Floor: 40% Never decide with less than forty percent of the information you'd want. Below that threshold, you're not being decisive. You're gambling. The Ceiling: 70% Don't wait for more than seventy percent. By the time you've gathered that much data, the window has usually closed. Someone else acted. The situation changed. The decision got made for you, by default. The Sweet Spot That range between forty and seventy percent is where good decisions actually happen. It feels uncomfortable because you're not certain. That discomfort isn't a warning sign, though. It's the signal that you're doing it right. Most overthinking happens above seventy percent. You already have what you need. You're just not ready to commit. If deciding feels completely comfortable, you've probably waited too long. The Productive Discomfort Test "I genuinely need more information" and "I'm using research as a hiding place" feel identical from the inside. Both feel responsible. Both feel like due diligence. I once watched a friend spend eleven months researching a career change. She read books. Took assessments. Talked to people in the field. Built spreadsheets comparing options. She knew more about the industry than people working in it. And at month eleven, she was no closer to a decision than at month one. The research had become the activity. The feeling of progress without the risk of commitment. She wasn't preparing. She was hiding. And she couldn't tell the difference. So how do you tell productive research apart from overthinking? Four tests: Test 1: The Flip Question Ask yourself: What specifically would change my decision? Not what would make me more comfortable. What would actually flip my choice? If you can't name something concrete, you're not gathering information. You're stalling. Test 2: The Repetition Check Are you learning genuinely new things? Or finding different sources that confirm what you already suspected? The third article about the same topic isn't research. It's reassurance-seeking dressed up as diligence. Test 3: The Timeline Test Have you set a deadline for deciding? "When I have enough information" isn't a deadline. That's an escape hatch that never closes. A real deadline has a date. It's in your calendar. It arrives whether you're ready or not. Test 4: The Broken Record Test If you keep telling the same people "I'm still thinking about it" for the same decision over weeks or months, that's not thinking. That's avoidance on autopilot. You've become a broken record, and everyone can hear it except you. Here's the uncomfortable truth: if you fail more than one of these tests, you probably already have enough information. You're not under-informed. You're over-attached to the comfort of not having decided yet. The goal isn't to eliminate uncertainty. You can't. The goal is to act while uncertainty is still manageable, while you can still correct course, while the opportunity is still breathing. Your Decision Deadline That decision you've been postponing? It has an expiration date. Not one you set. One that's already running. Every week you wait, the context shifts. The opportunity narrows. The person you'd need to have that conversation with forms new assumptions about your silence. You're not preserving your options by waiting. You're watching them quietly disappear. This week, not someday, identify the decision you've been postponing. The one that popped into your head when this video started. You know exactly which one I mean. Set a deadline. Pick a specific date by which you will decide. Not a date by which you'll have complete information. A date by which you'll commit to a direction. Write it down. Put it in your calendar. Make it real. Then ask the two-door question: Is this reversible? If it is, your deadline should be soon. Days, not months. When that deadline arrives, decide. Not perfectly. Not with complete confidence. Deliberately, with the information you have, knowing you can adjust as you learn more. And once you've decided, set a checkpoint. Pick a date, two weeks out, a month out, when you'll evaluate whether to stay the course or walk back through the door. This isn't second-guessing. It's building the feedback loop that makes two-way doors work. Decide now, verify later. That feeling of deciding before you're fully ready? Get used to it. That's what good decision-making actually feels like. Closing Uncertainty isn't going away. Not for this decision, not for any decision that actually matters. The question is whether you'll learn to act within it, or let it become a permanent excuse. Acting under uncertainty requires energy, though. Mental fuel. And when that fuel runs out, everything changes. That's next time: deciding when you're depleted. Because the hardest decisions in your life won't happen when you're rested and sharp. They'll happen at 10 PM after a brutal day, when someone needs an answer and you're running on empty. Before You Go You've got two choices right now. Choice one: scroll to the next video. Let this become another thing you watched but didn't act on. Choice two: pause for thirty seconds. Think about that decision. Set the deadline. Put it in your calendar before you leave this page. Thirty seconds. That's the difference between insight and action. If mindjacking is a new concept for you, I've got a full episode that breaks down how to spot when your thinking has been hijacked, whether by outside forces or by yourself. Link's below. For those who want to support the work and the team behind these episodes, you can become a paid subscriber on Substack. That link is below too. One question for the comments: What decision are you finally going to stop researching and start making? Your deadline begins now. Sources The Jam Study Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006. The study was conducted at Draeger's Market in Menlo Park, California. PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11138768/ Full paper: https://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/Iyengar%20&%20Lepper%20(2000).pdf The 40-70 Rule Attributed to General Colin Powell. The rule appears in "Quotations from Chairman Powell: A Leadership Primer" by Oren Harari (1996), based on Powell's My American Journey (1995). Powell served as a four-star general in the U.S. Army and as the 65th U.S. Secretary of State (2001-2005). The formula "P = 40 to 70" represents the probability of success based on percentage of information acquired. Source: https://govleaders.org/powell.php The Two-Door Framework Bezos, J. (2015). Letter to Shareholders. Amazon.com, Inc. Annual Report. The framework distinguishes between "Type 1" decisions (one-way doors, irreversible) and "Type 2" decisions (two-way doors, reversible). Bezos elaborated on this in his 2016 shareholder letter, noting that organizations often mistakenly apply heavyweight Type 1 processes to reversible Type 2 decisions. Source: https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/annual/2015-Letter-to-Shareholders.PDF  

“Say you've calculated your price and it comes out at £120,121.  Most would round it down to £120,000.  That's completely wrong.”  That's what Robert Cialdini told me on the latest episode of Nudge.  He also explained why the Prime energy drink first succeeded and then flopped.  How Disney kept us hooked on classic movies.  And how he applies the authority bias to sell his own products.  ---  Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults See Agent Spark in action at ⁠gwi.com/spark⁠ Read Cialdini's bestseller Influence: https://amzn.to/4prHb7Y Read the new and expanded Influence: https://amzn.to/43TY0jI Read Pre-Suasion: https://amzn.to/48hA6Qr  Read Yes! (Containing 60 Psyc-Marketing Tips): https://amzn.to/48ddNNf  Join 10,226 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  --- Today's sources:  Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (New & expanded ed.). Harper Business. Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Happy money: The science of happier spending. Simon & Schuster. Nelissen, R. M. A., & Meijers, M. H. C. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355. West, S. G. (1975). Increasing the attractiveness of college cafeteria food: A reactance theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 656–658. Wilson, P. R. (1968). Perceptual distortion of height as a function of ascribed academic status. Journal of Social Psychology, 74(1), 97–102. Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of scarcity on value perception: The cookie-jar study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(5), 791–799.

Bei einem Psychopath denken wir an Serienkiller und eiskalte Verbrecher – doch das ist nur die halbe Wahrheit. Manche von ihnen bringen es an die Spitze von Unternehmen, glänzen in Medien und Politik oder werden amerikanische Präsidenten. Furchtlosigkeit, Charme und emotionale Kälte – Eigenschaften, die zerstörerisch wirken können, sind zugleich oft Schlüssel zu Macht und Erfolg. Atze und Leon erforschen die “helle” Seite der Psychopathie. Was entscheidet über gut und böse? Wie ticken erfolgreiche Psychopathen? Und was können wir von ihnen lernen? Fühlt euch gut betreut Leon & Atze Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/leonwindscheid/ https://www.instagram.com/atzeschroeder_offiziell/ Mehr zu unseren Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/betreutesfuehlen Tickets: Atze: https://www.atzeschroeder.de/#termine Leon: https://leonwindscheid.de/tour/ Vorverkauf 2026: https://betreutes-fuehlen.ticket.io/ Empfehlungen Frühere Folgen Betreutes Fühlen zu Psychopathie: 21.01.2021 - Psychpopathen entlarven https://betreutesfuehlen.podigee.io/68-psychopathen-entlarven 02.04.2024 - Psychisch krank hinter Gittern https://betreutesfuehlen.podigee.io/237-psychisch-krank-hinter-gittern Quellen Fallon, J. (2015): Der Psychopath in mir: Die Entdeckungsreise eines Naturwissenschaftlers zur dunklen Seite seiner Persönlichkeit, Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung. Artikel zu Fallon in The Guardian und im Stern: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/03/how-i-discovered-i-have-the-brain-of-a-psychopath https://www.stern.de/panorama/verbrechen/stern-crime/interviews/james-fallon---ich-habe-das-gehirn-eines-psychopathen--9385266.html Interview mit Fallon im Deutschlandfunk: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/das-verbrechergehirn-die-neuvermessung-des-boesen-100.html Amerikanische Präsidenten: Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S. & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. Presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 489-505. Dutton K (2012): The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success Übersichtsarbeit: Wallace, L., Fido, D., Sumich, A. L., & Heym, N. (2022). A systematic review on the current conceptualisations of successful psychopathy. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 3, 100076. Furchtlose Dominanz am Arbeitsplatz: Blickle, G., & Schütte, N. (2017). Trait psychopathy, task performance, and counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 225-231. Psychopathie-Checklist: Mokros, A., Hollerbach, P., Nitschke, J., & Habermeyer, E. (2017). PCL-R: Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: deutsche Version der Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) von RD Hare. Hogrefe. Psychopathie im Berufsleben: Blickle, G., & Schütte, N. (2017). Trait psychopathy, task performance, and counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 225-231. Redaktion: Andy Hartard / Julia Ditzer Produktion: Murmel Productions

SEASON: 6 EPISODE: 11Episode Overview:Welcome back to Becoming Preferred, the podcast that arms you with the strategies to stop chasing and start attracting your ideal clients! I'm your host, Michael Vickers, and if you're a business professional or entrepreneur, you know the struggle: you have an incredible service, but cutting through the noise to establish yourself as the trusted authority feels impossible.Today, we are tackling the single most powerful B2B platform: LinkedIn. It's time to stop using your profile as a dusty online resume and start transforming it into a definitive lead generation engine. Our guest and his team have cracked the code on building genuine authority and measurable revenue through a high-conversion LinkedIn strategy. He's here to share the secrets to becoming the preferred provider in your niche.We're diving into everything: from the critical shift your profile must make, to the high-converting framework for direct messaging, and Shay's simple, actionable advice you can implement today.Get ready to take notes, because this episode is how you master the art of B2B LinkedIn. Join me for my conversation with Shay Thieberg!Guest Bio: Shay is the Co-Founder of MAIA Digital - a LinkedIn Marketing Agency. Specializing in LinkedIn marketing, Shay holds a Masters degree in Social Psychology & Decision-Making. Shay is among 30 Global LinkedIn Certified Experts and Faculty members at Reichmann University where he teaches “B2B Marketing for Tech”.Resource Links:Website: https://team-maia.com/Product Link: https://team-maia.com/b2b-linkedin-strategy/Insight Gold Timestamps:03:31 That was a lesson that I learned by myself that I can control my own life and path05:21 My ADHD is my superpower07:43 LinkedIn picked me10:07 So, we're calling it the LinkedIn trifecta11:33 The only thing that I did is post valuable insightful tips, hacks, and content for people to be able to use17:16 I'm calling it T to B: Trust to Business18:43 He wrote the post, I'm riding his wave, but I'm writing a thoughtful comment23:00 I built a program that analyzes your entire LinkedIn analytics24:37 And it's got to be authentic and you've got to be transparent with it25:58 Stop thinking about posting content and start thinking about sharing your thoughts28:58 I'm also a certified psychologist34:36 People want to purchase, they don't want to be sold38:10 The main two mistakes that people actually do...39:21 Try to diversify your content because eventually people buy from people41:17 I'm measuring my LinkedIn success, my ROL (Return On LinkedIn) by the amount of messages that I'm getting in my inbox46:30 The website is team-maia.comConnect Socially:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shay-thieberg/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MAIA.DIGITAL.LINKEDINYouTube:

(Disclaimer: Click 'more' to see ad disclosure) Geobreeze Travel is part of an affiliate sales network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites, such as MileValue.com. This compensation may impact how and where links appear on this site. This site does not include all financial companies or all available financial offers. Terms apply to American Express benefits and offers. Enrollment may be required for select American Express benefits and offers. Visit americanexpress.com to learn more.  ➤ Free points 101 course (includes hotel upgrade email template)https://geobreezetravel.com/freecourse  ➤ Free credit card consultations https://airtable.com/apparEqFGYkas0LHl/shrYFpUr2zutt5515 ➤ Seats.Aero: https://geobreezetravel.com/seatsaero ➤ Request a free personalized award search tutorial: https://go.geobreezetravel.com/ast-form If you are interested in supporting this show when you apply for your next card, check out https://geobreezetravel.com/cards and if you're not sure what card is right for you, I offer free credit card consultations athttps://geobreezetravel.com/consultations!Timestamps:00:00 Introduction to Social Psychology and Empathy00:18 Meet Hunter: The Points and Miles Expert00:48 Psychological Patterns in Points and Miles01:44 Hunter's Journey into Points and Miles03:49 Understanding Risk and Reward in Points and Miles05:10 Strategies for Beginners and Advanced Players07:37 Optimizing Your Points and Miles Game09:57 Setting Realistic Expectations and Goals12:37 The Psychology of Disappointment and Change20:28 Maximizing Joy and Convincing a Partner23:19 Empathy in Relationships and Loyalty Programs30:23 Final Tips and Where to Find HunterYou can find Julia at: ➤ Free course: https://julia-s-school-9209.thinkific.com/courses/your-first-points-redemption➤ Website: https://geobreezetravel.com/➤ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/geobreezetravel/➤ Credit card links: https://www.geobreezetravel.com/cards➤ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/geobreezetravelYou can find Hunter at:➤ Website: https://thepointsanalyst.com/ ➤ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/professorofpoints/ ➤ Conference (FTU): https://frequenttraveleruniversity.com/ Opinions expressed here are the author's alone, not those of any bank, credit card issuer, hotel, airline, or other entity. This content has not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of the entities included within the post. The content of this video is accurate as of the posting date. Some of the offers mentioned may no longer be available.

This study analysed 6,700 websites in an unprecedented A/B test.  The results proved something that Dr Robert Cialdini had been preaching for years.  Today, on Nudge, Robert Cialdini joins me again, covering another of his seven principles of persuasion.  And I share a marketing lesson that (I think) every business needs to know. ---  Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults See Agent Spark in action at gwi.com/spark Read Cialdini's bestseller Influence: https://amzn.to/4prHb7Y Read the new and expanded Influence: https://amzn.to/43TY0jI Read Pre-Suasion: https://amzn.to/48hA6Qr  Read Yes! (Containing 60 Psyc-Marketing Tips): https://amzn.to/48ddNNf  Join 10,189 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  ---  Today's sources:  Bell, T. [Taylor Bell]. (2025, February 13). Inside Trader Joe's: The genius strategy behind its cult following (and low prices) [Video]. YouTube. Bornstein, R. F., Leone, D. R., & Galley, D. J. (1987). The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: Influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1070–1079. Browne, D., & Swarbrick-Jones, A. (2017). The science of persuasion in e-commerce: An analysis of 6,700 online A/B tests. Conversion Rate Experts. Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(17), 6889–6892. Drachman, D., deCarufel, A., & Insko, C. A. (1978). The extra credit effect in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(5), 458–465. Fang, X., Singh, S. N., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 97–103. Gladka, A., & Żemła, M. (2016). Effectiveness of reciprocal rule in tourism: Evidence from a city tourist restaurant. European Journal of Service Management, 17(1), 57–63. Mita, T. H., Dermer, M., & Knight, J. (1977). Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(8), 597–601. Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau, L. D., & Sethi, R. (2001). The role of interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 3–15. Razran, G. (1940). Conditioned response changes in rating and appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 37(6), 481–493. Shotton, R. (2023). The illusion of choice: 16½ psychological biases that influence what we buy. Harriman House. Strohmetz, D. B., Rind, B., Fisher, R., & Lynn, M. (2002). Sweetening the till: The use of candy to increase restaurant tipping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 300–309. Zajonc, R. B., & Rajecki, D. W. (1969). Exposure and affect: A field experiment. Psychonomic Science, 17(4), 216–217.

Send us a textWhat if the next 30 days weren't about fixing everything… but about proving something to yourself? In this episode, I invite you into a challenge that's intentionally simple, quietly powerful, and very different from the usual “do more, be more” approach. If you've ever felt overwhelmed by goals, burned out by resets, or frustrated that motivation fades faster than you expected—this conversation is for you.If you're ready for a challenge that travels with you, adapts to real life, and strengthens your relationship with yourself—press play and walk with me.Quote of the Week:“Challenges are what make life interesting and overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.” — Joshua J. MarineCitations:Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.Let's go, let's get it done. Get more information at: http://projectweightloss.org

Die Themen in den Wissensnachrichten: +++ 2025 war das drittwärmste Jahr seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen +++ Berufstätige bekommen über 50 Mails am Tag +++ Dauerhaftes Single-Sein macht Jüngere unglücklich +++**********Weiterführende Quellen zu dieser Folge:Global Climate Highlights 2025, Copernicus, 14.01.2026Beruflicher Mailverkehr erreicht neuen Höchststand, Bitkom, 13.01.2026NASA to Provide Live Coverage of Crew-11 Return, Splashdown, Nasa, 13.01.2026Life satisfaction, loneliness, and depressivity in consistently single young adults in Germany and the United Kingdom, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13.01.2026Virulence on Pm4 kinase-based resistance is determined by two divergent wheat powdery mildew effectors, nature plants, 12.01.2026Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

In 1963, the Milgram experiments revealed something unsettling.  Most people kept administering what they believed were painful electric shocks, not because they wanted to, but because they couldn't bring themselves to say no.  In this episode, my guest shares why we agree to extra projects, unpaid favours and unreasonable requests even when we know we shouldn't.  I'm joined by behavioural scientist and physician Dr Sunita Sah of Cornell University. She studies how social pressure and conflict-of-interest disclosures can quietly steer us toward yes. --- Read Sunita's book Defy: https://amzn.to/48LsreG  Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Join 10,428 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  --- Today's sources:  Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. Sah, S. (2025). Defy: The power of no in a world that demands yes. One World. Sah, S., Loewenstein, G. F., & Cain, D. M. (2013). The burden of disclosure: Increased compliance with distrusted advice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 289–304. Sah, S., Loewenstein, G. F., & Cain, D. M. (2019). Insinuation anxiety: Concern that advice rejection will signal distrust after conflict of interest disclosures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1099–1112. Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15–30.

Does getting promoted literally rewire your brain to lose empathy? The science says YES.

In this festive descent into methodological despair, Chris and Matt convene a secret cabal of elite psychology podcasters within the Decoding Cloister, operating under the distant yet reassuring gaze of Arch-Wizard Paul Bloom, whose role is largely ceremonial but nonetheless morally binding.Joining them are Dave Pizarro (Very Bad Wizards) and Michael Inzlicht (Two Psychologists Four Beers, emeritus), for what can only be described as an end-of-year audit of social psychology's moral character.What follows is a mixture of intense hubris, disciplinary self-loathing, and revolutionary insights, delivered via one of the most sadistic Christmas quizzes ever devised. The quiz format allows the episode to do what psychology does best: create the feeling of measurement while hovering dangerously close to intuition.Alongside the quiz, we engage in some meta-commentary and sensemaking reflections on audience capture and the state of psychology-themed podcasts in 2025. In other words, it's Christmas, so naturally everyone is discussing perverse incentives, damaged reputations, and the slow moral corrosion of institutions.So join us, won't you? For the first International Congress on Psychology-Themed Podcasting and Gurus…LinksMickey's SubstackMickey's Work and Play LabTwo Psychologists Four BeersVery Bad WizardsUhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72-81.Ovsyannikova, D., de Mello, V. O., & Inzlicht, M. (2025). Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans. Communications Psychology, 3(1), 4.ReferencesAlter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576.Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 18–28.Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243–256.Resnick, B. (2018, June 13). The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud. Vox.Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. University of Minnesota Press.

The voice in our head can be an asset at times - but also kind of a jerk at the worst possible moments. And like that one person in the “quiet car” of the train that doesn't seem to understand the rules, it never seems to be quiet when we need it to.A 2014 study identified a self-talk strategy that led to improved performances, and less post-performance shame and rumination.And it doesn't require us to shush the inner critic entirely (whew, because that's really difficult!). It's just a small, simple - yet quirky - tweak that anyone can do.Get all the nerdy details here:How a Small Change in Self-Talk Could Improve Performance Under PressureReferencesKross, E., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., Park, J., Burson, A., Dougherty, A., Shablack, H., Bremner, R., Moser, J., & Ayduk, O. (2014). Self-talk as a regulatory mechanism: How you do it matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035173More from The Bulletproof Musician Get the free weekly newsletter, for more nerdy details and bonus subscriber-only content. Pressure Proof: A free 7-day performance practice crash course that will help you shrink the gap between the practice room and the stage. Learning Lab: A continuing education community where musicians and learners are putting research into practice. Live and self-paced courses

Seriously.  Don't listen to this episode.  Whatever you do.  Don't. Press.  Play. (Warning: this episode contains explicit language.) --- Adam's agency: https://thinkerbell.com/ Adam's books: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/author/B07K5R1MTX Sign up for my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/ Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ --- Today's sources Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., & Lipetz, M. E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: The Romeo and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(1), 1–10. Heath, R. (2006). Brand relationships: strengthened by emotion, weakened by attention. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), 410–419. Maimaran, M., & Fishbach, A. (2014). If it's useful and you know it, do you eat? Preschoolers refrain from instrumental food. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 642–655. Mazar, N., & Soman, D. (Eds.). (2022). Behavioral science in the wild: Behaviorally informed organizations. University of Toronto Press. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450–461.

Author Kyle Siler discusses the article, "Information Frequency, Value, and Difficulty as Sources of Social Inequality: Competitive Imbalances on Jeopardy!" published in the December 2025 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

Professor Keon West has long been interested in the gap between what people think they know about racism and what the science actually shows.Alongside his academic work, he regularly appears at events like Cheltenham Science Festival, opening up conversations about bias, scientific literacy, and why facts matter even in the most emotionally charged topics.In this episode, we talk about applying science to racism, the misconceptions that persist, and what happens when research meets real-world audiences.

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3214: Dr. Bonnie Le unpacks how major relationship milestones, like moving in, marrying, or ending a relationship, affect our happiness and emotional health. Her research-backed insights reveal that while we often expect lasting emotional highs or lows from these events, our well-being tends to stabilize more quickly than we anticipate. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://www.luvze.com/how-do-important-relationship-events-impact-our-well-being/ Quotes to ponder: "Major life events, especially in romantic relationships, can have powerful effects on well-being, but not always in the ways we expect." "While many assume that breakups will devastate us, research suggests that the impact is often less severe and more short-lived than we predict." "Getting married is associated with a temporary increase in well-being, but over time, people generally return to their prior level of happiness." Episode references: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp Daniel Gilbert's research on affective forecasting: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_the_psychology_of_your_future_self Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3214: Dr. Bonnie Le unpacks how major relationship milestones, like moving in, marrying, or ending a relationship, affect our happiness and emotional health. Her research-backed insights reveal that while we often expect lasting emotional highs or lows from these events, our well-being tends to stabilize more quickly than we anticipate. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://www.luvze.com/how-do-important-relationship-events-impact-our-well-being/ Quotes to ponder: "Major life events, especially in romantic relationships, can have powerful effects on well-being, but not always in the ways we expect." "While many assume that breakups will devastate us, research suggests that the impact is often less severe and more short-lived than we predict." "Getting married is associated with a temporary increase in well-being, but over time, people generally return to their prior level of happiness." Episode references: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp Daniel Gilbert's research on affective forecasting: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_the_psychology_of_your_future_self Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

His book Influence sold 5 million times.  He's known as the Godfather of Influence.  He's arguably the best-known behavioural science practitioner.  And he's finally (after years of pestering) joining me on Nudge.  Ladies and gentlemen, today I present:  Robert Cialdini and the persuasion principles that EVERYONE should memorise. ---  Cialdini's Influence Unleashed Event: https://cialdini.com/decevent Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Read Cialdini's bestseller Influence: https://amzn.to/4prHb7Y Read the new and expanded Influence: https://amzn.to/43TY0jI Read Pre-Suasion: https://amzn.to/48hA6Qr  Read Yes! (Containing 60 Psyc-Marketing Tips): https://amzn.to/48ddNNf  Join 10,142 readers of my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  ---  Today's sources: Agnew, P. (Host). (2021, November 22). #69: Reciprocity | How one nudge saved 246,184 lives [Audio podcast episode]. In Nudge – Marketing Science Simplified. YouTube. https://youtu.be/0QxcahCnoCs Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins. Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 463–476. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. Friedman, H. H., & Rahman, A. (2011). The effect of a gift-upon-entry on sales: Reciprocity in a retailing context. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(15), 155–162. Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627–639.

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we will discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.   In today's episode, Chris and Dr. Abbie explore cognitive dissonance, focusing on its impact on self-concept and emotional regulation. They discuss how dissonance occurs when actions conflict with core beliefs, creating psychological tension. Emphasizing self-awareness and reflection, they warn against rationalizing harmful behaviors and highlight the importance of embracing discomfort for personal growth and identity development. [Dec 1, 2025]     00:00 - Intro 00:26 - Dr. Abbie Maroño Intro 00:43 - Intro Links -          Social-Engineer.com - http://www.social-engineer.com/ -          Offensive Security Vishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/vishing/ -          Offensive Security SMiShing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Offensive Security Phishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Call Back Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/call-back-phishing/ -          Adversarial Simulation Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/adversarial-simulation/ -          Social Engineering Risk Assessments - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/social-engineering-risk-assessment/ -          Social-Engineer channel on SLACK - https://social-engineering-hq.slack.com/ssb -          CLUTCH - http://www.pro-rock.com/ -          innocentlivesfoundation.org - http://www.innocentlivesfoundation.org/                 02:40 - The Topic of the Day: What is Cognitive Dissonance? 05:53 - A Threat to Self-Concept 07:49 - Commitment to Consistency 09:51 - Freedom to Choose 10:51 - Changing Beliefs 14:19 - Trying to Escape 18:21 - Going From Bad to Worse 21:53 - Self-Awareness is Key! 24:55 - Growth Hurts 28:49 - Everything, Not All At Once 29:43 - It's Not A Flaw 31:11 -  Wrap Up 31:36 - Next Month's Topic: Is Everyone a Psychopath? 31:52 - Outro -          www.social-engineer.com -          www.innocentlivesfoundation.org   Find us online: -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd -          Instagram: @DoctorAbbieofficial -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy     References: Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1–34. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. Schumann, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2014). Who accepts responsibility for their transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1608–1622. Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183–242. Staub, E. (1990). Moral exclusion, personal goal theory, and extreme destructiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 47–64. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261–302. van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., Schooler, J. W., & Carter, C. S. (2009). Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance. Nature Neuroscience, 12(11), 1469–1474.

In this solo episode, Darin explores a radical idea backed by ancient wisdom and modern neuroscience: that awe — a single embodied moment of wonder — may be the fastest biological doorway to expanding consciousness. Drawing on cutting-edge research, timeless spiritual traditions, and personal stories, Darin reveals how awe reduces inflammation, rewires the brain, quiets the ego, boosts vagal tone, expands time perception, and reconnects us to meaning in a world drowning in distraction.     What You'll Learn in This Episode 00:00 — Welcome to SuperLife: igniting sovereignty, possibility, and human potential 00:32 — Sponsor: Therasage — the most nutrient-dense food on Earth 01:51 — Today's topic: Awe as a biological shortcut to consciousness 02:00 — The definition of awe: when the world becomes bigger than your understanding 02:17 — Awe literally changes the brain — research from Dacher Keltner 02:23 — What if the fastest way to expand consciousness isn't meditation or psychedelics… but a single moment of awe? 02:34 — "Embodied awe" as a key humans have overlooked 02:41 — Science is catching up — the physiological effects of awe 02:47 — Awe reduces inflammation, rewires neural pathways, and increases connection 02:55 — Modern life has cut us off from awe — but nature left a back door 03:02 — Awe as a temporary collapse of ego → widening of consciousness 03:12 — What awe feels like: chest expansion, mind quieting, heart opening 03:22 — Awe is triggered by vastness — moments that shift your framework 03:31 — Awe motivates us to transcend self-interest and connect to something bigger 03:47 — Examples of awe: star-filled sky, ancient trees, rivers carving canyons 04:01 — 90% of humans can't see the stars anymore — light pollution crisis 04:23 — Awe in music, nature, micro-patterns, the beauty of small things 05:00 — Awe in ancient traditions: Darshan, Greek thauma, Biblical reverence 05:12 — Darin's hawk story — the personal power of unexpected awe 06:03 — The science of awe: IL-6, immune markers, inflammation reduction 06:28 — Awe quiets the Default Mode Network — the home of the ego 06:43 — Less rumination → more presence, clarity, and connection 07:06 — Awe expands time perception — Stanford research on "time abundance" 07:32 — Awe increases generosity, altruism, pro-social behavior 08:04 — Awe boosts vagal tone: calm, resilience, emotional regulation 08:22 — Why we are STARVING for awe — screens, indoor living, disconnection 08:57 — Sponsor: Caldera Lab 11:33 — "We've traded the vastness of the universe for tiny screens." 11:40 — How to reclaim awe: look at the sky, clouds, moon, trees 11:53 — Let your eyes adjust to nature again 12:03 — Astronomical awe puts your problems in perspective 12:14 — Awe as emotional first-aid: go outside, find the horizon 12:30 — Limit phone time — reduce micro-dopamine addiction 13:02 — Micro-awe: the patterns in a leaf, the sunlight through branches 13:12 — Nature is always available — if you choose it 13:16 — Awe as the ultimate nervous-system reset 13:27 — Circadian alignment: dim lights, follow nature 13:56 — Humility = freedom — awe repositions your place in the universe 14:19 — Awe is biological, spiritual, emotional nourishment 14:27 — Awe is the ultimate bio-hack 14:35 — Awe reduces inflammation, expands time, deepens empathy 14:46 — "Awe is the gateway to the self-transcendent." 14:55 — If you want more meaning, vitality, and connection — start with awe 15:02 — Awe reduces stress, boosts empathy, reconnects you to your soul 15:18 — Awe reconnects you to what actually matters 15:30 — Final message: Have yourself the best SuperLife day ever     Thank You to Our Sponsors: Therasage: Go to www.therasage.com and use code DARIN at checkout for 15% off Caldera Lab: Experience the clinically proven benefits of Caldera Lab's clean skincare regimen and enjoy 20% off your order by visiting calderalab.com/darin and using code DARIN at checkout.     Join the SuperLife Community Get Darin's deeper wellness breakdowns — beyond social media restrictions: Weekly voice notes Ingredient deep dives Wellness challenges Energy + consciousness tools Community accountability Extended episodes Join for $7.49/month → https://patreon.com/darinolien     Find More from Darin Olien: Instagram: @darinolien Podcast: SuperLife Podcast Website: superlife.com Book: Fatal Conveniences     Key Takeaway "Awe isn't entertainment — it's medicine. It's the biological, emotional, and spiritual nourishment your body has been starving for. Reclaim awe, and you reclaim your soul."     Bibliography & Research Sources Bai, Y., Ocampo, J., Jin, G., Chen, S., Benet-Martínez, V., Monroy, M., Anderson, C., & Keltner, D. (2021). Awe, daily stress, and well-being. Emotion, 21(4), 562–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000638 Chirico, A., & Yaden, D. B. (2018). Awe: A self-transcendent emotion. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2353. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02353 International Dark-Sky Association (DarkSky) & NASA. (n.d.). Light pollution and night sky brightness data. NASA Earth Observatory / DarkSky International. https://darksky.org/resources/ or https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/NightLights Keltner, D. (2023). Awe: The new science of everyday wonder and how it can transform your life. Penguin Press. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/622177/awe-by-dacher-keltner/ Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302297 Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books. http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/ Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 883–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000018 Pollan, M. (2018). How to change your mind: What the new science of psychedelics teaches us about consciousness, dying, addiction, depression, and transcendence. Penguin Press. https://michaelpollan.com/books/how-to-change-your-mind/ Rudd, M., Vohs, K. D., & Aaker, J. (2012). Awe expands people's perception of time, alters decision making, and enhances well-being. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1130–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612438731 Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Emotion, 7(4), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.944 Stellar, J. E., John-Henderson, N., Anderson, C. L., Gordon, A. M., McNeil, G. D., & Keltner, D. (2015). Positive affect and markers of inflammation: Discrete positive emotions predict lower levels of proinflammatory cytokines. Emotion, 15(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000033  

In this episode, host and producer of The Psychology of Self-Injury podcast, Dr. Nicholas Westers, shares his own thoughts about how media portray nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) as well as suicide and mass shootings. He walks us through media guidelines for responsibly reporting and depicting each in the news, including the first ever NSSI media guidelines he published with ISSS colleagues. This marks the second solo episode of the podcast.Media Guidelines:Suicide: Read the suicide reporting guidelines published by the World Health Organization (WHO) here, learn about ethical reporting guidelines for media put forth by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) here, and visit reportingonsuicide.org to review those offered by Suicide Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE).Mass Shootings: Read about media guidelines for responsible reporting on mass shootings put forth by the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) at www.rtdna.org/mass-shootings or visit reportingonmassshootings.org (this link is not currently active but could be reactivated in the future).Nonsuicidal Self-Injury (NSSI): Read about our International Society for the Study of Self-Injury (ISSS) media guidelines for NSSI and self-harm below. Watch Dr. Westers' interview with the British Journal of Psychiatry, the journal that published these guidelines here. See excellent resources provided by the Self-Injury & Recovery Resources (SIRR) at Cornell University at selfinjury.bctr.cornell.edu, including resources for the media here. Below are additional resources referenced in this episode.Westers, N. J., Lewis, S. P., Whitlock, J., Schatten, H. T., Ammerman, B., Andover, M. S., & Lloyd-Richardson, E. E.(2021). Media guidelines for the responsible reporting and depicting of non-suicidal self-injury. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 219(2), 415-418.Westers, N. J. (2024). Media representations of nonsuicidal self-injury. In E. E. Lloyd-Richardson, I. Baetens, & J. Whitlock (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of nonsuicidal self-injury (pp. 771-786). Oxford University Press.Phillips, D. P. (1974). The influence of suggestion on suicide: Substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review, 39(3), 340–354.Niederkrotenthaler, T., Voracek, M., Herberth, A., Till, B., Strauss, M., Etzersdorfer, E., Eisenwort, B., & Sonneck, G. (2010). Role of media reports in completed and prevented suicide: Werther v. Papageno effects. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 197(3), 234– 243.Follow Dr. Westers on Instagram and Twitter/X (@DocWesters). To join ISSS, visit itriples.org and follow ISSS on Facebook and Twitter/X (@ITripleS).The Psychology of Self-Injury podcast has been rated as one of the "10 Best Self Harm Podcasts" and "20 Best Clinical Psychology Podcasts" by Feedspot  and one of the Top 100 Psychology Podcasts by Goodpods. It has also been featured in Audible's "Best Mental Health Podcasts to Defy Stigma and Begin to Heal."

My guest on today's episode of Nudge has spent decades studying leaders.  I asked Prof. Adam Galinsky to share his top five (evidence-backed) leadership tips.  Want to become a better leader?  This is the episode for you.  ---  Watch the bonus episode: https://nudge.kit.com/a53ff22931  Read Adam's book: https://amzn.to/4htZCGc Sign up for my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/ Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ --- Blunden, H., Kristal, A. S., Whillans, A. V., Yoon, J., Burd, K., Bremner, S., & Yeomans, M. (2025). Eliciting advice instead of feedback improves developmental input. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 193, 104343. Chou, E. Y., Halevy, N., Galinsky, A. D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2017). The Goldilocks contract: The synergistic benefits of combining structure and autonomy for persistence, creativity, and cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 393–412. Hoff, M., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2025). The vicious cycle of status insecurity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(1), 101–122. Leonardelli, G. J., Gu, J., McRuer, G., Medvec, V. H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 64–82. Liljenquist, K. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Turn your adversary into your advocate: Strategic requests for advice can transform disputes into amiable problem-solving ventures. Kellogg Insight. Northwestern University. Majer, J. M., Trötschel, R., Galinsky, A. D., & Loschelder, D. D. (2020). Open to offers, but resisting requests: How the framing of anchors affects motivation and negotiated outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(3), 582–599. Wu, S. J., & Paluck, E. L. (2022). Having a voice in your group: Increasing productivity through group participation. Behavioural Public Policy, 9(1), 192–211.

In this week's episode, both of our storytellers bite off a bit more than they can chew. Part 1: Fresh out of college and in what seems like her dream job, drug and alcohol coach Rhana Hashemi quickly realizes she has no idea how to connect with the high school students she's supposed to help. Part 2: When Paul Davis and his wife struggle to get pregnant, they decide to foster a pregnant dog—and things escalate quickly.Rhana Hashemi is a Bay Area–based drug educator, national expert in youth overdose prevention, and Ph.D. candidate in Social Psychology at Stanford University. Her research adapts Lifting the Bar for youth who use substances. This intervention, called More Than That, elevates youth voices to show educators that a student is "more than" their substance use. By reducing stigma and strengthening student–teacher relationships, she demonstrates how seeing and empowering students can protect against risky drug use. Rhana is also the founder and Executive Director of Know Drugs, the first youth-focused harm reduction organization in the United States, which advances evidence-based drug education for young people. Bridging social psychology with community partnerships, she works to reduce drug misuse and promote more compassionate, effective responses to youth substance use.Paul Davis writes and directs horror movies. His last short won Screamfest and Ravenheart, two of the biggest horror film festivals in the U.S. and Europe. He is currently raising funds to expand it into a feature. Paul is passionate about storytelling. He has had stories air on NPR and published in Reader's Digest. He is also working on a solo-storytelling show. You can reach him on Instragram @pauldavisfilmmaker or gangoflightproductions@gmail.com See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we will discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.   In today's episode, Chris and Dr. Abbie discuss the complexities of ambition, emphasizing its connection to identity and intrinsic motivation. They explore how ambition can be healthy or obsessive, influenced by personality traits and life experiences. Their conversation warns against destructive ambition, which can harm relationships and ethical standards, and stresses the importance of regularly redefining success to maintain a healthy balance. [Nov 3, 2025]     00:00 - Intro 00:45 - Dr. Abbie Maroño Intro 01:01 - Intro Links -          Social-Engineer.com - http://www.social-engineer.com/ -          Offensive Security Vishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/vishing/ -          Offensive Security SMiShing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Offensive Security Phishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Call Back Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/call-back-phishing/ -          Adversarial Simulation Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/adversarial-simulation/ -          Social Engineering Risk Assessments - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/social-engineering-risk-assessment/ -          Social-Engineer channel on SLACK - https://social-engineering-hq.slack.com/ssb -          CLUTCH - http://www.pro-rock.com/ -          innocentlivesfoundation.org - http://www.innocentlivesfoundation.org/                 02:35 - The Topic of the Day: Healthy vs. Obsessive Ambition 05:58 - Narcissism for Good 06:42 - Building Ambition 08:26 - Ambition the Destructor! 10:05 - Take the Long Road Home 15:18 - Development 17:02 - Social Obsession 19:02 - The Gift of Adversity 22:45 - From the Inside 26:35 - Dichotomies 29:02 - Redefining Success 31:27 - Growing Values 33:28 - Healthy or Obsessive??? 34:44 - Wrap Up 34:57 - Next Moth: Cognitive Dissonance 35:10 - Outro -          www.social-engineer.com -          www.innocentlivesfoundation.org   Find us online: -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd -          Instagram: @DoctorAbbieofficial -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy     References: Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes and consequences of ambition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 758-775. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand. Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Schulz, R. (2003). The importance of goal disengagement in adaptive self- regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 503-508.

We've all had those moments when a simple shift in perspective suddenly makes everything feel possible, and that's exactly what this episode explores.Debbie is joined in this episode, Stanford psychologist Gregory Walton for a conversation about his book Ordinary Magic and how small shifts in the way we think can lead to big changes in our lives and communities.From the way we handle tough moments and self-doubt to how institutions support students or help juvenile offenders find their footing again, Gregory shows how simple, well-designed interventions can make a powerful difference. He shares real-life stories and research that reveal how even a single encouraging message can transform someone's outlook.At its heart, this conversation is all about perspective, compassion, and the power of listening, reminding us that meaningful change often starts with the smallest, most human gestures.Listen to POTC ad-free for just $5 a month by becoming a Mega Supporter on Patreon! Or, support the podcast with a one-time donation at Buy Me A Coffee!Listen and Learn: How simple shifts in perspective, rooted in social psychology, can create what feels like “ordinary magic,” helping us navigate life's challenges with greater wisdom and claritySpotting and stepping out of the emotional spirals that quietly shape your relationships, helping you break the cycle and build real connections insteadHow our strongest reactions often reveal deeper questions like “Do I really belong?” or “Do they really love me?” and how noticing those moments can turn conflict into connectionThe surprising ways tiny facts shape big theories about ourselves and others, and why a change in perspective can transform the storyHow the cycles that shape our relationships, sense of belonging, and life trajectory are not fixed, and how small, intentional interventions can create lasting positive changeA nuanced approach to belonging, self-esteem, and growth, showing how the subtle ways we respond to people's questions about themselves can truly shape their confidence and resilience.Building honest, meaningful relationships, especially for young people facing huge challenges, can create transformative change in schools and communitiesResources: Ordinary Magic: The Science of How We Can Achieve Big Change with Small Acts https://bookshop.org/a/30734/9780593580899 Gregory's Website: https://www.gregorywalton.com/A blog post by Debbie on praising children and the problem with the self-esteem movementConnect with Gregory on Social Media: https://www.instagram.com/dr.gdubAbout Dr. Gregory WaltonDr. Gregory Walton is the Michael Forman University Fellow and professor of psychology at Stanford University. Much of his research investigates psychological processes that contribute to major social problems, and how brief psychological interventions that target these processes can address such problems and help people flourish over long periods of time. Greg's research has been published in leading scientific journals, and has been covered in major media outlets including the New York Times, Harvard Business Review, The Wall Street Journal, and NPR. He has received awards from numerous organizations including from the American Education Research Association, the American Psychological Association, the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. He earned his A.B. in Philosophy from Stanford and a PhD in Psychology from Yale University. His new book is called Ordinary Magic: The Science of How We Can Achieve Big Change with Small Acts. Related Episodes: 422. Mindwise with Nicholas Epley393. Supercommunicators with Charles Duhigg 281. Belonging Uncertainty and Bridging Divides with Geoffrey Cohen255. Influence is Your Superpower with Zoe Chance212. Stuff That's Loud: OCD and Anxiety with Lisa Coyne and Ben Sedley – Psychologists Off the Clock 200. Growing Grit with Angela Duckworth – Psychologists Off the Clock See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode we welcome Dr. Sarah Stein Lubrano, a political scientist who studies how cognitive dissonance affects all sorts of political behavior. She's also the co-host of a podcast about activism called "What Do We Want?" and she wrote a book titled Don't Talk About Politics which is about how to discuss politics without necessarily talking about politics.Sarah Stein Lubrano's WebsiteSarah Stein Lubrano's SubstackSarah Stein Lubrano's TwitterKittedHow Minds ChangeDavid McRaney's TwitterYANSS TwitterShow NotesNewsletterPatreon Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dr. Heather Lench is Professor in Psychological and Brain Sciences and Senior Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs at Texas A&M University. Heather's research focuses on emotions, and how emotions affect people, their thinking, and their behavior. She is particularly interested in anger and boredom. In her free time, Heather enjoys exploring a variety of hobbies, and her favorite pastimes continue to change over time. She loves going scuba diving, painting, reading, long-distance running, and glassblowing. A few years ago, she also began to experiment with building things with power tools, including fences and stairs. She received her undergraduate degree in psychology from Florida State University, her Master's degree in Experimental Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy from California State University, Fresno, and her PhD in Social Psychology from the University of California, Irvine. After completing her PhD, Heather joined the faculty at Texas A&M University in 2007. She has received numerous awards and honors for her work, including the American Psychological Association New Investigator Award, the Texas A&M University Faculty Merit Award, and she is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, and the American Psychological Association. In this interview, Heather shares more about her life and science.