As a former professor of psychology and psychiatry, and a behavioral scientist who has studied, taught and researched motivation, behavior change, addictive behavior and personal and community health interventions in the U.S. and Africa for 30+ years, I would like to share some of the psychological and behavioral science regarding why vaccine mandates cannot (and should not) be attempted, much less work. That is, when it comes to human behavior. (I’ll leave the medical and immunological issues to my medical and virologist colleagues - and, of course, Aaron Kheriaty).
There are three principles - or rules, if you will - and a common “wisdom” at play here that point to the folly of forced vaccine mandates. May I describe them? I will.
1. Law of Reciprocity. First, is the principle of reciprocity. I also call it the “Judo Principle.” It’s simple on its face, but more complicated when we throw humanity into the mix: For every action (or force), there is an equal, and opposite action or reaction. It’s physics. It stands alongside another absolute: entropy - that all things decay over time (not forgetting our own frustratingly irreversible one - growing older and weaker as we age).
Judo Principle. Getting back to the (actual) law of reciprocity - reciprocal action and reaction, it’s the Judo principle. So how does this work when we take human behavior into account? I once learned and practiced judo, earning just short of my brown belt (the one below black belt) until in a competitive match some insanely strong opponent attempted a throw and ripped my thick Gi completely off my back, from stem to stern! (I didn’t die, obviously, but lost the match. You figured that). One is taught or finds out in any contest of will and force like judo, that the worst way to get a person to come toward you, or in the direction you want or demand (for a throw, some offensive maneuver or hold, for example) is to pull, push or yank on them that way. But the law of reciprocity engages, inevitably invoking the counter reaction, or resistance, in an attempt to rebalance the person - typically in an equally strong opposite direction and way. Indeed, it’s a balancing thing, where someone or something pulls or pushes you off balance, and you react, normally, and humanly, with equal force, in the opposite direction, in an effort to right and rebalance yourself. Homeostasis, you know. Makes sense. But might be too simple for the simple-minded (or the agenda-driven in power) to grasp or acknowledge.
Translating this to human behavioral and psychological physics, we know that any attempt or effort by another (like our government, or health institutions) to verbally, behaviorally, or economically force you to do something you may not want to do, there is that inconvenient (to the government) human reaction against it - resistance. The harder the effort or force to make us do something, the greater the counter-resistance. It’s a well-known principle and finding in the field of behavioral and social science
Which brings me to my second principle if I may.
2. Motivation Science. Motivation science has come a long way in the past 30 years or so - a relatively recent period in our psychological scientific history - and found through countless studies on motivation and how people come to, or don’t (won’t) change, there are certain well-supported “do’s and don’ts” to motivation and behavior change. The violation of these do’s and don’ts for effective motivation and behavior change - what is going on now with our government and institutions in their mandates - give us a pretty good understanding of why vaccines, and their mandates in particular, don’t have a particularly good track record in getting people to comply.
It’s that darn resistance thing again. All attempts to forcefully change us, to demand and order compliance, especially using threats and actual punishment, are either initially or ultimately counter-motivational, and evoke predicted resistance in people subjected to this sort of uninvited and unacceptable force. In counseling people who are struggling with some problem, they need or want to change - something I have years of experience with as a clinical psychologist and therapist - we have to spend time on their resistance to change. What forces are in play that are causing them to resist? Are there external ones (like nagging or punishing efforts by others to get or force them to change), or internal ones (like psychological states such as fear or depression, low self-efficacy, and internalized messages from authorities, that tells them they can’t do it, and must be told what to do. That freedom and personal choice can not work, and will not be allowed).
Take smoking. I’ve spent much of my career as a behavioral medicine and health psychology practitioner and researcher, working with some of the most resistant tobacco users who struggle with stopping, or even cutting back. We found that if we did it slow enough, step by step, through smokers’ choice of what and how fast to change, it worked on the highest rate, least motivated smokers (like military veteran smokers with smoking related disease and recovering alcoholics and drug addict smokers). We now know that it is behavioral, psychological and especially the motivational factors, and not nicotine per se, that primarily determine success or failure in these smokers. (I’m happy to talk about the nicotine narrative and lies in a future post, so stay tuned). We especially don’t want to do anything that will raise resistance to changing, like what has been done by our government and so-called “health” associations and institutions - threatening and negatively judging smokers, comparing them to heroin and cocaine addicts who will have terrible withdrawal, and most likely fail all efforts to quit (all untrue, but since when does truth matter when it comes to making people change).
3. Reactance Effect. Third, is the long known and accepted scientific finding from the fields of social psychology, evolutionary psychology and even anthropology. Studies of cultures and societies, going back hundreds of years indicate that there is something called the “reactance effect.” It’s a human thing. It occurs when individuals, or especially a group of people maybe with some commonality between them (can you say, “the unvaxxed”?), feel pressured or forced to behave, or believe, in a certain way, against their beliefs, values, goals and personal autonomy and integrity. Especially in a society like ours, in America, and the West, who value freedom and liberty at a core level, then any effort, perceived or actual, that attempts to rob people of their freedom to behave or believe, will result in this reactance effect. Every society and culture in history will resist this kind of force against them, either internally, from their own (in power, say), or externally, from others not of their own. Wars have been fought over this kind of thing, and it is no surprise that anger is a frequent and normal result when people are pushed into this reactance effect by such offensive challenges to (and violations of) their personal autonomy and integrity.
Robbing people of their sense of freedom and choice evokes this universal reactance effect - unless it is in a non-free society like China (another possible post, to be co-written with me by my Chinese born and bred wife?). In fact, we know that people change when three aspects line up in their life: It’s the old “Ready, Willing, and Able.” We can help with all three, but only in the context of gentle, non-forced or threatened, invitation, guidance or encouragement, and freedom of choice - avoiding, presumably, the old, negative reactance effect (as in mandated government force!).
Common Sense Violations. Lastly, is the common sense “rule” so often violated by those who are in charge - doing the same thing, over-and-over again, and expecting (demanding) different results. Einstein, and the 12 step programs got it right. But there is the psychological and emotional factor - Freud called it Ego - and arrogant “pride” that refuses to admit failure. So, the “double down” happens and we end up doing, or being forced to do, more of the same that didn’t work in the first place. Insanity.
Given these principles, laws and factors, as well as the wealth of motivational, sociological and behavioral science to the contrary – so violated by those who should but don’t (or refuse to) know better - why is it such a mystery to find such a growing, groundswell (now worldwide), of people protesting and standing up for their rights and desires for freedom of choice, and from force and pressure to comply or change?
I’m guessing, as a scientist and usually thoughtful person, that all this should not be such a difficult concept to grasp and understand - or at least appreciate. Might I then offer the proper scientific term to describe this phenomenon: “Idiocy”
Stand strong fellow freedom-loving colleagues, friends and citizens seeking (and protecting) intellectual and empirical integrity. And thank you Dr. Kheriaty for your brave and intelligent standing. We will win this battle - as long as we don’t give up and give in, that is. And we won’t.
Thank you for this. I do not wish to engage in conspiracy theories but one must ask if all the parties pushing for mandates were doing so in good faith -- even if they were mistaken about the science?
Your former colleague, Dr. Aaron K., did an outstanding job at the hearing held by Senator Ron Johnson. That hearing -- and the protest rally -- are encouraging signs. There is also much otherwise.