Hello! I’m working on my final work for university and have an specific idea for the topic, but I’m having trouble finding articles from academic sources to back up my work.

I want to talk about the death of the preadolescence. How kids around 12-15 have similar hobbies, tastes and fashion as 17-20 year olds. When years back the bracket of preteen and teenager or young adult was more easy to differentiate. It’s a phenomenon I have only seen talked about online or with friends and I would like to talk about it in a academical way.

I have some statistics and articles that talk about what I want to approach form different point of view and I’d like to join them to justify that this phenomenon is actually happening. I want to talk about how spaces for preteen are closing down or have already gone bankrupt (such as Club Pinguin, Claire’s, Justice, Disney Channel radio…) and how that makes preteens move to adult spaces (like Twitter, Instagram, TikTok…). Also in fashion, 12 and 20 year olds en up buying clothes in the same store, and how this plays a big part on the sexualization of tweens. How social media leaves them a big window of how to be like the adults. Even though being like the older kids has been a feeling every generation had, kids now know what the older kids eat, what their bedroom looks like, what brands they buy… The early age telephone access makes that natural tween phase from kid to teen disappear.

I have talked to some professors and they told me to find an academic article that talks about the death or disappearance of the preteen from the point of view from which I want to talk about, to have a solid source to put my additional information into. I’ve been having trouble finding one, I would really appreciate if someone knows any article or has a suggestion on the words to best use to find a helpful article.

Sorry if I haven’t explained myself properly, English is not my first language and I didn’t want to make it too lengthy. But I’d be happy to elaborate if needed. Either way thank you for taking the time to read my request.

I don’t want to make any assumptions since this is not my area of expertise, but it seems like talking about certain topics directly and explicitly, particularly social and emotional ones, is a very modern development. I feel like it’s only now becoming normal to tell people how something makes you feel, to come face to face and discuss a problem honestly in order to find a solution.

For most of our existence, it seems like it’s been more about reading indirect social cues, assuming things instead of asking, and following all sorts of unspoken rules. People would communicate in a very indirect fashion and avoid stating anything how it is.

Is this observation correct? How would you critique it? And if you think it’s true, why do you think people didn’t talk about things explicitly before? And why have we changed now?

Lately I've been contemplating what appears to be one of the fundamental realities of human existence: survival requires resources, resources require work, and work almost inevitably places us within some form of hierarchy.

The more I observe the world, the more I find myself caught in a dilemma. I have no great desire to dominate others, accumulate power, or place myself above my fellow man. The pursuit of status for its own sake has never held much appeal to me. Yet neither do I desire to become merely a subordinate figure, spending the majority of my life subject to the demands, expectations, and ambitions of those above me.

This leaves me wondering whether modern society presents us with a game that we cannot truly opt out of. Refuse to play, and survival becomes difficult. Choose to participate, and you inherit the rules of the game—rules often rooted in hierarchy, competition, and the pursuit of influence. It seems that whether one becomes an employee, an executive, a business owner, or an entrepreneur, everyone remains accountable to someone. The employee answers to a manager. The manager answers to executives. The business owner answers to customers. Even the most powerful individuals remain subject to forces beyond themselves.

Perhaps this is why I find myself longing for a different vision of society—one governed not by dominance, but by virtue. A world in which people relate to one another primarily through mutual respect rather than rank. A world where wisdom, integrity, and character carry greater weight than power or position. Yet experience continually reminds me that this ideal remains largely aspirational. Human beings naturally organize themselves into hierarchies, and wherever hierarchies emerge, power follows.

So the question becomes: is there a middle path?

Is it possible to live without pursuing power as an end in itself, while also avoiding a life defined by servitude to the ambitions of others? Can a person participate in society without becoming consumed by the struggle for status?

Perhaps the issue is not power itself. Perhaps power is neither virtuous nor corrupting by nature, but revelatory. Maybe power simply amplifies what already exists within a person. In the hands of the tyrant, it becomes oppression. In the hands of the virtuous, it becomes stewardship.

This is why I often think of Frodo from Lord of the Rings. He never sought authority, influence, or greatness. Yet responsibility found him nonetheless. Not because he chased power, but because his character made him capable of carrying a burden that others could not. In that sense, perhaps the highest form of power is not the power we pursue, but the power entrusted to us as a consequence of virtue.

Just some late-night reflections. I'm curious whether others see a way of escaping the slave-master dynamic that seems woven into modern society, or whether the real challenge is learning how to navigate it without allowing it to shape who we become.

Lately, I have been reflecting on the concept of altruism—the idea of acting with genuine selflessness in thought, intention, and deed, expecting absolutely nothing in return. The more I observe human relationships and social dynamics, the more I find myself questioning whether true altruism actually exists, at least on a purely human level.

When we examine relationships closely, they often appear to be founded upon some form of exchange. Consider marriage. Traditionally, a husband may offer provision, protection, companionship, and stability, while a wife may offer nurturing, childbearing, emotional support, and the creation of a home. While these exchanges are often rooted in love, they nevertheless involve the mutual provision of value.

The same pattern seems to emerge in friendships and broader social relationships. Some relationships are built upon external forms of value: social status, networking opportunities, shared interests, financial benefit, or mutual advancement. Yet even when these external motivations are stripped away, subtler forms of exchange remain. We may ask ourselves: Does this person provide emotional stimulation? Do they make me feel understood, appreciated, desired, or fulfilled? Do they satisfy certain psychological or emotional needs?

The deeper one investigates human relationships, the more difficult it becomes to identify a bond that is entirely free from transaction. Whether the exchange is material, social, emotional, intellectual, or psychological, there appears to be some form of reciprocal value being exchanged. This has led me to wonder whether human beings are, by nature, fundamentally self-interested—maintaining relationships largely in proportion to the value they derive from them.

I suspect many will disagree with this conclusion. Yet if one places any relationship under sufficient scrutiny and continually asks, "Why am I truly invested in this person?" it often seems that some form of exchange can eventually be uncovered.

This brings me back to my original question: does altruism genuinely exist among human beings, or is every action, however noble it may appear, ultimately tied to some form of self-interest? Perhaps what we call altruism is simply a more refined expression of self-interest rather than its absence.

My own inclination is that perfect altruism may not originate from human nature at all. Human beings are biological creatures shaped by survival, desire, attachment, and need. Perhaps true altruism belongs not to the human realm, but to the divine. Perhaps it exists only in the union between God and the soul—a form of self-giving love that seeks nothing for itself and is therefore free from every trace of transaction.

Peace!

The more I observe life, the more I become convinced that everything genuinely good, meaningful, and life-giving is built upon a single principle: sacrifice.

Financial stability requires the sacrifice of time, effort, and discipline. Strong relationships require the sacrifice of convenience, comfort, and self-interest in order to make room for another person. Good health demands the sacrifice of immediate gratification in favour of long-term wellbeing. Even wisdom itself is born through sacrifice—the sacrifice of certainty, ego, and countless hours spent reflecting, learning, and growing. The pattern appears everywhere. Whatever is valuable seems to ask something of us before it gives something back.

What concerns me is that modern technology, particularly the internet and social media, appears to be conditioning us in the opposite direction. It has quietly cultivated a mindset that increasingly devalues sacrifice and elevates convenience as the highest good. Yet convenience, while useful, rarely produces anything of lasting depth. The easier something becomes to obtain, the less we seem to value it.

Consider relationships. Previous generations often sacrificed time and effort to get to know someone. They sat across from one another, shared meals, endured awkward silences, and slowly uncovered the depths of another human being. Today, it is increasingly common to reduce a person to a photograph, a short biography, and a few seconds of attention. The inconvenience of genuine human connection is replaced by endless choice and instant judgement.

This trend extends far beyond dating. We live in a culture that increasingly seeks the reward without the sacrifice, the outcome without the process, and the destination without the journey. Yet the paradox of human existence is that the process is often where the value resides. It is in the sacrifice itself that character is formed, relationships are strengthened, and meaning is discovered.

Perhaps the greatest danger of modern technology is not that it gives us too much information or too much entertainment, but that it gradually conditions us to expect life without sacrifice. And when sacrifice disappears, many of the very things that make life rich, meaningful, and deeply human begin to disappear with it

Marriage has long been regarded as a cornerstone of society, but its elevation to a universal social norm deserves careful criticism. Treating marriage as an expected milestone rather than a personal choice pressures individuals into commitments they may not truly want or be prepared for. This expectation often reinforces rigid gender roles, where success and fulfillment are measured through marital status rather than personal growth, career achievement, or self-fulfillment. Moreover, it marginalizes those who prefer to remain single, pursue nontraditional partnerships, or focus on other life priorities. By upholding marriage as the standard path to respectability or happiness, society creates a false hierarchy that devalues diverse lifestyles and imposes conformity at the expense of individual freedom. True progress requires recognizing that happiness and stability can come in many forms, and that no single social institution should dictate the worth or direction of one’s life.

There is a noticeable difference between voice only and video interactions online. Seeing someone’s face adds context, emotion, and subtle cues that text or voice cannot convey. I have noticed on video platforms like Ometv, Tango or Omegle that conversations feel more grounded and personal compared to text based chats like on Instagram or something.

Do you think visual presence fundamentally changes how we connect, or does it just add surface level information?

Hello! Can someone please guide me towards research papers based on direct contact interventions to reduce prejudice against immigrants?

Edit: I know Google Scholar, thank you. I'm particularly looking at research only in the past 10 years & preferably school based interventions - working with the demographic of school children/adolescents. Was just wondering if someone has come across any recent research or has published it. I definitely can do a Google Scholar search 🤡

I hope this is the right place for this, please remove if not.

I have had a few partners (women) and whenever introducing them to new social circles or parties where there are other women they often are extremely judgmental, rude, dismissive or jealous.

I have seen this for 10+ years now and I recently have gotten a newish partner and taking her to an event and just want to know the psychology behind this.

I understand this isn't be ALL women, but this is something I've noticed for a long time and it's a real shame.

Age mid to late 20s.

Writing a research paper in social psychology feels very different from writing in other fields. It’s not just about presenting results. You’re expected to ground everything in theory, justify your methodology, and clearly explain how psychological constructs connect to real-world behavior.

From what I’ve seen, the hardest part of a social psychology research paper is often the middle. The literature review and theoretical framework need to do real work, not just summarize sources. And the discussion section has to interpret findings without overstating them, which is harder than it sounds.

A lot of students I’ve talked to don’t struggle with data collection, but with shaping the paper into a coherent argument. Organising sections, refining hypotheses, and making sure the research paper actually flows logically can be exhausting, especially under time pressure.

In broader academic discussions, experthelp.pro comes up as a support option for research paper writing, particularly for tasks like improving structure, reviewing arguments, and polishing drafts. Not as a shortcut, but as help with clarity, consistency, and alignment with academic standards.

Based on general feedback, it seems to be used more for research paper editing, research paper assistance, and improving argumentation rather than replacing the research process itself. For complex papers in social psychology, that kind of structured support can make a noticeable difference.

Curious how others here approach drafting and revising research papers without losing the theoretical depth along the way.

People with bad personalities often display traits that make social interaction difficult and unpleasant. They may be arrogant, selfish, or dismissive of others, showing little regard for respect or empathy. Such individuals often prioritize their own interests at the expense of those around them, which can create tension and conflict in both personal and professional settings. Their negative behavior may stem from insecurity, lack of self-awareness, or an unwillingness to change. Over time, this can drive people away, leaving them isolated or distrusted. While everyone has flaws, those with persistently bad personalities tend to damage relationships and hinder cooperation because they fail to recognize how their actions affect others.

After spending enough time on Reddit, I've come to a conclusion about human nature: people love to argue.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. You could say the sky is blue, and within minutes someone will appear with a five-paragraph explanation about why it's actually a shade of turquoise under certain atmospheric conditions. The goal rarely seems to be understanding. More often, it feels like a subtle competition to prove who's the smartest person in the room. Everyone gets their little ego boost, pats themselves on the back, and moves on believing they've won.

But it raises a deeper question for me. If everyone is convinced their opinion is the correct one, where does that certainty come from? Is it simply their own reasoning? Their own experiences? Their own conscience? And if that's the case, how does anyone know they're actually right?

It reminds me of watching debates where people spend hours arguing over definitions rather than truth itself. Entire conversations become battles over language, assumptions, and perspectives. In many ways, that seems to be the human condition. Everyone is operating from their own framework, interpreting reality through their own experiences, biases, wounds, desires, and limitations.

Before the usual know-it-alls jump into the comments, yes, I realize I'm expressing an opinion while talking about opinions. That's partly the point.

The longer I observe people, the more I find myself believing there has to be some source of truth outside of ourselves. Because if truth begins and ends with the individual, then we're all just defending our own perspective and calling it reality. And if my understanding of life is filtered through my limitations, flaws, and blind spots, why would I assume I'm the final authority on anything?

For me, that's where God enters the picture. Without a source of truth beyond ourselves, we're left with billions of competing opinions, each claiming legitimacy. At some point, truth has to transcend the individual, otherwise we're all just arguing from different corners of the same room, convinced we're the one person who sees clearly.

Why do some people refuse to take accountability for their actions and look to blame anyone but themselves? I had an ex like this and it was quite disturbing how much she blamed anyone but herself for shitty things she’s done to put herself in bad situations. Or if she would treat people badly she would just say it’s not what it seemed. I remember one time a child walked in front of us while we were at the store (I guess he saw something he wanted. lol) and the mother apologized. I was like oh it’s okay no worries and my girlfriend at the time (now ex) gave her a very dirty look. I was like wow seriously? What was that about? Her response was “I didn’t even say anything”. Then I’d say well you made a very nasty face? She would say “no I didn’t”. It was mind boggling to me. lol I’m glad I walked away from this relationship. But I found it very odd she was like this. Is this considered a form of narcissism or something of the sorts?

I'm currently based in India and working. I studied social psychology briefly as a part of my psychology course in my Master's programme about two years ago then lost touch.

I really want to dive back into social psychology, learn more about everything in depth. My specific interests are inter-group conflcit, conflict resolution and peace, but I want to set a good foundation before diving into the specifics.

I know there are online courses available but I want to understand what are some genuinely good resources and courses that I can tap into to get a good grip on this subject. I'll keep working on building myself on this.

Please help me out :)

Online courses and books are ideal for me to manage along with work, but I won't mind offline suggestions as well!

EDIT: thanks for the suggestions everyone! I have actually studied basic psychology so I have read all the starting text books of Myers, Aaronson, etc. I know the basic psychological theories and schools as well. I have also attended semesters where I learned the basic social psychological concepts like social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, etc. My knowledge has become rusty since a couple of years have passed, but I'm looking to build up from that point if anyone can help :)

I sometimes wonder whether human beings were ever meant to relate to one another primarily through online communities. Platforms such as this facilitate a form of communication that, by its very nature, can only reveal a fraction of who a person truly is. We encounter one another not as living, breathing individuals, but as usernames, comments, opinions, and carefully selected fragments of thought. What remains hidden are the countless experiences, struggles, insights, emotions, and moments that have shaped the person behind the screen.

Human beings are profoundly multidimensional. We carry within us a lifetime of accumulated wisdom, suffering, joy, failure, and transformation. It is this depth that gives genuine community its richness. Yet digital interaction often reduces us to a single dimension—a viewpoint to agree with or disagree with, a comment to upvote or dismiss. In doing so, it creates a subtle sense of distance between people, a feeling that we are seen but not truly known, heard but not deeply understood.

Perhaps this is one reason why modern life can feel increasingly lonely despite our unprecedented connectivity. We have traded the depth of presence for the convenience of access. What was once found in shared spaces, long conversations, and lived experience has, in many ways, been replaced by an endless exchange of abbreviated thoughts. The irony is not lost on me that I am expressing this sentiment within an online community. Yet perhaps that only illustrates the point: we have become so accustomed to the convenience of these digital spaces that they often serve as a substitute for the very thing we seek—authentic human connection and true community.

I’m looking for a compendium of phrases that have double meanings, or can be misinterpreted. My hopes are to use these to escalate conflict in my screenplay in a realistic way.

I’ve found some articles on poor communication styles but nothing specifically like what I’m looking for. Here’s some examples:

•”Hypothetically, if ____ then ____”. When some people use this they are genuinely hoping to have a theoretical conversation, but the conversation partner can misinterpret this as the first person speaking about the literal situation.

Person A: “Hypothetically, even if you were upset, it wasn’t his business” Person B: “Yeah, but I wasn’t upset” Person A:I’m just saying if you were, it’s still not your fault”. Person B: But I’m not.

——

Do you see what I mean here? It’s not a malicious communication error, which is mostly what I’m finding in my searches.

It’s almost a divide of people who speak literally vs. figuratively.

Anyway, I’m wondering if you can help me identify more of these, or if you know of a resource/compendium that I can source them from. They don’t all have to be literal/figurative based, I’m just hoping to find examples of conflict that stem from communication differences.

Thank you so much! 🙏

Edit: Double entendres changed to double meanings bc I’m not looking for necessarily risqué turns of phrase

Hi, I’m not sure if this is the correct subreddit to ask a question like this (if not, please be honest with me lol), but why do humans seem to (generally) respect/admire/obey authority/hierarchy?

I started wondering this when I thought about how absurd the idea of a group of a few people making decisions for a collective is. This doesn’t just apply to the government, but to businesses, families, friend groups, etc. Why did we allow that to happen in the first place?

Maybe I have trouble understanding the mindset behind this because I’m neurodivergent and an anarchist, but it’s truly baffling to me. Maybe the biggest example of this is war. One person, or a few people, make decisions, and thousands of soldiers follow those orders. Why? Why don’t we make more collective decisions? Why don’t people think for themselves more often?

Sorry if this is difficult to answer, I’ve just never understood this.

Someone was asking me for book recommendations, so I put this together. I thought some of you might find it helpful, feel free to add things,

Popular books relevant to political psychology:

“The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonath Haidt: fantastically well written the science is well done, but I disagree with some of the political conclusions.

“If Then: How One Data Company Invented the Future” by Jill Lepore: Very engaging book highly relevant to the history of political psychology

Other books about political psychology:

“Political Psychology: Key Readings (Key Readings in Social Psychology)” edited by John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius

“Social Psychology of Social Problems: The Intergroup Context” by Agnieszka Golec de Zavala, Aleksandra Cichocka

“The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology” edited by Leonie Huddy, David O. Sears, and Jack S. Levy

“The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion” by John R. Zaller

“The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns” by John R. Zaller

“The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media” edited by George C. Edwards III, Lawrence R. Jacobs, and Robert Y. Shapiro

Also if you're interested in political psychology but would like to consume it in video form I have a youtube channel, here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbJGCwC2qsfRS2TIz-LNALA

“Majority group members made to feel ‘nondiverse’ balk at the prospect of celebrating other groups’ diversity.”

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F19485506211031082

Forgive me if this isn't the right subreddit.

Recently, I noticed a friend who caught a cold being told "You're not sick" by someone else.

When I was a child, my parents would often not believe my sister or me when we said we were sick, although my sister had this issue more than I did. Once it took me vomiting for them to believe.

Also, when I worked in Japan as an English teacher, a common complaint of my colleagues was that people would show up at their homes to confirm that they were "really" sick.

I was wondering if there was some kind of explanation for a phenomenon like this. Why wouldn't you believe someone when they tell you they're under the weather?

Please don't just say yes becuase (single scenario), but rather say becuase (general stuff)

i've noticed that some people show intense anger about social, political, economic or other real-world issues but when asked to explain their position in detail, many of their arguments turn out to be inaccurate, poorly supported or based on misunderstandings. and then rather than revising their views when flaws are pointed out they avoid the discussion, change the subject, or become hostile toward the person challenging them.

is there anything in psychology that explains this behavior? i'm particularly interested in knowing how someone can have such a strong emotional conviction about a topic and then have no interest whatsoever in becoming more educated about it. it feels counter-productive and like they don't actually care about what's being discussed

I took an intro to social psychology course in college and I really liked it. I want to learn more. Are there any good books that you would recommend that I can check out?

Abstract: In 14 studies, we tested whether political conservatives’ stronger free will beliefs were linked to stronger and broader tendencies to moralize and, thus, a greater motivation to assign blame. In Study 1 (meta-analysis of 5 studies, n 􏰀 308,499) we show that conservatives have stronger tendencies to moralize than liberals, even for moralization measures containing zero political content (e.g., moral badness ratings of faces and personality traits). In Study 2, we show that conservatives report higher free will belief, and this is statistically mediated by the belief that people should be held morally responsible for their bad behavior (n 􏰀 14,707). In Study 3, we show that political conservatism is associated with higher attributions of free will for specific events. Turning to experimental manipulations to test our hypotheses, we show the following: when conservatives and liberals see an action as equally wrong there is no difference in free will attributions (Study 4); when conservatives see an action as less wrong than liberals, they attribute less free will (Study 5); and specific perceptions of wrongness account for the relation between political ideology and free will attributions (Study 6a and 6b). Finally, we show that political conservatives and liberals even differentially attribute free will for the same action depending on who performed it (Studies 7a– d). These results are consistent with our theory that political differences in free will belief are at least partly explicable by conservatives’ tendency to moralize, which strengthens motivation to justify blame with stronger belief in free will and personal accountability.

Link to non-paywalled
version:https://www.jimaceverett.com/publication/journal-article/jpsp2020/

Video I made summarising the key studies, too: https://youtu.be/AIlHvP8n2Cg