Potty Mouth Decriminalized in Pennsylvania, but Still Threatens Credibility

By P. Getty

On several occasions now, I’ve reported on some of the weird laws and customs I’ve witnessed since moving to Pennsylvania from Oregon. Generally, these reports have touched on the unnecessary restriction of alcohol sales (no wine in grocery stores, etc). Since then, an even more bizarre practice of Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies has come to my attention. Apparently, Pennsylvania cops across the state have been ticketing people with fines and potential jail time for “potty” language or otherwise using obscene gestures. Can you believe this? I’ve seen Lockup on MSNBC. I cannot imagine being put in the slammer with those animals over a few choice turns of phrase.

Luckily, as part of a federal free-speech lawsuit settlement, Pennsylvania law enforcement agents have agreed to indefinitely suspend ticketing people for using profanity in all its forms. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a Pennsylvania woman who was cited after giving her un-censored views to an inconsiderate motorcyclist. When reporting the incident in intimate details to the police, rather than confronting the motorcyclist, the officer slapped the women with a $300 fine carrying with it a possible 90-day incarceration sentence. Over 700 similar citations where issued across the state in the span of a year.  Since the courts decision, however, no longer will this brutality stand, man!

Personally, as a devoted Carlinist and moral relativist, I believe this decision marks a win for the sane. The fact that Pennsylvania’s “best and brightest” got away with punishing colorful-language users as a means of enforcing some moral belief system is sickening and offensive.  Even now I want to express my offense with a string of expletive adjectives. While my “faith” allows me to use all manner of words, phrases and gestures to express myself, academic register and this blog does not, as has recently come to my attention.

It’s also probably true that like many of the good citizens of Pennsylvania, in the past I might have used a few lewd words or, perhaps, expressed myself with vulgar means, which may not live up to the moral standards of the “best and brightest.” Though I stand by my previous remarks and believe in public free speech, I also believe that employers have the right to request that their associates (in this case volunteers) practice within reasonable guidelines of refinement.

In addition to this belief, and my attempt to be a “swell guy” and “play nice” with others, my willingness to compromise and go along with the request to curtail my repertoire of coarse words is also rooted in classic research by Bostrom, Baseheart and Rossiter (1973) who examined the effects of profanity in persuasive communication. Interestingly, they found that people who used profanity where no better at persuading listeners than those who didn’t. On the other hand, they were no worse. Still, those who do use profanity where seen as less credible. Weird right?

As of now,  I have been unable to find a follow-up to this study to see if these conclusions have changed in the last 38 years (I would be willing to guess that they have in some respects). Nevertheless, I will assume the findings of this study represent the state-of-the-art conclusion about profanity: naughty language equals diminished credibility. So in the spirit of cooperation with my editor and a desire to have a credible ethos, I will “clean up my act” and try really, really hard not to offend our academic benefactors and reasonable readers with bawdy language, even when my emotions run high. Instead,  hopefully I can figure out clever euphemisms to express my cheeky sense of humor. Until then, I will save my profanities for Pennsylvania law-enforcement officers. As the law dictates, they have to take it–even if they don’t like it–while you do not.

Bostrom, Baseheart and Rossiter (1973)

Pa police stop ticketing for cursing

Part 2 of our continuing series: I’m Pissed!

By P. Getty

A new study by Malka, Soto, Cohen, and Miller (2010) suggests that Christianity, and religiosity more generally, leads to political conservatism, which in turn leads to opposition to “social welfare.” On the other hand, these same religious scruples relate to a desire to help those less fortunate. These two pathways, the authors suggest, might be accounted for by “competing influences rooted in a combination of personality processes and contextual-discursive surroundings.” I wonder then, if the House Republicans’ desire to repeal the health-care bill reflects a belief that Christ would do the same thing in the same situation (contextual-discursive surroundings), or if they are just power-hungry,  with eyes on the White House (personality processes)?

To steal a line from Peter Griffin of Family Guy, the Republicans “really grind my gears!” The Republicans aren’t the only ones that rub me the wrong way when it comes to health care, of course. Insurance companies like Aetna, specifically, do too. While the previsions of the new health-care bill slowly come into effect, Aetna and other insurance providers do all they can to take advantage of needy consumers. In some cases, they do so by jacking-up premiums. Other times, they do it by denying coverage to pregnant women, because, apparently, an unknown conception occurring a week before coverage begins is a “preexisting condition.” While the new health-care bill will eventually prevent similar drops due to “preexisting conditions,” the House Republicans have promised to do all they can to let the insurance companies continue to act like money-lusting hornswogglers.  That’s right. The Republicans with their “Christian conservative values” seem to be taking advantage of the once Democratic majority’s dying quivers in an attempt to kill the bill’s remaining provisions and implement their own version of a health-care bill designed simply to add cash to the already-lined pocks of the insurance companies. While there is little hope for the Republicans evil plan to do so in the short term, due to the Democratic Senate Majority and President Obama’s veto pen, the fact that they are trying proves one thing: the Republicans are a bunch of hypocritical dicks interested more in defeating Obama in a 2012 election  than helping the less fortunate receive health care. As f’ed up as their actions might be, I bet if you asked the Republicans, they would tell you that they are just doing what Christ would do.

What does a Republican House mean for Health Care Reform?

Malka et al. (2010)

Collective Action and Student Protests

By Erica Zaiser

Most are aware of the mass protests that have been taking place in London over government plans to increase university student fees. Some people have remained peaceful hoping to convince local lawmakers to change their minds while others have become violent, with Prince Charles and wife Camilla’s car even coming under attack during a protest. Whenever large masses of people take to the streets to express a common goal, it provides an opportunity for social scientists to examine the specific psychological processes which must take place for people to engage in collective action. Much research has been done looking at the reasons people decide to engage in collective action and the factors that lead action to be normative or non-normative, but there is still so much more to learn. Why do some people take part in action and other don’t? What makes those people get involved and what factors predict the type of action they use?

Most research has found that identity is in important predictor of action. In a study looking specifically at student protesters, researchers found evidence that in particular, affect as a function of group membership directly influences collective action involvement while pro-action arguments acted indirectly to predict action. So, not surprisingly, the feelings one has because of their group membership is a good predictor of if they will engage in collective action. In a very thorough review of collective action research thus far, in an article in Social Issues, Stephen Wright discusses a number of factors that predict collective action including social identity and other well-known psychological theories. He also discusses some new directions psychologists interested in action may want to consider when developing research and theories on the topic. If you are interested in what is already known so far about collection action and where scientists will be looking in the future, I recommend reading his article.

Read more: Giguere, B. & Lalonde, R. N., (2010). Why Do Students Strike? Direct and Indirect Determinants of Collective Action Participation

Read more: Wright, Stephen. (2009). The Next Generation of Collective Action Research. Social Issues.

The First Installment of a 2, 3 or 4 Part Series (I’m Not Sure Which) of: I’m Pissed!

By P. Getty

In their most recent article, DeWall, Deckman, Gailliot and Bushman (2010), present evidence indicating that glucose levels in the brain are related to violent and aggressive behavior. Across four studies they found that the consumption of sugar is related to alleviating aggressive and violent outbursts.  Well, if that’s true, I need to eat some ice cream or drink a large soda because I’m pissed and not in the British sense!

There are a number of reasons why I find myself in a foul disposition this cold, winter evening in this weird Pennsylvania town were Jesus was born. It’s not because of the Whoville-like quality of the place driving me mad. It’s not the drivers. Its not even the lack of large displays of beer and wine in the supermarkets where such things belong. No. I’m pissed off because some yo-yo ripped-off my last post (see Sexy Anxiety Relief or New Anti-Terrorism Measures: TSA promises to “Love you longtime” this Holiday Season.).  Some dude name Balaji copied my last article into an anxiety-relief Web site without asking me first, and then preceded to make some of the worst editing mistakes that I’ve ever seen. A three-year-old could do better. I even commented on it on the Web page (follow link below to see). Honestly, I wouldn’t be so pissed about it if he/she had left the writing alone.

Pause for consumption of mass quantities of sugary beverage….Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Red dye #40 (i.e., Pennsylvania Butch Beer) is very tasty, addictive, and sugary—Starting to feel better.

Okay. Where was I? Oh, yes. So, the dude (I’m assume the a-hole is a guy) made all these changes and now it reads like shit. I couldn’t believe it. Is this normal? Do people really do this? Steal work just to F it up? I even noticed that the blog has paid advertising on it. Does this mean this a-hole is making money off my work that he screwed up? If so, shouldn’t I get a cut? What a prick!

Consuming more Red #40….

If there is anyone reading this post who has a couple of minutes to spare, please follow the link to the plagiarizing Web site and join me in criticizing the a-hole for stealing and ruining my post. It’s easy to do, just post a comment on their blog in support of, well, me. If you can, I thank you in advance. I really appreciate it. I don’t think this a-hole is going to learn that you shouldn’t steel other people’s work on his own—obviously. What he did is downright un-American and we need to let him know it!

Until next time, stay tuned for my next installment, when I go-off about the bullshit my wife and I are going through with the insurance people as we expect the arrival of our first-born. I’m filled with more hate and rage just thinking about it!

The plagiarizing Web site

DeWall and Friends (2010)

Sexy Anxiety Relief or New Anti-Terrorism Measures: TSA promises to “Love you longtime” this Holiday Season.

By P. Getty

For those not in the know, the rumors are true, they’re giving away free erotic rub-downs at 69—um, gigity—of the US’s largest airports. Unluckily for me, traveling yesterday from Pennsylvania to Oregon via a small airport, where TSA’s new-and-improved “customer services” were not yet implemented, my fantasies of being felt-up by a uniformed guard with large hands remains unsatiated  (i.e., no lovin’ for me).

I was so jealous making my way through Chicago O’Hare to my connecting flight. I saw a number of my fellow American being felt-up, groped and otherwise subjected to blatantly erotic, though mild, sexual favor. Even a lady who had to be at least 110 years old was getting in on the fun—so unfair. That’s right, as long as you depart from the right airport, anyone can get in on the action. Seriously. It doesn’t matter if you’ve gay, straight, both, or having survived some hellish bout of bladder cancer and are now forced to live-out your days with a urine-filled sack strapped to your waste. Whether you like it or not, they’re taking you, too!

As great as that sounds, you have to be careful and practice safe security. Some of these sessions, as arousing as they must be, can get a little rough. I mean some of these folks dishing out the lovin’ are novice domineers and dominatrices; one guy had his urine sack ripped and had to spend his trip soaked in his own urine. And as any self-respecting appreciator of extreme pornography knows, you’re suppose to get pissed on, not piss on yourself–that’s just gross.  So let that be a lesson. If you need or like it gentle, don’t be afraid to let them know ahead of time. I’m sure they’ll accommodate every reasonable request…other than refusal of services, of course.

You must at this point be asking yourself “Self, how can we get in on the action?” Well, kids, sorry to say, not everyone is guaranteed a groping; there’s just not enough time for everyone. You have to first be one of the lucky customers selected for the new full-body radioactive scanning treatment that allows you and a friend to show off your junk to the attending—questionably back-grounded—TSA employee. If you are one of those lucky few, just tell them you’d rather take what’s behind door#2; unfortunately, you can’t do both. Soon you’ll be whisked away to a not-so-private session with your very own minimally trained professional ass-grabber and groin-fondler. As good as this all may sound, like with every great experience, there is, of course, a catch: no kissing, no cuddling, no whispers of sweet nothings in you ear and certainly no dinner and movie or second date after. In other words, don’t get attached.

You might now be asking yourself “Self, how is it that we Americans are so lucky and fortunate to have this type of service in our larger airports?” Well, it has been reported that these new practices are meant to prevent terrorism (apparently terrorist don’t like old-fashions, if you catch my meaning). This might be true, but I think there is an added intention less reported that is far more good-natured: the health benefits of anxiety relief.

You see, McIntosh and friends (2006) did a study looking into anxiety related episodes in regards to air travel.  Apparently, people in general are very anxious about air travel. To reduce this anxiety, most people turn to drugs, alcohol and tobacco—a limited number use distraction and relaxation techniques.  When I saw this, I realized the true reason for the love-ups in security: The government is taking the necessary steps to ease our anxiety about air travel. It has to be. Anxiety, as you probably know, is related to a number of health risks. It was like a light bulb broke in my head. Some high-ranking official must have read this study and took its findings to heart. They probably thought to themselves What’s better for relieving anxiety than a little public lovin’? Nothing, right? Why not at the airport, too? Really, if you don’t think about it, it’s a great idea that makes perfect sense!

In closing, let me leave you with a thought appropriate for the holidays. If you’re feeling anxious about your upcoming flight, don’t worry.  When you get to the line at security, just keep your fingers crossed. You might be that next lucky someone standing there with your hands raised high, legs spread wide with a large hand cupping your giggle-berries or breasticles. If that is indeed your fate, remember to take a moment to give thanks for our good ol’ Uncle Sam being a paranoid and perverted, dirty ol’ man doing his part to relieve our national anxiety. Unfortunately, you might still need that cigarette….

Happy travels!

McIntosh & friends (2006)

CNN coverage of airport security changes

The Squares Win: An Obituary to California’s Prop 19 and Oregon’s Measure 74

By, P. Getty

According to Kemberg (2010), completing the process of mourning can take up to two years, but when we are done, our reality could be permanently altered, sometimes for the worse. This may become reality for many of us. You see, many good people lost dear friends late November 2^nd, 2010, when California’s Prop 19 and Oregon’s Measure 74, two bills proposed to further the legalization of the tweed, failed. Our good friends, who represented hope for the start of a more rational public attitude about smokin’ the reefer, went the way of the dodo.

Unfortunately, squares make up some 54% of the voters in California and 57% of voters in Oregon who put pen to ballot to crush the dreams of those who, with joint in hand, wish to live within the law and generate some legitimate cash for their respective states. Unfortunately, in California, lead by a hypocritical Governator whose past is full of joints and steroids, the majority of  voters expressed their willingness to adhere to old taboo rather than to do what Jesus would have done  (it’s his dad’s plant after all). The same goes for Oregon, but we have no hypocritical leader to blame.

I will not continue this tearful obituary notice long for three reasons. First, I’m sick and don’t have the energy to do it. Second, it’s my wife’s birthday and I need to cook a chicken. Third, there’s nothing left to say that hasn’t already been said. Squares in both California and Oregon had the chance to do the right thing, but as usual, they were far too high on Metamucil to realize it. Hopefully, in the near future, before these states go completely bankrupt, monetarily and spiritually, the squares will loosen up, take a hit, and get on board…or at least move to Texas, were they can do little to add to the collective crazy. Until then, may the Lord bless thee and keep thee, Prop 19 and Measure 74. May they rest in peace for now, but be resurrected soon. Amen.

Kemberg (2010)

LA Times Coverage of Prop 19

examiner.com Coverage of Measure 17

California’s Prop 19 Strikes Fear in the Hearts of Squares.

Alright you squares, what’s your beef? Why so scared with legalizing pot? Is it the smell? Is it the munchies? Is it that you really believe the “gateway” nonsense that if you smoke a joint or two or 10, the next thing you know is you’re on your knees working off a crack rock? Is your positive social identity hopelessly tied to the belief that only lazy hippies smoke the tweed (that’s what we like to call it back home)? Or, and more likely the case, is it simply a social convention that has been turned into a moral convention (See Turiel, 2007) by, well, you squares? I think so….

I’ve been searching the blogs and articles and the best argument I’ve found in opposition only apposes some of the rational behind Prop 19, but does little damage to the argument of legalization overall. I’m speaking, of course, about the notion that passing Prop 19 would somehow take money from the pockets of Mexican drug cartels. I’ll just tell you right now, that’s a bullshit argument. I can guarantee that no self-respecting pot smoker in California, or the Pacific Northwest for that matter, is going to be caught with a sack of Mexican schwag, otherwise known as dirt-weed. It is the equivalent of drinking a jug of Ernest and Julio Gallo Burgundy. We in the know would instead drink, say, a Broadly Estates Claudia’s Choice Pinot Noir. There is no comparing the two. One has flavor and elegance; the other gives you a headache—I digress. The only way to get the money from the cartels, as a contributor to Allay Bordis piece in the Daily Titan stated, is to legalize it everywhere. But to do that, we must change the social conventional beliefs about pot and realize that it is by far less a problem than alcohol, which by definition is a poison; if you drink enough of it, it will kill you. Smoke too much pot: you’ll eat everything in your fridge (which will force you to contribute to the economy by re-stocking it the next day) and then go to sleep on the couch fat and happy.

Like any law-enforcement-fearing Oregonian hopelessly stuck in a backward state like Pennsylvania, where the liquor laws are enough to make my eyes cross (I can’t buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store, but I can buy a six-pack, to go, from a bar; Is that nucking futs or what?), the thought of easy access to good, green ganja with little worry about police kicking in my door for puffing up while watching Saturday-morning cartoons makes me a little homesick. Sure, it wasn’t completely legal in Oregon, of course, but the authorities didn’t really care as long as your weren’t doing anything stupid. That’s why I don’t understand the opposition. Why don’t your squares stop worrying about those of us who have reached the age of reason, are productive members of society, and just worry about the dicks drinking and driving or otherwise disturbing the peace? In other words, keep your social and moral conventions—convictions—to yourself, and to quote Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets, “Go sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked-up here.”

Please follow the links below to more useful information on the topic. Cheers!

Turiel (2007) on Morality

Ally Bordas Article (Very Interesting)

Psychology Today Article (Does Marijuana Impair Cognition. Implications for Prop 19. By Dr. Jann Gumbiner)

YouTube: A quick on Weed video (Very fun!)

McCaffrey, Liccardo Pacula, Han & Ellickson (2009)

Symbolic immortality and atheism. Part 2 of ‘The consequences of Christopher Hitchens’ unfortunate illness.’

By, Adam K. Fetterman
In my previous post, I focused on how people are reacting to Hitchens’ illness (i.e. prayer for his health and prayer for his suffering). In the current post, I discuss symbolic immortality and how it is manifested in different ways. As noted in the previous post, long time atheist writer and leader Christopher Hitchens has unfortunately been diagnosed with esophageal cancer. While many are praying for him to find a god(s), he maintains steadfast in his atheistic viewpoints. In noting on this topic he told Associated Press that “It’s humanity’s oldest argument. If I played a small part in keeping it going that would be enough for me”. It is apparent that Hitchens is proud to be part of something important. Being part of something important, and being remembered for it, could be considered symbolic immortality. Symbolic immortality has been theorized to be a way to buffer oneself from their fears of death, by making sure one lives on, at least symbolically. Efforts to secure symbolic immortality and manage death concerns can lead to a number of behaviors.

For example, Routledge and Arndt (2007) found that increasing death-thoughts led to increased willingness to self-sacrifice for one’s nation. They conclude that this can be seen as an effort to manage existential anxieties by creating “symbolic identity”. They use these findings to explain why terrorists may commit suicide. Indeed, North Dakota State University graduate student and researcher, Jacob Juhl has found preliminary evidence that “compared to literal immortality [e.g., heaven], symbolic immortality seems to be a stronger means in which religion helps manage concerns about death”. That is, being part of something significant may be more important than living consciously after death. However, symbolic immortality is not remotely religious, as evidenced by Christopher Hitchens’ quote. Therefore, it would seem likely that symbolic immortality is something that all humans strive for, in ways such as keeping a dialogue alive, like Hitchens, or being an amazing musical artist, like Michael Jackson. Additionally, if it is indeed the case that individuals, such as atheists, strive to be remembered and thus should be motivated to do good things, then it is likely that one can indeed be “good without god”.

Special thanks to Jacob Juhl for his input.

Atheist Hitchens skipping prayer day in his honor. By Jay Reeves, Associated Press.

Unanswerable prayers. By Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair

Routledge, C. & Arndt, .J (2007). Self-sacrifice as self-defence: Mortality salience increases efforts to affirm a symbolic immortal self at the expense of the physical self. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 531-541

Another Bishop Bites the Dust!

Am I the only one that loves to hear a story when a supposed “holy man” has allegedly been caught with his hands in the sacramental cookie jar? When I hear these types of stories, stories like that of Ted Haggard’s methamphetamines driven gay sexcapades or the standard pedophiliac priests and the Popes that cover for them, I always assume that they are guilty. Is that wrong, I wonder? Is it wrong that I enjoy seeing people who make a living telling other people how to run their lives gets caught in blatant hypocrisy? I think not.

The latest scandal comes from the Peach State (Georgia) where Eddie Long, the “Bishop”—I appreciate the irony of a protestant preachers adopting a Catholic title in this case—of a mega church has been accused of coercing four young men with cars, jewelry and vacations for sexual favors.  The Catholic Priesthood must love this. I bet they are saying to their selves “Damn. Thank Christ it wasn’t one of ours this time.”

After watching a video of Eddie addressing the accusations in front of his flock of sheep and a short interview of Jamal Parris, one of Eddie’s accusers, I couldn’t help but ask myself who I thought was really telling the truth. The gods know, Parris and the other accusers could potentially have a lot to gain monetarily from a civil lawsuit from a preacher worth millions. On the other hand, Eddie, “The Bishop” looked guilty. So I looked to the literature to see if my gut was on to something.

I first looked to work profiling sexual preditors and how they coerce their victims. It seems that “The Bishops” position of authority provides the idea opportunity for sexual predation and coercion. Furthermore, the interactions between the victims and “the Bishop (e.g., the vacations, gifts, etc) could be construed as his “grooming” his victims.  Moreover, the difficult family backgrounds of the accusers seem to make them ideal targets. In sum, the few details of this biblical mess, so far, jives with what one would expect from a classic case of sexual coercion (see Olson, Daggs, Ellevold & Rogers, 2007, for complete details).

Finally, my bullshit detector also jives with what seems to be suggestive and convicting—I mean convincing—correlations between the findings in the literature and the details of this story. Why does this matter? Well, considering that even normal adults have a 60% accuracy rate in detecting bullshit (see Vrij, Akehurst, Brown & Mann, 2006, for details about human lie detecting), a keen professional of human observation, such as myself, should be quite confident in his/her gut reactions. So by judging from the brief video of Parris and Long, I’m going to go out on a limb and say this guy is guilty. What do you think? Am I jumping the gun, or is this guy a fruity preditor is an expensive suit? The world wants to know….

CNN coverage of Parris and Long

Olson, Daggs, Ellevold & Rogers, 2007

Vrij, Akehurst, Brown & Mann, 2006

(Image from: http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/11/hillarys-donnie.html)

The consequences of Christopher Hitchens’ unfortunate illness. Part 1

By, Adam K. Fetterman
Christopher Hitchens, author of numerous books regarding the topic of atheism and religion and one of the “Four Horsemen of Atheism”, was diagnosed with esophageal cancer just before starting his latest book tour. There are some noticeable consequences of his diagnosis. One particular consequence of his illness is a national “Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day”. According to Jay Reeves and Hitchens, the origins of this prayer day are not exactly known. However, some may consider it spit in the face. Hitchens does not seem to see it this way, and thanks those who are praying for his good health, but also asserts it will do nothing more than make those praying feel better and if so, that is fine with him. However, according to Hitchens and Reeves, there are three types of prayers going on in his name. First, there are those praying for his health. Second are those praying for him to find god. Which god? It appears mostly the Christian one. Finally, there are the prayers for Hitchens to suffer a painful death, and that the torture continues in hell.

This third type, not only lends credence to ideas put forth about religion by Hitchens and other atheists, but it may also reflect a belief in a just world. Most people believe that things happen for a reason. That is, good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people (Pepitone & L’Armand, 1998). According to Pepitone and L’Armand, the strongest belief comes with the former, but there is still evidence that people believe in that latter. These beliefs are particularly strong amongst the religious (Pepitone & L’Armand, 1998). Perhaps because they believe that a god has a plan or has control the world. Therefore, it is not entirely surprising that web commentors and letter-writers are sending Hitchens messages that he is getting his “just desserts” and other horrendous diatribes. As a side note, a lot of these comments appear to be coming from those with a Christian background, of which many Christians would prefer to disassociate with. With that in mind, one may notice that this is not the way Christians ought to act. One possible explanation is that, when compared to Jewish individuals, Protestants view belief as more important than practice (Cohen, Siegel, & Rozin, 2002), though this explanation is merely speculation.

At any rate, Christopher Hitchens, as always, may the science of medicine keep you comfortable and with us for a long time to come.

-In two weeks: Part 2. Symbolic immortality.

Atheist Hitchens skipping prayer day in his honor. By Jay Reeves, Associated Press.

Unanswerable prayers. By Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair

Pepitone, A. & L’Armand, K. (1998). The justice and injustice of life events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 581-597.

Cohen, A. B., Siegel, J. I., & Rozin, P. (2003). Faith versus practice: Different bases for religiosity by Jews and Protestants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 287-295