What about when MOM is the abuser?

This is a redone post combining Part I and Part II:

I wanted to write about the "halo effect" and how this plays out when it comes to abuse issues. What is the "halo effect"? It is a finding from the social psychology field. It is the idea that generalized evaluations about a person (she is attractive) bleed over into judgements about their specific traits (she is smart). We do this all the time with actors/actresses, singers, all sorts of popular media figures. Because they are often attractive and likable we naturally assume they are also intelligent, friendly, display good judgement etc.

We see politicians use the 'halo effect' to their advantage by trying to appear warm and friendly, while saying little of anything important. People tend to believe their policies are good, because the person appears good. It's that simple. This is the "halo effect" in a nutshell. Because someone "appears" good we tend to believe they are "good". The halo effect is used not just by politicians but in the business and marketing world as well. They know that that although we can understand the halo effect intellectually, we often have no idea when it is actually happening and even when we do know it is happening we may still deny it. (And note this applies to not just individuals but organizations as well).

Think about how this "halo effect" comes into play with abuse situations. People often see what they want to see or expect to see. Any good stage magician or con man can attest to this as a fact of human nature. How many of us portray to others one picture of ourselves yet on the inside it is completely different? I have heard many people talk about how their friends would say to them something like "you turned out alright" or "look how you turned out". They say that because they only see the top layer or what we allow them to see. They do not see the nightmares, the drug abuse, the panic attacks, the phobias, the anxiety, the depression, the suicidal thoughts, and other things that have been caused by the abuse.

This also plays into the offenders hand. If that person is attractive or likable people will only see that. The do not want to see anything else and do not see the private life. Here is a quote from a predator (deacon in his church) out of the Predators book. What is interesting to note is the predator, Patrick, was being honest and candid about how he would operate within the church. He counted on people going to bat for him, based on his good solid reputation with the church. He didn’t look like a predator; so he must not be one, or so everyone in the church thought. He didn’t have to do too much to convince people he was innocent. Everyone jumped to his defense without him having to lift a finger.

Sometimes the words were not even necessary. Like I said before, they immediately rallied to my defense when I was accused of being a sexual offender. They said, “We know this young man. He has been in our community all of his life. We know his parents, his grandparents, his aunts, his uncles. This is not something that he would do. This is not something that goes along with behavior that we see him in day in and day out,” and that was true because I was very careful that they did not see that behavior day in and day out. Most of my deviant behavior happened at night time and behind the scenes and away and far from my important people who could make those kinds of judgments that yes, indeed, Patrick is the kind of person who would go around molesting children.

Patrick was relying on the halo effect in part. Look at how many people that are accused and found guilty of sexual abuse are people who appeared to be "good" or popular people. Often you hear people make comments about how much good they have done for others or variations on that theme.

So are you really evaluating the traits of the person you thought you were when you evaluate them to yourself? Is some global aspect bleeding over into your specific judgements about a person or organization? How well do you really know anyone? This also proves the old saying about don't judge a book by its cover to be quite true. Sadly even though we may know this we often still do.

Let me go a step further and talk about something known as False Consensus Bias*. What is False Consensus Bias? Basically it means that people are more likely to assume someone who doesn't hold the same views as them has a more extreme personality than their own. This is because people think to themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, surely all right-thinking (read 'normal') people think the same way as me? This plays into abuse issues as well and in many different ways. Think about how widespread this really is in our daily lives. Think about when Bruce Ware, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky made a sermon that basically blamed women for being abused by their husbands (article). He seems to clearly fall under the False Consensus Bias in thinking that every "normal" person would hold his same views and so he can make such statements publicly.

And this leads me into another area for people to think about. When we hear an opinion repeated over and over to us by the same person or organization we're likely to come to believe it represents the general opinion. That's despite the fact it is analogous to the same person repeating themselves over and over again. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology looked at this and that was their conclusion. The theme of this research is something that has been known and used by advertisers and manipulators for decades. Familiarity doesn't breed contempt at all, it breeds attraction. Think about all the ways this also plays out in abusive situations. Think about if we hear Mr. Ware's message repeatedly every week and no one speaks up with a differing opinion what that can mean or lead to. We may begin to believe that this really is the general opinion and reinforces our False Consensus Bias (or reinforces their bias and possibly begins one in us) and not want to speak out. Now toss in the "Halo Effect" to that and it can become a mess quickly.

That leads me to want to discuss Cognitive Dissonance.


I wanted to continue to talk about people seeing, and believing, what they want to see and believe. I also want to talk about how offenders often "think" differently and how that looks. And not just the accused or actual offender but also others we see every day. There is a lot of information here but hopefully you can piece it all together to help make sense of why some people act the way they do. You can see thinking errors and distortions in numerous people. I can't begin to tell you how many times I see these errors pop up when people begin to discuss an accused person and sides are taken. So when you see the term "offender" remember that it can apply to others as well.

I want to start this post with a term called cognitive dissonance. I wanted to get this out of the way first because I know someone will bring it up if I don't. So I am going to give an explanation of it. The example I am using is from Dr. Joe Carver:

“Cognitive Dissonance” explains how and why people change their ideas and opinions to support situations that do not appear to be healthy, positive, or normal. In the theory, an individual seeks to reduce information or opinions that make him or her uncomfortable. When we have two sets of cognitions (knowledge, opinion, feelings, input from others, etc.) that are the opposite, the situation becomes emotionally uncomfortable. Even though we might find ourselves in a foolish or difficult situation – few want to admit that fact. Instead, we attempt to reduce the dissonance - the fact that our cognition's don’t match, agree, or make sense when combined. “Cognitive Dissonance” can be reduced by adding new cognition's – adding new thoughts and attitudes. Some examples:

• Heavy smokers know smoking causes lung cancer and multiple health risks. To continue smoking, the smoker changes his cognition's (thoughts/feelings) such as 1) “I’m smoking less than ten years ago”, 2) “I’m smoking low-tar cigarettes”, 3) “Those statistics are made up by the cancer industry conspiracy”, or 4) “Something’s got to get you anyway!” These new cognition's/attitudes allow them to keep smoking and actually begin blaming restaurants for being unfair.

• You purchase a $40,000.00 Sport Utility Vehicle that gets 8 miles a gallon. You justify the expense and related issues with 1) “It’s great on trips (you take one trip per year)”, 2) “I can use it to haul stuff (one coffee table in 12 months), and 3) “You can carry a lot of people in it (95% of your trips are driver-only).”

• Your husband/boyfriend becomes abusive and assaultive. You can’t leave due to the finances, children, or other factors. Through cognitive dissonance, you begin telling yourself “He only hits me open-handed” and “He’s had a lot of stress at work.”
  
  

Leon Festinger first coined “Cognitive Dissonance”. He had observed a cult (1956) in which members gave up their homes, incomes, and jobs to work for the cult. This cult believed in messages from outer space that predicted the day the world would end by a flood. As cult members and firm believers, they believed they would be saved by flying saucers at the appointed time. As they gathered and waited to be taken by flying saucers at the specified time, the end-of-the-world came and went. No flood and no flying saucer! Rather than believing they were foolish after all that personal and emotional investment – they decided their beliefs had actually saved the world from the flood and they became firmer in their beliefs after the failure of the prophecy. The moral – the more you invest (income, job, home, time, effort, etc.) the stronger your need to justify your position. If we invest $5.00 in a raffle ticket, we justify losing with “I’ll get them next time”. If you invest everything you have, it requires an almost unreasoning belief and unusual attitude to support and justify that investment.

Studies tell us we are more loyal and committed to something that is difficult, uncomfortable, and even humiliating. The initiation rituals of college fraternities, Marine boot camp, and graduate school all produce loyal and committed individuals. Almost any ordeal creates a bonding experience. Every couple, no matter how mismatched, falls in love in the movies after going through a terrorist takeover, being stalked by a killer, being stranded on an island, or being involved in an alien abduction. Investment and an ordeal are ingredients for a strong bonding – even if the bonding is unhealthy. No one bonds or falls in love by being a member of the Automobile Club or a music CD club. Struggling to survive on a deserted island – you bet!

Think about how that plays out in our every days let alone when it comes to abusive situations and those involved in them! I wanted to look at something else about the abusers themselves. something often called Cognitive Distortions. You can find many different examples and explanations for this and it is something that we all do to some extent.

Here are some examples:

1. All-or-nothing thinking: You see things in black and white categories. If your performance falls short of perfect, you see yourself as a total failure.

2. Overgeneralization: You see a single negative event as a never-ending pattern of defeat.

3. Mental filter: You pick out a single negative detail and dwell on it exclusively so that your vision of all reality becomes darkened, like the drop of ink that discolors the entire beaker of water.

4. Disqualifying the positive: You reject positive experiences by insisting they "don't count" for some reason or other. You maintain a negative belief that is contradicted by your everyday experiences.

5. Jumping to conclusions: You make a negative interpretation even though there are no definite facts that convincingly support your conclusion.

a. Mind reading. You arbitrarily conclude that someone is reacting negatively to you and don't bother to check it out.

b. The Fortune Teller Error. You anticipate that things will turn out badly and feel convinced that your prediction is an already-established fact.

6. Magnification (catastrophizing) or minimization: You exaggerate the importance of things (such as your goof-up or someone else's achievement), or you inappropriately shrink things until they appear tiny (your own desirable qualities or the other fellow's imperfections). This is also called the "binocular trick."

7. Emotional reasoning: You assume that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: "I feel it, therefore it must be true."

8. Should statements: You try to motivate yourself with shoulds and shouldn'ts, as if you had to be whipped and punished before you could be expected to do anything. "Musts" and "oughts" are also offenders. The emotional consequence is guilt. When you direct should statements toward others, you feel anger, frustration, and resentment.

9. Labeling and mislabeling: This is an extreme form of overgeneralization. Instead of describing your error, you attach a negative label to yourself: "I'm a loser." When someone else's behavior rubs you the wrong way, you attach a negative label to him, "He's a damn louse." Mislabeling involves describing an event with language that is highly colored and emotionally loaded.

10. Personalization: You see yourself as the cause of some negative external event for which, in fact, you were not primarily responsible.

Cognitive Distortions Adapted from the excellent book by: Burns, David D., MD. 1989. The Feeling Good Handbook. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Now there are also what some people call "thinking errors" and these came from American psychologist Stanton Samenow and Samuel Yochelson who originated the thinking error theory in 1976. Their books The Criminal Personality "A Profile for Change" and The Criminal Personality "The Change Process" challenged the then conventional thinking that those who commit crimes do so because of ambient social environment. Samenow and Yochelson argued instead that a person has full control over the choices they make.

Many programs have taken their materials and customized these "thinking errors" for their own use. Because of this there are numerous lists out there. Here is one small example list:

17 Offender Thinking Errors:

Victim Stance:

"He started it"; "I couldn't help it"; "He didn't give me a chance."

I Can't Attitude:

A statement of inability which really is a statement of refusal.

Lack of a Concept of Injury to Others:

Does not stop to think how his or her actions harm others (except physically); no concept of hurting others' feelings, emotional anguish.

Failure to Put Himself/Herself in the Place of Others:

Little or no empathy unless it is to con someone; does not consider the impact of his or her behavior on others.

Lack of Effort:

Unwilling to do anything which he or she finds boring, disagreeable; engages in self-pity and looks for excuses; psychosomatic aches and pains to avoid effort; complains of lack of energy.

Refusal to Accept Obligation:

Says he or she "forgot"; does not see something as an obligation to begin with; does that which he or she wants and ignores the obligatory.

Attitude of Ownership:

"if you don't give it to me, I'll take it"; expecting you to do what he or she wants; treats others as property, as though it were already his or hers (theft, "borrowing" without permission); makes demands of you as though he or she is asserting his or her rights.

Trust:

No concept of trust; he or she blames you for not trusting him or her; tries to make you feel as though it is your fault.

Unrealistic Expectations:

Because he or she thinks something will happen, it must (thinking makes it so); he or she expects others to fall into line and accommodate his or her wishes, whims.

Irresponsible Decision-Making:

Makes assumptions; does not find facts; does not suspend judgment; blames others when things go wrong.

Pride:

Refuses to back down even on little points; insists on his or her point of view to the exclusion of all others; even when proved wrong, clings to initial position.

Failure to Plan Ahead or Think Long-Range:

Future is not considered unless it is to accomplish something illicit or else a fantasy of tremendous success.

A Flawed Definition of Success and Failure:

Success is being number one overnight; failure is being anything less than number one and then considering himself or herself a "zero."

Fear of Being Put Down:

Even the smallest things don't go his or her way; does not take criticism without flaring up, blaming others; let down when unrealistic expectations are not met.

Refusal to Acknowledge Fear:

Denies being afraid; sees fear as weakness; fails to realize that fear can be constructive (only neurotic fear is undesirable).

Anger:

Anger is used to try to control people; it may take the form of direct threat, intimidation, assault, sarcasm, annoyance; anger may go underground ("I don't get mad, I get even"); anger is like a tumor: it grows and spreads, anyone or anything may be a target.

Power Tactics:

Attempt to overcome you in any struggle; enjoys fighting for power for its own sake (the issue may be secondary); a "high" for him or her is in overpowering and dominating people.

Do any of these sound familiar to you? Prevent Child Abuse Ohio has a list of 10 Negative Thought Patterns that are common to abusers listed in one of their newsletters. Here is their list for comparison:

Closed Thinking:

Batterers adopt an “Ain’t nobody gonna tell me what to do” attitude. They’re not recep­tive to opposing opinions. They lack the ability to be self-critical of their own opinions and actions.

Victimstance:

For batterers, it’s always someone else’s fault. If not for their family, their childhood, their lousy job, they’d be just fine.

Views Self As a Good Person:

Batterers fail to acknowledge their own destructive behavior, instead they choose to laser beam in on only their positive traits. By doing so, they fail to see any destructive behavior.

Lack of Effort:

“I can’t,” whines the batterer. Or, more accu­rately, they won’t. They refuse to do anything they find boring or disagreeable.

Lack of Interest in Responsible Performance:

Bill paying and cutting the grass don’t rock the Richter scale for fun. Batterers agree. They want excitement and immediate satisfaction. They lack any interest in being responsible and the mundane details of a living a responsible life.

Lack of Time Perspective:

“This time will be different,” promises the batterer, immediately forgetting past behavior.

Fear of Fear:

Irrational fears plague batterers. Instead of dealing they deny. They have a fundamental fear of injury or death and a profound fear of being put down.

Power Thrust:

Batterers are masters of deception who manipulate to take control of every situation.

Uniqueness:

Batterers quit at the first sign of failure. Believing they are different and better than others, they balk at any evidence to the contrary.

Ownership Attitude:

Batterers use sex for power and control, not as an opportunity for intimacy. They need to own everything.

There is also this following list from chapters three and four of Surviving the Secret, written by Kathy Rodriguez and Pam Vredevelt.:

Typical Offender Behaviors

Behavioral characteristics of the typical sex offender fall into eight areas:

He is self-centered: He views himself as most important and meets his own needs at the expense of others'. Not only does he consider himself number one in the world, he also believes he is the center of everybody else's experience and that others revolve around him.

The offender does not own responsibility for his actions: He constantly demeans others and does not admit mistakes or weaknesses. He blames others and lies, justifies, denies or minimizes his own behavior when caught in compromising situations.

He builds shallow and/or transitory relationships: He is not able to truly experience intimacy and is usually a taker in relationships. He invites others to care for him and generally remains in relationships only as long as his needs are met.

He uses power and control to manipulate others for his benefit: Offenders are manipulative and live to maneuver situations so they have the upper hand. To insure cooperation, they often speak of their trustworthiness as fathers. By using vague threats of what may happen if their victims bring the truth out in the open and by promising bodily harm or a family split, offenders can pressure victims to play along.

He capitalizes on the emotions of others: The offender learns to take advantage of the emotional sensitivities of others in order to control their behavior. He may play a victim role by telling his daughter her mother misunderstands him. While saying something like, "Your mother just doesn't understand what I need, the way you do...," the offender sets himself up as a victim in his daughter's eyes and capitalizes on her unmet emotional needs. He effectively secures her sympathy and cooperation. At other times he may pretend to be angry in order to use fear to enlist his daughter's cooperation.

The offender generally avoids constructive problem solving: Instead, he uses destructive forms of conflict resolution such as "getting away with," "getting back at others," or "putting it over on others." He rarely takes personal responsibility for anything. To him institutions and persons are things to outsmart and the offender takes pride in deception and his abilities to outwit others.

Incestuous fathers commonly repeat their own family background by marrying passive, powerless women: The offender has a low opinion of women, seeing them as weak and easily intimidated by his power. Often he does not know how to receive genuine caring; consequently he may keep his wife at a distance so that she remains powerless to meet his emotional needs.

Offending fathers tend to overinvest in the family by exerting rigid control over family members: They exploit their authoritative role by holding tight reins on their daughters and accusing them of seductive behavior. While holding up a peaceful facade to the rest of the world, they may become violent behind closed doors with family. In reality they are ineffective parents, self-absorbed highly dependent upon family members to fulfill their unrealistic expectations.

In an effort to avoid their own battles, offenders inflict pain on others, as we can see from these typical behavior patterns. Such behavior does not happen without reason; it comes as a result of past experience and present choices and reflects specific character traits.

Common Thinking Errors Offenders Use to Accomplish their Manipulations

Excuse making: When others hold offenders accountable for irresponsible actions, they make excuses to justify their behavior. Jack said he molested his daughter because he was out of work, depressed, and felt worthless. Others say: "I can't help myself." "I'm dumb." "I don't know why I did it." "I was never loved." "My family was poor." "My family was rich." The excuses go on and on.

Blaming: By using this technique the offender avoids solving problems. Instead of facing up to his actions, he blames and builds cases against others for "causing" whatever happened. For instance John blamed his problems on his daughter, Sally. He said, "She is always scatily dressed. It's her fault I lost control."

As he blamed Sally, John's resentment escalated. He felt justified offending while focusing on her wrongs. John tended to blame others, not only in heated fights, but also in everyday conversations. At times he even made crass comments about total strangers. This was exciting to him because he left a scene unscathed, feeling like a superman.

Minimizing: Offenders tend to minimize irresponsible behavior. When confronted, they make light of their wrongs and emphasize the insignificance of their offenses. Kevin said: "I only molested three children. I could have molested a lot more, but I didn't." This attitude also filtered into his college experiences. When talking about flunking a class, he said, "I didn't hand in the paper when it was due, but I handed in everything else. It's no big deal."

Justifying: Offenders often excuse their behavior with elaborate justifications. While conversing with them, you might hear: "If he can do it, then it must be okay for me to do it." "I was so lonely, I had to." "He yelled at me, so I hit him." "No one listens to me. That's why I can't do anything."

Redefining: When an offender redefines a situation, he shifts the focus of conversation to avoid talking about the problem.

Vagueness: Offenders communicate unclearly and nonspecifically to avoid being pinned down. They are noncommittal and use words that sound good to others and protect them from involvement. Phrases like these fill their vocabulary: "I more or less think so," "I guess," "probably," "maybe," "I might," "I'm not sure about this," "It's possible," and so on.

Lying: This is the most pronounce characteristic of criminal thinking. The offender uses lying in a variety of ways to confuse, distort, and make fools of other people. Three types of lies are told: lies of commission, lies of omission, and lies of assent.

A lie of commission involves inventing untrue ideas. Mark lied to his daughter by saying, "All fathers teach their daughters about sex this way."

When an offender tells a lie of omission, he communicates partial truth with the intent to deceive. Tom confessed to parts of his offense, but did not tell the entire story in detail. An offender may admit to fondling a victim but not to intercourse.

Offenders also tell lies of assent, which take the form of passive agreements between the offender and someone else. When George was discovered molesting his twelve-year-old daughter, he skillfully used this tactic with his pastor. After meeting together regularly for several months, Pastor Jim felt George had sincerely repented. On several occasions George agreed with Jim never to touch his daughter again.

Convinced of George's good intentions, Jim counseled his wife, encouraging her to allow George back into the home. Within a month George was caught molesting his daughter again. After months of therapy, George admitted, "Even though I agreed to leave my daughter alone, deep down I knew it would happen again. It was just a matter of time. I only agreed with Jim so that he would believe that I was okay and get off my back."

Sometimes offenders look as if they are lying when they're not. At other times, they appear to be genuinely honest, while actually deceiving others. The behavior is intentional, and their strategy aims at keeping others around them guessing so that they can remain in control. Skilled lying like this make it very difficult for helping professionals to work with offenders. Because abusers have played the lying game so long, they have a hard time sifting fact and fiction. Untrained professionals are easily conviced by these imposters.

Making fools of others: Offenders find great pleasure in setting people up for failure by making promises they never inted to keep. They delight in duping therapists, lawyers, judges, and pastors and brag about their craftiness in persuading professionals to believe them.

Assuming: Offenders spend a great deal of time assuming what others think. They use assumptions as a springboard for destructive activities. Ted assumed other didn't like him and were plotting against him, which gave him an excuse to blow up, rob, molest, or do anything else he had in mind.

I'm unique: The offender believes that he is unique and different from everyone else. What applies to others simply does not affect him. He's convinced he knows everything and can handle things alone. We frequently hear offenders say, "I don't need people! Besides, no one understands me anyway." Even when incarcerated, an offender may believe that everyone in prison except him is a criminal.

Ingratiating: The criminal often goes out of his way to be kind and to act interested in others. However, his phoniness has a hidden price tag. He is most interested in what he can get from others and how to manipulate, use, or control situations for his own purposes.

Fragmented thinking: Dan went to church on Sunday, abused on Monday and Tuesday, and attended church again on Wednesday. Seeing himself as a good person who deserved to do what he wanted. Dan never considered the inconsistency of his actions. His thoughts and behaviors were not tied together by integrity, and he had divided his life into little, unconnected campartments. Although he seemed a pillar of the community by day, he abused by night. As he saw it one role had little to do with the other.

Closed minded: Offenders are secretive about their personal lives and do not want evaluation and feedback from others. Their self-righteous narrow-mindedness forces outsiders to keep their distance.

Victim playing: Offenders tend to act as if they cannot take responsibility for their lives. They whine, shuffle, act helpless, and pretend that they are too stupid to do anything for themselves. When they don't get what they want, they play a victim role and act as if they are good and others are bad. Such manipulative tactics usually invite either criticism or rescue from those around them.

Power plays: Tim used power plays whenever he didn't get his own way. He walked out of rooms during disagreements and didn't complete jobs he agreed to do. At other times he grounded his daughter when she rebuffed his sexual overtures. Sometimes he pitted his children against his wife. On one occasion he enlisted his daughters' support by promising them an outing. When his wife told him it was inconvenient for her, Tim sulked and encouraged his children's temper tantrums until she finally consented to go.

Anger: John used anger inappropriately to get his way. His temper tantrums and explosive reactions created emotional scenes and instilled fear in others. While pretending to be outraged, he manipulated and controlled his children and their friends.

Ownership: During a counseling session, Steve said, "She's my wife, and I can treat her however I want!" He believed that anything he desired was his, simply because he owned it. He treated people as pawns and also used this thinking error to justify theft.

As you can see there are many similarities throughout the different lists and types people use. I wanted to make a comment about the piece from above where they said:

Sometimes offenders look as if they are lying when they're not. At other times, they appear to be genuinely honest, while actually deceiving others. The behavior is intentional, and their strategy aims at keeping others around them guessing so that they can remain in control. Skilled lying like this make it very difficult for helping professionals to work with offenders. Because abusers have played the lying game so long, they have a hard time sifting fact and fiction. Untrained professionals are easily conviced by these imposters.

I can say I have seen this all to many times. I have seen numerous professionals taken in and conned as they mentioned above. I think it is very important for only specially trained professionals to work with these type of people for that very reason.

Well as usual I find myself having gone off on a long tangent and now need to try to tie it all back together. Why all this information? Hopefully it will be helpful to people when they read it. hopefully it will get people to look past the "cover" of a person. I have seen way to many people get hurt because these type of people convince people to not look past the surface.

For example when a pastor, teacher, or other often popular person is accused of sexually abusing someone people often attack the victim and talk about how "good" the accused seems and how "bad" the accuser's background seems. Here are some quotes from actual, confessed and convicted child molesters describing who they often like to target. These are from the Predators book once again:

I would probably pick the one who appeared more needy, the child hanging back from others or feeling picked on by others or feeling picked on by brothers and sisters.

I would find a child who doesn’t have a happy home life, because it would be easier for me to gain their friendship.

And from that same book another offender had this to say about church people:

I considered church people easy to fool…they have a trust that comes from being Christians…They tend to be better folks all around. And they seem to want to believe in people…I think they want to believe in people. And because of that, you can easily convince, with or without convincing words.

I have had others tell me that they pick the "misfit" child or adult. The person with a dysfunctional family life and numerous problems. When I asked them why I was told that one reason is because people will be less likely to believe them because of their background. I also had them tell me the same thing about "church people".

So hopefully this information can help someone. People see what they want to see. That often goes for professionals as well.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250-6.

*Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus phenomenon: An attributional bias in self-perception and social perception processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279-301.

*Weaver, K., Garcia, S.M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D.T. (2007) Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 821-833.