We’ve all been there. You want the things you’re not supposed to have. This is a key concept outlined in Robert Cialdini’s Influence, which I’ve been examining in-depth over the past several posts.
There could be some truth that people need the things they can’t have. When Dade County in Florida declared laundry detergents containing phosphate to be illegal, not only did residents start hoarding and smuggling masses of the item, however in addition they started to see phosphate-based detergents better than before.
This “Romeo and Juliet” effect stems from the fact that individuals despise losing chances. Hence when something is prohibited or prohibited, chances are to look all the more desired. Parents regularly notice this rebellious phenomenon in their own children: if your child is expressly forbidden to play with it, any toy will end up a lot more attractive.
This presents interesting issues in the adult world too, mostly because banned information is, in addition, regarded as more valuable than information that is freely available, in terms of censorship. A study revealed that when college students were told a speech fighting co ed dorms was to be banned, they became more sympathetic to the argument of the speech without having heard one word!
Similarly, court research shows that juries may also be impacted by “censored” tips. It is definitely understood that when juries know that the insurance carrier can pay the bill, they tend to give plaintiffs bigger damages. Interestingly however, they give higher damages if they are expressly told by the judge to disregard the fact that the defendant has insurance. The “forbidden” information makes them overreact, similar to a toy that is banned appears profoundly desired to any kid and looks more relevant to them.
Advice and banned items are seen as more desirable.