You can’t always get what you want is a common phrase in society, as well as an iconic rock lyric. But in psychology, it is a concept that has received notable amounts of attention (Wu, Chen & Greenberger, 2015; Regnerus, 2007; DeWall, Maner, Deckman, & Rouby, 2011; Melnick, 2011) and has been tested repeatedly (as well as a common title for said tests). Wanting what one can’t have has become known as the Forbidden Fruit Effect, and the dictionary defines it as “something that is attractive because it is not allowed” (Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary, n.d.). While mostly used within the context of relationships, the forbidden fruit concept spans across many areas of life, including, of course, the area of censorship.

​

    In regards to censorship, banning books with sensitive content is not just the morally irresponsible response; it is also the psychologically incorrect response. For a multitude of reasons, banning or restricting access to anything is counterproductive; banning material elicits the forbidden fruit effect banning something makes people want it more than they would have if it were simply readily accessible to them (thus, you can’t always get what you want). But why is this? Dr. Pauline Wallin tells us there are three specific reasons that cause this: heightened attention, perceived scarcity and psychological reactance (2005).

​

    Heightened attention is a straightforward concept that states when something is limited in some way—in this case, banned— an individual will “immediately pay more attention to it” (Wallin, 2005). Instead of thinking about what can be accessed, the mind will hone in on the single thing that cannot be accessed, thus making it “seem very important” (Wallin, 2005), much more important than it actually is. Wallin states that heightened attention may even “escalate into obsession” (2005). When something is banned from our possession, people tend to fixate. Though this concept alone is compelling enough to explain why banning is counterproductive, it also sets the psychological stage for Wallin’s following reasons.

​

    Similar to heightened attention is perceived scarcity. This occurs when the individual falsely believes that the restricted item is not just more important, but also more valuable than it was before. According to Wallin, the “scarce…supply” (2005) causes the “perceived value [to increase]” (2005), thus making it seem both more interesting and worthy of attention. Furthermore, perceived scarcity also comes with threat—the threat that, because an item is so forbidden, it must also be in high demand, thus other people must also want to obtain the thing as well. This thought not only causes the individual to want the item more, but also makes them willing to do anything to secure it (Wallin, 2005). The urge to obtain, regardless of the cost, stems from George Loewensein’s Information-Gap Theory (Strong, 2014). According to Lowenstein’s theory, when we cannot have what we desire, “a gap between what we know and what we want to know... [and people] feel the need to…do whatever it takes to bridge that gap” (Strong, 2014). In short, people get curious—so curious that it results in “strange behavior” (Strong, 2014) or as Wallin called it: obsession.

 

    Finally there is psychological reactance. Another popular term in the psychological field, this refers to “an aversive affective reaction in response to regulations or impositions that impinge on freedom and autonomy” (Moss, 2016). In short, this refers to a sort of mental rebellion that takes place when an individual is faced with an external force that is limiting to their freedom in some way. Wallin states that there are both emotional and behavioral components to psychological reactance. Emotionally, a person will reject the limitation (e.g. Try and stop me from getting what I want), while behaviorally the person will usually engage in “some type of rebellious action” (Wallin, 2005) that contradicts or pushes back on the limitation.

 

    Similarly, a study done by Kira Varava and Brian Quick used movie ratings to establish and test the connection between freedom threat perceptions, psychological reactance and the forbidden fruit effect. In this study, Varava and Quick attempt to determine how movie ratings affect perceived threats to freedom in teens; they theorized the more explicit the rating (most explicit being NC-17), the more likely forbidden fruit effect would take place (2015). Meaning, the more exclusive the rating, the more likely it would be that teens would want to see or would go see the movie. In accordance with the hypothesis, the experiment found that “more restrictive ratings are often ineffective because they make the inappropriate content more desirable to adolescents, increasing the likelihood that they will see it” (Varava & Quick, 2015) (which is an exact exemplification of the forbidden fruit effect).

 

    Furthermore, Varava and Quick discuss the psychological process that takes place when we encounter psychological reactance. Varava and Quick’s description of this process is complementary to Wallin’s. There are four stages that we pass through, each with unique emotional behaviors: freedom, freedom threat, reactance, and restoration of freedom (2015). Freedom, the most straightforward of the stages, includes all the things (emotions, behaviors, etc.) that individuals feel they exercise the right to control, as “individuals value their right to choice” (Varava & Quick, 2015). Freedom threat ensues when “an obstacle makes it difficult to exercise an established freedom” (Varava & Quick, 2015), obstacles are described as being anything that hinders a person’s freedom to choose, including parental interference. Reactance is described as a “negative emotional state” (Brehm via Varava and Quick, 2015) when faced with a freedom threat. Finally, is restoration of freedom, in which the individual finds some way to reenact their freedom to choose. In Wallin’s piece, this corresponds to acting out in some rebellious manner, either psychically or emotionally. Varava and Quick describe these means as being direct or indirect. Direct restoration is “engaging in the forbidden behavior” (Dillard & Shen via Varava & Quick, 2015), while indirect methods include increased attention paid to or increased admiration of the act or those involved in the act (Varava & Quick, 2015).

 

    This experiment proves how banning or attempting to restrict access to certain materials can actually increases the chances of said materials being consumed or sought out more. Thus banning materials is actually counterproductive to the reduction of their consumption. Though this experiment discussed visual media platforms, the psychology is the same and the effects will yield the same results in the context of book banning.

​

    It is also worth mentioning that many books are turned into movies, thereby making this study twice as relevant. Book-to-movies that receive more adult ratings (PG-13 or R) now have a higher appeal. The sensitive material parents didn’t want their children consuming now appears in two contexts. Examples of book-to-movie translations that include sensitive content include Fifty Shades of Grey (2015), Gone Girl (2014)—both of which are rated R—as well as Paper Towns (2015) and Mockingjay (2014) (part of the Hunger Games series, of which the entirety of the series was banned in certain places) which acquired PG-13 ratings. With these, and many more examples, in mind, it is extremely important to consider the repercussions of the forbidden fruit effect and how knee-jerk reactions (banning) to material deemed sensitive can be counterproductive to the cause.

​

    In another study conducted by David W. Hall and Kathrin F. Stanger-Hall (2011), it was proven that restricting or banning access to information is quite often both counterproductive and detrimental to the people (adolescents) it is trying to protect. Hall and Stanger-Hall assessed the effectiveness of abstinence-only education in reducing pregnancy rates and STD contraction rates; they found that schools that abide by this policy almost always have higher rates of teenage pregnancy (2011). Furthermore, they found that this trend has increased in frequency over the past ten years (when the abstinence-only programs were first initiated). They have proven that restricting access to factual, relevant and practical information “clearly… is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.” (Stanger-Hall KF & Hall DW, 2011). According to the study the trend “remains significant” (Stanger-Hall KF & Hall DW, 2011) after taking into socioeconomic, ethnic, educational opportunistic and medical factors into consideration (2011); this means that the high pregnancy rates were not caused by, related to or influenced by any social, educational or medical advantages or disadvantages. The sole correlation to the high pregnancy rates was the sex education they were receiving.

 

     Thus, Hall and Stanger-Hall proved the ineffectiveness of banning comprehensive sex education, and how this ban on sensitive information has actually been counterproductive to the initial goal. In regards to censorship, this study shows how simply ignoring or dismissing potentially sensitive information can actually harm the development of children, especially during their formative years.

​

​