Introduction
In the opening minutes of Black Mirror‘s “Nosedive,” Lacie Pound practices her laugh in the bathroom mirror. She adjusts the pitch, the intensity, the duration, rehearsing casual joy until it sounds effortlessly genuine. She tests different smiles, evaluates which expression radiates the most warmth and approachability. She’s preparing not for a performance in the traditional sense but for daily life in a world where every interaction generates a rating, where social status is calculated algorithmically from the cumulative scores others assign you, where your numerical value determines access to housing, employment, relationships, and opportunity.
The episode presents a society where social media hasn’t just facilitated connection or amplified existing status hierarchies. It has transformed human interaction into a comprehensive surveillance and ranking system, turning every conversation, every encounter, every visible moment into an opportunity for evaluation. Citizens rate each other constantly using a five-star system visible through augmented reality contact lenses, and these ratings determine your socioeconomic position with mathematical precision. High-rated individuals access luxury apartments, priority services, and elite social circles. Low-rated people face restricted opportunities, social exclusion, and material deprivation.
“Nosedive” demonstrates that social platforms don’t just reflect status anxiety; they operationalize it into a reward-and-punishment system that trains people to perform likability and self-censor authenticity. The episode reveals how quantified social evaluation functions as psychological conditioning, systematically shaping behavior through immediate feedback loops that reward conformity and punish deviation. Lacie doesn’t practice her laugh because she’s vain or shallow. She practices because the system has trained her to understand that authentic emotional expression is a liability, that spontaneity risks negative ratings, that survival requires constant performance of an algorithmically optimized self.
This essay explores how “Nosedive” dramatizes the psychological mechanisms through which quantified social evaluation reshapes identity and behavior. Drawing on behaviorist theories of conditioning, research on social comparison and self-presentation, and psychological literature on the mental health impacts of social media, the essay argues that systems of permanent evaluation don’t simply measure pre-existing qualities but actively produce the very behaviors and personalities they claim to assess. By examining the episode through psychological frameworks, we can understand how living under constant surveillance and quantification transforms selfhood itself, turning identity into a strategic performance optimized for maximum approval rather than authentic expression.
Operant Conditioning and the Architecture of Compliance
To understand what happens to Lacie and her society, we must begin with the fundamental psychological principle the rating system exploits: operant conditioning. B.F. Skinner’s research demonstrated that behavior is shaped systematically through consequences, that organisms learn to repeat actions followed by rewards and avoid actions followed by punishments (Skinner, 1953). The beauty of operant conditioning, from a control perspective, is its efficiency. You don’t need to explicitly command desired behaviors. You simply structure consequences appropriately, and behavior adapts automatically.
The rating system in “Nosedive” represents operant conditioning at societal scale. Every interaction produces immediate feedback (a numerical rating) with clear consequences (cumulative score changes affecting access to resources). The system rewards behaviors coded as pleasant, agreeable, and positive (warm smiles, enthusiastic responses, cheerful demeanor) while punishing behaviors perceived as negative, authentic frustration, or emotional complexity (genuine anger, sadness, criticism, or deviation from relentless positivity).
The episode visualizes this through Lacie’s morning routine. She rates her barista five stars while receiving her coffee, smiling broadly despite the interaction’s transactional nature. The barista reciprocates with five stars and an identical smile. Neither interaction is authentic; both are performed exchanges of algorithmic approval. But the system doesn’t reward authenticity. It rewards behaviors that maintain the pleasant fiction that everyone is delightful, that every interaction merits maximum approval, that negativity or genuine emotion should be suppressed.
What makes this conditioning particularly powerful is the immediacy and visibility of consequences. Traditional social feedback operates with ambiguity and delay. You might offend someone, but they may not tell you directly, and consequences unfold gradually and indirectly. The rating system eliminates this ambiguity. Every interaction generates instant numerical feedback visible not just to you but to everyone monitoring your score. This creates what psychologists call a continuous reinforcement schedule, where every instance of behavior receives immediate consequence (Ferster & Skinner, 1957). Research demonstrates that continuous reinforcement produces rapid learning and strong behavioral adherence, particularly when consequences are both immediate and publicly visible.
The system also employs variable ratio reinforcement for maintaining engagement. Not every interaction produces the same rating. Sometimes people rate you highly, sometimes lower, creating unpredictability about which specific behaviors generate optimal scores. This variability is psychologically powerful. Gambling mechanisms exploit the same principle: variable rewards create more persistent behavior than consistent rewards because the unpredictability keeps people engaged, always hoping the next interaction will produce a high rating (Rachlin, 1990).
Lacie’s obsessive checking of her score throughout the episode illustrates this. She monitors constantly, refreshing compulsively, seeking the dopamine hit of seeing her number rise. When it drops, she experiences visible distress, immediately analyzing what she did wrong and adjusting her behavior. The system has trained her to treat her numerical value as the primary metric of self-worth, to interpret rating fluctuations as feedback about her fundamental adequacy as a person.
This transforms social interaction from intrinsically motivated connection into extrinsically motivated performance. Self-determination theory distinguishes between intrinsic motivation (engaging in behavior for inherent satisfaction) and extrinsic motivation (engaging in behavior for external rewards or to avoid punishments) (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Intrinsically motivated social connection involves genuine interest in others, authentic self-expression, and relationships valued for their own sake. The rating system destroys intrinsic motivation by making all social behavior extrinsically motivated. Lacie doesn’t interact with people because she enjoys their company or values connection. She interacts strategically to maximize ratings, treating every person as an opportunity for score optimization.
Research demonstrates that this shift from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation carries psychological costs. When external rewards become the primary reason for engaging in previously intrinsically motivated activities, people report decreased enjoyment, reduced creativity, and diminished sense of autonomy (Lepper et al., 1973). Lacie’s interactions, despite their surface friendliness, are joyless. She’s constantly calculating, monitoring her performance, adjusting her behavior based on how others might rate her. The ratings have colonized sociality itself, transforming connection into labor.
Social Comparison as Permanent Psychological Threat
Beyond conditioning individual behavior, the rating system weaponizes social comparison, the psychological tendency to evaluate ourselves by comparing our abilities and attributes to others (Festinger, 1954). Social comparison serves adaptive functions: it helps us assess our standing, identify areas for improvement, and navigate social hierarchies. But when comparison becomes constant, quantified, and tied directly to material consequences, it transforms from occasional self-assessment into chronic psychological threat.
The episode visualizes this through Lacie’s interactions with her childhood friend Naomi. Naomi has a 4.8 rating, positioning her in the elite tier that Lacie desperately wants to access. Every scene with Naomi involves Lacie comparing herself unfavorably: Naomi’s apartment is larger and more luxurious, her social circle more prestigious, her life apparently more perfect. But the comparison isn’t just subjective envy. It’s quantified and publicly visible. The gap between Lacie’s 4.2 and Naomi’s 4.8 is precise, algorithmic, undeniable.
Social comparison theory distinguishes between upward comparison (comparing ourselves to those better off) and downward comparison (comparing ourselves to those worse off). Upward comparison can motivate improvement but often produces envy, inadequacy, and decreased wellbeing, particularly when the gap feels unbridgeable (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007). The rating system ensures everyone engages in constant upward comparison. Your score is always visible alongside everyone else’s, creating an ever-present reminder of your position in the hierarchy and the distance to higher tiers.
Research on social media demonstrates how quantified metrics intensify social comparison’s negative effects. When platforms make follower counts, likes, and engagement metrics visible, users report increased anxiety, depression, and body dissatisfaction, particularly when engaging in upward social comparison with idealized others (Vogel et al., 2014). “Nosedive” takes this dynamic to its logical endpoint: a society where social comparison isn’t just a feature of media use but the organizing principle of all social life.
The episode also reveals how quantified comparison creates what psychologist Karen Horney termed “neurotic competitiveness,” the compulsive need to surpass others not for achievement’s sake but to alleviate anxiety about one’s own worth (Horney, 1937). Lacie’s pursuit of a higher rating isn’t about wanting specific opportunities (though she claims to want a luxury apartment). It’s about alleviating the chronic anxiety produced by seeing herself as numerically inferior to people like Naomi. The number has become the measure of her fundamental value as a person, and improving it feels like the only path to self-worth.
This speaks to what happens when status becomes purely quantified. In traditional status hierarchies, positioning is somewhat ambiguous and multidimensional. Someone might have less money but more education, less professional prestige but more community respect. The multiplicity of status dimensions provides psychological buffer: you can feel inadequate in one domain while maintaining self-worth through others. The rating system eliminates this buffer by collapsing all dimensions of social value into a single number. You cannot be successful in one domain while struggling in another. You are your rating, and your rating is everything.
The psychological literature on self-worth confirms this concern. Researchers distinguish between contingent self-esteem (worth that depends on meeting external standards) and stable self-esteem (worth based on unconditional self-acceptance) (Kernis, 2003). People with contingent self-esteem are vulnerable to anxiety, depression, and emotional volatility because their sense of worth fluctuates with external validation. The rating system creates a society where everyone’s self-esteem is necessarily contingent, tied directly to a number that changes based on others’ evaluations. Stable self-worth becomes psychologically impossible when your value is quantified and publicly displayed.
The Performance of Algorithmic Selfhood
The rating system doesn’t just measure personality; it produces it. Lacie at the beginning of the episode is already a carefully constructed performance, someone who has internalized the system’s requirements so thoroughly that her personality has adapted to maximize ratings. She speaks in an unnaturally chipper register, her enthusiasm exaggerated and constant. She agrees reflexively, even when she clearly has different opinions. She performs interest in conversations that bore her, maintains composure when frustrated, and suppresses any emotional response that might be rated negatively.
This is what Erving Goffman called impression management: the strategic control of information and behavior to shape how others perceive us (Goffman, 1959). Everyone engages in impression management to some degree, adjusting self-presentation across contexts. But Goffman emphasized that healthy social functioning requires “backstage” spaces where we can drop performances and be authentic. The rating system eliminates backstage. Everywhere is frontstage. Every interaction is evaluated. There’s no space where Lacie can stop performing, where she can express genuine frustration or sadness or complexity without risking her score.
The psychological cost of constant performance is substantial. Research on authenticity demonstrates that people who feel unable to express their genuine selves experience increased anxiety, depression, and diminished wellbeing (Wood et al., 2008). The need to constantly monitor and adjust behavior to meet external expectations is cognitively and emotionally exhausting, creating what psychologists term ego depletion: the fatigue that results from sustained self-regulation (Baumeister et al., 1998).
Lacie’s breakdown near the episode’s end isn’t random emotional collapse. It’s the predictable result of sustained performance meeting accumulated frustration. When her rating begins dropping precipitously (after a series of circumstances beyond her control), the performance becomes unsustainable. She’s spent so long suppressing authentic emotion that when it finally erupts, it’s explosive and uncontrolled. The episode suggests that the choice isn’t between performing and being authentic. Under constant surveillance, the choice is between sustained performance until eventual breakdown or immediate punishment for authenticity.
The rating system also reveals how algorithmic evaluation shapes personality toward homogeneity. The episode’s aesthetic is telling: everyone dresses in soft pastels, speaks in similar cheerful tones, expresses the same relentless positivity. Individual personality differences are smoothed into algorithmic conformity because the system rewards a narrow band of behaviors and punishes deviation. This reflects what psychologist Philip Zimbardo termed “deindividuation”: the process by which individuals in certain contexts lose their sense of individual identity and conform to group norms (Zimbardo, 1969).
But in “Nosedive,” deindividuation isn’t produced by anonymity (the usual mechanism). It’s produced by hypervisibility under constant evaluation. When every behavior is monitored and rated, when consequences for deviation are immediate and severe, people optimize toward the narrow range of behaviors that maximize approval. Personality becomes less about authentic individual differences and more about strategic performance of algorithmically favored traits.
Research on social media demonstrates this pattern already emerging. Studies show that people curate online personas toward idealized versions that emphasize positivity, success, and attractiveness while concealing struggle, failure, or complexity (Hogan, 2010). The rating system in “Nosedive” simply makes explicit what’s implicit in contemporary social platforms: that visibility under constant evaluation trains people to perform optimized versions of themselves rather than express authentic complexity.
Living Inside Permanent Evaluation: The Mental Health Crisis
Perhaps the episode’s most disturbing implication is its suggestion that systems of permanent evaluation create mental health crises not as unfortunate side effects but as inevitable consequences. When your worth is constantly quantified, when your value fluctuates based on others’ assessments, when material wellbeing depends on maintaining numerical thresholds, chronic anxiety becomes the baseline psychological state.
Lacie exhibits symptoms throughout the episode that would meet clinical criteria for anxiety disorders: intrusive thoughts about her rating, compulsive checking behaviors, physical symptoms of stress (we see her breathing exercises, her attempts to calm herself), difficulty concentrating on anything besides her score, and catastrophic thinking about rating decreases (Barlow, 2002). But the episode frames these not as individual pathology but as rational responses to the environment. In a world where your rating determines everything, anxiety about that rating is adaptive, not disordered.
This speaks to an important distinction in clinical psychology between disorder and distress. Psychological disorders are typically defined as responses that are excessive given the actual threat or context. But when the threat is real and pervasive (when your rating genuinely determines your life outcomes), anxiety proportional to that threat isn’t disordered. It’s appropriate. The rating system creates an environment where what would normally constitute anxiety disorder becomes reasonable threat assessment.
Research on the mental health impacts of social media provides empirical support for these concerns. Multiple studies demonstrate associations between heavy social media use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and suicidal ideation, particularly among adolescents and young adults (Twenge et al., 2018). While correlation doesn’t prove causation, experimental studies manipulating social media use suggest the relationship is causal: reducing social media use decreases anxiety and depression symptoms (Hunt et al., 2018).
The mechanisms are multiple and overlapping. Social comparison with idealized others creates feelings of inadequacy. Quantified metrics (likes, followers, shares) create anxiety about self-worth. Fear of missing out (FOMO) drives compulsive checking and engagement. Cyberbullying and negative feedback produce direct psychological harm. The asynchronous nature of online communication creates uncertainty about how others perceive you. The permanence of online content creates anxiety about past mistakes or evolving identity.
“Nosedive” doesn’t just amplify these mechanisms; it universalizes and totalizes them. The anxiety isn’t limited to young people or heavy users. Everyone lives inside the system. The evaluation isn’t confined to optional platforms you can choose to leave. It’s embedded in the infrastructure of society itself. The stakes aren’t just social approval but material survival.
The episode also illustrates how permanent evaluation prevents emotional processing and recovery. After negative experiences (her brother’s criticism, the airport fiasco, the car ride), Lacie cannot process these experiences authentically. She must immediately resume her performance, smile through distress, maintain her rating despite internal turmoil. This enforced suppression of negative emotion interferes with healthy emotional regulation.
Psychological research demonstrates that emotional suppression, while sometimes adaptive in the short term, produces negative long-term outcomes including increased physiological stress, impaired memory, reduced social connection, and paradoxical intensification of the suppressed emotions (Gross, 2002). Healthy emotional regulation involves acknowledging, experiencing, and processing emotions, not suppressing them indefinitely. The rating system makes healthy regulation impossible by punishing any visible negative affect.
The episode’s most psychologically astute moment comes near the end when Lacie, her rating destroyed and her life in ruins, finds herself in a jail cell with a similarly low-rated man. Without ratings to protect or performances to maintain, they insult each other with genuine, creative viciousness. The scene is cathartic precisely because it’s the first moment of authentic emotional expression in the entire episode. They’re not performing for ratings. They’re just being genuinely, messily human.
This scene suggests that the opposite of the rating system isn’t perfectly pleasant interaction but authentic emotional range, including negative emotions. The system’s insistence on relentless positivity doesn’t eliminate anger, frustration, or sadness. It just forces those emotions underground where they accumulate until they explode or manifest as psychological symptoms. The jail cell represents freedom not because it’s pleasant but because it’s a space exempt from evaluation, where authentic selfhood becomes possible again.
The Social Credit Logic: From Fiction to Reality
While “Nosedive” aired in 2016 as speculative fiction, its premise has become increasingly non-fictional. China’s social credit system, announced in 2014 and implemented in various forms across regions, shares disturbing similarities with the episode’s world (Liang et al., 2018). Citizens receive scores based on behaviors including financial responsibility, social media activity, and adherence to regulations. Low scores restrict access to services, employment, and travel. High scores provide preferential treatment and opportunities.
The Chinese system isn’t identical to “Nosedive’s” peer-to-peer rating. It’s more centralized, with government and corporate entities generating scores based on monitored behaviors. But the underlying logic is similar: quantified evaluation determining life outcomes, creating incentives for conformity and disincentives for deviation, operationalizing surveillance into a comprehensive behavioral management system.
Beyond explicit social credit systems, variations of this logic permeate contemporary life. Credit scores determine access to housing and loans. Background checks influence employment. Social media presence affects hiring decisions. Gig economy platforms rate workers and customers, with low ratings leading to deactivation. Online reputation systems shape which businesses succeed. Algorithmic curation prioritizes content based on engagement metrics, creating incentives for creators to optimize for platform preferences rather than authentic expression.
Each system individually seems reasonable: of course lenders should assess financial risk, employers should vet candidates, platforms should combat abuse. But cumulatively, these systems create an environment where much of life operates under quantified evaluation, where metrics shape behavior through fear of negative consequences, where surveillance is normalized as necessary infrastructure rather than questioned as potential threat.
The psychological implications mirror “Nosedive’s” warnings. Research demonstrates that workers in rating-based gig economies report high stress, anxiety about maintaining scores, pressure to accept unfavorable conditions to avoid negative ratings, and difficulty asserting boundaries when doing so risks retaliation through rating systems (Rosenblat & Stark, 2016). The power asymmetry is significant: platforms aggregate ratings into scores affecting workers’ livelihoods, while individual customers face minimal consequences for unfair ratings.
This asymmetry reveals something crucial about quantified evaluation systems: they concentrate power in whoever controls the metrics and algorithms. In “Nosedive,” power appears distributed (everyone rates everyone), but the system itself determines which ratings matter, how they’re weighted, what thresholds create consequences. Those who design and control the infrastructure wield enormous power over everyone subject to it, even when the surface appearance is democratic peer evaluation.
Resistance Through Refusal: The Freedom of Falling
Lacie’s journey through the episode is essentially a story of involuntary liberation. She doesn’t choose to reject the system consciously. Rather, circumstances beyond her control (flight cancellation, car breakdown, wedding disaster) cause her rating to plummet despite her desperate efforts to maintain it. But as her score drops and she loses access to everything the system promises, something unexpected emerges: authenticity becomes possible again.
The episode’s ending is deliberately ambiguous about whether this constitutes happy resolution or tragic destruction. Lacie has lost everything the society values. Her rating is ruined. Her prospects are eliminated. Her social connections are severed. By the system’s metrics, she’s failed completely. Yet in the jail cell, insulting a stranger with genuine emotion, she appears more alive than in any previous scene. The performance has ended not because she chose to end it but because maintaining it became impossible.
This speaks to psychological research on authenticity and wellbeing. Studies demonstrate that people who feel unable to express their true selves suffer psychologically, while those who achieve authentic self-expression report greater life satisfaction and psychological health (Wood et al., 2008). But authenticity isn’t just internal state; it requires environments that permit genuine expression without punitive consequences. Lacie couldn’t choose authenticity while her rating mattered because the consequences would have been devastating. Only when she’s already lost everything does authentic expression become rational.
The episode suggests that within total systems of evaluation, resistance may require accepting the consequences of opting out rather than trying to maintain position while resisting internally. This reflects what psychologist Albert Bandura termed “moral disengagement”: the psychological mechanisms people use to behave contrary to their values without experiencing guilt (Bandura, 1999). Lacie experiences disengagement throughout: she knows the system is shallow and her performances are inauthentic, but she participates anyway because the alternative seems unthinkable.
Her breakdown represents the collapse of moral disengagement. She can no longer maintain the cognitive separation between her authentic self (who finds the system absurd) and her performed self (who desperately needs it to work). The two selves collide, and the performance shatters. What emerges isn’t necessarily better in material terms but is psychologically more integrated. She’s no longer split between who she is and who she pretends to be.
This has implications for how we think about resistance to surveillance and evaluation systems. Individual resistance through authentic self-expression while remaining in the system is psychologically costly and often professionally suicidal. Collective resistance requires coordinated refusal, organizing to change or dismantle the systems themselves. But the systems are designed to prevent collective organizing: they atomize individuals into competitive units, reward conformity, and punish coordination through rating retaliation.
The episode doesn’t offer clear answers about how to resist, but it suggests that the first step might be recognizing what the system costs, seeing clearly what’s lost when life becomes permanent performance under constant evaluation. Lacie’s liberation isn’t replicable as individual strategy (few can afford complete social and economic ostracism), but it demonstrates that the performances the system demands aren’t identical to selfhood, that the ratings don’t measure authentic worth, that life beyond the metrics remains possible even if the system makes it nearly impossible to access.
Conclusion: The Quantified Self and the Loss of Interior Life
“Nosedive” presents a world where the quantified self has consumed the actual self, where metrics designed to measure value have replaced the complexity they claimed to capture, where the map has become the territory so completely that the territory beneath has disappeared from view. Lacie’s tragedy isn’t that she fails to achieve a high rating. It’s that she’s internalized the rating so thoroughly that she’s lost access to any conception of worth not mediated through algorithmic evaluation.
Eleanor Roosevelt’s assertion that “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent” assumes an interior self autonomous enough to resist external judgments. But “Nosedive” demonstrates how systems of constant quantified evaluation colonize interiority itself, making it nearly impossible to maintain sense of worth independent from the metrics. The ratings don’t just measure Lacie’s value; they constitute it. She has no self separate from her score because the system has trained her from early childhood that the score is the self, that worth is quantifiable, that value is what algorithms calculate from others’ evaluations.
This matters beyond science fiction because contemporary life increasingly operates through similar logic. Credit scores, performance metrics, engagement analytics, rating systems, algorithmic recommendations, all these mechanisms translate human complexity into numbers that then determine opportunities and outcomes. Each system individually seems innocuous or even necessary. Collectively, they create an environment where quantified evaluation becomes inescapable, where metrics shape behavior through conditioning and comparison, where performance of optimized selfhood replaces authentic expression.
The mental health implications are profound and already empirically documented. Rates of anxiety and depression, particularly among young people, have increased dramatically alongside the rise of social media and quantified self-tracking (Twenge et al., 2019). While multiple factors contribute to this trend, the correlation between constant evaluation and psychological distress is consistent and concerning. Living under permanent surveillance and quantification creates chronic status anxiety, makes social comparison inescapable, prevents emotional processing, and transforms identity into strategic performance rather than authentic exploration.
The episode’s genius lies in making visible what often remains implicit: that systems of evaluation don’t passively measure pre-existing qualities but actively shape the behaviors and personalities they claim to assess. The rating system in “Nosedive” doesn’t discover that Lacie is cheerful and agreeable. It trains her to perform cheerfulness and agreeability through systematic reinforcement and punishment until the performance becomes indistinguishable from personality. The question isn’t whether she’s authentically pleasant. It’s whether authenticity remains psychologically accessible when every moment is evaluated and every evaluation carries consequences.
The show ultimately suggests that the opposite of the quantified, evaluated self isn’t a self that rejects measurement entirely (though that’s part of it). It’s a self that retains interior life, space where experience isn’t immediately translated into performance, where emotions can be felt without calculation about how they’ll be rated, where identity can evolve without algorithmic optimization. Lacie in the jail cell, insulting a stranger with creative viciousness, has reclaimed that interior space. She’s failed by every metric the system values, but she’s succeeded in becoming recognizably human again, messy and authentic and alive in ways the rating system made impossible.
If social platforms operationalize status anxiety into permanent evaluation, if that evaluation functions as conditioning shaping us toward algorithmic compliance, if living under constant quantification creates mental health crises not as accidents but as structural outcomes, then resistance requires more than individual resilience. It requires collective refusal of the premise that human worth can be quantified, that authentic selfhood can be measured, that life should be organized around optimizing metrics designed by systems that profit from our constant performance and perpetual anxiety.
The rating system in “Nosedive” is totalizing in ways current platforms haven’t achieved, but the distance between fiction and reality is narrower than it was when the episode aired. The logic is already operational; it’s only a matter of degree. The question isn’t whether we’ll wake up tomorrow in Lacie’s world. It’s whether we’ll recognize the smaller, subtler ways we already inhabit it, and whether we’ll choose to resist before the performances become so calcified that we forget who we were before we learned to rate every interaction and optimize every expression for maximum algorithmic approval.
References
- Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W.W. Norton.
- Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
- Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.
- Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
- Ferenczi, S. (1949). Confusion of the tongues between the adults and the child: The language of tenderness and of passion. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 30, 225-230.
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
- hooks, b. (2004). We real cool: Black men and masculinity. New York: Routledge.
- Jenkins, B. (Director). (2016). Moonlight [Film]. A24.
- Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558.
- Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697.
- Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328-345.
- Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(4), 205-213.
- Sharkey, P. (2018). Uneasy peace: The great crime decline, the renewal of city life, and the next war on violence. New York: W.W. Norton.