Choosing Not to Know

 Everybody Does It

We all occasionally decide that some information is not worth the effort needed to acquire it.  But do you ever deliberately fail to acquire relevant, valuable information?  For instance, imagine you meet a new person who is physically attractive. You want very much to develop a relationship.  You feel vague unease about a feature of their personality. However, your wish for connection over-rides your motivation to evaluate your hunch.  

Why We Avoid Information (Even When It Could Help Us)

Have you ever put off checking your bank balance, opening a scary-looking envelope, or asking a question because you weren't sure you wanted the answer? You're not alone — and you're not being irrational. Psychologists call this information avoidance: the habit of steering clear of facts that could actually help us, simply because getting those facts feels uncomfortable.

It's Not About Being Lazy or Uninformed

For a long time, people assumed that if someone didn't seek out important information, it was because they didn't know better or couldn't be bothered. But research tells a different story. Most of the time, we avoid information because learning it comes with a cost — emotional, mental, social, or practical.

Think about it: information that challenges what you believe, forces you to change your behavior, or might confirm your worst fear can feel genuinely threatening. In moments like that, not knowing can feel safer than knowing — even though, deep down, we usually sense that knowing would help.

Researchers have found that this kind of avoidance often works as a self-protective strategy. It buys us time before we have to deal with something upsetting, whether that's a health scare, money trouble, or a rocky relationship. When we're anxious or uncertain, avoiding information can be a way of managing that anxiety and holding onto hope a little longer — even if it's temporary.

You can see this play out in everyday life: people put off genetic testing because they're afraid of what it might reveal, avoid checking their finances because they're afraid of debt, tune out political news because they're emotionally worn out, or skip medical screenings because not knowing feels more bearable than a diagnosis. In every case, it's not a random choice — it's a kind of trade-off between the pain of finding out and the comfort of staying unaware.

Not All Avoidance Looks the Same

Psychologist Julia Nolte, whose research began at Cornell University before she moved to Tilburg University, has shown that this kind of avoidance isn't one single behavior — it changes depending on the situation, the type of information, and what's motivating the person at that moment.

Her work also draws an important distinction: sometimes people passively miss out on information simply because they never encounter it, but other times they actively choose not to learn something — even when it would be easy to find out and would clearly be useful. That second kind, the deliberate choice to stay in the dark, is what makes information avoidance so interesting.

Nolte's studies also found that people avoid information for many different reasons — to dodge emotional distress, sidestep a tough decision, save mental energy, protect a hopeful outlook, or avoid future regret. Interestingly, age doesn't predict this in a simple way. Older adults aren't automatically more likely to avoid information; it really depends on the specific situation and what matters most to them at the time.

Sometimes It's Not the Information — It's How It's Presented

Another interesting finding: people often don't want less information — they want it presented more simply. Research shows that people tend to make decisions based on the general "big picture" takeaway rather than a pile of precise numbers and details. So what looks like avoidance might actually just be a preference for a clear summary over an overwhelming wall of data. Give someone a short, meaningful version of the facts, and they may be perfectly willing to engage — even if they'd have avoided the same information buried in spreadsheets and statistics.

Avoidance Is Part of a Bigger Defense System

More recent research points out that avoiding information is just one tool in a larger toolkit people use to protect themselves from uncomfortable truths. If someone can't dodge the information itself, they might instead question whether the source is trustworthy, downplay how relevant it is to them, or dismiss what it implies. This matters because it means simply making information more available doesn't guarantee people will accept it — if the underlying urge to protect themselves is still there, they'll just find another way to push the information away.

Why This Matters More Than Ever

We live in a world overflowing with information — endless news, notifications, and algorithm-fed feeds all competing for our attention. Given that flood, being selective about what we pay attention to isn't just understandable, it's necessary. The real question isn't whether people avoid information anymore. It's which information they avoid, when, and why.

A Mix of Personality and Circumstance

Whether someone avoids information depends on both the moment they're in and who they are as a person.

In the moment, factors like how emotionally intense a situation is, how threatening it feels, how much uncertainty is involved, time pressure, mental overload, and social expectations can all push someone toward avoidance. Someone who eagerly checks their finances when things are going well might avoid the exact same information during a financial rough patch.

As a person, certain traits make some people more prone to avoidance across many areas of life — things like discomfort with uncertainty, anxiety, a strong need for quick closure, a tendency to sidestep emotions, optimism, confidence in one's own abilities, and general curiosity. These traits shape how threatening something feels and how someone chooses to cope with it.

Put simply: your circumstances decide when information starts to feel costly, and your personality shapes how you respond once it does.

What You Can Actually Do About It

Understanding why we avoid information is useful — but the real value comes in catching yourself doing it and making a better choice. Here are some practical takeaways:

Notice the difference between being busy and being avoidant. Ask yourself honestly: am I truly too busy to check this, or do I just not want to know the answer?

Weigh the cost of not knowing. A few minutes spent facing something today can prevent a much bigger problem down the road.

Not everything deserves your attention. It's fine — even healthy — to ignore clickbait, outrage-bait, and pointless social media arguments. But avoiding things that affect your health, money, relationships, or responsibilities is a different story, and much more costly.

Build a routine instead of waiting to "feel ready." Set a regular time each week to open bills, check your bank balance, or deal with medical results. A consistent habit reduces the emotional weight of these tasks and stops small problems from growing into big ones.

Swap fear for curiosity. Instead of dreading what information might reveal, ask what you might learn from it and what new options it opens up. Remember: information doesn't create problems — it just reveals ones that already exist, usually while there's still time to do something about them.

Don't mistake short-term relief for long-term well-being. Avoiding a problem might feel better right now, but it usually makes things harder later.

Make staying informed a habit, not a crisis response — check your finances regularly, follow reliable news in small doses, keep up with checkups, and ask questions when something's unclear.

Stick to trustworthy sources. When something feels confusing or overwhelming, lean on credible experts rather than rumors or sensational headlines. Quality matters more than quantity.

Talk it through with someone you trust. Processing difficult information with a friend, family member, or colleague can make it easier to handle and can offer perspective you might be missing on your own.

Accept that uncertainty is normal. Ignoring a hard truth doesn't make the uncertainty go away — but gathering more information, even incomplete information, usually helps you feel more in control.

Remember: information is a tool, not a verdict. Whether it's a diagnosis, a bank statement, or a performance review, its purpose is to help you understand where you stand and make a good decision — not to define or discourage you.

A simple daily check-in: before you put off learning something, ask yourself — Will this help my future? Will knowing help me make a better decision? Will waiting make things harder to fix? If the answer to any of these is yes, it's usually worth facing the information now rather than later.

 

References

Howell, J. L., & Shepperd, J. A. (2016). Establishing an information avoidance scale. Psychological Assessment, 28(12), 1695–1708.

Meese, W. B., Hua, J., & Howell, J. L. (2024). Information avoidance: An interchangeable strategy of self-protection. Social Science & Medicine, 354, 117065.

Nolte, J. (2023). The age of avoidance? The roles of context, cognition, and affect in adult age differences in decision avoidance (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University).

Nolte, J., Deng, S. L., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2021). Age differences in media consumption and avoidance with respect to COVID-19. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 77(4), e76–e82.

Nolte, J., Deng, S. L., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2023). Information avoidance in consumer choice: Do avoidance tendencies and motives vary by age? Experimental Aging Research, 49(2), 112–129.

Nolte, J., Löckenhoff, C. E., & Reyna, V. F. (2022). The influence of verbatim versus gist formatting on younger and older adults' information acquisition and decision making. Psychology and Aging, 37(2), 197–209.

Sweeny, K., Melnyk, D., Miller, W., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 340–353.

Your Sibling, Your Rival ?

Perhaps the greatest misconception about sibling rivalry is that it is largely a childhood problem that disappears with maturity. In reality, sibling rivalry often accompanies individuals throughout their entire lives. What changes is not the rivalry itself but the object of competition. For instance, often the toy fought over at age five becomes parental attention during adolescence, occupational success during adulthood, caregiving responsibilities in middle age, and inheritance after parents die. The psychological processes remain remarkably similar even though the circumstances differ.

Understanding sibling rivalry requires looking beneath the surface. Most disagreements between brothers and sisters are minimally, if at all, about the issue being argued. Instead, they represent the visible expression of deeper psychological processes involving identity, fairness, comparison, recognition, belonging, and self-worth.

As I have argued throughout all my writings (e.g., McCusker, 2026), every human behavior emerges from the interactions among very specific, defnable internal and external determinants. No single determinant explains sibling rivalry. Biological temperament, cognitive development, emotional regulation, personality, family structure, parental behavior, cultural expectations, socioeconomic circumstances, and life experiences continuously interact. Depending upon which determinants are most influential at a particular moment, siblings may become each other's greatest allies or lifelong competitors.

However, sibling rivalry is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Like most patterns of human behavior, it can be understood, anticipated, and modified. The most effective interventions are those that enlist ego strength, improve cognitive processing, reduce unnecessary comparisons, and increase emotional maturity. In other words, the solution lies less in changing our siblings than in changing how we interpret and respond to them.

Early Childhood: Competition for Survival

The earliest form of sibling rivalry is rooted in a child's perception that parental attention is a limited resource. Infants and toddlers possess neither the cognitive sophistication nor the emotional regulation necessary to appreciate that parents can love multiple children equally while attending to one child more than another at a given moment.

Developmentally, this perception is understandable. Young children think concretely rather than abstractly. If a parent spends twenty minutes comforting one child, the other child often concludes that the parent loves the sibling more. The conclusion is inaccurate but psychologically understandable.

Developmental psychologists have long recognized that secure attachment develops through consistent responsiveness rather than equal treatment (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Equality and fairness are not synonymous. Different children require different forms of parenting because they differ in temperament, maturity, and developmental needs.

Parents unintentionally intensify rivalry when they compare children. Statements such as "Why can't you behave like your sister?" or "Your brother never acted this way" appear harmless because they are intended to motivate improvement. Instead, they communicate that acceptance is contingent upon comparison. Once comparison becomes the family's standard of evaluation, children naturally begin comparing themselves as well.

Fortunately, this tendency can be modified. Parents should compare each child only to that  particular child's previous level of functioning. Improvement becomes the standard rather than superiority. Instead of praising one child for being "the smartest," parents might observe that "you worked much harder on your reading this week." Such statements reinforce growth rather than hierarchy.

Likewise, parents should deliberately schedule individual time with each child. Children who know they will receive predictable individual attention become less likely to compete for unpredictable attention. The objective is not equal minutes but perceived emotional availability.

Children also benefit from learning emotional vocabulary. Rather than punishing jealousy, parents can help children identify it. Naming emotions reduces their intensity by recruiting higher cortical processing rather than leaving behavior governed primarily by emotional reactivity (Siegel, 2012).

Middle Childhood: Achievement Becomes Identity

As children enter school, entirely new opportunities for comparison emerge. Academic performance, athletic ability, musical talent, popularity, appearance, and teacher approval become highly visible measures of competence. Parents often unintentionally reinforce these comparisons by emphasizing report cards, awards, or extracurricular accomplishments. During this developmental period children begin constructing their identities. They naturally ask themselves, "What am I good at?" Unfortunately, many answer a different question: "What am I better at than my sibling?"

Social comparison theory predicts exactly this phenomenon (Festinger, 1954). Human beings evaluate themselves by comparing themselves with similar others. Brothers and sisters provide perhaps the most accessible comparison group available.

Corrective strategies should therefore focus on reducing unnecessary comparisons while encouraging differentiated competence.  Every child should be encouraged to develop interests based upon genuine curiosity rather than competition. One child may enjoy mathematics while another prefers art. Problems arise only when parents implicitly rank these interests according to perceived prestige. The healthiest families celebrate excellence without requiring identical excellence.

Equally important is teaching children that another person's success does not diminish their own opportunities. Success is not a pie that becomes smaller as others receive larger pieces. This cognitive reframing represents one of the earliest forms of ego strengthening. Children who learn to admire excellence rather than resent it often become adults who collaborate rather than compete unnecessarily.

Adolescence: Identity Formation and Independence

Adolescence presents perhaps the greatest opportunity for sibling rivalry because identity formation becomes the central developmental task (Erikson, 1968).  Teenagers seek individuality. Ironically, many establish individuality by becoming the opposite of a sibling. If one sibling excels academically, another may reject academics entirely. If one becomes highly athletic, another may emphasize artistic pursuits. While differentiation often reduces direct competition, it sometimes becomes so extreme that siblings lose meaningful common ground.

Parents should encourage individuality without encouraging opposition.  Rather than defining children according to fixed characteristics—"the athlete," "the intellectual," "the responsible one"—parents should emphasize that identity remains flexible throughout life. Research on growth mindset demonstrates that individuals who view abilities as improvable experience greater resilience and less defensive behavior (Dweck, 2006).

Family discussions should likewise emphasize cooperation over competition. One practical strategy involves assigning collaborative responsibilities rather than competitive ones. Adolescents working together toward shared goals learn to evaluate one another as teammates rather than opponents.

Young Adulthood: Different Roads, Different Timetables

During young adulthood, comparisons shift toward educational attainment, occupational success, income, marriage, and social status. Modern society intensifies these comparisons through social media. Individuals rarely compare themselves with reality. Instead, they compare themselves with carefully edited versions of other people's lives. Siblings are not immune. One sibling becomes a physician, another a teacher. One marries at twenty-five, another at forty. One has children while another remains childless. Each life follows its own developmental trajectory, yet many families continue evaluating everyone according to identical standards.

Corrective strategies require recognizing that developmental timing varies enormously. Success should be evaluated according to progress toward personally meaningful goals rather than conformity to cultural expectations.

Families can encourage this perspective by asking different questions. Instead of asking, "Who earns more money?" they might ask, "Who has become more competent, more compassionate, or more fulfilled?" Notice that these questions redirect attention toward character development rather than status comparison. This shift represents strengthening cognition over emotional reactivity.

Middle Adulthood: The Return of Childhood

Many individuals are surprised to discover that sibling rivalry often intensifies during middle adulthood. The reason is straightforward. Aging parents reintroduce many of the emotional dynamics established during childhood. Questions suddenly emerge regarding caregiving, financial contributions, medical decision making, and inheritance. Old grievances frequently reappear. One sibling recalls being expected to assume responsibility while another remembers being overlooked. Each narrative contains elements of truth because each child experienced a somewhat different family.

Corrective strategies begin with acknowledging this reality. No two siblings grow up in precisely the same household because parents themselves continually change across time. Recognizing this simple fact reduces unnecessary arguments regarding whose memories are "correct." Both memories may be accurate from each individual's perspective.

Families also benefit from explicit communication before crises occur. Waiting until a parent becomes seriously ill often guarantees emotionally reactive decision making. Instead, siblings should discuss expectations years in advance. Who lives closest? Who possesses medical knowledge? Who has scheduling flexibility? Who can contribute financially?

Responsibilities should reflect practical realities rather than perceived fairness alone.  Equity often proves healthier than equality.

Later Life: Inheritance and Legacy

After parents die, unresolved sibling dynamics frequently become attached to inheritance. Ironically, arguments that appear to involve money usually involve something far more psychologically significant. Inheritance symbolizes recognition, appreciation, belonging, and love. A family heirloom may possess little monetary value yet enormous emotional value because it represents one's relationship with a deceased parent.

Corrective strategies begin by recognizing symbolism. Before disagreements escalate, siblings should ask themselves a simple question: "What does this object actually represent to me?" Often the answer has little to do with financial value. Open discussion regarding sentimental significance frequently uncovers solutions impossible to discover through legal negotiation alone. Likewise, parents can substantially reduce future conflict by explaining—not merely documenting—the reasoning behind estate decisions while they are still living. Transparency reduces ambiguity. Ambiguity fuels conflict.

The Central Role of Ego Strength

Throughout life, one psychological variable repeatedly determines whether sibling rivalry becomes constructive or destructive. That variable is ego strength. Individuals possessing strong ego strength can admire another person's accomplishments without interpreting them as personal failures.

Those possessing weaker ego strength often perceive another person's success as evidence of their own inadequacy. The objective circumstances may be identical. The interpretations differ dramatically. This distinction explains why two siblings raised in the same household may respond very differently to the same event. One sees inspiration. The other sees competition. The difference lies primarily in cognitive interpretation rather than external reality.

Strong ego strength allows individuals to tolerate temporary disappointment, regulate emotional reactions, appreciate delayed gratification, maintain perspective during conflict, and evaluate themselves according to internal standards rather than continual external comparison. These capacities are not inherited fully formed. They develop through repeated practice.

Practical Strategies for Every Family

Several evidence-based principles can reduce sibling rivalry regardless of age.

First, avoid comparisons whenever possible. Compare individuals with their own previous performance rather than with one another.

Second, praise effort, persistence, kindness, honesty, and cooperation more frequently than talent or outcomes. Character remains under greater voluntary control than natural ability.

Third, encourage shared experiences. Positive interactions accumulate just as negative interactions do. Families create emotional memories every day.

Fourth, distinguish fairness from sameness. Different children require different parenting. Explaining those differences reduces unnecessary assumptions regarding favoritism.

Fifth, communicate directly rather than through parents or other relatives. Triangulation magnifies misunderstanding.

Finally, continually strengthen ego strength.  Individuals with stronger ego strength require less external validation because they increasingly evaluate themselves according to internally chosen standards. They become capable of celebrating another person's accomplishments without feeling psychologically diminished. This may be the most effective antidote to sibling rivalry throughout the life span.

Conclusion

Sibling rivalry is not simply competition between brothers and sisters. It reflects universal psychological processes involving comparison, identity, belonging, recognition, and self-worth. Because these processes accompany human development from childhood through old age, opportunities for rivalry remain present throughout life.

Fortunately, rivalry need not define sibling relationships. The strongest families intentionally replace comparison with appreciation, competition with cooperation, resentment with understanding, and emotional reactivity with thoughtful reflection.

As I have emphasized throughout my work, every important decision should begin with a question: Which determinants are currently most influential, and are they helping or hurting the outcome? Sibling rivalry is no exception.

When personal insecurity, distorted cognition, emotional impulsivity, or unresolved family narratives become prepotent, conflict naturally follows. When stronger cognition, greater empathy, emotional regulation, and well-developed ego strength become dominant, rivalry gradually gives way to mutual respect.

Ultimately, siblings need not become competitors simply because they share parents. They can become lifelong allies if each develops sufficient psychological maturity to understand a profound truth: another person's success neither diminishes nor determines one's own worth. It merely provides another opportunity to celebrate the extraordinary diversity of human potential.

References

Adler, A. (1927). Understanding human nature. Greenberg.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

McCusker, P. J. (2026).   Why You Are Who You Are: And Improving Who You Are.  Amazon

McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913–930.

Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Volling, B. L. (Ed.). (2012). Sibling relationships. American Psychological Association.

Attention Before Intention

In contemporary society, much of our attention is passive. We don’t consciously, volitionally direct it. Instead, our attention is captured by something outside ourself. Everyone reading this blog post no doubt is acutely aware of the role of technology instruments (e.g., cell phones) and influencers (e.g., Joe Rogan) in this process. So I will not waste your time hashing this through again. Rather, let’s talk about other agents of our attention capture.

Attention is not merely a mental event. It is a biological, psychological, and social resource. Before we form intentions, make decisions, establish goals, or engage in purposeful behavior, something must first enter consciousness. That gateway is attention. What captures our attention today often determines our intentions tomorrow.

The common assumption is that human beings first decide what they value and then direct their attention accordingly. Increasingly, the reverse appears to be true. What repeatedly captures our attention gradually shapes what we value, believe, desire, and ultimately intend to pursue. In this sense, attention precedes intention.

One of the most powerful yet underappreciated agents of attention capture is novelty. Human beings evolved in environments where novel stimuli often signaled opportunity or danger. Consequently, our nervous systems remain exquisitely sensitive to anything unexpected, unusual, or emotionally provocative. This attentional bias served our ancestors well when survival depended upon quickly detecting predators, food sources, or social threats. In contemporary society, however, the same mechanism can be exploited by political movements, commercial interests, media organizations, and social institutions competing for our limited cognitive resources (Kahneman, 2011).

A second agent of attention capture is social validation. Human beings are profoundly social creatures. Throughout evolutionary history, exclusion from one's group often carried severe consequences. As a result, we naturally attend to signals indicating approval, disapproval, status, belonging, and reputation. Much of what attracts our attention in everyday life has little to do with objective importance and much to do with social significance. A celebrity's opinion, a neighbor's behavior, or a colleague's success may occupy more of our mental space than matters that are objectively more consequential simply because they carry social information relevant to our standing within a group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

Fear and threat represent a third major attentional magnet. Neuroscientific research demonstrates that threatening information receives preferential processing within the brain. Negative events, potential losses, and signs of danger command attention more readily than neutral or positive stimuli (LeDoux, 2012). This negativity bias helps explain why alarming headlines, catastrophic predictions, and emotionally charged narratives often dominate public discourse. The issue is not merely that such information exists. The issue is that our brains are predisposed to notice it, remember it, and repeatedly revisit it.

Another powerful attention-capturing force is personal identity. We are naturally drawn toward information that confirms who we believe ourselves to be. A person's political beliefs, professional role, religious commitments, social affiliations, and self-concept create filters through which attention is selectively allocated. We notice information that supports our existing identities and often overlook information that challenges them. Consequently, attention is not entirely determined by external forces. It is also shaped by the internal narratives through which we interpret ourselves and the world around us (McAdams, 2018).

Attention is similarly influenced by unfinished business. Psychologists have long observed that incomplete tasks and unresolved problems remain cognitively active. The mind tends to revisit unfinished matters because closure has not yet been achieved. This phenomenon, often referred to as the Zeigarnik effect, helps explain why unresolved conflicts, unanswered questions, and incomplete projects continue to occupy mental bandwidth long after they initially arise (Baumeister & Bushman, 2021).

Perhaps the most important implication is that attention functions as a precursor to information processing. We cannot think about what we do not notice. We cannot evaluate information that never enters awareness. We cannot make decisions about alternatives that fail to capture our attention. Before cognition, judgment, and decision-making occur, attention determines what information receives access to the psychological system.

This observation has profound implications for personal development. Most self-improvement programs focus on changing intentions. They encourage individuals to establish goals, develop plans, and strengthen motivation. While these strategies have merit, they often overlook a more fundamental question: What is capturing your attention every day? If attention is repeatedly directed toward fear, distraction, status competition, and trivial concerns, intentions will likely emerge from those sources. Conversely, if attention is directed toward learning, meaningful relationships, health, and long-term goals, intentions will be shaped accordingly. The more fully you understand yourself, the better able you are to direct your attention, process information, make rational decisions, and constructively relate interpersonally. All my books have addressed these issues in one form or another. For instance, the issues are directly addressed in my book just released on June 30^th, 2026 entitled, Why You Are Who You are: And Improving Who You Are.

The practical lesson from today’s blog post, previous blog posts, and published books is straightforward:  If you wish to improve your decisions, begin by examining your attention. Before asking what you intend to do, ask what consistently captures your awareness. The quality of your intentions may depend less upon your willpower than upon the attentional environment in which those intentions are formed. In many respects, attention is the architect and intention is merely the blueprint that follows. 

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2021). Social psychology and human nature (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

LeDoux, J. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron, 73(4), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.004

McAdams, D. P. (2018). The strange case of Donald J. Trump: A psychological reckoning. Oxford University Press.

McCusker, P. J. (2026)            Why You Are Who You Are: And Improving Who You Are  Amazon

McCusker, P. J. (2026)            Clear Thoughts, Rational Decisions - Inextricably Intertwined    Amazon

McCusker, P. J. (2025)            Weaponized Communication - Improvised Explosive Devices    Amazon

McCusker, P. J. (2023)            Questioning & Answering - How, Who, When, & Where     Amazon

McCusker, P. J. (2019)            Justifiably Paranoid - Resisting Intrusive and Malicious Influences  Amazon

McCusker, P. J. (2016)            Don't Rest in Peace :Activity-Oriented, Integrated Physical & Mental Health Amazon

McCusker, P. J. (2004)            Conversation: Striving, Surviving, and Thriving: Searching for Messages and Relationships    Amazon