Passage Summary: Sharon liked a writer and a politician; when the writer attacked the politician, Sharon decided she liked the writer less but kept liking the politician just as much.

Reasoning: Sharon maintained her positive view of a political candidate despite her favorite author's public criticism of that candidate, choosing instead to lower her opinion of the author.

Analysis: This scenario describes a specific social reaction to a conflict of loyalties. Sharon chose to penalize the person delivering the criticism rather than the person being criticized. We need a principle that generalizes this behavior—something along the lines of 'when a respected source attacks a respected object, the source loses more credibility than the object does.' It is a classic human tendency to protect our long-held beliefs by devaluing the source that challenges them.