--- title: Why We Say Yes When We Don’t Want To description: Compliance may be our default. But it doesn’t have to be our destiny, writes Dr. Sunita Sah. canonical: https://time.com/7204326/saying-yes-instead-of-no-essay/ author: TIME article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2025-01-04T12:00:00.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-03-10T23:21:25.764Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Why We Say Yes When We Don’t Want To og:description: Compliance may be our default. But it doesn’t have to be our destiny, writes Dr. Sunita Sah. og:url: https://time.com/7204326/saying-yes-instead-of-no-essay/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltae57a7c59a87bc1b/6998b23907a30d0c1e77ab98/saying-yes-instead-of-no.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2121 og:image:height: 1193 og:image:alt: saying-yes-instead-of-no og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Why We Say Yes When We Don’t Want To twitter:description: Compliance may be our default. But it doesn’t have to be our destiny, writes Dr. Sunita Sah. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltae57a7c59a87bc1b/6998b23907a30d0c1e77ab98/saying-yes-instead-of-no.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 --- # Why We Say Yes When We Don’t Want To > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=53c354d9-9c46-45e1-860d-040bb0ea311a&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=53c354d9-9c46-45e1-860d-040bb0ea311a&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=53c354d9-9c46-45e1-860d-040bb0ea311a&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=53c354d9-9c46-45e1-860d-040bb0ea311a&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) Jan 4, 2025 12:00 PM UTC  YES! on post-it, green adhesive note YES! on post-it, green adhesive note Getty Images by [Dr. Sunita Sah](https://time.com/author/sunita-sah/) ## Dr. Sunita Sah Jan 4, 2025 12:00 PM UTC From an early age, we are taught that obedience is good, and disobedience is bad. Saying yes is polite and agreeable, while saying no is often seen as selfish or disruptive. These lessons shape us psychologically, socially, and even neurologically. When we are rewarded for compliant behavior, our brain rewards us with a hit of [dopamine](https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273%2810%2900938-4), the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure. Repeated compliance strengthens the neural pathways associated with saying “yes.” On the other hand, acts of defiance—especially when they are met with disapproval—receive no such reward, making those pathways weaker or less likely to develop. Over time, compliance becomes a default response. This tendency is reinforced throughout our lives. At school, we are praised for obedience and penalized for questioning authority. At work, compliance is embedded in professional hierarchies. Even in our personal lives, studies show that those who are conscientious or have agreeable dispositions are [more likely to acquiesce ](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jopy.12104)to others’ demands. It’s no wonder, then, that saying “yes” feels easier, safer, and even expected—while saying no can feel like swimming against a tide of social conditioning. We feel immense pressure from others to meet their expectations, often prioritizing social harmony over our better judgment. This need for connection and acceptance drives us to comply, even when doing so conflicts with what we know is right. **Read More:** [_Yes, You Can Get Better at Saying No_](https://time.com/6332017/how-to-say-no-better/) Research consistently highlights how this pressure to comply shapes our behavior. In a series of experiments, my colleagues and I found that people [frequently took](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030527) bad advice, even when the flaws in the advice were glaringly obvious. In one study, participants were asked to choose between two lotteries, one of which was clearly inferior in value. When an advisor encouraged participants to select the subpar lottery, compliance rates were often as [high as 85%](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030527). Requests to comply created a social obligation too uncomfortable to resist. However, when participants had the chance to revise their choices in private, compliance dropped to about 50%—still substantially high but a clear indication of how the physical presence of others magnifies the pressure to comply. In another [experiment](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167218805991), we had a middle-aged man approach 253 ferry passengers traveling from Connecticut to Long Island, offering them $5 or a chance to play a mystery lottery (with an average payout of less than $5) in exchange for completing a survey. Without advice, only 8% of participants chose the lottery. When the man recommended the lottery, 20% complied. Alarmingly, when he disclosed that he would receive a bonus if they selected the lottery—introducing a blatant conflict of interest—compliance jumped to 42%. Despite admitting that this revelation reduced their trust in the man, many passengers said they felt uneasy rejecting his suggestion outright, fearing it would imply they thought he was untrustworthy. This discomfort they felt, which I call “insinuation anxiety,” is an aversive emotional state that arises when we fear that rejecting someone’s request will be interpreted as a signal of distrust or disrespect. Insinuation anxiety can explain why patients sometimes comply with unnecessary medical tests, or why employees accept unrealistic demands from their bosses. The thought of questioning someone’s expertise or intentions can be so unsettling to us that we’d rather choose compliance to avoid the awkwardness of implied doubt. Even in extreme cases, insinuation anxiety may compel compliance. Stanley Milgram’s landmark [psychology experiments](https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html) on obedience to authority illustrate dramatic compliance. Participants were instructed to administer what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to a stranger. Many were visibly distressed suggesting they did not wish to comply, yet two-thirds could not reject the experimenter’s directives, prioritizing obedience over their own moral values. This drive to avoid insinuating mistrust stems from a desire to maintain social harmony, avoid embarrassment, and “save face” for the person giving advice. The cost, however, is that we often suppress our own values and judgments to placate others. Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments also reveal another dimension of compliance: [the abdication of responsibility](https://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Experimental-Perennial-Thought/dp/006176521X). Many participants administered what they believed were dangerous shocks because, as they said, they were “just following orders.” This tendency to transfer moral accountability to authority figures is known as “[ethical fading](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53)”—it shrinks our sense of responsibility and numbs us to the consequences of our actions. In my research, I’ve found a similar dynamic: People often say yes to bad advice because they believe it will shield them from blame if things go wrong. Ironically, however, the opposite is true. [Compliance doesn’t absolve regret; it amplifies it](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387075028%5FKicking%5FYourself%5FGoing%5FAgainst%5FYour%5FInclinations%5FLeads%5Fto%5FGreater%5FFeelings%5Fof%5FControl%5Fand%5FCulpability). When we ignore our better judgment, we end up feeling more culpable for poor outcomes, not less. Compliance and consent are often conflated but are [fundamentally different](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/705089/defy-by-dr-sunita-sah/). Compliance is reactive and externally dictated, imposed by systems or authority figures that leave us with little room to say no. [Consent](https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/DD68D60DCF6CA6497A04D302E66A3942DA8355EE7240?noSaveAs=1), by contrast, is deliberate—a deeply considered agreement or refusal rooted in one’s values. Valid consent requires five elements to be present: capacity, knowledge, understanding, freedom, and authorization. Studies have shown that when people feel rushed or overwhelmed, it is [difficult for them to process information in a deliberate](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.008) fashion, [mitigating their informed consent](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4941435/). Defiance, too, is often misunderstood. Many people assume it must be loud, aggressive, or confrontational. But like consent, true defiance is deliberate and deeply personal. Defiance, as I see it, requires the same five elements as consent to ensure that we can [act in accordance with our values](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/705089/defy-by-dr-sunita-sah/). It’s not about rebellion for its own sake but about alignment—choosing actions that reflect your values, even under pressure. Even when we recognize the need to defy, many of us lack the tools to translate internal discomfort into action. Defiance, like any other skill, requires practice. But society rarely gives us the space to develop it. Without practice, we default to compliance and continue to say yes when we want to say no. Developing the ability to defy starts with recognizing discomfort as a signal, pausing to reflect on your values, and taking small, deliberate steps toward action. The more we practice, the more confident we become in our capacity to align our actions with our principles. While defiance is often associated with risk—social exclusion, professional backlash, or strained relationships—the costs of compliance are equally profound. When we comply without question, we erode our sense of agency, disconnect from our values, and, in many cases, perpetuate harm to ourselves or others. Understanding the psychology of compliance is the first step toward reclaiming our autonomy. By recognizing the forces that drive us to say yes when we mean no, we can begin to create relationships, workplaces, and communities that value authenticity over unexamined obedience. Every decision we make—whether to comply or to defy—shapes the world we live in. When we align our actions with our values, we don’t just change our own lives, we create a culture where integrity and respect thrive. Compliance may be our default, but it doesn’t have to be our destiny. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/7204326/saying-yes-instead-of-no-essay/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/7204326/saying-yes-instead-of-no-essay/"},"headline":"Why We Say Yes When We Don’t Want To","datePublished":"2025-01-04T12:00:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-03-10T23:21:25.764Z","description":"Compliance may be our default. But it doesn’t have to be our destiny, writes Dr. Sunita Sah.","url":"https://time.com/7204326/saying-yes-instead-of-no-essay/","keywords":["Psychology","freelance"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Dr. Sunita Sah","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/sunita-sah/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/psychology/","name":"Psychology"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/7204326/saying-yes-instead-of-no-essay/","name":"Why We Say Yes When We Don’t Want To"}}]}] ```