My 3/5 rating for this book relates mainly to the premise. I still consider a 3/5 to be good, but not exceptional. The main character, Jessica, is fine; a bit unsympathetic, but not boring. The antagonist, Dr. Shields, is also fine. The novel alternates between Jessica's perspective and Dr. Shields's, with Dr. Shields's chapters written in a stilted, robotic, unemotional way. Although I appreciated that her voice is distinct from Jessica's, it felt excessive at times.

Mild spoilers follow.

My primary criticism, as a researcher with a background in psychology, is that the premise is unbelievable. I accept that Dr. Shields is an unethical practitioner and researcher—she deceives her participants and conducts research without disclosing the actual goals, both violations of most research codes of conduct—but her survey questions are designed in an amateurish, invasive way.

There's no way Dr. Shields's research would ever pass IRB approval, and she likely couldn't have pursued this research without expecting to eventually lose her license or face professional repercussions. Her portrayal as an illustrious, wise, self-important person is undermined by how poorly designed her research is from the very beginning. Many graduate students could conduct a better survey.

I suspended disbelief regarding Dr. Shields's research for the sake of the plot and concept, but reading it was probably like how a lawyer feels watching Law & Order or a doctor feels watching Grey's Anatomy.

Other than that, although I did struggle through the middle of the novel, it was engaging enough that I finished it. It's not a bad book, but I wouldn't read it again.