ArticlePDF Available

A 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory: Do Not Read This Article.

December 2018
Motivation Science 4(4):281-300

DOI:10.1037/mot0000091

Authors:

Benjamin D. Rosenberg

Dominican University of California

Jason T Siegel

Claremont Graduate University

Psychological reactance theory (PRT; Brehm, 1966) posits that when something threatens or eliminates people’s freedom of behavior, they experience psychological reactance, a motivational state that drives freedom restoration. Complementing recent, discipline-specific reviews (e.g., Quick, Shen, & Dillard, 2013; Steindl, Jonas, Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch, & Greenberg, 2015), the current analysis integrates PRT research across fields in which it has flourished: social psychology and clinical psychology, as well as communication research. Moreover, the current review offers a rare synthesis of existing reactance measures. We outline five overlapping waves in the PRT literature: Wave 1: Theory proposal and testing; Wave 2: Contributions from clinical psychology; Wave 3: Contributions from communication research; Wave 4: Measurement of reactance; and Wave 5: Return to motivation. As part of our description of Wave 5, we detail scholars’ renewed focus on motivational aspects of the framework, and the ways in which this return to PRT’s motivational roots is allowing researchers to push its accuracy and applicability forward. We use this research that is already occurring in Wave 5 to outline three specific ways in which scholars can direct the continued application of motivation science to the advancement of PRT. Finally, as we outline in a future directions sections for each Wave, the assimilation of this research illustrates the ways in which an emphasis on motivation can expand and explain PRT research in communication, clinical psychology, and measurement.

Content uploaded by Benjamin D. Rosenberg

Content may be subject to copyright.

Motivation Science

A 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory: Do

Not Read This Article

Benjamin D. Rosenberg and Jason T. Siegel

Online First Publication, December 21, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091

CITATION

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2017, December 21). A 50-Year Review of Psychological

Reactance Theory: Do Not Read This Article. Motivation Science. Advance online publication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091

A 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory:

Do Not Read This Article

Benjamin D. Rosenberg

Chapman University

Jason T. Siegel

Claremont Graduate University

Psychological reactance theory (PRT; Brehm, 1966) posits that when something

threatens or eliminates people’s freedom of behavior, they experience psychological

reactance, a motivational state that drives freedom restoration. Complementing recent,

discipline-speciﬁc reviews (e.g., Quick, Shen, & Dillard, 2013; Steindl, Jonas, Sit-

tenthaler, Traut-Mattausch, & Greenberg, 2015), the current analysis integrates PRT

research across ﬁelds in which it has ﬂourished: social psychology and clinical

psychology, as well as communication research. Moreover, the current review offers a

rare synthesis of existing reactance measures. We outline ﬁve overlapping waves in the

PRT literature: Wave 1: Theory proposal and testing; Wave 2: Contributions from

clinical psychology; Wave 3: Contributions from communication research; Wave 4:

Measurement of reactance; and Wave 5: Return to motivation. As part of our descrip-

tion of Wave 5, we detail scholars’ renewed focus on motivational aspects of the

framework, and the ways in which this return to PRT’s motivational roots is allowing

researchers to push its accuracy and applicability forward. We use this research that is

already occurring in Wave 5 to outline three speciﬁc ways in which scholars can direct

the continued application of motivation science to the advancement of PRT. Finally, as

we outline in a future directions sections for each Wave, the assimilation of this

research illustrates the ways in which an emphasis on motivation can expand and

explain PRT research in communication, clinical psychology, and measurement.

Keywords: communication, motivation, persuasion, reactance, resistance

Roughly 50 years ago, Brehm (1966) proposed

psychological reactance theory (PRT). According

to PRT, freedom of behavior is an important,

beneﬁcial, and pervasive aspect of people’s lives;

when that freedom is threatened, they become

motivated to restore it (Brehm, 1966). This moti-

vation to restore threatened freedom, psychologi-

cal reactance, is PRT’s core construct, and has

catalyzed over ﬁve decades of research on the

topic. Complementing recent, discipline-speciﬁc

comprehensive reviews (Quick et al., 2013;

Steindl et al., 2015), in the current analysis, we

amalgamate PRT research across the multiple

ﬁelds in which it has ﬂourished. As a result of

assimilating all of this research, we outline ﬁve

prominent, overlapping waves in the PRT litera-

ture: Wave 1: Theory proposal and testing, Wave

2: Contributions from clinical psychology, Wave

3: Contributions from communication research,

Wave 4: Measurement of reactance, and Wave 5:

Return to motivation. As part of Wave 5, we

indicate several possibilities for continued PRT

research, such as examining experiences other

than threats to valued behaviors that arouse reac-

tance (e.g., identity threat; Kray, Thompson, &

Galinsky, 2001). In addition, as a testament to the

explanatory power of motivation science, we sug-

gest that a focus on the motivational underpin-

nings of PRT can inﬂuence scholars in social and

clinical psychology, communication, and mea-

surement to continue advancement of the theory.

Wave 1: Theory Proposal and Testing

Psychological reactance theory (Brehm,

1966) was born out of the tradition of cognitive

inconsistency theories (for a recent review see

Benjamin D. Rosenberg, Crean College of Health and

Behavioral Sciences, Chapman University; Jason T. Siegel,

Department of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences,

Claremont Graduate University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to Benjamin D. Rosenberg, Crean College of Health

and Behavioral Sciences, Chapman University, One Uni-

versity Drive Orange, CA 92866. E-mail: brosenbe@

chapman.edu

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2017, Vol. 0, No. 999, 000 2333-8113/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091

Proulx, Inzlicht, & Harmon-Jones, 2012), and

more speciﬁcally, out of cognitive dissonance

theory (Festinger, 1957). Indeed, Festinger was

Brehm’s dissertation advisor (Chadee, 2011),

and Brehm (1956) published one of the ﬁrst

empirical tests of cognitive dissonance. Both

cognitive dissonance and PRT are focused on

motivational arousal and reduction; however,

Brehm (1966) focused on a speciﬁc motivation—

the motivation to maintain the freedom to

choose when and how to behave. Following

Brehm’s proposal and initial testing of PRT

(e.g., Brehm, 1966; Wicklund & Brehm, 1968),

researchers turned to further assessment and

clariﬁcation of its assumptions and core com-

ponents.

Assumptions of PRT

Psychological reactance theory is based on

two assumptions. First, PRT assumes people

have a set of free behaviors they believe they

can enact (Brehm, 1966). According to Brehm,

free behaviors are acts people have engaged in

previously, are currently engaged in, and could

be engaged in the future. The second assump-

tion of PRT is that when people’s free behaviors

are threatened or eliminated, they become mo-

tivated to restore their freedom. To be sure,

people do not desire freedom, but its loss is

motivationally arousing (Brehm, 1966). These

two assumptions result in numerous predictions

about the characteristics of the freedoms and

threats that arouse reactance, as well as the

outcomes of reactance (for review see Brehm &

Brehm, 1981).

Components of PRT

For purposes of clarity, researchers have bro-

ken PRT into its component pieces and modeled

it based on order of occurrence (e.g., Dillard &

Shen, 2005): (a) presence of freedom, (b) elim-

ination or threat to freedom, (c) arousal of re-

actance, and (d) restoration of freedom.

Freedoms. The ﬁrst component of PRT

comes from the assumption that people have

sets of free behaviors in which they can engage

in the present or future (Brehm, 1966). People

do not consider all behaviors as freedoms; they

exist only when two conditions are met: people

are aware of the freedom (i.e., know it exists)

and they feel capable of enacting it. Moreover,

freedoms are subjective (Brehm & Brehm,

1981): if people think they have the freedom to

do something and feel they can enact it, then

that freedom exists (e.g., Wicklund & Brehm,

1968).

Elimination and threats to freedom. The

second core component of PRT comes from the

assumption that freedom restriction is aversive

(Brehm, 1966) and creates a motivation to re-

store the lost freedom (i.e., psychological reac-

tance). Anything that completely blocks people

from performing a behavior or holding a certain

position constitutes elimination of freedom

(e.g., outright bans; Mazis, Settle, & Leslie,

1973). Additionally, anything that impedes, but

does not eliminate, freedom is a threat (e.g.,

attempted social inﬂuence; Brehm, 1966). As an

interesting caveat, people may interpret acts that

are typically beneﬁcial as threats to their free-

dom to act as they choose. For instance, Krish-

nan and Carment (1979) found that having a

confederate help participants on a task pres-

sured them to return the favor, which aroused

reactance by threatening their freedom to help

or not (for similar results see Nemeth, 1970).

Arousal of reactance. Two broad factors

determine how much reactance people will feel

from a given threat: characteristics of the free-

dom and of the threat itself (Brehm, 1966).

Characteristics of the freedom. Brehm

and Brehm (1981) suggested that the proportion

of behaviors threatened and the importance of

the threatened freedom would determine the

amount of reactance a threat arouses. Despite

initial backing (e.g., Wicklund, Slattum, & Sol-

omon, 1970), few subsequent studies have ex-

amined the prediction that the greater the pro-

portion and number of freedoms threatened, the

more reactance arousal (for an unsupportive

exception see Grabitz-Gniech, Auslitz, & Gra-

bitz, 1975). Brehm (1966) also stated when

people perceive a given freedom is uniquely

able to fulﬁll a need, a threat to that freedom

will arouse greater reactance than when other

freedoms may also fulﬁll the same need. How-

ever, research has rarely examined this proposal

(for a supportive exception see Goldman &

Wallis, 1979).

Characteristics of the threat. Brehm

(1966) postulated a direct relationship between

the severity of a threat and the amount of reac-

tance aroused—more severe threats lead to

greater reactance. Early empirical backing for

this idea came from Heilman (1976), who found

2 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

that more intense social inﬂuence attempts in-

stigated greater oppositional behavior than less

intense attempts (for similar results see Rains &

Turner, 2007). These and numerous other stud-

ies indicate that in a range of situations, threats

of high magnitude arouse greater reactance than

threats of lower magnitude (e.g., Organ, 1974).

Additionally, people’s perception that a

threatening agent is explicitly trying to persuade

them will increase reactance arousal (Brehm,

1966). In one study, Heller, Pallak, and Picek

(1973) manipulated a confederate’s intent to

inﬂuence participants’ attitudes toward a nu-

clear power plant; results suggested that com-

pared with low-intent confederates, high-intent

confederates caused participants to strongly op-

pose the advocated position (for similar results

see Jones & Brehm, 1970). A meta-analysis by

Benoit (1998) conﬁrmed this result, showing

that forewarning of a message’s persuasive in-

tent decreased postmessage attitude change.

As a ﬁnal means of reactance arousal, Brehm

(1966) hypothesized threats did not have to be

directed at people to induce reactance and the

accompanying efforts to restore freedom. An-

dreoli, Worchel, and Folger (1974) presented

evidence for reactance due to an “implied

threat” (p. 765), showing that simply listening

to a threat to someone else’s freedom was suf-

ﬁcient to change people’s ratings of a conver-

sation topic because they anticipated losing

their own freedom to choose a topic in the

future (for similar results see Pallak & Heller,

1971). More recent evidence shows that simply

observing or reading about a threat to another

person’s freedom arouses a mix of threat and

negative emotions (i.e., vicarious reactance; Sit-

tenthaler, Traut-Mattausch, & Jonas, 2015). In a

related development, Sittenthaler, Jonas, and

Traut-Mattausch (2016) suggested that the pro-

cesses underlying vicarious- and self-reactance

processes are distinct: restricting people’s free-

dom resulted in an immediate spike in physio-

logical data, whereas vicarious reactance de-

layed this increase (for review see Steindl,

Jonas, Sittenthaler, et al., 2015).

Restoration of freedom: Behavioral

outcomes. After people experience elimina-

tion or threat to freedom, reactance manifests in

two main ways (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). The

most straightforward form of reactance involves

engaging in the restricted behavior (i.e., boo-

merang effect; Brehm, 1966). For instance,

when the drinking age increased from 18 to 21,

newly underage college students (i.e., whose

freedom to drink was now restricted) drank

more than adult students (Engs & Hanson,

1989)—a pattern in contrast to 30 years of prior

research. When people are unable to engage in

the restricted behavior, they can reestablish

freedom by social implication (e.g., seeing

someone else engage in a similar behavior;

Brehm & Brehm, 1981).

Restoration of freedom: Subjective

outcomes. In addition to these behavioral out-

comes, there are a host of subjective responses

people exhibit when they experience reactance.

For one, when people’s freedom is threatened,

their desire for the threatened behavior in-

creases, as does its attractiveness (Brehm &

Rozen, 1971; Brehm, Stires, Sensenig, & Sha-

ban, 1966). People can also reduce the discom-

fort associated with reactance by showing hos-

tility toward (e.g., Nezlek & Brehm, 1975), or

derogating (e.g., Rains, 2013), the source of a

threat.

When reactance reduction fails. In addi-

tion to these methods of reactance reduction,

there are times when people try but ultimately

fail to reduce reactance (Brehm & Brehm,

1981). When this happens, reactance arousal

may cease, and people may also begin to feel a

sense of lost control or surrender Wortman and

Brehm (1975). This theorizing drew mostly on

the idea of learned helplessness (Seligman,

1975), wherein people acknowledge that a

threat to freedom exists, but accept their inabil-

ity to overcome the threat and reestablish free-

dom. Mikulincer (1988) tested the relationship

between difﬁculty of restoration and the persis-

tence of reactance effects, showing that when

people perceive freedom restoration as moder-

ately difﬁcult, they are motivated to seek resto-

ration. If, on the other hand, people realize

restoring freedom is impossible, their motiva-

tion to restore it will be low (for similar results

see Baum & Gatchel, 1981).

In a related development, scholars began to

consider the ways in which various personality

traits affect reactance arousal (e.g., locus of

control; Rotter, 1966). For instance, Rhodewalt

and Marcroft (1988) showed that people with

Type A personality (i.e., extreme achievement

striving, time urgency) showed considerable re-

actance when a behavioral freedom was

blocked, whereas Type Bs (i.e., enjoy achieve-

3PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ment, less hostile, work steadily) did not expe-

rience reactance. This and other similar results

(for review see Brehm & Brehm, 1981) indicated

a broader moderator of reactance arousal—

perceived ability to cope with a threat to free-

dom. This analysis aligns with work by Lazarus

and Folkman (1984; for review see Folkman,

Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen,

2000), which suggests that people engage in

two processes (i.e., primary and secondary ap-

praisal) that allow them to decide if a situation

is threatening (i.e., may lead to harm or loss) or

challenging (i.e., may lead to mastery or beneﬁt;

for a similar analysis see Brehm & Self, 1989).

Wave 2: Contributions From

Clinical Psychology

With the preponderance of evidence support-

ing PRT, Brehm and Brehm (1981) helped

prompt Wave 2 of PRT scholarship by noting

that the construct of psychological reactance

had considerable potential in clinical psychol-

ogy (also see S. S. Brehm, 1976). One outcome

of the expansion of reactance into clinical psy-

chology was that scholars reconceptualized it as

a trait (for review see Shoham, Trost, &

Rohrbaugh, 2004), instead of Brehm’s (1966)

momentary state variable. As Kelly and Nauta

(1997) stated, trait reactance is the “consistent

tendency to perceive and react to situations as if

one’s freedoms were being threatened” (p.

1124). Put differently, based on differing levels

of trait reactance, people may be more or less

inclined to experience the same stimuli as a

freedom threat. Guided by this thinking, clini-

cians delineated three interrelated approaches to

addressing and understanding client reactance.

Perspectives on Reactance in

Clinical Psychology

Reactance as a moderator. The ﬁrst ap-

proach indicates that trait reactance moderates

therapeutic success (for review see Shoham et

al., 2004). When clients perceive therapists’

recommendations as threatening their freedom,

they become inclined to resist inﬂuence—thus

undermining therapeutic effectiveness (e.g.,

Tracey, Ellickson, & Sherry, 1989). For in-

stance, in a study on procrastination and test

anxiety, regardless of type of treatment re-

ceived, patients high in trait reactance showed

less satisfaction and expectation of change than

those low in reactance (Dowd et al., 1988).

Moreover, patients higher in reactance prone-

ness tend to show decreased compliance with

therapy (e.g., Seibel & Dowd, 1999), antide-

pressant treatment (e.g., De las Cuevas, Peñate,

& Sanz, 2014), and medical recommendations

(e.g., Fogarty, 1997). Overall, patients high in

trait reactance face worse prognoses than those

who are less reactant (Beutler, Moleiro, &

Talebi, 2002; for discussion see Cautilli, Riley-

Tillman, Axelrod, & Hineline, 2005).

Overcoming reactance in therapy. A sec-

ond approach among clinicians has focused on

avoiding the negative outcomes outlined above.

On one end of this continuum, researchers seek

to prevent reactance arousal, and to enhance

therapeutic effectiveness, by offering clients

free choice in therapy (e.g., Beutler, 1979).

Studies using this technique have been gener-

ally supportive (e.g., Devine & Fernald, 1973).

For instance, students given a choice in treat-

ment reported greater perceived value and re-

laxation than those assigned to a speciﬁc treat-

ment (Gordon, 1976). Instead of circumventing

reactance, an additional method encourages its

arousal (for discussion see Tennen, Press,

Rohrbaugh, & White, 1981), using paradoxical

interventions (i.e., those that encourage symp-

tomatic behavior; see Dowd & Swoboda, 1984)

to induce client change. However, a number of

empirical studies (e.g., Swoboda, Dowd, &

Wise, 1990), meta-analyses (e.g., Shoham-

Salomon & Rosenthal, 1987), and literature re-

views (e.g., DeBord, 1989) indicate the incon-

sistent inﬂuence of paradoxical interventions on

client outcomes.

Reactance as a tailoring variable. A third

approach combined the above two ideas to sug-

gest that because reactance proneness moder-

ates therapeutic success, considering clients’

level of trait reactance allows therapists to tailor

intervention strategies (e.g., Beutler, 1979).

Speciﬁcally, Dowd and Seibel (1990) suggested

that for clients low in trait reactance, therapy

should aim to increase autonomy and decision-

making capabilities. Conversely, for clients

who exhibit high trait reactance, therapists

should focus on presenting themselves as ac-

cepting facilitators, even using humor to note

clients’ tendency toward reactance. For in-

stance, Karno, Longabaugh, and Herbeck

(2010) reported that the extent of structure (e.g.,

4 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

instructions) that therapists offered interacted

with trait reactance to predict treatment success

for alcoholism. When patients were high in re-

actance proneness, less structured therapists

prompted greater use of prorecovery language;

for patients low in trait reactance, the converse

was true (for similar results see Arnold &

Vakhrusheva, 2016). This research shows that

matching self-directed treatments with patients

who exhibit reactance increases effectiveness

(for review see Beutler et al., 2002).

Debate Over Trait Reactance

Despite the development of literatures dedi-

cated to examining the role of trait reactance in

clinical settings, some scholars have questioned

its use and construct validity (e.g., Miron &

Brehm, 2006). Shoham et al. (2004) initiated

this pushback, stating that the literature is un-

clear on whether researchers can usefully con-

ceptualize reactance as a trait because, “(a) Re-

actance may not be a stable trait, and (b) what is

currently measured as a trait may not reﬂect the

construct of reactance” (p. 182). These authors

argued clinicians could still beneﬁt from apply-

ing principles of reactance— but it should be as

a motivational state. In a similar vein, Silvia

(2006) suggested that any evidence for the va-

lidity of trait reactance was indirect, as re-

searchers had not assessed its relation to state

reactance. In testing this idea, Silvia found that

a pushy, high threat message was most persua-

sive to people who scored high, not low, on the

Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS;

Hong & Page, 1989). People who should have

disliked the reactance-inducing message the

most (i.e., those high in trait reactance) instead

disliked it the least. Similarly, as we discuss in

Wave 4, studies indicate some issues with va-

lidity of common trait reactance measures (e.g.,

Buboltz, Thomas, & Donnell, 2002). As an ad-

ditional criticism, Miron and Brehm (2006)

noted that because items on trait scales appear

to measure affect, and their explanatory power

is low, “there is little to gain from the concep-

tualization of reactance as a personality trait”

(p. 7).

Future Directions for PRT in

Clinical Psychology

Research applying PRT to clinical settings

has clearly been fruitful, as the various perspec-

tives in Wave 2 attest (for review see Beutler,

Harwood, Michelson, Song, & Holman, 2011).

However, to allow the ﬁeld to reach its full

potential, scholars must resolve two interrelated

issues. For one, research should address the

psychometric instability of the prominent trait

reactance measures, which we discuss in Wave

4 (e.g., Thomas, Donnell, & Buboltz, 2001).

Once a valid measure of trait reactance is de-

rived, researchers can determine the utility of

the construct. One possibility is that trait reac-

tance is indeed a useful construct, but that mea-

surement challenges have hindered scholars

from elucidating its true utility. Another possi-

bility is that researchers should move their focus

away from trait reactance, and toward traits that

lead people to be more likely to become reac-

tant. For example, Type A personalities react

differently to freedom threats than Type Bs

(e.g., Rhodewalt & Marcroft, 1988); sensation

seeking also moderates reactance arousal

(Quick & Stephenson, 2008). Clinical research-

ers should consider these other traits, particu-

larly until they resolve the measurement issue.

This combination— determining ways to val-

idly measure trait reactance and focusing on

other personality traits associated with it—

could stabilize ﬁndings and open the ﬁeld up for

continued clinical research.

An additional possibility for future research

in this domain comes from communication re-

search: as we detail in Wave 3, studies have

revealed the types of messages that arouse (e.g.,

controlling) and diminish (e.g., autonomy-

supportive) reactance. Building on these ﬁnd-

ings, clinicians could consider the inﬂuence of

their communication style on patient reactance.

For instance, as Beutler et al. (2002) noted in

their review, nondirective interventions that fo-

cus on relationship-building (vs. direct behav-

ioral recommendations) are more effective for

clients high in trait reactance. Research and

theorizing using a motivational perspective

(Wave 5) also has implications for clinical

scholarship. Even though scholars have consid-

ered the role of trait characteristics in therapeu-

tic resistance, clients’ current state of mind

likely also interacts with therapist intervention

style to predict treatment outcomes. As an ex-

ample, Lienemann and Siegel (2016) showed

that people with heightened depressive symp-

tomatology were reactant to all communica-

tions, not just controlling ones.

5PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Wave 3: Contributions From

Communication Research

Concurrent to Wave 2, scholars began to uti-

lize the explanatory power of PRT in other

domains, most notably communication research

(for review see Quick et al., 2013). A seminal

paper in this line of work came from Bensley

and Wu (1991), who experimentally examined

college students’ reactions to high- and low-

threat antidrinking messages. This scholarship

led communication scholars to undertake fruit-

ful programs of research on the message fea-

tures that increase (e.g., controlling language;

Buller, Borland, & Burgoon, 1998) and de-

crease (e.g., narrative; Moyer-Gusé, 2008)

arousal of reactance.

Controlling and Autonomy-Supportive

Language

In line with Brehm’s (1966) original sugges-

tion that threatening communication will arouse

reactance, communication scholars have exam-

ined the effects of controlling message features

on reactance processes (e.g., Grandpre, Alvaro,

Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003; Quick & Kim,

2009). These studies typically contrast two

types of messages: controlling (e.g., “must,”

“ought,” “should”; Miller, Lane, Deatrick,

Young, & Potts, 2007, p. 223) and autonomy-

supportive (e.g., “perhaps,” “possibly,” “may-

be”; Miller et al., 2007, p. 223). As noted, in one

of the ﬁrst studies to manipulate message di-

rectness, Bensley and Wu (1991) tested the ef-

fectiveness of high- and low-threat messages in

reducing college students’ alcohol consump-

tion. The authors found that high-threat mes-

sages aroused more reactance than low-threat

messages across two experiments: participants

exposed to the high-threat messages drank more

than those who saw the low-threat messages

(i.e., a boomerang effect; Brehm, 1966).

This paradigm, where scholars test the effec-

tiveness of high- and low-threat communica-

tions, is the standard for testing PRT in com-

munication research (for review see Burgoon,

Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voulodakis, 2002). Using

this approach, scholars have replicated this pat-

tern of results many times, showing that con-

trolling communications arouse reactance in a

variety of contexts, such as health (e.g., Crano,

Alvaro, Tan, & Siegel, 2017) and consumer

behavior (e.g., Zemack-Rugar, Moore, & Fitz-

simons, 2017).

Other Message Features Affecting

Reactance Arousal

Once researchers established that strongly

worded messages would consistently arouse re-

actance, they turned to features that could re-

duce reactance (for review see Quick et al.,

2013).

Restoration postscripts. One strategy for

allaying the reactance that people experience

from persuasive messages is to include a re-

minder of their freedom to choose at the end of

the communication (i.e., a postscript; Brehm &

Brehm, 1981). For instance, Bessarabova, Fink,

and Turner (2013) randomly assigned partici-

pants to receive a postscript (i.e., “The choice is

yours. You’re free to decide for yourself,” p.

347) or no postscript. As predicted, the restora-

tion postscript mitigated reactance for partici-

pants who read the high-threat message but not

the low-threat message (for similar results see

Kirchler, 1999). These data indicate that mes-

sage designers can reap the beneﬁts of direct

messages (e.g., clarity; Miller et al., 2007) while

avoiding the pitfalls of reactance (e.g., source

derogation; Rains, 2013).

Message novelty. The degree to which

people perceive a message is novel has been

equated with decreased reactance arousal and

increased message effectiveness (e.g., Kang,

Cappella, & Fishbein, 2006). Palmgreen et al.

(1991) ﬁrst proffered the construct of message

sensation value to describe media that draws

attention of targets to persuasive communica-

tion; they deﬁned it as, “the degree to which

formal and content audio-visual features of a

message elicit sensory, affective, and arousal

responses” (p. 219). According to Morgan,

Palmgreen, Stephenson, Hoyle, and Lorch

(2003), this construct is useful because commu-

nications that are high in sensation value draw

attention away from controlling aspects of a

message. In a study supporting this theorizing,

Quick (2013) showed that when adolescents

perceived messages as highly novel, they re-

ported decreased perceptions of freedom threat.

Narrative. Similar to message novelty, re-

search has also shown that using narratives in

persuasive messaging can reduce reactance ef-

fects and increase persuasive effectiveness

6 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(Quick et al., 2013). In one study, Moyer-Gusé

and Nabi (2010) examined how features of a

story (e.g., narrative transportation; Green &

Brock, 2000) could mitigate resistance to per-

suasion. Communications that included narra-

tive presented issues of teen pregnancy in the

context of a popular dramatic TV show, while

control messages appeared as a news broadcast.

Narrative increased participants’ identiﬁcation

with story characters and decreased perceptions

of persuasive intent; as a result, reactance de-

creased and safe sex intentions increased.

Empathy. Another reactance reduction

strategy involves inhibiting people’s anger and

counterargumentation by using message content

to arouse empathy in the audience (e.g., Shen,

2010, 2011). The idea is that if people feel

empathy toward characters in a message, they

may come to identify with the characters; in

turn, they perceive a message the characters

deliver as less threatening than if they did not

identify with the characters. In one study, Shen

(2010) used a quasi-experimental design that

included ﬁve antismoking or antidrinking mes-

sages that participants rated on the amount of

empathy they induced. Results indicated that

state empathy reduced reactance, and in turn,

indirectly affected persuasive effectiveness of

the advertisement.

Inoculation and reactance. Recent re-

search has examined two distinct ways in which

inoculating (i.e., forewarning; McGuire, 1961)

people to the possibility of a forthcoming threat

can increase or decrease reactance arousal (e.g.,

Richards, Banas, & Magid, 2017). In one ap-

proach, Miller et al. (2013) randomly assigned

participants to view an inoculation message in-

tended to arouse reactance, a traditional inocu-

lation message, or a no-inoculation control prior

to exposing them to a persuasive message ad-

dressing one of four issues (e.g., legalization of

marijuana). Forewarning participants with a re-

actance-inducing message enhanced their sub-

sequent reactance to a controlling message, en-

abling them to resist persuasive inﬂuence over

two weeks later. In a complementary investiga-

tion, Richards and Banas (2015) theorized that

exposing participants to a premessage warning

noting that they might experience reactance

(i.e., inoculating them) would decrease reac-

tance to an ensuing target message, resulting in

increased persuasion. These authors presented

participants either with an inoculation message

or no message; they then saw a brochure detail-

ing the ills of college binge drinking. As pre-

dicted, the inoculation premessage decreased

perceived threat and reactance to the brochure,

and indirectly affected participants’ intentions

to binge drink (also see Richards et al., 2017).

Reactance as persuasive strategy. Rather

than reducing reactance, theorizing and research

indicates that campaigners can use its arousal as

an advantageous persuasive strategy (e.g.,

Turner, 2007). For instance, the recent “truth”

antitobacco campaign in Florida presented cig-

arettes as an overweight, dirty bully who tries to

control adolescents’ behavior (Zucker et al.,

2000). This approach turns the tables, as reac-

tance against the message in this case would

include not smoking, a clearly desirable out-

come. Indeed, evaluations of this campaign

have been favorable (e.g., Sly, Hopkins,

Trapido, & Ray, 2001), illustrating the utility of

this approach (for a similar discussion see Far-

relly et al., 2002). Other evidence supports the

idea that reactance arousal can be favorable, as

Quick, Bates, and Quinlan (2009) posited that

because secondhand smoke threatens people’s

freedom to breathe clean air, their anger could

prompt a desirable behavior (e.g., activism

against smoking). Results indicated that anger

with secondhand smoke was positively associ-

ated with reactance and, in turn, with attitudes

toward clean indoor air policies.

Future Directions for PRT in

Communication Research

Communication research has been a driving

force in PRT research for 35 years (for review

see Quick et al., 2013). These scholars are well-

positioned to continue pushing the theory for-

ward, including answering fundamental ques-

tions about PRT that remain open. For instance,

scholars can use the controlling message exper-

imental paradigm (for review see Burgoon et

al., 2002) to examine Brehm’s (1966) rarely

assessed proposition that the greater the propor-

tion and number of freedoms threatened, the

greater reactance arousal. In addition, a great

deal of communication research has to do with

interpersonal communication—a potential as-

pect of reactance arousal that has received lim-

ited attention (e.g., Sinclair, Felmlee, Sprecher,

& Wright, 2015). Scholars could examine the

interpersonal nonverbal cues (for review see

7PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Burgoon, Guerrero, & Floyd, 2010) that are

associated with reactance arousal. Further, com-

munication scholars can bring new approaches

to the counseling domain, such as revealing

reactance amelioration strategies that clinical

research has rarely considered (e.g., use of nar-

ratives; Green & Brock, 2000). Just as commu-

nication can bring new perspectives to the clin-

ical research, considering the state-level

motivational variables described in Wave 5

(e.g., uncertainty; Rosenberg & Siegel, 2017b)

could lead to new insights in message develop-

ment.

Wave 4: Measuring Reactance

As communication research based on PRT

expanded, many of these same scholars (e.g.,

Dillard & Shen, 2005) began to address one of

the principal criticisms of PRT—that state psy-

chological reactance is immeasurable (Brehm,

1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). In line with

Brehm’s assertion, early research on PRT did

not measure reactance directly, instead assess-

ing the outcomes associated with reactance

arousal, such as boomerang effects (e.g.,

Worchel & Brehm, 1970) and increased attrac-

tiveness of the eliminated freedom (e.g., Brehm

& Rozen, 1971). Even though clinicians began

measuring trait reactance over 30 years ago

(e.g., Merz, 1983), with both self-report (e.g.,

Hong & Page, 1989) and observational (e.g.,

Shoham-Salomon, Avner, & Neeman, 1989)

techniques, few studies attempted to measure

state reactance directly (e.g., Lindsey, 2005).

However, in the past 15 years, there has been a

renewed focus across several domains to pro-

pose self-report scales (e.g., Dillard & Shen,

2005) and a physiological measure (Sittentha-

ler, Steindl, & Jonas, 2015) to directly assess

state reactance arousal.

Measuring Trait Reactance

Self-report measures. Scholars’ reimagin-

ing of reactance as a trait led to three prominent

measures (Shen & Dillard, 2007): The Ques-

tionnaire for Measuring Psychological Reac-

tance (QMPR; Merz, 1983), the Therapeutic

Reactance Scale (TRS; Dowd, Milne, & Wise,

1991), and the HPRS (Hong & Page, 1989).

Questionnaire for Measuring Psychologi-

cal Reactance. The initial measure of trait

reactance, the QMPR, came from Merz (1983).

Noting that there were limited experimental as-

sessments of PRT in the literature, Merz devel-

oped 32 initial items based on constructs like

resistance and deﬁance; he then submitted these

items to expert raters for evaluation. The result-

ing 18-item QMPR included statements such as,

“Regulations and duties trigger a sense of resis-

tance in me” and “I react strongly when some-

one tries to restrict my personal freedom of

choice.” There are limited data on the validity

of the QMPR, but a review by Shen and Dillard

(2007) suggested the scale has some face and

content validity. Subsequent evaluations of the

factor structure of the QMPR (e.g., Hong &

Ostini, 1989; Tucker & Byers, 1987) indicated

that in its original form, the QMPR lacked ad-

equate psychometric properties to warrant con-

tinued use. Some of the difﬁculty in validating

the QMPR could have had to do with transla-

tion, as the original Merz (1983) version was in

German (Tucker & Byers, 1987).

Therapeutic Reactance Scale. Due to the

limitations of the Merz (1983) scale, Dowd et

al. (1991) created the 28-item TRS to assess

trait reactance. With the goal of creating a user-

friendly self-report scale, these authors based an

initial pool of 112 items on Brehm’s (1966)

description of reactance. Using item and factor

analysis on data from 163 participants, the TRS

was reduced to its ﬁnal 28-item form (e.g., “I

resent authority ﬁgures who tell me what to

do”). Data from Dowd et al. (1991) and subse-

quent follow-up studies supported the conver-

gent and divergent validity of the TRS, as it was

correlated with measures of locus of control and

the K scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Per-

sonality Inventory (MMPI); it was not corre-

lated with measures of counselor social inﬂu-

ence or anxiety. However, following a series of

factor analyses showing that the TRS is unidi-

mensional, Buboltz et al. (2002) argued that

because the construct of reactance is multidi-

mensional, “continued use in its current form

should be undertaken with caution” (Buboltz et

al., 2002, p. 124).

Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.

Similar to the TRS, the motivation of Hong and

Page (1989) in creating the HPRS had to do

with the psychometric deﬁcits of the Merz

(1983) scale. Over several iterations, Hong et al.

(e.g., Hong, 1992; Hong & Faedda, 1996) de-

veloped an 11-item scale comprised of four

factors: emotional response to restricted choice,

8 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

reactance to compliance, resisting inﬂuence

from others, and reactance to advice and rec-

ommendations. Sample items from the HPRS

include, “I become frustrated when I am unable

to make free and independent decisions” and

“Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in

me.” Studies attest to the validity of the HPRS

as an indicator of trait reactance, including pos-

itive correlations with measures of trait anger

and depression and no relationship with a mea-

sure of self-esteem (Hong & Faedda, 1996).

Despite this support, a conﬁrmatory factor anal-

ysis by Thomas et al. (2001) revealed similar

ﬂaws to the TRS: “without a major revision of

the HPRS, practitioners would be well advised

to discontinue its use” (p. 11).

Observational measure. A non-self-report

measure came from Shoham-Salomon et al.

(1989), who used patients’ tone of voice as an

indicator of trait reactance. Speciﬁcally, these

authors ﬁltered out the content of patients’ re-

sponses to questions about the controllability of

their procrastination problems; four raters then

coded the responses on a series of scales from

spiteful-nonspiteful,uninhibited-inhibited, and

active-passive. The result was a composite

score, on which patients whose tone was spite-

ful, uninhibited, and active were considered

highly reactant. The voice measure was corre-

lated with several self-report questions, indicat-

ing its initial construct validity. However, Sho-

ham, Bootzin, Rohrbaugh, and Urry (1996)

adapted this measure for a study of reactance

among insomniacs, ﬁnding mixed evidence for

its validity. Although limited research has con-

tinued to use this measure (e.g., Levesque, Ve-

licer, Castle, & Greene, 2008), it helped set the

stage for later direct assessment of reactance

using techniques other than self-report (e.g.,

physiological measures; Sittenthaler, Steindl, et

al., 2015).

Measuring State Reactance

Self-report measures. There are three pri-

marily used, validated self-report measures of

reactance in the literature: the widely used in-

tertwined model (Dillard & Shen, 2005) as well

as two more recent scales, the Salzburg State

Reactance Scale (SSR Scale; Sittenthaler,

Traut-Mattausch, Steindl, & Jonas, 2015) and

the Reactance to Health Warnings Scale

(RHWS; Hall et al., 2016). Even though other

self-report measures of state reactance exist in

the literature (e.g., Norman & Wrona-Clarke,

2016), they have generally been one-off assess-

ments that were not subsequently validated. For

instance, Lindsey (2005) created a four-item

measure based on the HPRS (Hong & Faedda,

1996), but despite its potential utility, it was not

developed further (Quick et al., 2013).

The intertwined model. The ﬁrst in-depth

attempt to measure state reactance using a self-

report scale came from Dillard and Shen (2005),

who suggested that the immeasurable nature of

reactance was limiting scholars’ ability to fully

study PRT. Using prior literature as a guide, the

authors outlined four possibilities for directly

measuring reactance: (a) purely cognitive (e.g.,

Kelly & Nauta, 1997); (b) purely negative

emotion/affect (e.g., Dillard & Meijnders,

2002); (c) a combination of negative affect and

cognition, with each as a separate component

(e.g., Dillard & Peck, 2000); or (d) a combina-

tion of negative affect and cognition, with the

components intertwined. Dillard and Shen

(2005) conducted two studies to empirically

determine which of the four models ﬁt the data

best. In each study, participants read one of two

versions of a persuasive message, varied on

strength of threat; the authors then measured

their cognitive responses using a thought-listing

procedure and their negative affect with a

4-item anger scale. The results of both studies

supported the intertwined model (i.e., an entan-

gled combination of negative affect and cogni-

tion): a combination of anger and negative cog-

nition fully mediated the effect of threat on

attitude and behavioral intention. A comparison

of measures (Quick, 2012) and a meta-analysis

(Rains, 2013) provided additional support for

the intertwined model.

Salzburg State Reactance Scale. Despite

consistent support and continued use (e.g., Kim,

Levine, & Allen, 2013), Sittenthaler, Traut-

Mattausch, Steindl, et al. (2015) suggested that

Dillard and Shen’s (2005) measure has a few

limitations—namely, that researchers have

rarely tested it outside of persuasion and mes-

saging studies or with nonstudent samples. As

such, these authors sought to determine whether

the intertwined measure would accurately as-

sess reactance arousal in, “all domains where a

freedom threat is present” (p. 258). Based on

these constraints, Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch,

Steindl, et al. (2015) proposed the SSR Scale;

9PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

guided by earlier research (e.g., Jonas et al.,

2009), it uses 10 items to measure emotional

experience, negative attitudes, and aggressive

behavioral intentions in response to a threaten-

ing situation.

Across three studies, Sittenthaler, Traut-

Mattausch, Steindl, et al. (2015) presented par-

ticipants with one of three imagined scenarios

meant to arouse reactance: (a) a student attempt-

ing to rent an apartment; (b) an employee hav-

ing an oft-used coffeemaker removed; or (c) A

bouncer not allowing the participant into a de-

sirable club. The data indicated that 10 items

best ﬁt the three-factor solution assessing peo-

ple’s experience of reactance, negative atti-

tudes, and aggressive behavioral intentions

(e.g., “Would you like to ruin his reputation by

publishing a negative review on a relevant In-

ternet site?”). Results indicated that the SRS

Scale has a high degree of internal consistency

and correlated well with other measures of state

reactance (e.g., Lindsey, 2005). The SSR

Scale’s relationship with a measure of anger

(Dillard & Shen, 2005), which is a core com-

ponent of reactance, provided additional evi-

dence of its validity.

Reactance to Health Warnings Scale. A

ﬁnal self-report measure, the Reactance to

Health Warnings Scale (RHWS), comes from

Hall et al. (2016, 2017), who sought to build on

Dillard and Shen’s (2005) intertwined model

with a measure of reactance speciﬁc to people’s

reactions to health messages. To this end, Hall

et al. derived three dimensions of reactance to

health warnings (i.e., anger, perceived threat,

and counterarguing the warning) from the liter-

ature, and from which they developed 87 initial

items. Factor analyses revealed a nine-factor

solution, each with three items: anger, self-

relevance, common knowledge, exaggeration,

government, manipulation, personal attack, der-

ogation, and discounting. Despite correlational

and experimental support, Hall et al. (2017)

worried the length of the 27-item RHWS was

impractical for researchers. As a result, these

scholars used item-response theory to create the

Brief RHWS (BRHWS), a three-item measure

of people’s reactions to health warnings (e.g.,

“This warning is trying to manipulate me”).

Results from two studies indicated good inter-

nal consistency and test–retest reliability as well

as convergent and predictive validity.

Physiological measurement of reactance.

Although Brehm (1966) noted that physiologi-

cal arousal accompanied psychological reac-

tance, few researchers have measured the moti-

vational state in this way (e.g., Baum, Fleming,

& Reddy, 1986). However, guided by Wright’s

(2008) suggestion that cardiovascular activity

varies with effort to achieve a goal, Sittenthaler,

Steindl, et al. (2015) recently tested a physio-

logical measure of reactance arousal. Using this

same reasoning, these authors suggested that

variations in cardiovascular activity could cap-

ture the motivational intensity (Brehm & Self,

1989) associated with people’s responses to

freedom threats. To indirectly test this idea,

these authors examined differences in physio-

logical arousal between people who were sub-

ject to illegitimate or legitimate freedom restric-

tions. Results indicated that when faced with an

illegitimate freedom threat, people experienced

an immediate increase in heart rate; conversely,

legitimate restrictions resulted in a delayed

jump in heart rate. Simply, reactance responses

are characterized by both an immediate, physi-

ological component as well as a slower, more

cognitive component.

Future Directions for Measurement

of Reactance

With these three self-report scales (i.e., inter-

twined model, SSR Scale, RHWS) and a phys-

iological measure (Sittenthaler, Steindl, et al.,

2015), scholars have made considerable prog-

ress in directly measuring reactance. Despite

encouraging evidence for the SSR Scale and

RHWS/BRHWS, we have concerns about the

construct validity of each. In particular, items in

both scales seem to assess antecedents (e.g.,

threat to freedom) of reactance, instead of reac-

tance itself. Owing to these trepidations, and

due to consistent support for the intertwined

measure (e.g., Quick, 2012), we agree with

Rains’ (2013) assessment: researchers should

continue measuring reactance as a combination

of anger and negative cognitions. Nevertheless,

scholars should continue to reﬁne all three self-

report measures—for instance, showing that re-

actance and other negative motivational states

are distinct (for a discussion see Brehm, 1966).

Frustration or another negative motivational

state could result in anger and negative cogni-

tions (Lewin, 1959), so as a complement to

10 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

assessments of construct validity (e.g., Quick,

2012), scholars should evaluate the intertwined

model’s discriminant validity. Scholars should

also continue to develop physiological mea-

sures of reactance arousal (Sittenthaler, Steindl,

et al., 2015), with a potential path forward in

further assessment of the dual-process approach

that these authors proposed.

Wave 5: Return to Motivation

From its inception, Brehm (1966) was clear

that reactance is a motivational construct: “. . .

reactance is deﬁned not simply as an unpleasant

tension...butrather a motivational state with

a speciﬁc direction, namely, the recovery of

freedom.” (p. 11, italics original). Despite these

descriptions, the centrality of motivation to PRT

remained relatively dormant until Miron and

Brehm (2006) placed it alongside other theories

with distinct motivational bents (e.g., energiza-

tion model of motivation, Brehm & Self, 1989).

This suggestion prompted a range of similar

perspectives Wright, Agtarap, and Mlynski

(2015), as Steindl, Jonas, Sittenthaler et al.

(2015) devoted a section of their review to

Reactance as Motivation, and Leander et al.

(2016) discussed PRT in the context of self-

determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000),

among other motivational frameworks.

With the centrality of motivation to PRT in

mind, we offer three ways in which scholars can

maximize PRT’s potential to ﬂourish: (a) fac-

tors that affect the desirability of freedom res-

toration (e.g., uncertainty; Hogg, 2007) and

people’s perceptions of freedom threats (e.g.,

depressive symptomatology; Lienemann & Sie-

gel, 2016), (b) catalysts of reactance beyond

freedom threats (e.g., group categorization; Mi-

ron & Brehm, 2006), and (c) outcomes of reac-

tance beyond anger, negative cognitions, and

boomerang effects (e.g., goal shielding, the cog-

nitive inhibition of nonfocal goals; Shah, Fried-

man, & Kruglanski, 2002). Given the forward-

looking nature woven through Wave 5, we omit

a formal Future Directions in this section.

Factors Affecting Perceptions of Freedom

Threats and Freedom Restoration

Although scholars have long discussed indi-

vidual difference variables as inﬂuencing reac-

tance processes (for review see Brehm &

Brehm, 1981), they have only recently begun to

examine states of mind that impact people’s

reactions to freedom threats (e.g., empathy;

Shen, 2010). In line, a ﬁrst direction for contin-

ued research is to expand this examination of

the moderating role of different states of mind

on reactance processes. In one set of studies,

Rosenberg and Siegel (2017b) examined the

inﬂuence of uncertainty on the extent to which

people want to restore their freedom once they

perceive it is under siege. These authors primed

participants to feel uncertain and vulnerable or

certain and safe, and assessed their reactions to

two different freedom threats: a controlling (vs.

supportive) doctor (e.g., Burgoon et al., 1990)

and a controlling (vs. supportive) health mes-

sage (i.e., encouraging daily ﬂossing; Dillard &

Shen, 2005). When participants were primed to

feel certain, their intentions to act counter to the

message were signiﬁcantly greater when they

read the controlling (vs. supportive) message;

when primed to feel uncertain, intentions to act

counter to the message were the same, regard-

less of which message they read. That is, un-

certainty affected the extent to which, once free-

dom was threatened, people sought freedom

restoration.

An additional consideration is whether peo-

ple’s state of mind affects their perceptions of

freedom threats in the ﬁrst place. One possible

theoretical approach is to consider whether peo-

ple are experiencing a narrowing (e.g., Lewin,

1959) or broadening (e.g., Fredrickson, 2004)

of the mental ﬁeld. Negative states typically

constrict people’s cognitive and behavioral op-

tions (Gable, Poole, & Harmon-Jones, 2015;

Lewin, 1959), whereas positive states have the

opposite effect, widening their cognitive and

behavioral options (Fredrickson, 2004). It could

be that when people are in a broadened state of

mind when they perceive a freedom threat, their

reactions will be diminished, including a de-

creased desire for freedom restoration. Con-

versely, when people are in a narrowed state

when they perceive a freedom threat, it will

augment their reactions, including a heightened

desire for freedom restoration.

In support of the idea that broadening mental

states reduce reactance arousal, Schüz, Schüz,

and Eid (2013) showed that having participants

self-afﬁrm (Steele, 1988) before receiving a

high-threat skin cancer communication, which

should have aroused reactance and a consequent

11PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

increase in sun exposure, instead decreased sun

exposure. A broadening of the mental ﬁeld

could explain people’s diminished reactions to

freedom threats after self-afﬁrming (Schüz et

al., 2013)—the afﬁrmation served to widen

their latitude of what constitutes a freedom

threat. On the other hand, mental constriction

could explain people’s ampliﬁed reactions to

autonomy-supportive threats when experienc-

ing heightened depressive symptomatology

(Lienemann & Siegel, 2016)—negative biases

present in depression narrowed their latitude of

what constitutes a freedom threat. Providing

evidence that a narrowed mental ﬁeld could

maximize the likelihood of reactance, these au-

thors reported that even though an autonomy

supportive health message caused less reactance

among people with low levels of depressive

symptomology than a direct one, those with

high levels of depressive symptomology were

equally reactant to both messages.

If being in a narrowed state maximizes the

likelihood of reactance, then another state that

would likely lead to increased reactance is

being in a state of reactance itself. Indeed,

Brehm and Brehm (1981) suggested that an

initial threat to people’s freedom could sen-

sitize them to the potential for additional,

later threats. Research has rarely assessed this

PRT proposition, but its logic aligns with

Coyne’s (1976) depressive spiral, which is a

self-fulﬁlling prophecy that adolescents with

depression often face: Constant reassurance-

seeking and other negative behaviors cause

their peers to withdraw from them, resulting

in a lost social network, and reinforcing their

prior beliefs that peers are uncaring, causing

their depression to worsen (e.g., Joiner &

Metalsky, 2001). Likewise, being in a state of

reactance could result in increased sensitivity

to freedom threats, which could lead to the

perception of freedom threats; in turn, people

could feel threatened, leading to even more

sensitization to further threats—a process Sie-

gel and Rosenberg (2017) dubbed the reactive

spiral. Guided by the general hypothesis that

people’s state of mind when they perceive a

freedom threat will inﬂuence reactance

arousal and diminishment, scholars can exam-

ine a range of narrowing (e.g., anger; Gable et

al., 2015) and broadening (e.g., elevation;

Thomson & Siegel, 2017) states on percep-

tion of freedom threats.

Expanding Catalysts of Reactance

A second area for continued PRT research is

to consider the experiences other than direct

threat or elimination of freedom that arouse

psychological reactance. Simply, people may

have experiences other than threats to valued

behaviors that lead to reactance and a conse-

quent desire to regain freedom. In outlining this

possibility, Miron and Brehm (2006) indicated

that group categorization could threaten peo-

ple’s freedom to identify or behave as they

please. Indeed, even positive categorizations

(e.g., “mother,” p. 9) can induce reactance if

people feel a stereotype limits their behavioral

freedom in a way that is important to them. This

suggestion aligns with early research by Wick-

lund (1974), which indicated discrimination

would cause reactance. More recent evidence in

support of this idea comes from Kray et al.

(2001), who suggested that threats to people’s

freedom to identify with the group of their

choosing can lead to the experience of reac-

tance. These authors reported that explicitly

activating gender stereotypes in a negotiation

context caused men and women to behave coun-

ter to these expectations.

Although this research shows that people can

experience reactance from explicit discrimina-

tion and stereotyping, a corollary is to examine

the implicit, subtler freedom threats that arouse

reactance. Early studies showed that making a

decision (e.g., Sullivan & Pallak, 1976) or pub-

licly committing to a position (e.g., Andreoli et

al., 1974) could arouse reactance. However, in

recent years, researchers have moved away

from these studies—the primary paradigm for

testing PRT now uses explicit verbal or written

threats (e.g., Dillard & Shen, 2005). Taking a

step back, it could be fruitful for the ﬁeld to

reconsider these implicit threats, particularly the

litany of social phenomena that PRT could help

explain. For instance, Graupmann et al. (2012)

indicated that group categorization (i.e., ingroup

vs. outgroup) affects reactance arousal. These

ﬁndings indicate that talking about other social

groups may cause some people to feel threat-

ened—an implication that could be important

for diversity and inclusion training programs. It

is possible that the mere presence of an out-

group member (e.g., police) may make people

feel immediately threatened, and could explain

the consequent source derogation that often oc-

12 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

curs. Scholars can examine these ideas to deter-

mine the speciﬁc circumstances in which inter-

group contact exacerbates or ameliorates

reactance.

Expanding Outcomes of Reactance

An additional avenue for future research is to

consider the broad, pervasive effects that reac-

tance arousal is likely to have on people’s be-

haviors and cognitions. Given that reactance is a

negative motivational state, the effects of which

are often pervasive (e.g., Proulx, 2012), peo-

ple’s reactions to freedom threats are likely not

limited to certain behavioral or cognitive out-

comes. Instead, the motivational arousal of re-

actance likely catalyzes a host of goal-directed

cognitions and behaviors (for discussions see

Hart, 2014; Proulx, 2012). In support, recent

work, derived from the theorizing of Lewin

(1959) and Tolman (1932), outlined a suite of

outcomes associated with negative motivational

states (i.e., changes in ability, disposition, allo-

cation of resources, processing and perception,

and tactic; Rosenberg & Siegel, 2016). For ex-

ample, when experiencing a negative motiva-

tional state, people might exhibit reduced cre-

ativity, increased social dominance, and myopic

thinking; they may become hyperfocused on

relevant stimuli and take the most direct route

toward restoring freedom (Siegel, 2013; also

see Rosenberg, Lewandowski, & Siegel, 2015).

Aligned with this logic, it serves to reason

that as a negative motivational state, reactance

likely results in a range of goal-directed out-

comes. In a recent review, Steindl, Jonas, Sit-

tenthaler et al. (2015) presented parallel reason-

ing: “Similar to the investigation of guilt, it

would also be interesting for future research to

take a closer look at the relation between reac-

tance and other negative (and positive) emo-

tions, like fear (or humor)” (p. 211). In support,

these authors referred to unpublished evidence

(cited as Steindl, Jonas, Klackl, & Sittenthaler,

2015) showing that reactance arousal is associ-

ated with an array of positive feelings (e.g.,

strong, determined) in addition to the negative

outcomes that researchers commonly assess.

Other assessments of this proposition are also

encouraging, as Rosenberg and Siegel (2017a)

showed that freedom threats increased out-

comes not typically assessed in relation to PRT,

such as social dominance orientation (SDO;

Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). In

another study, Steindl and Jonas (2015) re-

ported that interpersonal freedom threats

aroused reactance, and also biased people’s sub-

sequent cognitions and evaluations of their in-

teraction partner. Using this approach, research-

ers could examine a number of simultaneous,

compensatory outcomes after threatening peo-

ple’s freedom. For example, anger, which a core

feature of reactance, is positively associated

with a host of negative and positive outcomes:

riskier decision making (e.g., Baumann & De-

Steno, 2012), increased willingness to punish a

wrongdoer (e.g., Ask & Pina, 2011), and opti-

mistic appraisals of stressors (e.g., Dunn &

Schweitzer, 2005).

Conclusion

In recognition of the recent 50th anniversary

of Brehm’s (1966) proposal of PRT and the

special issue that Zeitschrift fur¨ Psychologie

(2015) devoted to it, the current analysis pro-

vides an overarching framework for past PRT

research and focuses on fruitful areas for con-

tinued scholarship. Complementing recent, dis-

cipline-speciﬁc comprehensive reviews (e.g.,

Quick et al., 2013), we integrated PRT research

across ﬁelds in which it has ﬂourished, outlining

ﬁve overlapping waves in the PRT literature:

Wave 1: Theory proposal and testing, Wave 2:

Contributions from clinical psychology, Wave

3: Contributions from communication research,

Wave 4: Measurement of reactance, and Wave

5: Return to motivation.

A key feature of this amalgamation of the

literature is a description of interdisciplinary

future directions for each of these ﬁelds. Clini-

cal psychology must ﬁrst determine whether

trait reactance is a fruitful construct to continue

investigating. In addition, these scholars can

focus on other personality variables that relate

to reactance proneness for example, Type A,

Rhodewalt & Marcroft, 1988) and take advan-

tage of measurement advances from communi-

cation research. Communication scholars

should continue pushing PRT forward, includ-

ing answering fundamental questions that re-

main open (e.g., the relationship between pro-

portion of freedoms threatened and reactance

arousal). Scholars working on direct measure-

ment of reactance can continue developing the

intertwined measure (Dillard & Shen, 2005), as

13PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

well as reﬁning physiological measures of reac-

tance arousal (Sittenthaler, Steindl, et al., 2015).

Motivation science can focus on the factors that

affect people’s perceptions of freedom threats

(e.g., depressive symptomatology; Lienemann

& Siegel, 2016) and the desirability of freedom

restoration (e.g., uncertainty; Hogg, 2007).

Moreover, these scholars can assess the range of

catalysts (e.g., discrimination; Wicklund, 1974)

and outcomes (e.g., SDO; Rosenberg & Siegel,

2017a) rarely assessed in the context of PRT. A

main implication of returning to PRT’s motiva-

tional roots is vastly increasing its explanatory

power to continue addressing a range of socially

relevant phenomena. More broadly, revisiting

motivation should again inform research in clin-

ical psychology, communication, and measure-

ment—just as Brehm and Brehm’s (1981) syn-

thesis prompted the initial scholarship in these

areas.

References

Andreoli, V. A., Worchel, S., & Folger, R. (1974).

Implied threat to behavioral freedom. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 765–771.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037529

Arnold, K. A., & Vakhrusheva, J. (2016). Resist the

negation reﬂex: Minimizing reactance in psycho-

therapy of delusions. Psychosis, 8, 166 –175.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2015.1095229

Ask, K., & Pina, A. (2011). On being angry and

punitive: How anger alters perception of criminal

intent. Social Psychological & Personality Sci-

ence, 2, 494 – 499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

1948550611398415

Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Reddy, D. M. (1986).

Unemployment stress: Loss of control, reactance

and learned helplessness. Social Science & Medi-

cine, 22, 509 –516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-

9536(86)90016-X

Baum, A., & Gatchel, R. J. (1981). Cognitive deter-

minants of reaction to uncontrollable events: De-

velopment of reactance and learned helplessness.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,

1078 –1089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514

.40.6.1078

Baumann, J., & DeSteno, D. (2012). Context ex-

plains divergent effects of anger on risk taking.

Emotion, 12, 1196 –1199. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/a0029788

Benoit, W. L. (1998). Forewarning and persuasion. In

M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Ad-

vances through meta-analysis (pp. 139 –154).

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bensley, L. S., & Wu, R. (1991). The role of psy-

chological reactance in drinking following alcohol

prevention messages. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 21, 1111–1124. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00461.x

Bessarabova, E., Fink, E. L., & Turner, M. (2013).

Reactance, restoration, and cognitive structure:

Comparative statics. Human Communication Re-

search, 39, 339 –364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

hcre.12007

Beutler, L. E. (1979). Toward speciﬁc psychological

therapies for speciﬁc conditions. Journal of Con-

sulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 882– 897.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.5.882

Beutler, L. E., Harwood, T. M., Michelson, A., Song,

X., & Holman, J. (2011). Resistance/reactance lev-

el. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 133–142.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20753

Beutler, L. E., Moleiro, C., & Talebi, H. (2002).

Resistance in psychotherapy: What conclusions

are supported by research. Journal of Clinical Psy-

chology, 58, 207–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/

jclp.1144

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the

desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 52, 384 –389. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/h0041006

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological re-

actance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.

Brehm, J. W., & Rozen, E. (1971). Attractiveness of

old alternatives when a new attractive alternative is

introduced. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 20, 261–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

h0031909

Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of

motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40,

109 –131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.40

.020189.000545

Brehm, J. W., Stires, L. K., Sensenig, J., & Shaban,

J. (1966). The attractiveness of an eliminated

choice alternative. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 2, 301–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

0022-1031(66)90086-2

Brehm, S. S. (1976). The application of social psy-

chology to clinical practice. Oxford, England:

Hemisphere.

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological

reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Lon-

don, England: Academic Press.

Buboltz, W. C., Jr., Thomas, A., & Donnell, A. J.

(2002). Evaluating the factor structure and internal

consistency reliability of the Therapeutic Reac-

tance Scale. Journal of Counseling and Develop-

ment, 80, 120 –125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j

.1556-6678.2002.tb00174.x

Buller, D. B., Borland, R., & Burgoon, M. (1998).

Impact of behavioral intention on effectiveness of

message features: Evidence from the Family Sun

14 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Safety Project. Human Communication Research,

24, 433– 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

2958.1998.tb00424.x

Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2010).

Nonverbal communication. New York, NY: Taylor

& Francis.

Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Vouloda-

kis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psycholog-

ical reactance: Communicating threats to attitudi-

nal freedom. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The

persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and

practice (pp. 213–232). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046

.n12

Burgoon, M., Parrot, R., Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T.,

Pfau, M., & Coker, R. (1990). Primary care phy-

sicians’ selection of verbal compliance-gaining

strategies. Health Communication, 2, 13–27.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc0201_2

Cautilli, J., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Axelrod, S., &

Hineline, P. (2005). Current behavioral models of

client and consultee resistance: A critical review.

International Journal of Behavioral and Consul-

tation Therapy, 1, 147–164. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/h0100742

Chadee, D. (2011). Toward freedom: Reactance the-

ory revisited. In D. Chadee (Ed.), Theories in

social psychology (pp. 13– 43). Hoboken, NJ: Wi-

ley-Blackwell.

Coyne, J. C. (1976). Toward an interactional descrip-

tion of depression. Psychiatry, 39, 28 – 40. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1976.11023874

Crano, W. D., Alvaro, E. M., Tan, C. N., & Siegel,

J. T. (2017). Social mediation of persuasive media

in adolescent substance prevention. Psychology of

Addictive Behaviors, 31, 479 – 487. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/adb0000265

DeBord, J. B. (1989). Paradoxical interventions: A

review of the recent literature. Journal of Coun-

seling and Development, 67, 394 –398. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1989.tb02099.x

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and

‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-

determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,

11, 227–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S153279

65PLI1104_01

De las Cuevas, C., Peñate, W., & Sanz, E. J. (2014).

The relationship of psychological reactance, health

locus of control and sense of self-efﬁcacy with

adherence to treatment in psychiatric outpatients

with depression. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 324. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0324-6

Devine, D. A., & Fernald, P. S. (1973). Outcome

effects of receiving a preferred, randomly as-

signed, or nonpreferred therapy. Journal of Con-

sulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 104 –107.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035617

Dillard, J. P., & Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and

the structure of affect. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau

(Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments

in theory and research (pp. 309 –328). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/

9781412976046.n16

Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and persua-

sion: Emotional responses to public service an-

nouncements. Communication Research, 27, 461–

495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365000027

004003

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of

reactance and its role in persuasive health commu-

nication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144 –

168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750500

111815

Dowd, E. T., Hughes, S. L., Brockbank, L., Halpain,

D., Seibel, C., & Seibel, P. (1988). Compliance-

based and deﬁance-based intervention strategies

and psychological reactance in the treatment of

free and unfree behavior. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 35, 370 –376. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/0022-0167.35.4.370

Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The

Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A measure of psy-

chological reactance. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 69, 541–545. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb02638.x

Dowd, E. T., & Seibel, C. A. (1990). A cognitive

theory of resistance and reactance: Implications for

treatment. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,

12, 458 – 469.

Dowd, E. T., & Swoboda, J. S. (1984). Paradoxical

interventions in behavior therapy. Journal of Be-

havior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 15,

229 –234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916

(84)90030-2

Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and

believing: The inﬂuence of emotion on trust. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,

736 –748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88

.5.736

Engs, R., & Hanson, D. J. (1989). Reactance theory:

A test with collegiate drinking. Psychological Re-

ports, 64, 1083–1086. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/

pr0.1989.64.3c.1083

Farrelly, M. C., Healton, C. G., Davis, K. C., Mes-

seri, P., Hersey, J. C., & Haviland, M. L. (2002).

Getting to the truth: Evaluating national tobacco

countermarketing campaigns. American Journal of

Public Health, 92, 901–907. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2105/AJPH.92.6.901

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive disso-

nance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fogarty, J. S. (1997). Reactance theory and patient

noncompliance. Social Science Medicine, 45,

1277–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-

9536(97)00055-5

15PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C.,

DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (2000). The dynam-

ics of a stressful encounter. In E. T. Higgins, A. W.

Kruglanski, E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski

(Eds.), Motivational science: Social and personal-

ity perspectives (pp. 111–127). New York, NY:

Psychology Press.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build

theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Trans-

actions of the Royal Society of London Series B,

Biological Sciences, 359, 1367–1377. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Gable, P. A., Poole, B. D., & Harmon-Jones, E.

(2015). Anger perceptually and conceptually nar-

rows cognitive scope. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 109, 163–174. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/a0039226

Goldman, M., & Wallis, D. (1979). Restoring free-

dom when pressured not to select alternatives.

Psychological Reports, 44, 563–566. http://dx.doi

.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.44.2.563

Gordon, R. M. (1976). Effects of volunteering and

responsibility on the perceived value and effective-

ness of a clinical treatment. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 44, 799 – 801. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.44.5.799

Grabitz-Gniech, G., Auslitz, K., & Grabitz, H.

(1975). The strength of the reactance effect as a

function of the absolute size and the relative re-

duction of freedom space. Zeitschrift für Sozial-

psychologie, 6, 122–128.

Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller,

C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance

and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical ap-

proach. Health Communication, 15, 349 –366.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1503_6

Graupmann, V., Jonas, E., Meier, E., Hawelka, S., &

Aichhorn, M. (2012). Reactance, the self, and its

group: When threats to freedom come from the

ingroup versus the outgroup. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 42, 164 –173. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1002/ejsp.857

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of

transportation in the persuasiveness of public nar-

ratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 79, 701–721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.79.5.701

Hall, M. G., Sheeran, P., Noar, S. M., Ribisl, K. M.,

Bach, L. E., & Brewer, N. T. (2016). Reactance to

health warnings scale: Development and valida-

tion. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50, 736 –750.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9799-3

Hall, M. G., Sheeran, P., Noar, S. M., Ribisl, K. M.,

Boynton, M. H., & Brewer, N. T. (2017). A brief

measure of reactance to health warnings. Journal

of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 520 –529. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9821-z

Hart, J. (2014). Toward an integrative theory of psy-

chological defense. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 9, 19 –39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745

691613506018

Heilman, M. E. (1976). Oppositional behavior as a

function of inﬂuence attempt intensity and retali-

ation threat. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 33, 574 –578. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/0022-3514.33.5.574

Heller, J. F., Pallak, M. S., & Picek, J. M. (1973). The

interactive effects of intent and threat on boomer-

ang attitude change. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 26, 273–279. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/h0034461

Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In

M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Vol. 39, pp. 69 –126). Advances

in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA:

Elsevier.

Hong, S. (1992). Hong’s Psychological Reactance

Scale: A further factor analytic validation. Psycho-

logical Reports, 70, 512–514. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2466/pr0.1992.70.2.512

Hong, S., & Faedda, S. (1996). Reﬁnement of the

Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173–182.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001014

Hong, S., & Ostini, R. (1989). Further evaluation of

Merz’s Psychological Reactance Scale. Psycho-

logical Reports, 64, 707–710. http://dx.doi.org/10

.2466/pr0.1989.64.3.707

Hong, S., & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reac-

tance scale: Development, factor structure and re-

liability. Psychological Reports, 64, 1323–1326.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3c.1323

Joiner, T. E., Jr., & Metalsky, G. I. (2001). Excessive

reassurance seeking: Delineating a risk factor in-

volved in the development of depressive symp-

toms. Psychological Science, 12, 371–378. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00369

Jonas, E., Graupmann, V., Kayser, D. N., Zanna, M.,

Traut-Mattausch, E., & Frey, D. (2009). Culture,

self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a

“universal” freedom? Journal of Experimental So-

cial Psychology, 45, 1068 –1080. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.005

Jones, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Persuasiveness

of one- and two-sided communications as a func-

tion of awareness there are two sides. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 47–56. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(70)90075-2

Kang, Y., Cappella, J., & Fishbein, M. (2006). The

attentional mechanism of message sensation value:

Interaction between message sensation value and

argument quality on message effectiveness. Com-

munication Monographs, 73, 351–378. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1080/03637750601024164

Karno, M. P., Longabaugh, R., & Herbeck, D.

(2010). What explains the relationship between the

16 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

therapist structure ⫻patient reactance interaction

and drinking outcome? An examination of poten-

tial mediators. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,

24, 600 – 607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020526

Kelly, A. E., & Nauta, M. M. (1997). Reactance and

thought suppression. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 23, 1123–1132. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1177/01461672972311001

Kim, S. Y., Levine, T., & Allen, M. (2013). Com-

paring separate process and intertwined models for

reactance. Communication Studies, 64, 273–295.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.755639

Kirchler, E. (1999). Reactance to taxation: Employ-

ers’ attitudes towards taxes. Journal of Socio-

Economics, 28, 131–138. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1016/S1053-5357(99)00003-7

Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001).

Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype conﬁrma-

tion and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 80, 942–958.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.942

Krishnan, L., & Carment, D. W. (1979). Reactions to

help: Reciprocity, responsibility and reactance.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 435–

439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420090409

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, ap-

praisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Leander, N. P., vanDellen, M. R., Rachl-Willberger,

J., Shah, J. Y., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Chartrand,

T. L. (2016). Is freedom contagious? A self-

regulatory model of reactance and sensitivity to

deviant peers. Motivation Science, 2, 256 –267.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000042

Levesque, D. A., Velicer, W. F., Castle, P. H., &

Greene, R. N. (2008). Resistance among domestic

violence offenders: Measurement development

and initial validation. Violence Against Women,

14, 158 –184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-

4419-1005-9_215

Lewin, K. (1959). Field theory in social science.

New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Lienemann, B. A., & Siegel, J. T. (2016). State

psychological reactance to depression public ser-

vice announcements among people with varying

levels of depressive symptomatology. Health

Communication, 31, 102–116. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1080/10410236.2014.940668

Lindsey, L. M. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behav-

ioral motivation an examination of appeals to help

unknown others through bone marrow donation.

Human Communication Research, 31, 453– 481.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hcr/31.4.453

Mazis, M. B., Settle, R. B., & Leslie, D. C. (1973).

Elimination of phosphate detergents and psycho-

logical reactance. Journal of Marketing Research,

10, 390 –395. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3149386

McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of support-

ive and refutational defenses in immunizing and

restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry,

24, 184 –197. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786067

Merz, J. (1983). A questionnaire for the measurement

of psychological reactance. Diagnostica, 29, 75–

82.

Mikulincer, M. (1988). The relationship of probabil-

ity of success and performance following unsolv-

able problems: Reactance and helplessness effects.

Motivation and Emotion, 12, 139 –153. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992170

Miller, C. H., Ivanov, B., Sims, J., Compton, J.,

Harrison, K. J., Parker, K. A.,...Averbeck, J. M.

(2013). Boosting the potency of resistance: Com-

bining the motivational forces of inoculation and

psychological reactance. Human Communication

Research, 39, 127–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1468-2958.2012.01438.x

Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young,

A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reac-

tance and promotional health messages: The ef-

fects of controlling language, lexical concreteness,

and the restoration of freedom. Human Communi-

cation Research, 33, 219 –240.

Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance

theory - 40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsy-

chologie, 37, 9 –18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/

0044-3514.37.1.9

Morgan, S. E., Palmgreen, P., Stephenson, M. T.,

Hoyle, R. H., & Lorch, E. P. (2003). Associations

between message features and subjective evalua-

tions of the sensation value of antidrug public

service announcements. Journal of Communica-

tion, 53, 512–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j

.1460-2466.2003.tb02605.x

Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of enter-

tainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive ef-

fects of entertainment-education messages. Com-

munication Theory, 18, 407– 425. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining

the effects of narrative in an entertainment televi-

sion program: Overcoming resistance to persua-

sion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26 –

52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009

.01367.x

Nemeth, C. (1970). Effects of free versus constrained

behavior on attraction between people. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 302–311.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0029605

Nezlek, J., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Hostility as a

function of the opportunity to counteraggress.

Journal of Personality, 43, 421– 433. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1975.tb00714.x

Norman, P., & Wrona-Clarke, A. (2016). Combining

self-afﬁrmation and implementation intentions to

reduce heavy episodic drinking in university stu-

dents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 30,

434 – 441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000144

17PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Organ, D. W. (1974). Social exchange and psycho-

logical reactance in a simulated superior–subordi-

nate relationship. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 12, 132–142. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1016/0030-5073(74)90042-7

Pallak, M. S., & Heller, J. F. (1971). Interactive

effects of commitment to future interaction and

threat to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 17, 325–331. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1037/h0030591

Palmgreen, P., Donohew, L., Lorch, E. P., Rogus,

M., Helm, D., & Grant, N. (1991). Sensation seek-

ing, message sensation value, and drug use as

mediators of PSA effectiveness. Health Communi-

cation, 3, 217–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/

s15327027hc0304_4

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle,

B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A per-

sonality variable predicting social and political

attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 67, 741–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0022-3514.67.4.741

Proulx, T. (2012). Threat-compensation in social

psychology: Is there a core motivation? Social

Cognition, 30, 643– 651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/

soco.2012.30.6.643

Proulx, T., Inzlicht, M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012).

Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a

palliative response to violated expectations.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 285–291. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002

Quick, B. L. (2012). What is the best measure of

psychological reactance? An empirical test of two

measures. Health Communication, 27, 1–9. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.567446

Quick, B. L. (2013). Perceived message sensation

value and psychological reactance: A test of the

dominant thought disruption hypothesis. Journal

of Health Communication, 18, 1024 –1038. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.768728

Quick, B. L., Bates, B. R., & Quinlan, M. M. (2009).

The utility of anger in promoting clean indoor air

policies. Health Communication, 24, 548 –561.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410230903104939

Quick, B. L., & Kim, D. K. (2009). Examining reac-

tance and reactance restoration with South Korean

adolescents: A test of psychological reactance

within a collectivist culture. Communication Re-

search, 36, 765–782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0093650290346797

Quick, B. L., Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2013).

Reactance theory and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard &

L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion:

Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp.

167–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examin-

ing the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking

on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance

restoration. Human Communication Research, 34,

448 – 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958

.2008.00328.x

Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological

reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Hu-

man Communication Research, 39, 47–73. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x

Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological

reactance and persuasive health communication: A

test and extension of the intertwined model. Hu-

man Communication Research, 33, 241–269.

Rhodewalt, F., & Marcroft, M. (1988). Type A be-

havior and diabetic control: Implications of psy-

chological reactance for health outcomes. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 139 –159. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00011.x

Richards, A. S., & Banas, J. A. (2015). Inoculating

against reactance to persuasive health messages.

Health Communication, 30, 451– 460. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.867005

Richards, A. S., Banas, J. A., & Magid, Y. (2017).

More on inoculating against reactance to persua-

sive health messages: The paradox of threat.

Health Communication, 32, 890 –902. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1196410

Rosenberg, B. D., Lewandowski, J. A., & Siegel,

J. T. (2015). Goal disruption theory, military per-

sonnel, and the creation of merged proﬁles: A

mixed methods investigation. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 9, 51– 69. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1177/1558689813508006

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2016). The effect

of inconsistency appeals on the inﬂuence of direct-

to-consumer prescription drug advertisements: An

application of goal disruption theory. Journal of

Health Communication, 21, 217–227. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1058439

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2017a). The broad

inﬂuence of freedom threats: An expansion of psy-

chological reactance theory. Manuscript in prepa-

ration.

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2017b). Threaten-

ing uncertainty and psychological reactance: Are

freedom threats always noxious? Manuscript under

review.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for

internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,

80, 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Schüz, N., Schüz, B., & Eid, M. (2013). When risk

communication backﬁres: Randomized controlled

trial on self-afﬁrmation and reactance to personal-

ized risk feedback in high-risk individuals. Health

Psychology, 32, 561–570. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/a0029887

Seibel, C. A., & Dowd, E. T. (1999). Reactance and

therapeutic noncompliance. Cognitive Therapy

18 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

and Research, 23, 373–379. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1023/A:1018751817046

Seligman, M. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depres-

sion, development, and death. New York, NY: W

H Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W.

(2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and

consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1261

Shen, L. (2010). Mitigating psychological reactance:

The role of message-induced empathy in persua-

sion. Human Communication Research, 36, 397–

422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010

.01381.x

Shen, L. (2011). The effectiveness of empathy- ver-

sus fear-arousing antismoking PSAs. Health Com-

munication, 26, 404 – 415. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1080/10410236.2011.552480

Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2007). Reactance prone-

ness assessment. Reactance proneness assessment.

In R. A. Reynolds, R. Woods, J. D. Baker, R. A.

Reynolds, R. Woods, & J. D. Baker (Eds.), Hand-

book of research on electronic surveys and mea-

surements (pp. 323–329). Hershey, PA: Idea

Group Reference/IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10

.4018/978-1-59140-792-8.ch043

Shoham, V., Bootzin, R. R., Rohrbaugh, M. J., &

Urry, H. (1996). Paradoxical versus relaxation

treatment for insomnia: The moderating role of

reactance. Sleep Research, 24, 365.

Shoham, V., Trost, S. E., & Rohrbaugh, M. J. (2004).

From state to trait and back again: Reactance the-

ory goes clinical. In R. A. Wright, J. Greenberg, &

S. S. Brehm (Eds.), Motivational analyses of social

behavior: Building on Jack Brehm’s contributions

to psychology (pp. 167–185). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-

baum.

Shoham-Salomon, V., Avner, R., & Neeman, R.

(1989). You’re changed if you do and changed if

you don’t: Mechanisms underlying paradoxical in-

terventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 57, 590 –598. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/0022-006X.57.5.590

Shoham-Salomon, V., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Par-

adoxical interventions: A meta-analysis. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 22–28.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.1.22

Siegel, J. T. (2013). Illuminating the psychological

processes associated with renal failure and living

donation considerations: An application of goal

disruption theory. In M. A. Lauri (Ed.), Organ

donation and transplantation: An interdisciplinary

approach (pp. 117–140). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA

Science.

Siegel, J. T., & Rosenberg, B. D. (2017). Expanding

psychological reactance theory: The reactive spi-

ral. Manuscript in preparation.

Silvia, P. J. (2006). A skeptical look at dispositional

reactance. Personality and Individual Differences,

40, 1291–1297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid

.2005.11.013

Sinclair, H. C., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright,

B. L. (2015). Don’t tell me who I can’t love: A

multimethod investigation of social network and

reactance effects on romantic relationships. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 79, 77–99. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1177/0190272514565253

Sittenthaler, S., Jonas, E., & Traut-Mattausch, E.

(2016). Explaining self and vicarious reactance: A

process model approach. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 42, 458 – 470. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1177/0146167216634055

Sittenthaler, S., Steindl, C., & Jonas, E. (2015). Le-

gitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions - a motiva-

tional and physiological approach investigating re-

actance processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 632.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00632

Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Jonas, E.

(2015). Observing the restriction of another per-

son: Vicarious reactance and the role of self-

construal and culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,

1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01052

Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., Steindl, C., &

Jonas, E. (2015). Salzburger State Reactance Scale

(SSR Scale): Validation of a scale measuring state

reactance. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie mit

Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Psychologie, 223, 257–

266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000227

Sly, D. F., Hopkins, R. S., Trapido, E., & Ray, S.

(2001). Inﬂuence of a counteradvertising media

campaign on initiation of smoking: The Florida

“truth” campaign. American Journal of Public

Health, 91, 233–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/

AJPH.91.2.233

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-

afﬁrmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental so-

cial psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302), New

York, NY: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4

Steindl, C., & Jonas, E. (2015). The dynamic reac-

tance interaction—How vested interests affect

people’s experience, behavior, and cognition in

social interactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,

1752. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01752

Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Klackl, J., & Sittenthaler, S.

(2015). Psychological reactance increases relative

left frontal cortical activation. Manuscript in prep-

aration.

Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-

Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Under-

standing psychological reactance: New develop-

ments and ﬁndings. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie mit

Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Psychologie, 223, 205–

214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222

19PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Sullivan, J. J., & Pallak, M. S. (1976). Effect of

commitment and reactance on action-taking. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 179 –

182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616727600200

223

Swoboda, J. S., Dowd, E. T., & Wise, S. L. (1990).

Reframing and restraining directives in the treat-

ment of clinical depression. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 37, 254 –260. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/0022-0167.37.3.254

Tennen, H., Press, S., Rohrbaugh, M., & White, L.

(1981). Reactance theory and therapeutic paradox:

A compliance– deﬁance model. Psychotherapy:

Theory, Research, & Practice, 18, 14 –22. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0085955

Thomas, A., Donnell, A. J., & Buboltz, W. J. (2001).

The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale: A con-

ﬁrmatory factor analysis. Measurement & Evalua-

tion in Counseling & Development, 34, 2–13.

Thomson, A. L., & Siegel, J. T. (2017). Elevation: A

review of scholarship on a moral and other-

praising emotion. The Journal of Positive Psychol-

ogy, 12, 628 – 638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

17439760.2016.1269184

Tolman, E. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animals

and Men. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century.

Tracey, T. J., Ellickson, J. L., & Sherry, P. (1989).

Reactance in relation to different supervisory en-

vironments and counselor development. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 36, 336 –344. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.3.336

Tucker, R. K., & Byers, P. Y. (1987). Factorial

validity of Merz’s Psychological Reactance Scale.

Psychological Reports, 61, 811– 815. http://dx.doi

.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.61.3.811

Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk com-

munication: The anger activism model. Public Re-

lations Review, 33, 114 –119. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.013

Wicklund, R. A. (1974). Freedom and reactance.

Oxford, England: Erlbaum.

Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1968). Attitude

change as a function of felt competence and threat

to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 4, 64 –75. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1016/0022-1031(68)90050-4

Wicklund, R. A., Slattum, V., & Solomon, E. (1970).

Effects of implied pressure toward commitment on

ratings of choice alternatives. Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 6, 449 – 457. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(70)90055-7

Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Effect of threats

to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement

with the communicator. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 14, 18 –22. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/h0028620

Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Response to

uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reac-

tance theory and the learned helplessness model. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental so-

cial psychology (Vol. 8). New York, NY: Aca-

demic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-

2601(08)60253-1

Wright, R. A. (2008). Reﬁning the prediction of

effort: Brehm’s distinction between potential mo-

tivation and motivation intensity. Social and Per-

sonality Psychology Compass, 2, 682–701. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00093.x

Wright, R. A., Agtarap, S. D., & Mlynski, C. (2015).

Conversion of reactance motives into effortful goal

pursuit: Implications of Brehm’s theory of moti-

vation intensity. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie mit

Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Psychologie, 223, 267–

276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000228

Zemack-Rugar, Y., Moore, S. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J.

(2017). Just do it! Why committed consumers react

negatively to assertive ads. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 27, 287–301. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1016/j.jcps.2017.01.002

Zucker, D., Hopkins, R. S., Sly, D. F., Urich, J.,

Kershaw, J. M., & Solari, S. (2000). Florida’s

“truth” campaign: A counter-marketing, anti-

tobacco media campaign. Journal of Public Health

Management and Practice, 6, 1– 6. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1097/00124784-200006030-00003

Received May 5, 2017

Revision received October 29, 2017

Accepted November 2, 2017 䡲

20 ROSENBERG AND SIEGEL

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

COVID-19 and Behavioral Sciences

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2022

The role of institutional and self in the formation of trust in artificial intelligence technologies

Article

Feb 2023
INTERNET RES

Purpose The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in travel and tourism has received much attention in the wake of the pandemic. While societal adoption of AI has accelerated, it also raises some trust challenges. Literature on trust in AI is scant, especially regarding the vulnerabilities faced by different stakeholders to inform policy and practice. This work proposes a framework to understand the use of AI technologies from the perspectives of institutional and the self to understand the formation of trust in the mandated use of AI-based technologies in travelers. Design/methodology/approach An empirical investigation using partial least squares-structural equation modeling was employed on responses from 209 users. This paper considered factors related to the self (perceptions of self-threat, privacy empowerment, trust propensity) and institution (regulatory protection, corporate privacy responsibility) to understand the formation of trust in AI use for travelers. Findings Results showed that self-threat, trust propensity and regulatory protection influence trust in users on AI use. Privacy empowerment and corporate responsibility do not. Originality/value Insights from the past studies on AI in travel and tourism are limited. This study advances current literature on affordance and reactance theories to provide a better understanding of what makes travelers trust the mandated use of AI technologies. This work also demonstrates the paradoxical effects of self and institution on technologies and their relationship to trust. For practice, this study offers insights for enhancing adoption via developing trust.

The effects of influencer endorsement services on crowdfunding campaigns

Article

Oct 2022
J Serv Market

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate how influencer endorsement services stimulate funding intention in the context of crowdfunding (donation- and reward-based) and the moderating role played by platform trufvst and funder expertise. Design/methodology/approach To explore the effects of influencer endorsement services (i.e. perceived congruence, social influence and motivation) on funding intention in different crowdfunding campaigns, the authors developed a conceptual model tested using structural equation modelling. The authors also investigated two potential moderators underlying this relationship: platform trust and funder expertise. Findings The results of the study indicate that there was a positive effect of influencer endorsement services through the dimension congruence and the funding intention, both for reward- and donation-based crowdfunding. Moreover, they suggest that while perceived congruence has a positive effect on funding intention, when the two contexts are compared, only the moderating roles of platform trust over motivation and the funder expertise over motivation are significant and relevant. Practical implications The study has implications for both funders and those who seek to raise money for crowdfunding campaigns. The results offer new insights for developing effective crowdfunding campaigns, e.g. leveraging communication strategies based on the context of the crowdfunding (reward- vs donation-based) and the use of influencers as endorsers. Originality/value The present study is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first to examine the impact of influencer endorsement services on crowdfunding campaigns, shedding new light on the interdisciplinary connections between service marketing and entrepreneurial finance in terms of fundraising activities. The study opens new and previously under-investigated interdisciplinary research streams. It deepens our understanding of a particular issue relating to the marketing and crowdfunding domain by measuring the impact of the influencer’s endorsement on people’s intention to participate in two different campaigns.

Social media activism for resurrecting deleted brands: the role of consumers’ psychological reactance

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

When companies delete brands, devoted, yet unhappy consumers experience psychological reactance and initiate brand resurrection movements (BRMs) to bring their beloved brand back into their lives. In this Web 2.0 era, numerous consumer-led activism initiatives have been launched via social media to resurrect dead brands. On the other hand, relaunching a deleted brand is a crucial decision for a company and involves various financial and strategic implications. Therefore, it becomes imperative for brand managers to understand the drivers of BRMs. This research investigates the role of nostalgic brand love, threat to freedom, and psychological reactance as drivers of social media activism for brand resurrection by surveying 499 participants of a real BRM who utilized social media to successfully bring their cherished brand back into the market. The findings show that psychological reactance partially mediates the relationship between threat to freedom and social media activism for brand resurrection, and fully mediates the relationship between nostalgic brand love and social media activism for brand resurrection. This research contributes to the brand management and marketing literature by (1) applying psychological reactance theory to BRMs, (2) introducing a new second-order construct (nostalgic brand love), and (3) expounding the mediating role of psychological reactance.

Influence of Perceived Ageism on Older Adults: Focus on Attitudes toward Young People and Life Satisfaction

Article

Dec 2022

Development and initial validation of the attitudes toward face mask use scale (ATFMUS)

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022

Despite availability of instruments for measuring attitudes towards mask use, the psychometric properties of many available instruments are not adequately established which limits their research usefulness across contexts. In three studies, we developed the Attitudes Towards Face Mask Use Scale (ATFMUS) in three phases: item generation, scale development, and scale evaluation. Phase one and two were addressed in study 1 while phase three was addressed in studies 2 and 3. In Study 1, a combined online and pen-and-paper sample of 174 (78% university students) completed a questionnaire with 19 items regarding attitudes towards face mask use derived from theory, previous research, and experience. Responses were subjected to item reduction analysis, exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis. In Study 2, a student sample of 674 (70.5% high school) completed the new scale together with measures of COVID-19 related anxiety and obsession, personality, affect, social media use, and social desirability. Data from the ATFMUS were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and pertinent revisions done. The ATFMUS was then validated using correlation analyses, measurement invariance analyses, and known-group comparisons. In study 3, two samples of university students from Ghana (n = 242) and Kenya (n = 199) were involved in testing the cross-country invariance of the ATFMUS. The results reveal that the 5-item ATFMUS is a reliable and valid scale for assessing attitudes towards face mask use. Invariance analysis revealed that the ATFMUS is fair to use across participants of different age, level of education, and countries. The scale is also sensitive to participants’ actual use of face masks as well as their beliefs about COVID-19 and efficacy of the facemasks. This study offers a foundation for further psychometric evaluation of the ATFMUS.

Psychological reactance and vaccine uptake: a longitudinal study

Article

Mar 2023

Objective: In most countries, vaccine uptake is a voluntary decision. If people experience threats to this freedom, for example, by pro-vaccination media campaigns or government pressure, psychological reactance may be induced. To regain freedom, the opposite behaviour (vaccine refusal) may become more attractive, forming a vaccination barrier. It remains unclear how state reactance fluctuates and how it relates to vaccination intention versus behaviour. Therefore, this pre-registered longitudinal study aimed to gain insight in the changes in state reactance during a COVID-19 vaccination programme and its relationship with vaccine uptake. Methods: A representative sample of Dutch adults under 60 completed questionnaires before being eligible for vaccination, shortly before they were invited for vaccination, and after the opportunity for vaccination. Results: Data were analysed using regression analyses (N = 1411). Reactance did not change as hypothesised, but remained stable over time. As hypothesised, reactance predicted lower subsequent vaccination intention. Controlling for intentions, however, reactance did not predict vaccine uptake. Furthermore, reactance predicted lower decision confidence about vaccination, except for people who strongly opposed vaccination. Conclusion: Reactance has a sustained role in anticipation of a vaccination decision. Although reactance seems to affect the process towards the decision, this does not determine the final choice.

The effects of death awareness and reactance on texting‐and‐driving prevention

Article

Feb 2023

Using a 2 (mortality: salient, control) × 2 (freedom‐limiting language: freedom‐limiting, autonomy‐supportive) independent‐group design, this study examined the relationship between mortality salience and psychological reactance in the context of texting‐and‐driving prevention messages. The terror management health model and the theory of psychological reactance guided study predictions. Results showed mortality salience produced adaptive effects on attitudes toward texting‐and‐driving prevention and behavioral intentions to reduce unsafe driving practices. Additionally, some evidence for the effectiveness of directive, albeit freedom‐limiting communication, emerged. These and other results are discussed along with the implications, limitations, and future research directions.

Reactance Theory

Chapter

Sep 2022

Can travel apps improve tourists’ intentions? Investigating the drivers of Chinese gen Y users’ experience

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023

In the age of digitalization, travel applications (or travel apps) are indispensable tools for modern travel activities. During an app's selection and adoption phases, privacy concerns remain a sensitive issue that may demotivate users’ from continuing to use it. This study integrated both the stimulus-organism-response model (S-O-R) and psychological reaction theory (PRT) to explore the factors that influence users’ app usage experiences and behavioral responses. A self-administered questionnaire was designed and distributed to Gen Y users in mainland China. The findings of PLS-SEM analysis showed that usage intentions are predicted by the ability of travel apps to engage with users and generate favorable values. Additionally, users with low privacy concerns were shown to have a stronger intention to recommend travel apps to others. All in all, the findings from this study offer valuable insights to tourism providers and app developers.

Threatening uncertainty and psychological reactance: are freedom threats always noxious?

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2021
CURR PSYCHOL

Psychological reactance theory posits that when people are faced with threats to, or elimination of, behavioral freedom, they experience an aversive motivational state (i.e., psychological reactance). Recent research indicates that people’s state of mind affects reactance arousal processes. We hypothesized that being in a state of threatening uncertainty would cause people to experience less psychological reactance to a freedom-threatening communication than those in a state of certainty. We randomly assigned 114 students from a North American University to an uncertainty- or certainty-inducing recall task; they were then exposed to a reactance-arousing message. Compared to participants primed to feel certain, those primed with threatening uncertainty reported significantly less threat and more positive attitudes in response to a freedom threatening communication. Mediation analysis revealed an indirect effect of feelings of threatening uncertainty on people’s behavioral intentions, through perceptions of the controlling message. Results support our hypothesis: people in a state of uncertainty experience less psychological reactance than those in a state of certainty.

Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2001

The authors examined how gender stereotypes affect negotiation performance. Men outperformed women when the negotiation was perceived as diagnostic of ability (Experiment 1) or the negotiation was linked to gender-specific traits (Experiment 2), suggesting the threat of negative stereotype confirmation hurt women's performance relative to men. The authors hypothesized that men and women confirm gender stereotypes when they are activated implicitly, but when stereotypes are explicitly activated, people exhibit stereotype reactance, or the tendency to behave in a manner inconsistent with a stereotype. Experiment 3 confirmed this hypothesis. In Experiment 4, the authors examined the cognitive processes involved in stereotype reactance and the conditions under which cooperative behaviors between men and women can be promoted at the bargaining table (by activating a shared identity that transcends gender).

Is Freedom Contagious? A Self-Regulatory Model of Reactance and Sensitivity to Deviant Peers

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2016

Psychological reactance is typically assumed to motivate resistance to controlling peer influences and societal prohibitions. However, some peer influences encourage behaviors prohibited by society. We consider whether reactant individuals are sensitive to such opportunities to enhance their autonomy. We specifically propose a self-regulatory perspective on reactance, wherein freedom/autonomy is the superordinate goal, and thus highly reactant individuals will be sensitive to peer influences that could enhance their behavioral freedoms. In 2 studies, we find that reactant individuals can be cooperative in response to autonomy-supportive peer influences. Participants read a scenario in which a peer’s intentions to engage in substance use were manipulated to imply freedom of choice or not. Results indicated that highly reactant participants were sensitive to deviant peers whose own behavior toward alcohol (Study 1, N = 160) or marijuana (Study 2, N = 124) appeared to be motivated by autonomy and thus afforded free choice. Altogether, the results support a self-regulatory model of reactance, wherein deviant peer influence can be a means to pursue autonomy.

Social Mediation of Persuasive Media in Adolescent Substance Prevention

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2017
PSYCHOL ADDICT BEHAV

Social commentary about prevention messages may affect their likelihood of acceptance. To investigate this possibility, student participants (N = 663) viewed three anti-marijuana advertisements, each followed immediately by videotaped discussions involving four adults or four adolescents using either extreme or moderate language in their positive commentaries. The commentaries were expected to affect participants’ perceptions of the extent to which the ads were designed to control their behavior (perceived control), which was hypothesized to inhibit persuasion. Two indirect effects analyses were conducted. Marijuana attitudes and usage intentions were the outcome variables. Both analyses revealed statistically significant source by language interactions on participants’ perceived control (both p < .02). Further analyses revealed significant indirect effects of language extremity on attitudes and intentions through perceived control with adult, but not peer sources (both p < .05). These perceptions were associated with more negative marijuana attitudes and diminished usage intentions when adults used moderate (vs. extreme) language in their favorable ad commentaries (both p < .05). The findings may facilitate development of more effective prevention methods that emphasize the importance the role of perceived control in persuasion, and the impact of interpersonal communication variations on acceptance of media-transmitted prevention messages.

Just Do It! Why Committed Consumers React Negatively to Assertive Ads

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2017
J CONSUM PSYCHOL

Research shows that assertive ads, which direct consumers to take specific actions (e.g., Visit us; Just do it!), are ineffective due to reactance. However, such ads remain prevalent. We reexamine assertive ads, showing that their effectiveness depends on consumers' relationship with the advertising brand. Across studies, we compare committed and uncommitted consumers' reactions to assertive ads. We find that because committed (vs. uncommitted) brand relationships involve stronger compliance norms, assertive ads create greater pressure to comply for committed consumers. Specifically, we propose and show that committed consumers anticipate feeling guilty if they ignore an assertive message, creating pressure to comply. Pressure to comply increases reactance, which paradoxically reduces compliance, ultimately leading to decreased ad and brand liking as well as decreased monetary allocations to the brand. Our results show the perils that assertive ads pose for marketers and their most valuable customers.

A brief measure of reactance to health warnings

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2017
J BEHAV MED

Reactance to persuasive messages involves perceived threat to freedom, anger, and counterarguing that may undermine the impact of health warnings. To understand reactance’s effects, reliable and valid assessment is critical. We sought to develop and validate a brief Reactance to Health Warnings Scale (RHWS). Two independent samples of US adults completed the brief RHWS in studies that presented warnings on cigarette packs that smokers carried with them for 4 weeks (Study 1; n = 2149) or as digital images of cigarette packs that participants viewed briefly (Study 2; n = 1413). The three-item Brief RHWS had good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The scale correlated with higher trait reactance and exposure to pictorial warnings, supporting its convergent validity. With respect to predictive validity, the Brief RHWS predicted perceived message effectiveness, quit intentions, avoidance of the warnings, and number of cigarettes smoked per day. The Brief RHWS can serve as an efficient adjunct to the development of persuasive messages.

Uncertainty-Identity Theory

Chapter

Jan 2017

Reframing and restraining directives in the treatment of clinical depression.

Article

Jul 1990

We tested the effects of reframing and restraining directives on depression of high- and low-reactant clients. Reframing was more effective than restraining or control, and level of reactance had no effect. Restraining did not differ from control. Subjects were 74 moderately to severely depressed outpatients. Results are discussed in light of the compliance–defiance model of paradoxical interventions and psychological reactance theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Persuasion and the structure of affect

Article

Jan 2002

Elevation: A review of scholarship on a moral and other-praising emotion

Article

Dec 2016

The term elevation (also referred to as moral elevation), described by Thomas Jefferson and later coined by Jonathan Haidt, refers to the suite of feelings people may experience when witnessing an instance of moral beauty. The construct of elevation signifies the emotion felt when a person is a witness to, but not a recipient of, the moral behavior of others. Scholarship examining elevation has burgeoned since Haidt first introduced the construct. Researchers have explored the antecedents of, and outcomes associated with, witnessing instances of moral beauty. The current review will outline the existing scholarship on elevation, highlight conflicting findings, point out critical gaps in the current state of elevation research, and delineate fertile future directions for basic and applied research. Continued investigation of the affective, motivational, and behavioral responses associated with witnessing virtuous actions of others is warranted.

A 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory: Do Not Read This Article.

Abstract

Recommendations

SAGE Encyclopedia of Research, Measurement, and Evaluation

Purposive Behavior

Reducing HIV Misconceptions through Vested Interest & Social Marketing

Decision-making about organ donation

New frontiers in qualitative longitudinal research: an agenda for research

Therapeutic Discourse

Are We There Yet? Does Research on Media Violence Have Any Practical Utility?

Superior and Subordinate Communicator Profiles: Implications for Independent-Mindedness and Upward E...