Threats may be defined or arbitrary. Defined and specific threats have limits to the threats and are justified (e.g., the denial of entry to any vehicles other than taxis into a particular roadway). This restriction to a free behavior has a physical limit and a rationale that allows for the reduction of traffic congestion. Arbitrary threats are ill-defined (e.g., an office imposing restrictions on casual conversations during working hours). This kind of threat carries high ambiguity and leads to extrapolations and speculations about different kinds of future prohibitions and restrictions. The magnitude of reactance will, therefore, be higher for arbitrary threats than defined threats.
Brehm and Brehm (1981) discuss the aggregated impact of a number of sub-threshold threats from a source that, when collectively combined, is potent enough to be considered a threat to one’s freedom. Each sub-threat on its own does not have the efficacy to constitute a threat. Threats reach an optimum point. Brehm and Brehm (1981, p. 58) write about the threshold of freedom elimination which exists when the “perceived magnitude of threat overshadows the perceived importance of freedom,” and about the optimum point of a threat: “the point at which a threat turns into an elimination of freedom is the point at which the magnitude of reactance is greatest. Additional force (and perceived threat) beyond that point has no effect on the magnitude of reactance.”
The importance of the freedom moderates reactance. In other words, the threat in itself does not produce the psychological reactance. For example, threats to freedoms of low importance, even with high-level threats, would create low levels of arousal and nonexpression of the freedom. However, freedoms of high importance lead to higher reactance with a motivation to express the threatened freedom.
The magnitude of the threat is influenced by the number of freedoms threatened by one or more factors. Time is a moderator here. Reasonable time lapses between one threat and another prime the person to a second threat, and reactance is increased as compared to two or more threats being experienced simultaneously. Primed persons are more likely to express greater psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Miron & Brehm, 2006). Wicklund (1974) postulates the hydraulic principle or summation effect of reactance. The principle states that when two freedoms are threatened, the reactance arousal of the first threat in which there are restrictions in the expression of reactance is channeled into the reactance arousal of the second threat to freedom. Brehm and Brehm (1981) later complemented the principle by identifying conditions under which the principle would best be applied. They identified three conditions: threats must be different, and at least two present, with some relationship between the threats or freedoms; a time-lapse must exist between threats, and there is no reduction of reactance for the first threat – the reactance is still present.
Some social factors that contribute to the magnitude of psychological reactance include monetary and verbal inducements, the attractiveness of the communicator, instructions, modeling behavior, role play, and the exertion of pressure for compliance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981).
Effects of Reactance
Muhlberger et al. (2020, p. 204) in discussing the irrationality of psychological reactance note:
“Wicklund (1997) says that a person whose freedom is not threatened moves toward the best solution in terms of cost-benefit ratio but as soon as the freedom is threatened, reactance stops this process and the person gets biased toward the freedom-restoring.”
Reactance as a motivational force pushes the individual to reduce levels of arousal. Display of reactance decreases arousal and leads to restoration of free behavior either directly, via exhibiting the threatened behavior, or indirectly, via focusing on the source (i.e., discrediting or attacking). Reactance is displayed on two levels – behavioral and nonbehavioral (subjective) – and a range of reduction options exist on these levels (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Miron & Brehm, 2006). The theory also distinguishes between reactance motivation and reactance striving, with the former referring to the subjective desire to restore or maintain the freedom that is perceived to be threatened and the latter an attempt to engage in actual behavior to restore or maintain the threatened freedom (Brehm, 2004 ; Mühlberger et al., 2020).
The individual adopts several behaviors to reestablish a sense of freedom, including direct behavioral reassertion of freedom; developing a greater liking for the behavior that was threatened and displaying the threatened behavior; indirect reassertion of freedom by adoption of extreme (e.g., costly, taboo, or dangerous) behaviors that imply power to display eliminated behaviors (boomerang effect); and aggressive behavior directed toward the entity threatening the freedom. There are situations in which outcomes are uncontrollable (e.g., a situation of learned helplessness) and freedoms are impossible to restore.
In these situations, an individual may relinquish freedom so as to reduce or eliminate reactance (Brehm & Wortman, 1975). In situations of exposure to threats by powerful communicators, reactance is reduced when there is a possibility of future interaction, negative consequences to others, and negative consequences to oneself (Miron & Brehm, 2006). In group situations, individuals may comply with the group’s alternatives rather than display reactance. However, consequences for future interaction within the group would be considered. In both individual and group situations, the cost and benefit analysis will determine the reduction of reactance strategy adopted (Miron & Brehm, 2006).
Reactance effects exist on a continuum from physiological arousal with no observable signs to hostility. Other reactance reduction strategies suggested in the literature include the following:
1 Derogate and discredit threatening sources. This strategy is adopted, especially if the source does not have the legitimate power to threaten the freedom.
2 Display aggression and hostility toward the threatening source.
3 Decrease the proportion of freedoms that were threatened.
4 Compensate by increasing other freedoms .
5 Seek opportunities to counter threatening messages/sources.
6 Increase the number of available freedoms.
7 Reduce compliance behavior.
8 Position oneself to increase future freedom behavior.
9 Increase self-direction to one’s behavior in achieving one’s goal of reducing reactance.
10 Change cognition (e.g., reevaluate the threat and define it as not posing a threat to freedom).
11 Change behavior (e.g., engage in behaviors that would compensate for the threat).
12 Remove the threat (e.g., leave the relationship).
13 Reconcile oneself to the loss of freedom.
14 Reduce reactance by implication. Reactance by implication occurs when we observe someone’s freedom being threatened. Reactance can also be reduced vicariously in the same way by observing the restoration of the other’s freedom.
15 Seek out others who can assist in the restoration of our freedom.
16 Subjectively increase perceived available behavior alternatives.
17 Subjectively, imaginatively, seek out others who can assist in the restoration of our free behavior.
18 Deny the presence of a threat.
19 Persevere by focusing on maintaining and protecting non-threatened free behaviors.
20 Adopt impression-management strategies.
21 Adopting the perspective of threatening person – perspective-taking
