9 to 21 years and over) were more likely to attract persons in these groups to the violent program than information labels and no label. Psychological reactance was utilized to explain the attraction to the “forbidden fruit.”
Gender (Nature–Nurture)
Is psychological reactance only experienced and displayed by those who have an understanding of their sense of freedom? As Brehm and Weinraub (1977) put it, must there be complex cognitive ability for psychological reactance to be displayed, in that an understanding of sense of freedom is needed for the arousal of psychological reactance? Their study utilized children (boys and girls) at the age of 2 and randomly assigned them to one of three physical barrier conditions: (1) a large physical barrier with identical objects behind the barrier; (2) a large barrier with dissimilar objects; and (3) a small barrier with dissimilar objects. Boys were more attracted to objects in the second condition, while girls were more attracted to objects in the third condition. The boys were more sensitized to situations of threats to their freedom to freely obtain objects behind the barriers. Once the desired object was obtained, there was a decrease in psychological reactance, and factors other than reactance became influential, including the intrinsic attraction of toys and attention span. Girls were more likely to approach objects that were less difficult to obtain. This study demonstrated that there are motivational processes that may transcend cognitive ability in the arousal of psychological reactance. Possible explanations proposed in the study for the gender differences in the findings include a greater emphasis on visual cues by boys and verbal cues by girls (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), the higher accommodation of restrictions by girls than boys, and the evasion of obstacles by boys (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969).
Social Influence
Reactance is also a function of pressure to comply (social influence), varying from subtle to outright attempts to achieve compliance. A consequence of social influence is its eroding effect on an individual’s effort to exert influence in a social setting. For example, Brehm and Sensenig (1966) argue that social influence that leads to the usurpation of choice, especially when we are aware of our freedom to make a particular choice, will arouse reactance, resulting in rejection of the source of the social influence. Their study showed that the continuing evaluation of perception of threat was a function of the magnitude of reactance and inclination toward the denunciation of the social influence.
How does reactance or compliant behavior influence regret? Crawford et al. (2002) assess the relationship among reactance, compliance, regret, and persuasive attempts at changing behavior. In assessing anticipated regret, the study found that individuals were more likely to estimate higher regret for any loss if reactant behavior rather than compliance was likely to be displayed to a persuasive attempt. However, in actuality, in an attempt to reduce anticipated regret, individuals were more likely to engage in complying behavior to a request. In fact, individuals displaying anticipated regret and compliant behavior, as against persons displaying reactant behavior, actually experienced higher regret. The authors argue that compliant behavior is associated with dependency, and attribution of blame is externalized, compared to reactance behavior, which involves an independent choice. The reactant person assumes responsibility for their behavioral choice. Another study found that reactance was greater when attempts were made to control or change thoughts and attitudes than behavior, as attempts to control thoughts may have been seen as an initial step toward behavioral control (Ma et al., 2019).
Silvia (2005) assesses the relationship between interpersonal interaction, similarity, and psychological reactance. Similarity between interacting parties reduces resistance and enhances compliance in that similarity increases attraction and liking, which in turn leads to the threatening behavior of liked persons being interpreted as less coercive.
The findings of this study suggest that reactance is more likely to be aroused when a message that is threatening emanates from a dissimilar other. However, when the communicator of a threatening message was similar, persuasion occurred as though the message was not threatening (a normal message). Similarity as a positive interaction factor intervened in influencing compliance and reducing resistance which the threatening message aroused. The findings also suggest that positive social influence can reduce the magnitude of reactance even in a threatening situation. In this study, the researcher created similarity by use of identical first names, dates of birth, and congruent values of communicator-participants.
Resistance can be used to reestablish one’s sense of freedom via a freedom-affirmation intervention. Heilman and Toffler (1976) studied the reaffirming of freedom, assessing the relationship among message (threat or promise), option (no choice or choice option), and interpersonal interaction (interpersonal or non-interpersonal). The research found that compliance was higher in threatening situations when a choice was available, and both threats and promises were equally effective in obtaining compliance in a choice situation.
An important factor in the interpretation of a threatening situation is the degree of interpersonal interaction. Overall, the greater the interpersonal interaction, the greater is the compliance. However, an important finding of the study was the fact that though liking (interpersonal concern) was not the only variable that induced compliance, it moderated responses to freedom reduction (reactance). Other studies have found that compliance increased with high autonomy support message (Ball, 2016) and awareness of freedom to choose (Guéguen, 2016). Reactance research assists in understanding compliance in therapy (Seibel & Dowd, 1999) and adopting coping strategies (Hajek & Veronika, 2021).
Application of Reactance
The application of the theory of psychological reactance has been diverse, from its use in the clinical setting to the understanding of social problems, consumer behavior, and power relationships. Rosenberg and Siegel (2018) categorize the contributions of reactance theory into what they referred to as five overlapping waves. These are: 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. Specifically, the theory of psychological reactance has been applied within psychology and other fields and has provided useful insights in areas such as persuasion and resistance to persuasion, attitude change, pro-social behavior, group attractiveness, family interaction, effects of warning labels, littering, promotional influence, manipulative advertisements, product availability, government regulations as threats to freedom, internet and website interaction, health communication, clinical interaction/counseling and reactant personality, family therapy, political behavior, jury behavior, learned helplessness, dispute resolution, and responses to COVID-19.
Some studies on littering (e.g., Brasted et al., 1979) utilized a reactance theory model to understand the relationship between antilittering advertisements and compliance. Messages that were strongly stated and suggested threats to freedom aroused psychological reactance and attempts to restore freedom. Consumers are influenced by promotional campaigns, but the hard-sell advertisements have less of an impact than the soft-sell (low-threat) ones (Regan & Brehm, 1972).
A multitude of studies was undertaken in the area of reactance, attitude change and persuasion, including Worchel and Brehm’ (1970) study on freedom-threatening communication and attitudinal position; Miller (1976) on persuasive messages and attitude change; Carver (1977) on self-awareness, coercion, and persuasion; and Baer et al. (1980) on self-presentation and public attitudes. Wright and Palmer (2012) note that the use of persuasive techniques on the public to portray specific behavioral patterns elicit reactance tendencies. Reactance that invoke the inoculation effect results in reduced attitude change (Miller et al., 2013). Studies by Bushman (1998, 2006) and Clee and Wicklund (1980) are just a few of the many studies that emphasize the impact of message insensitivity– sensitivity on persuasion and compliance. Reinhart and Anker (2012) utilize reactance and transport theory to understand perceptions of persuasive public service announcements on organ donation (see also Scott & Quick, 2012 ; Sukalla et al., 2017). Baumeister et
