Reactance as a Trait
Is psychological reactance strongly associated with a disposition, or as most of the earlier research assumed, a state condition? The relationship between reactance and personality traits was discussed by Dowd et al. (1994). They identified a number of factors that may contribute to obstacles in therapeutic sessions including reactance. A psychological reactant personality profile was identified using the California Psychological Inventory – Revised (CPI-R), the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS), and the Questionnaire Measuring Psychological Reactance (QMPR). Their study found that psychologically reactant individuals were less concerned with impressing others or adhering to social norms and regulations, were “somewhat careless about fulfilling duties and obligations,” were inclined to express strong emotions and feelings, and were preoccupied with future possible problems. The researchers also found that women classified as reactants displayed more capability in decision making and were more “self-assured, sociable, and action-oriented.” The psychological profile developed in this study highlighted certain similarities between reactant persons and individuals with psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorders.
Another study (Huck, 1998) found that paranoid, antisocial, and sadistic disorders were highly correlated with reactance, and that persons with histrionic, avoidant, and/or dependent disorders displayed low reactance behavior. According to Seibel and Dowd (2001), there is an optimum normal level of reactance. Once this threshold is crossed, excessive reactance behavior loses utility and begins to have a negative impact on the individual. The authors found that persons with personality disorders (e.g., obsessive-compulsive) characterized by autonomy or mistrust exhibit high reactance.
Dowd and Wallbrown (1993) tested motivational components of psychological reactance utilizing the QMPR, the TRS, and a Personal Research Form (PRF). Their findings suggest that persons high in reactance are aggressive, dominant, defensive, autonomous, quick to feel offended, and low in social desirability. In sum, they were seen as loners who are deficit in strong relations with others. Positive characteristics associated with high-reactant individuals were high levels of confidence in their beliefs and goal orientation. Persons higher on external locus of control were more likely to be reactant (Pepper, 1996). These findings contradict previous studies (Mallon, 1992; Morgan, 1986 as cited in Pepper, 1996). However, an earlier study found no significant difference in levels of reactance between internally and externally oriented persons on locus of control (Cherulnik & Citrin, 1974).
Findings from Pepper (1996) suggest that type A personalities are more reactant, oppositional, perceive more threats to freedom, and show increased attraction to the eliminated choice and non-compliance to clinical treatment. Individuals with high reactance were more likely to make self-attributions, having a stronger belief that they can manage problems for themselves. In actuality, they were unable to perform equally or better than persons who had sought assistance (Rhodewalt & Marcroft, 1988 as cited in Pepper, 1996). Carver (1977), exploring self-awareness and reactance, suggested that greater self-awareness led to increased feelings of coercion by reactant persons. Further studies (Brockner et al., 1983; Carver & Sheier, 1981 as cited in Pepper, 1996) categorized self-awareness into private self-consciousness and public self-consciousness. Private self-consciousness encompasses the subjective awareness of an individual’s feelings and perceptions, whereas public self-consciousness is an awareness of oneself as a social object. Private self-consciousness was associated with high reactance, whereas public self-consciousness acted as a suppressant of reactance.
Psychological reactance has been associated with depression in persons living with HIV (Brown et al., 2016) and with psychiatric outpatients required to comply with stringent treatment (De Las Cuevas et al., 2014). Similarly, attempting to address patients’ delusion may also contribute to a perception of threat to freedom (Arnold & Vakhrusheva, 2016). Research suggests that message campaigns seeking to assist persons with depression should be cognizant of the reactance effect as good intention messages may be misperceived as controlling (Lienemann & Siegel, 2016).
Pepper (1996) found no significant relationship between gender and reactance, identifying gender as a situational variable better explained by cultural factors. These findings have also been supported by Dowd et al. (1992) and Carli (1989). Using Erikson’s stage theory, Pepper (1996) argued that inherent in many of Erikson’s stages is the potential for psychological reactance. Reactance was linked with both the successful and unsuccessful completion of stages, and Pepper (1996) identified autonomy, mistrust, intimacy, and isolation as being associated with psychological reactance.
Family history was also found to be a predictor of psychological reactance. Persons who lived in a high-conflict family environment or a family that emphasized autonomy, achievement, and moral values were more likely to show psychological reactance (Buboltz et al., 2003). These persons may be more aware of perceived or actual threats to their freedom. The literature, with few exceptions, paints a negative portrait of the personality profile of a psychologically reactant person, who is seen as antisocial, low in social desirability, incapable of strong relations with peers, isolated, independent, aggressive, not easily trusting, dominant, and worried about an uncertain future. Table 2.2 summarizes research that focuses on psychological reactance as a disposition.
Table 2.2 Research on Dispositional Psychological Reactance.
| Author | Comments |
|---|---|
| Cherulnik and Citrin (1974) | Explored individual differences and psychological reactance with relevance to locus of control. External and internal locus of control participants exhibited the same levels of reactance. |
| Tucker and Byers (1987) | Assessed the factorial validity of Merz’s Psychological Reactance Scale. Findings were inconsistent with Merz’s, concluding that the instrument is psychometrically unacceptable. |
| Hong and Ostini (1989) | Evaluated the questionnaire for the measurement of psychological reactance. Identified a four factor structure that was inconsistent with findings of Merz (1983) and Tucker and Byers (1987) concluding the scale psychometrically unstable. |
| Hong and Page (1989) | Developed Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale. Identified a four factor structure to measure reactance that was reliable. |
| Joubert (1990) | Used Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale to assess the relationship among self esteem, reactance and personality variables. Men scored significantly higher than women on psychological reactance measures. Happiness ratings correlated negatively with psychological reactance. Women’s self esteem scores were negatively correlated with psychological reactance. |
| Dowd et al. (1991) | Developed the Therapeutic Reactance Scale to measure trait psychological reactance. Factorial analysis identified two sub-scales: verbal reactance and behavioral reactance |
| Hong (1992) |
Assessed the validity of
|
