scale. Findings supported the factorial stability and reliability of the scale.
Mallon (1992)
Reviewed the QMPR, Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale and TRS. Developed the Proneness Reactance Inventory to measure dispositional reactance.
Dowd and Wallbrown (1993)
Determined the motivational personality characteristics associated with psychological reactance. Findings identified a personality pattern of the psychologically reactant person as defensive, aggressive, dominant, autonomous, and non-affiliative.
Dowd et al. (1994)
Further explored personality characteristics of a psychologically reactant individual. Identified that psychologically reactant women were more decisive and self –assertive than non-reactant women. Reactant individuals tend to worry more about future problems and have weak social relations.
Hong et al. (1994)
Used Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale to explore gender and age effects on dispositional reactance. Younger persons displayed more reactance than older participants and no difference between genders was observed.
Hong and Faedda (1996)
Refined Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale to 11 items that showed greater factorial stability than the original 14 item scale.
Pepper (1996)
Explored the psychosocial precursors of psychological reactance with emphasis on Erikson’s developmental theory. The following factors predicted psychological reactance: autonomy, trust, intimacy and isolation.
Hellman and McMillin (1997)
Examined the relationship between psychological reactance and self esteem using Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale. These results suggest that the HPRS scale should be used with caution since combining all four factors of the HPRS in an additive format may suppress its potential to measure reactance.
Huck (1998)
Assessed psychological reactance and its relations to personality through the utilization of Millon’s Personality theory. Found seven personality disorders that evoke reactance more likely than others.
Seibel and Dowd (1999)
Analyzed the relationship between the client’s psychological reactance and specific compliance behaviors and general improvements in an actual therapy situation. Identified that reactant clients would engage in boundary augmentation and boundary reducing behaviors as opposed to non-reactant clients.
Johnson and Buboltz (2000)
Explored the link between Bowen’s (1978) concept of differentiation of self and psychological reactance. Detected three measures of differentiation that predicted psychological reactance (i.e., intergenerational individuation, peer intimacy and peer individuation).
Donnell et al. (2001)
Assessed the factor structure and internal consistency of questionnaire for the measurement of psychological reactance. Concluded that the QMPR was an unreliable measure of the dimensions of psychological reactance.
Seibel and Dowd (2001)
Further explored the psychological profile of a psychologically reactant person as well as delved into corrective techniques for developmental issues that arise due to separation and individuation. Identified that individuals have an optimum level of reactance that balances issues of engulfment and separation. Personality disorders based on trust and autonomy were a predictors of reactance.
Baumeister et al. (2002)
Explored a narcissistic reactance theory approach to sexual coercion and rape. Findings concluded that theories of reactance and narcissism combined are a good tool of analysis when exploring cases of rape.
Buboltz et al. (2002)
Analyzed and assessed the factor structure of the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS). The results showed that reactance is seemingly a multidimensional construct with four relatively independent structures underlying psychological reactance. The use of a one-dimensional score may not give an accurate picture of the reactance level/potential of an individual.
Buboltz et al. (2003)
Assessed the relationship between variables concerned with origins of family and psychological reactance. Findings suggest that five family dimensions (cohesion, conflict, moral-religious emphasis, independence and achievement orientation) can encourage psychological reactance.
Dillard and Shen (2005)
Develop four alternative conceptual perspectives on the nature of reactance utilizing a combinations of cognition and affect. Anger and negative cognition mediated threat to freedom and trait reactance. . .
Seeman et al. (2005)
Further elaborated the profile of a psychologically reactant person by implementing the five-factor model of personality as measured by the NEO PI-R. Results suggested that highly reactant individuals appear very independent and somewhat suspicious, they are likely to be skeptical of others intentions, competitive, intolerant, distrustful, secretive, and detached, and they put on a good social face but are actually uncomfortable in social situations
Shen and Dillard (2005)
Assessed the psychometric properties of the 11 item version of the Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale. Concluded that a single score on the HPRS is theoretically and empirically justifiable.
Jonason and Knowles (2006)
Assessed the one-dimensional measure of Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Concluded that the scale is only moderately stable and reliable although its one-dimensional characteristic appears to be the most consistent and reliable construct.
Quick et al. (2011)
Examined the effectiveness of character framing and freedom-threating language in persuasiveness, as well as the moderating effects of trait reactance and issue involvement on freedom threat perception.
Kim et al. (2013)
Assessed effects of freedom threat, argument quality and insult as message features in independently producing feelings of anger and negative thought and explain message failure.
Rains (2013)
Reviewed Dillard and Shen (2005) study on the nature of psychological reactance and provided support for the use of the intertwined model.
De Las Cuevas et al. (2014)
Assessed the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Hong Psychological Reactance scale (Spanish version) in psychiatric outpatient care.
De Las Cuevas et al. (2014)
This study explored depression among psychiatric outpatients and their stringent adherence to treatments. The association between health locus of control, self-efficacy, and reactance was examined.
Richards and Banas (2015)
Examined the possibility of inoculating against/decreasing psychological reactance in a health campaign message aimed to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. Simply warning audiences about the possibility of negative reactions to health messages can improve efficacy.
Scott and Quick (2012)
Examined family communication patterns as a means of explaining how interpersonal talk influences peoples’ response to persuasive messages about organ donation using reactance theory. Family conformity orientation and family conversation orientation moderate