References
1 Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 267–300). Academic Press.
2 Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Houghton Mifflin.
3 Allport, G. (1968). The historical background of modern social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1). Addison-Wesley.
4 Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A source book (pp. 5–27). Rand McNally.
5 Aronson, E. (2007). The evolution of cognitive dissonance theory. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress (pp. 115–135). Psychology Press.
6 Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74 (3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024835
7 Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. Yale University Press.
8 Dubin, R. (1978). Theory development. New York: Free Press.
9 Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
10 Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 (2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593
11 Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspective on theory building. The Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.2307/258683
12 Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. (2015). An action-based model of cognitive dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24 (3), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414566449
13 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
14 Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). Academic Press.
15 Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–238). University of Nebraska Press.
16 Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
17 Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
18 Lynham S. A. (2000). The development of a theory of responsible leadership for performance. (Tech. Rep.). St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Human Resource Development Research Center.
19 Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3 (1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_2
20 Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. MIT Press.
21 McDougall, W. (1908). Introduction to social psychology. Methuen.
22 Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. The Academy of Management Review, 24 (2), 249. https://doi.org/10.2307/259081
23 Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.
24 Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Harper Torchbooks.
25 Popper, Κ. R. (1982). Unended quest: An intellectua/ autobiography. Open Court.
26 Ross, E. A. (1908). Social psychology. Macmillan.
27 Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1994). Equity and balance in the exchange of contributions in close relationships. In M. L. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds.), Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in close relationship (pp. 11–41). Plenum.
28 Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press.
29 Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 28–60). Academic Press.
30 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Brooks/Cole.
31 Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Transaction Books.
32 Tripodi, T., Fellin, P., & Meyer, H.J. (1969). The assessment of social research: Guidelines for use of research in social work and social science. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
33 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.
34 Waltz, K. (1997). Evaluating theories Kenneth N. Waltz source. The American Political Science Review, 91 (4), 913–917. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/2952173
2 Toward an Affect Arousal Reactance Theory: Reactance Theory Revisited
Derek Chadee and Mary Chadee
Reactance theory was developed by Jack W. Brehm and articulated in his Theory of Psychological Reactance (1966). Leon Festinger and Stanley Schachter were the editors of the monograph series, which included Brehm’s seminal work. In fact, Brehm’s Ph.D. supervisor was Leon Festinger and his Ph.D. dissertation tested the free-choice dissonance paradigm which later appeared in 1956 in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology as the first published empirical research on cognitive dissonance. Later, Brehm systematically wrote on cognitive dissonance (e.g., Brehm, 1962; Brehm & Cohen, 1962). The genesis of the theory of psychological reactance appears to have taken place in the womb of cognitive dissonance theory. However, the baby grew with many different characteristics from the mother. Both theories of cognitive dissonance and psychological reactance are theories of motivational arousal and reduction. In fact, Miron and Brehm (2006, p. 9) recognize that “Festinger had constructed a theory (cognitive dissonance) that assumed an inner motivational process rather than assuming that all influences between stimuli and behavior were simple and direct. It was in this context that Brehm and Cohen (1962), both in the Yale Attitude Change Program at the time, carried out an extensive program of research on persuasion, largely based on dissonance theory, but with some attention to special cases of resistance to social influence. After [Brehm] … became more interested in the occurrence of resistance to social influence, and that interest eventuated in the formulation of reactance theory.”
Assumptions
The theory of psychological reactance attempts to explain people’s reactions to a perceived or actual threat to loss of their freedom(s). The concept of freedom is defined “as a belief that one can engage in a particular behavior” (Brehm & Brehm, 1981, p. 35). Brehm (1966, p. 9) defines “psychological reactance as a motivational