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 al. (2002) assess the relationship among narcissism, reactance, and sexual concern, arguing that a man with high sexual expectancy of sexual interaction would experience psychological reactance when there is refusal of sexual contact by a woman. The narcissistic inclination may mediate reactance, motivating the individual to attempt sexual coercion and rape. Family socialization impacts freedom sensitivity, which in turn makes the individual more responsive to freedom threats. In particular, persons with an achievement orientation, high independence, and high moral–religious values were positively associated with psychological reactance (Buboltz et al., 2003).
The application of reactance in understanding virtual interaction on the internet was undertaken by Daily (2004). Restrictions and blocks to navigation on the internet create psychological reactance and lead to negative emotions and avoidance behavior toward the blocked websites. Another study assessed forced exposure via pop-up advertisements and psychological reactance, attempting to understand factors that contribute to negative reactions to information and particularly advertisements via the internet (Edwards et al., 2002).
Juvenile Defiance
Reactance theory has assisted in the understanding of adolescents’ defiance, and problematic behavior as goal frustration toward a perceived free behavior can lead to reactance. Van Petegem et al. (2015) studied adolescents’ parental defiance. They found that parental controlling styles created autonomy need frustration eliciting adolescent’s reactance which in turn influenced adolescents’ behavioral problems, including internalizing and externalizing problems and non-acquiescence to parental requests. Kakihara and Tilton-Weaver (2009, p.1734) emphasize this point, noting: “If adolescents feel unduly constrained by their parents’ control, or interpret their parents’ control behaviors as a restriction of free will, consistent with reactance theory, they would likely seek avenues for reasserting their autonomy. This might include continuing prohibited behavior or friendships or seeking leisure contexts in which adults are not present, which are more likely to lead to increases in problem behaviors.” Further, parental styles may either enhance or neutralize reactance (Valkenburg et al., 2013). In another study, researchers (Lowenthal et al., 2021 ) found that older than younger adolescents were more defiant in responding to reminders to continue with their HIV medication. The authors suggest that adherence to medical treatment in this group could be higher if the relationship between autonomy and reactance is considered. Other studies have argued a relationship between parental psychological control and reactance (see Geng et al., 2020; Sharf & Goldner, 2018). Geng et al. findings suggest that reactance inclusive of negative cognition and affect emerging as a result of threat to autonomy may lead to externalizing behavior of cyberbullying. Additionally, adolescents’ need for independence has been associated with the use of tobacco. However, research has shown that higher levels of psychological reactance in this group are twice more likely to lead to a higher risk for smoking initiation (Miller et al., 2006). Message framing is essential, as one study found that gain-framed messages rather than loss-framed messages were less likely to create reactance as the latter was more likely to be perceived as a threat to freedom (Cho & Sands, 2011). Parental-juvenile interaction would benefit from the framing of discourses intend to reduce threats.
Reactance