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 Hong’s psychological reactance 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.
|