Theories in Social Psychology. Группа авторов

Lienemann and Siegel (2016) Good intention camps seeking to assist persons with depression should consider psychological reactance as a possible inhibitory factor. Language perceived as autonomy-supportive language may be perceived as controlling by persons with depression. Thrasher et al. (2016) Examined the impact of reactance, response efficacy, and self-efficacy on responses to threatening messages. Vivid, pictorial health warning labels encourage actions of cessation among smokers. Coppola and Girandola (2017) Investigated the reactance effects of linguistic and lexical features defined as “scalar adverbs.” Enhanced persuasive messages with the use of scalar adverbs result in perception of restrained autonomy to decide evoking reactance. LaVoie et al. (2017) Explored psychological reactance in response to graphic cigarette warning labels. Graphic imagery on cigarette packaging enhances freedom threat perceptions, perceived source domineeringness, negative cognition and reactance. Wehbe et al. (2017) Assessed the impact of attack messages on reactance and coping responses. Consistent with predictions, counter-advertisements, due to personal relevance of the content, appeared to arouse maladaptive coping mechanisms in smokers than non-smokers. Xu (2017) Explored the impact of controlling language and locus of control (LOC) on the information processing of young adults. Beutler et al. (2018) Reviewed definitions, measures, and clinical examples of reactance in psychotherapy. High reactant patients benefit more in psychotherapy when the therapist use acceptance and nondefensiveness (nondirective treatment) Ehrenbrink and Möller (2018) Articulated the development and assessment of a reactance scale for human–computer interaction. Rosenberg and Siegel (2018) Review of psychological reactance theory across fifty (50) years in the fields of social psychology, clinical psychology, and communications research. Rudorf et al. (2018) Explored the neural mechanisms involved in the underlying differences of control-averse behaviors. Utilizing fMRI assessed brain activity of persons in situations of others controlling decisions. Bertini and Aydinli (2020) Price promotions including discounts can lead to counter effect as a result of perception of promotional favours motivating reduction in spending. Findings discussed in the context of reactance. Rosenberg and Siegel (2020) Examined freedom in the context of religion and reactance theory. Three main issues were addressed in the context of reactance: social, political and environmental threats to religious freedom; the arousal of reactance within religions; communication strategies to avoid or reduce reactance. Hajek and Veronika (2021) Test theoretical model on the channeling process between reactance arousal and coping strategies toward compliance or resistance. Resnicow et al. (2021) Assessed the psychological factors, including trait reactance, on the adoption or rejection of protective COVID-19 public health measures. Minimizing controlling language may be effective for reactant prone persons..

      Measuring Reactance

      From its genesis, psychological reactance was conceptualized as arising from situational factors, and research and measurements were consistent with psychological reactance as a state phenomenon. In attempting to study reactance, researchers created experimental freedom-threat situations to arouse psychological reactance. In many of the studies discussed, reactance was inferred by comparing responses across conditions experimentally created (e.g., reactance vs. non-reactance), whether those measures were on attitudes, evaluation of message, or rating of communicator (Wright et al., 2004).

      Sharon Brehm (1976) wrote on the implications of reactance theory to that area of clinical psychology concerned with changing behavior and non-successful treatments.

      However, she referred to reactance theory as a motivational state that is aroused from situational factors. The construct of reactance was later modified to accommodate a clinician’s environment, with reactance being conceptualized as a personality trait.

      A major concern of the clinician was the interaction of this trait (reactant personality) with treatment (Beutler et al., 1991; Shoham-Salomon & Hannah, 1991; Snow, 1991). The genesis toward a psychometric scale emerged from attempts to measure reactance as a disposition (Buboltz et al., 2002; Hong & Page, 1989; Merz, 1983). Reactance is most likely to occur in the clinical setting to persons with volitional/free problem behaviors (e.g., drinking, smoking) as compared to uncontrollable behaviors (e.g., panic, obsessive-compulsive) (Shoham et al., 2004). Psychological reactance as a disposition has been measured by several scales and techniques.

      Merz’s (1983) Questionnaire Measuring Psychological Reactance (QMPR) was the first-ever scale designed to capture a measure of psychological reactance and consisted of 26 items utilizing a four-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all appropriate” to “extremely appropriate.” The original scale attempted to obtain measures on resistance, defiance, boomerang effect and the inclination to do the opposite to what others expect of you (Tucker & Byers, 1987). The scale was later modified by Tucker and Byers (1987) to an 18-item reactance scale utilizing a five-point Likert range from 1 = “not at all appropriate” to 5 = “extremely appropriate.” Two major constructs in the scale were behavioral freedom (encompassing measures of reactions to praise, subservient behavior and expectations, and advice of others) and freedom of choice (encompassing measures of freedom and decision making). The QMPR has been found to have convergence validity with the Personality Research Form (PRF), suggesting that psychologically reactant individuals are more likely to be defensive, easily offended, aggressive, autonomous, and impulsive (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993). These characteristics are consistent with the QMPR’s reactant individual who is seen as dominant, individualistic, with low social ties, and who creates unfavorable impressions on others (Dowd, 1993).

      Hong and Ostini (1989), utilizing a four-point Likert format of the translated QMPR, found factorial instability and low correlations among factors. Hong and Page (1989) argue that Tucker and Byers’s QMPR was considered to be psychometrically unstable. Other criticisms came from Donnell et al. (2001), who also questioned Tucker and Byers’s modification of the original scale, noting that the instability of the scale may have also been a result of both the translation of the original scale from German and the adaption of a five-point scale format.

      The stability of the QMPR translated by E. T. Dowd was further tested by Donnell et al. (2001), utilizing a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = “does not apply at all” to 6 = “always applies.” The results of a three-factor scale structure were found to be inconsistent with both Tucker and Byers (1987) and Hong and Ostini (1989). Though reactance appeared to be a multidimensional construct, the QMPR was not accepted as a stable measure of reactance (Donnell et al., 2001).

Hong and Page (1989) 14-item psychological reactance scale attempted to create a factorial stable measure of psychological reactance and emerged as a critique of the QMPR. Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS) utilizes a five-point Likert scale (1 = “disagree completely” to 5 = “agree completely”) and has four distinctive factors: freedom of choice, conformity reactance, behavioral freedom, reactance to advice, and recommendation. Hong (1992), a replication of Hong and Page (1989), supported the factorial structure of the