Psychological Reactance Theory

1. Psychological Reactance Theory Jessica J. Tomasello Conservation Behavior October 14, 2008

2. Background: reactance theory • Brehm & Brehm (1966): A Theory of Psychological Reactance • Brehm & Brehm (1981): Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control • Department of Psychology, University of Kansas • Laboratory-based social psychological research

3. Purpose • Outlines a set of motivational consequences that can be expected to occur whenever freedoms are threatened or lost • Specifies: • What freedoms are • How they can be threatened • How the resulting psychological state (reactance) is manifested (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)

4. General tenets of reactance • Freedoms are specific, discrete; behavioral and attitudinal • It is important for an individual to maintain his or her choice alternatives to maximize rewards of behavior • Reduction of choice alternatives results in a motivational state to reinstate lost alternatives or engage in behavior which was threatened reassertion of freedom increased interest in threatened behaviors or attitudes decreased attraction to forced behaviors • Threats can be either social or interpersonal

5. What is reactance? • Threat to or loss of freedoms motivates person to restore freedom • Reactance = intense motivational state • Manifested through behavior or action to restore freedom • Person is often emotional, irrational, and single-minded

6. Examples of reactance??????

7. variables • Freedoms: • Free behaviors which are realistically possible • Person must have physical and psychological abilities to engage in behavior • Must know that he or she can do the behavior (knowledge) • Restriction/threat to freedom • Must be perceived as an “unfair” restriction • Something is denied and this is simply unfair! • Reactance

8. Process of reactance • Perception of unfair restriction toward actions/behaviors • Reactance is activated • Take action to reduce/remove reactance (Butterfield-Booth, 1996)

9. Studies • Mazis & Settle, 1972: laundry detergent in Dade, County, Florida • Reich & Robertson, 1979: anti-littering campaigns • Propst & Kurtzz, 1989: framework for leisure behavior • Fogarty, 1997: health care industry & patient noncompliance • Schwartz (1970): blood marrow donors

10. assumptions • A person, at any given time, has a set of “free behaviors” which he or she could engage in now or in the future • Person has knowledge of these “free behaviors” • Reactance is aroused to the extent that a person believes he or she has control over potential outcome • The greater the importance of threatened freedoms, the greater the reactance aroused • The amount of reactance is direct function of number of freedoms threatened • Freedoms can be threatened by implication--magnitude of reactance is greater when implied threats occur (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)

11. Advantages/disadvantages • Advantages: • Applicable to any situation in which there is expectation of freedom and threat arises • Provides recommendations for ways to reduce reactance in behavior change campaigns • Disadvantages: • Assumes people have an expectation of freedom • Can be difficult to measure reactance, freedom Others???

12. implications • Individuals are often motivated to resist or act counter to social influence (e.g. mass persuasion) • Important to examine possibilities of repercussions of prohibitive laws • Behavior change: reactance can reduce durability and reliability (DeYoung, 2000) What implications does this theory have for conservation behavior?