Ohio Communication Journal Volume 49 – 2011, pp. 15-42

Resistance to in Committed Romantic Relationships: Reactance Effects of Forewarning and Message Explicitness

Thomas Richard Wagner

This experiment extends reactance theory to the context of persuasive communication in committed romantic relationships. Sixty-four couples participated in a comparison groups experiment where one partner attempted persuasion using either an implicit, explicit, or forewarning/explicit message. Issues of moderate agreement and importance were selected from a newly created Relational Issues Index. The propositions of reactance theory in committed relationships were tested in the context of romantic partners. Data support a positive relationship between reactance and resistance. Reactance induced threats to future freedoms. Implicit messages produced significantly less reactance than explicit and forewarning/explicit messages.

When relationship partners have disagreement on issues that are important to their relationship, how can they best persuade each other? Most people do not like to feel they are being told what attitudes they should have or what behaviors they should enact, especially from a partner in a committed interpersonal relationship. When a persuader’s message contains features that are attitudinally restrictive, the receiver may perceive the persuader as controlling. As Brehm (1966) theorized, people often prefer, and are more receptive to, messages that do not place a restriction on their attitudes. When a person perceives a romantic partner’s message as attitudinally restrictive, agreement between partners is less likely than when a message is less restrictive. Persuasive messages that cause threats to freedom in committed interpersonal relationships can cause resistance to persuasion, or a boomerang effect. This effect is conventionally referred to as “overreacting.” Overreacting to a message includes asserting one’s freedom in reaction to a threat to that freedom. A receiver’s perception of freedom of choice is essential for effective persuasion (O’Keefe, 2002). Without freedom of choice, ______Thomas Richard Wagner (Ph.D., Kent State University) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Arts at Xavier University. Inquiries should be directed to him at [email protected]. 16 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships receivers may feel far less open to considering attitudinal positions other than their own. If a receiver perceives a persuader’s message to be a restriction of freedom of attitudes, this restriction may cause the receiver to build a greater resistance to accepting the sender’s attitudes than if the message had contained less restrictive features. When one partner states, “You need to agree that I should always pay for dates” or “You should love cooking too,” that partner is sending messages that are restrictive because the sender’s request is specific and finite on the toward the issue. When a receiver’s freedom of choice is limited, reactance is likely. People have a need to maintain their personal freedom, and when that freedom is threatened, they are driven to restore it. Brehm and Brehm (1981) proposed that restrictions to attitudinal freedom in close relationships have the added component of threats to future freedoms and therefore can damage the relationship. Certain features of persuasive messages may create a perception of a restriction of freedom. Understanding how this process works could help people reduce conflicts and have more successful relationships in many types of relationships including friends, romantic partners, family, and co- workers. Brehm’s (1966) theory of psychological reactance posits that perceived threats to a person’s freedom cause an unpleasant state called reactance. Reactance is a motivational state that often causes people to attempt to regain a threatened freedom. For example, if a person is told what to believe he or she may feel restricted, experience reactance, and act out in ways that regain freedom. The magnitude of reactance experienced depends on the importance of the freedom threatened. Brehm and Brehm (1981) extended reactance theory, proposing that reactance should be stronger in committed relationships. They explained that if a person perceives a threat to an important freedom from a partner, the person might assume implied threats to other, related freedoms. For example, a message that threatens the amount of time spent with a friend may also create the perception of threats to other issues, such as time spent with all friends and family. Brehm and Brehm (1981) believed that this perception of threat on multiple issues increases the magnitude of reactance experienced. Recent applied reactance research has focused on campaigns, and reactance effects can explain why health campaigns fail (Gibbons et al., 2004; Grandpre, Alvario, Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003; Miller, Burgoon, Grandpre, & Alvaro, 2006). However, message processing from a health campaign is likely very different from message processing of persuasive attempts in committed romantic relationships. Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 17

Brehm and Brehm (1981) extended reactance theory and proposed that restrictions to attitudinal freedom in committed relationships have the added component of perceived threats to future freedoms, a concern that if a partner will threaten one freedom, others might be threatened as well. In committed romantic relationships, people balance the tension between personal freedom and connectedness (Baxter, 1996). When freedom is threatened, they are motivated to restore it. As Brehm (1966) theorized, people often prefer, and are more receptive to, messages that do not place a restriction on their attitudes. When a romantic partner’s message is perceived as attitudinally restrictive, agreement is less likely than when a message is less restrictive. Attitude agreement is important to the development and maintenance of close relationships (Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962). According to Newcomb’s (1961) balance theory, disagreement creates a state of imbalance which motivates partners to restore balance. Many scholars, such as Ah Yun (2002) and Burleson and Samter (1996), documented a positive relationship between the agreement of attitudes and relational satisfaction. Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) found that couples with greater attitude agreement were less likely to divorce. Committed romantic partners are motivated to persuade each other when faced with a discrepancy of attitudes that the relationship. Dillard, Anderson, and Knobloch (2002) believed that influence attempts are common in various types of interpersonal relationships but are most likely to occur in close relationships. Research has not supported the old adage of “opposites attract,” especially in committed relationships (Rosenbaum, 1986). Silvia (2005) found that similarity of values reduces reactance. The purpose of this research is to test the potential reactance effects and resistance to persuasion that may occur from the use of attitude-restrictive messages delivered by partners in a committed romantic relationship. This study examines reactance theory propositions, relational commitment, attitude discrepancy, importance of attitude, and message features that are central to reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Specific communication variables tested are message explicitness and forewarning. Specifically, persuasive messages that are more explicit (rather than implicit) may produce greater reactance and thus greater resistance to persuasion (Dillard & Kinney, 1994; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Benoit’s (1998) meta-analysis found that forewarning a person of an impending persuasive message induces resistance to persuasion. Based on Brehm and Brehm’s (1981)

18 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships theoretical propositions of reactance in committed relationships, threats to one freedom can cause threats to other freedoms.

Persuasion in Romantic Relationships

The effect of attitude agreement on attraction has been studied primarily in initial interactions, but some studies have explored this relationship in long-term committed interpersonal relationships. In these studies, the relationship between similarity and attraction has been conceptualized in the reverse, exploring the effect of attitude discrepancy on people in relationships (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Honeycutt, 1986). These studies report that more dissimilar attitudes reduce attraction. Attitude similarity can enhance satisfaction of interactions (Burleson & Samter, 1996). The desire to have similar attitudes may motivate persuasive attempts. In a review of meta-analyses and studies on attitude similarity and attraction, Ah Yun (2002) noted that of the over 100 studies that have examined this relationship, most looked at only initial relationships. Ah Yun encouraged future relationship researchers to examine how couples are affected by “the potentially aversive attitude discrepancy that they share with another” (p. 162). Attitude discrepancies certainly exist between couples in committed romantic relationships. The study of these discrepancies could lead to a greater understanding of how couples’ expressions of attitudes affect attraction. Committed romantic relationships may be particularly threatened by restrictive messages.

Reactance in Committed Romantic Relationships

Brehm and Brehm (1981) published their conceptualization and theoretical propositions of the effect of commitment on reactance in their 1981 book in a chapter titled “Close Interpersonal Relationships.” These propositions were supported from research findings that examined nonromantic commitment (Dickenberger, 1979; Pallak & Heller, 1971). Instead of testing natural relationships, Dickenberger (1979), and Pallak and Heller (1971) tested the effects of experimentally manipulated commitment and reactance. Participants were assigned to groups and told they would be doing future projects together. The theoretical propositions extended by Brehm and Brehm (1981) of commitment to reactance were supported, but, clearly, experimental manipulations of commitment lack the emotional and behavioral involvement found in naturally occurring romantic relationships, which may strengthen reactance effects. Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 19

Although reactance has not been studied with couples’ persuasive attempts on attitudes, Hayes (2002) researched the impact of behavioral directives on participants’ ratings of reactance in the context of romantic relationships. Hayes used hypothetical written scenarios of behavioral directives such as “never bring this up again” or “don’t complain to me about this anymore” (p. 64). Hayes found support for reactance effects from behavioral directives. Feldman-Summers (1977) found that threats to freedom of choice resulted in a reduction in interpersonal attraction; therefore, destructive consequences may occur from using messages that restrict attitudinal freedom. Similar to the effects of commitment and reactance, research on the relationship between attraction and reactance supports a positive linear relationship (Brehm & Mann, 1975; Dickenberger & Grabitz- Gniech, 1972; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Under conditions of attitude- restrictive messages, the threats to freedom from the effects of attraction and messages combined should produce greater reactance and less persuasion. Dickenberger and Grabitz-Gniech (1972) found a negative relationship between interpersonal attraction and . Therefore, the more a person is attracted to a source, the more pressure there is to agree. This pressure is a threat to freedom that produces reactance and less attitude change as compared to a less likeable source (Brehm & Mann, 1975). Given the propositions of reactance in close interpersonal relationships and the aforementioned research, the following hypothesis is posed:

H1: A positive linear relationship will exist between commitment and reactance.

Resistance to persuasion. There are many ways to conceptualize resistance to persuasion (e.g., motive, process, outcome, non- ) (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Resistance as an outcome refers to a receiver’s attitudinal change or shifts in agreement away from the sender’s position (Quinn & Wood, 2004). Chartrand, Dalton, and Fitzsimons (2007) studied reactance effects and found that rejecting a partner’s goal may be a nonconsious motive. Researchers have measured resistance as an outcome by comparing pre-test and post-test measures of attitudes (Rucker & Petty, 2004; Zuwerink & Devin, 1996). Resistance occurred when attitudes are unchanged or shift in a direction opposite of that advocated by a speaker. Dowd (1999) explained that resistance is behaviorally exhibited and reactance is a motivational force that “may or may not be behaviorally expressed” (p.

20 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships 265). Resistance to persuasion is any negative shift in agreement between communicators. Based on the theoretical claims and research support for the relationship between reactance and resistance, the following hypothesis is posed:

H2: A positive relationship will exist between reactance and resistance to persuasion.

Attitude importance. In their second principle of the magnitude of reactance, Brehm and Brehm (1981) proposed that the importance of a threatened freedom is positively related to the amount of reactance experienced. The terms involvement and importance are similar. Petty and Cacioppo (1979b) defined issue involvement as “the extent to which the attitudinal issue under consideration is of personal importance” (p. 1915). Johnson and Eagly (1989) found that the greater the involvement in a message, the more receivers are motivated to process the message. Similar to Brehm and Brehm’s (1981) propositions, high-involvement participants were persuaded less than low-involvement participants were. Again, involvement and reactance are positively related and reactance and resistance are positively related. Zuwerink and Devine (1996) reported a positive relationship between the importance of attitudes and resistance to persuasion, which is consistent with Brehm and Brehm’s (1981) principle of the importance of a threatened freedom. This principle posits a positive relationship between importance of a threatened attitude and level of reactance when communicators do not agree. Given the theoretical and research support on the relationship between attitude importance and reactance, the following hypothesis is posed:

H3: A positive relationship will exist between pre-communication attitude importance and level of reactance.

Implied threat, reactance, and importance. Brehm and Brehm (1981) posited that a threat to one freedom can trigger perceptions of threats to other freedoms. If receivers of freedom-threatening messages perceived threats to other attitudes, they should rate such attitudes of greater importance. In this way, reactance affects importance. In short, as reactance increases in receivers on one issue, they then can experience a concern that other freedoms will be threatened and thus the importance of these freedoms is increased. The increase should be positively correlated with reactance. When people experience a threat to other freedoms, those freedoms should become more important. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed: Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 21

H4: A positive relationship will exist between reactance and the importance of other freedoms.

Attitude agreement. Worchel and Brehm’s (1970) concept of prior exercise of freedom suggests that, in a high threat condition, a negative relationship will exist between pre-threat agreement and post-threat agreement. Research supporting this assumption employed a 2 x 2 factorial design with two levels of threat (high and low) tested with two levels of pre-communication attitudes (proattitudinal and counterattitudinal) (Snyder & Wicklund, 1976; Worchel & Brehm, 1970). This design simplifies pre-communication attitudes into either agree or disagree categories and therefore could not test for the effects of additional levels in discrepancy between the pre-communication attitude of the sender and receiver. The current study measures attitudes continuously and therefore can test reactance postulates using interval scaling measures.

Attitude-Restrictive Messages

Forewarning. The message strategy of forewarning occurs when a receiver is told a sender will attempt to persuade him or her. Forewarning is effective at inducing resistance to persuasion (Benoit, 1998). There are multiple theoretical explanations for the effects of forewarning, including (McGuire, 1964) and reactance theory. Reactance theory helps explain the effectiveness of forewarning by suggesting that people might consider forewarning an intrusion upon their personal freedom. When told that someone will try to change their attitudes, receivers are often motivated to defend their positions (Hass & Grady, 1975). Quinn and Wood (2004) theorized that multiple motives might explain the resistance that occurs from forewarning. Indeed, forewarning may create feelings of intrusion and annoyance. Jacks and Devine (2000) found that some participants became irritated, agitated, and angry when forewarned. These are consistent with Brehm’s (1966) conceptualization of emotions experienced during reactance. According to Brehm (1966), when confronted with notice of a persuasion attempt, receivers become motivated to defend their freedom by not to changing their attitudes. Forewarning important attitudes in the context of committed romantic relationships should produce resistance because previous

22 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships research found that involvement in a topic strengthens the resistance effect of forewarning (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979a; Wood & Quinn, 2003). Also, Brehm and Brehm (1981) posited a positive relationship between the importance of a freedom and reactance. For example, when a third party tells one relational partner, “She told me she’s going to try to convince you to adopt a new outlook on a healthy lifestyle,” then that relational partner will likely generate counter arguments before the conversation. The issue of a healthy lifestyle is important to both partners and impacts their relationship. The effects of forewarning should be significant. Given the empirical research that bears indirectly on the relationship between forewarning and reactance effects, the following hypothesis and research question are posed:

H5: Forewarning a relational partner will induce greater resistance to persuasion than not forewarning.

RQ1: Do forewarned and non-forewarned influence attempts produce different levels of reactance?

Explicit and implicit conclusions. During influence attempts, relational partners decide to what degree they will state explicitly what they believe or simply provide information and let partners draw their own conclusions (implicit). Message explicitness and forewarning often induce resistance to persuasion (Benoit, 1998; Dillard & Kinney, 1994; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Explicit expressions of an attitude are more restrictive to receivers because these expressions are often blunt and perceived as limiting a receiver’s perspective. For example, in the statement, “you need to be more positive about healthy eating” the sender’s perspective is clear regarding how he or she wants the receiver to change. The effectiveness of message explicitness appears to be context dependent. Explicit messages have been favored in public communication situations (O’Keefe, 1997), but these messages lack the personal appeal and dynamics of messages exchanged in committed romantic relationships. Sawyer and Howard (1991) found that when people had more personally relevant attitudes, they were persuaded via implicit messages. Sawyer and Howard (1991) did not provide a theoretical explanation but their data are consistent with reactance theory. Specifically, Brehm and Brehm (1981) proposed that greater importance of a freedom should lead to greater reactance when that freedom is threatened. When the message was personally relevant, implicit conclusions were more persuasive. Explicit conclusions threatened a person’s freedom to make decisions; thus, receivers were Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 23 less likely to change attitudes. When the message was not relevant, there was no difference between the two types of conclusions as a function of attitude change. Buller, Borland, and Burgoon (1998) tested message explicitness to determine which type of campaign would produce the greatest attitude change. Implicit messages were the most effective at reducing reactance. The authors warned against using strong directive (explicit) messages, especially for receivers who have unclear attitudes towards the position advocated by the message. Dillard and Kinney (1994) examined explicitness and dominance features of nine different messages for two different directives. Citing Brehm and Brehm (1981), Dillard and Kinney were interested in the following reactance- inducing phenomenon: “all competent adults possess, among other things, a desire to be unimpeded by the actions of others. But, directives are inherently intrusive” (p. 504). Results indicated that implicit messages were preferred, as they contain less dominance and are more effective. These findings are consistent with health campaign research that linked messages explicitness with greater reactance effects and greater resistance to persuasion (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Grandpre et al., 2003; Quick & Considine, 2008; Rains & Turner, 2007). Thus, the following hypotheses are posed:

H6: Explicit messages will produce more reactance than implicit messages.

H7: Explicit messages will produce greater resistance to persuasion than implicit messages.

Method

Research Design

This experiment used a three-group, pre-test/post-test ANOVA design with three message conditions: implicit, explicit, and forewarning/explicit. The experimentally manipulated variable was message type, posited to affect the dependent variables, reactance, and resistance to persuasion. Attitude agreement and attitude importance were proposed to have positive relationships to reactance. Each participant’s romantic partner was a confederate who received training during the experiment on the production and delivery of an implicit or an explicit persuasive message. The issues were derived from a pilot

24 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships study to create the Relationship Issues Index. Next, partners reunited with the confederate, engaging in persuasive communication with one of three assigned message conditions. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at both universities where data were collected.

Participants

Sixty-four heterosexual couples at either a medium-sized (n=59) or a large (n=5) Midwestern university volunteered to participate in this experiment. From each couple, one person, regardless of gender, was randomly assigned (with a coin flip) as the confederate and the other was the participant. Thus, there were 64 participants (34 males) and 64 confederates (30 females). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 39 (M = 22.15, SD = 4.13). Confederates ranged in age from 18 to 31 (M = 21.40, SD = 2.76). Participants identified their heritage: 54 Caucasian, 2 Asian, 5 African American, 1 Pacific Islander, and 2 Hispanic. Couples classified their relationship as casually dating (n = 5), seriously dating (n = 45), engaged (n = 9), or married (n = 5). Relationship length ranged from one to 126 months (M = 28.26, Mdn = 21.00, SD = 28.05).

Procedure

After relationship partners were randomly assigned as either the confederate or the participant, each couple was separated for fifteen minutes and the confederate received the training. Couples were randomly assigned to one of three message conditions: implicit, 21 (12 male); explicit, 22 (11 male); or forewarning/explicit, 21 (11 male). Participants completed measures in a separate room. Confederates met with the researcher and were required to select any issue from the Relationship Issues Index that was important to their relationship and on which they disagreed with their partner. The researcher distributed confederates as equally as possible and placed them into one of the three message conditions with care to distribute the issue evenly across conditions. For example, there were three participants in each of the three message conditions for the issue Maintaining a Healthy Lifestyle. Next, confederates received written directions on communication using either an implicit or an explicit message and used a pen and paper to plan their messages for ten minutes. Confederates were told to prepare for a 4-minute conversation with their partner. The time of four minutes was held constant in the three message conditions and used to Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 25 help confederates focus on their selected issue. Confederates agreed not to disclose that they had received message production instructions. For the implicit condition, confederates were instructed to develop messages that provide information to your partner about the issue, favor your position on the issue, state your beliefs on the issue, do not reveal the conclusion that you have about the issue, make indirect statements, and let their partner draw his/her own conclusions. Examples were provided, such as “compare for yourself,” “you make the decision,” and “I’m just giving you some things to think about.” Confederates were instructed that implicit messages do not have clear conclusions and were encouraged to make similar statements to the examples provided. Confederates in the explicit group received the following message instruction: Specifically state what you believe, provide information to your partner about the issue, be blunt about the conclusion that you have about the issue, make direct statements, make it very clear where you stand on the issue, tell your partner what you think they should believe, and clearly and directly state what you want your partner to conclude. Confederates received examples of explicit statements such as “We need to split 50/50 our costs when we go on a date,” “we need to communicate more; we should sit down and talk for at least 15 minutes a day,” and “you are overly concerned with health and need to stop thinking about it so often.” Confederates were instructed to make their positions and conclusions on issues clear. In the forewarning/explicit message condition, a research assistant forewarned each participant of the partner’s intent and topic of persuasion five minutes prior to the persuasive message. A research assistant asked the confederate for the chosen issue and topic, then went into another room and told each respective participant, “In five minutes your partner is going to try to persuade you closer to his/her position on (then stated the topic provided by the partner), so be ready.” Next, confederates returned to the room with their romantic partners and attempted to persuade them on the selected issue using either an implicit or an explicit message. Immediately following this four-minute interaction, participants completed the attitude agreement and importance measure and the reactance measure while confederates waited in a separate room. Once participants completed all measures, couples were debriefed and thanked.

26 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships

Measures

All measures used a nine-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This scaling provided a useful range to capture the variations in attitudes of participants. Participants and confederates were assured that all responses would be confidential and anonymous. Relationship Issues Index. Couples were required to discuss an issue that affected their relationship. These issues needed to be of moderate disagreement, important to the couple, and affect the relationship. Issues needed to be less about a specific behavior (e.g., stop bringing home pizza), and more about an issue that would normally prompt persuasion (e.g., the idea of eating healthy). Since change scores needed to be calculated between the pre- and post- communication attitude importance for all issues to test H4, issues needed to be chosen such that the participant and confederate could rate them on importance and agreement. Previous research did not provide such a list and one needed to be developed for the current study. In a focus group setting, three groups of 10 college students identified issues about which they disagreed and persuasion had been attempted, resulting in eight issues. In the pilot study, 228 participants in romantic relationships responded to the Relational Issues Index. Participants were students enrolled in introductory communication classes at a large Midwestern university. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 46 (M = 20.6), 63.6% were female, and 88.6% Caucasian. Eight additional items were generated from 63.1% of participants on the second open-ended section. Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and sample size for each issue. The final version of the Relational Issues Index had nine issues because they had relatively low agreement and were important to the participants.

Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 27

Table 1. Frequencies of Relationship Issues from the Pilot Study

Importance Agreement

Issues M SD n M SD n

Attitude toward your friends 7.23 1.59 227 6.69 1.89 226

How often we should see each other 7.16 1.72 228 6.65 1.96 226

*Attitude toward amount of 6.38 1.89 227 6.04 2.08 226 personal time

*Attitude toward spending time 6.24 1.87 228 6.11 1.93 227 with friends

*How we spend time together 5.93 2.16 226 6.49 2.03 225

*Definition of flirting 5.73 2.32 224 6.02 2.12 225

*Attitude toward religious 5.14 2.81 228 5.79 2.49 226 differences

*Who pays for what on dates 4.28 2.50 227 5.73 2.44 227

Importance of education 8.14 1.20 28 6.64 2.43 28

Attitude toward open communication 8.10 1.43 51 6.25 2.34 51

*Our long-term plans 8.02 1.60 44 5.57 2.54 44

Attitude toward family 7.98 1.34 45 7.04 1.82 45

The value of marriage 7.40 1.84 15 6.13 2.47 15

Attitude toward sex 7.28 2.24 54 5.87 2.79 54

*How often we should communicate 7.12 1.57 34 5.76 1.84 34

*Attitude toward maintaining a 6.65 2.26 49 5.12 2.34 49 healthy lifestyle

Note. Issues with an asterisk are those that were included in the Relational Issues Index. Each issue was rated for agreement and importance on a 1-9 scale.

28 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships Attitude agreement between partners and the importance that each partner felt for the issue discussed (and for eight other issues) was measured using the Relationship Issues Index. Confederates were asked to select issues that were important to their partners and with which they perceived less agreement with their partners. A mean agreement score of confederates’ and participants’ ratings of perceived agreement on the issue selected by the confederate was calculated to determine if the participants perceived the issues chosen by the confederates as important and having some disagreement. These ratings were recorded prior to the conversation between partners. Participants and confederates reported agreement scores slightly above the midpoint (M = 5.55, SD = 1.97, n = 128) on the issue selected. Smith (1978) found that issues of moderate agreement produced the most reactance. Participants rated the level of importance on the issue selected as relatively important (M = 6.50, SD = 2.28, n = 64). Table 2 contains participants’ ratings of importance, confederates’ and participants’ ratings of agreement, and the frequency of confederate selection of each issue discussed. The means and standard deviations for participants and confederates are reported in Table 3.

Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 29

Table 2. Frequencies of Specific Relationship Issues Selected by the Confederate

Number Participants’ Confederates’ Participants’ Selected Ratings of Ratings of Ratings of Importance Agreement Agreement

Issues N M SD M SD M SD

Who pays for what 11 4.72 3.28 5.00 2.14 5.36 2.83 on dates

Maintaining a 9 7.44 1.01 4.11 1.90 5.88 1.83 healthy lifestyle

How we spend time 8 6.87 1.45 5.37 1.18 6.62 1.68 together

How often we 7 7.71 1.11 6.14 2.26 7.42 1.71 should communicate

Our long-term plans 7 7.57 1.27 5.57 .97 6.71 1.79

How much time I 6 6.83 .98 5.16 1.94 6.00 1.54 spend with my friends

Definitions of 6 5.83 2.78 4.66 1.96 5.00 1.41 flirting

Amount of personal 5 6.80 1.78 4.60 1.67 6.20 1.30 time we each have

My religious beliefs 5 5.00 3.39 5.00 2.34 5.00 2.34

Note. Issues are rank-ordered by the number chosen by confederates. Each issue was rated for agreement and importance on a 1-9 scale.

30 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships

Table 3. Frequencies of Relationship Issues for All Participants and Confederates

Agreement Importance

Issues M SD M SD

Our long-term plans 7.13 1.67 7.45 1.65

How we spend time together 7.07 1.69 7.14 1.77

How often we should communicate 7.07 1.79 7.77 1.48

My religious beliefs 7.00 1.96 6.03 2.44

Who pays for what on dates 7.00 2.01 4.52 2.65

Maintaining a healthy lifestyle 6.98 1.82 7.27 1.41

How much time I spend with my friends 6.94 1.63 6.71 1.68

Amount of personal time we each have 6.47 1.86 6.38 1.71

Definitions of flirting 6.34 2.09 5.50 2.38

Note. Means and standard deviations were computed for both participants’ and confederates’ rating of all nine issues combined (n = 128). Issues are ranked by order of overall agreement. Each issue was rated for attitude agreement and importance on a 1-9 scale.

Reactance. The only other study to measure romantic partners’ reactance was Hayes (2002). The current study extends this work with attitudes instead of the behavioral directives used in Hayes’ research in order to enhance the comparability between the two studies; similar measures were used to assess reactance. Also, because this study explores couples’ attitudes, measurement methods used for health campaign research (Dillard & Shen, 2005) were not used. Quick and Stephenson (2008) believed that a freedom induction check should be used to test for threat. It was assumed that because confederates chose an issue they believed (based on self-report ratings) was important to the partner, and they disagreed, freedom was sufficiently threatened. To measure reactance, the modified version of Hong and Faedda’s (1996) 11-item scale used in Hayes’ (2002) study was modified for use with attitudes instead of behaviors (see Table 4) and titled the Conversational Reactance Scale. A factor analysis with Varimax rotation resulted in all nine items strongly loading on one factor, with Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 31 an eigenvalue of 6.37 accounting for 70.8% of the variance (α = .95, M = 28.90, SD = 17.44).

Table 4. Factor Loadings for the Conversational Reactance Scale

Item Factor Loading

The conversation I just had with my partner …

1. …made me want to resist what he/she said. .90

2. …made me want to contradict him/her. .86

3. …made me think, “fine, I will take the opposite side of the issue.” .63

4. …made me consider his/her words an intrusion. .81

5. …made me feel frustrated that I was not able to make free and

independent decisions about the issue. .84

6. …made me feel angry that he/she was restricting my freedom of choice regarding the issue. .86

7. …caused me to disagree further with his/her position on the issue. .89

8. …made me resist his/her attempt to influence me. .89

9. …made me feel like believing the opposite (i.e., take the opposite side of the issue). .87

Resistance to Persuasion

Resistance to persuasion was measured by subtracting the pre- communication from the post-communication attitude agreement ratings from participants on the issue discussed with confederates during the experiment. Many researchers have measured resistance to persuasion using this change score procedure (e.g., Rucker & Petty, 2004; Zuwerink & Devin, 1996). Commitment. Commitment is a feeling of psychological attachment and a desire for relationship continuance (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Commitment behaviors both demonstrate and strengthen the attachment. Commitment was measured using both Rusbult et al.’s (1998) Commitment scale and Weigel and Ballard-

32 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships Reisch’s (2002) Behavioral Indicators of Commitment measure. Both measures were used to provide a more holistic understanding of commitment to thoroughly test H1. Results indicated that commitment was high. Rusbult’s (1998) commitment measure was reliable with a single factor loading eigenvalue of 4.28 and accounted for 61.25% of the variance (α = .86, M = 54.67, SD = 8.77). None of the participants rated their commitment as low; thus, the sample only contained couples of at least moderately high commitment. To test concurrent validity, the correlation between relationship length and overall ratings of commitment was tested and a low significant correlation existed (r = .34, p < .01). The Behavioral Indicators of Commitment measure was reliable (α = .78, M = 76.87, SD = 7.29). There was a slight, significant correlation between the relationship length and overall ratings of behavioral commitment (r = .22, p < .05). In the current study, the two measures were moderately and significantly correlated (r = .53, p < .001), which is consistent with Weigel and Ballard-Reisch (2002). Perceived realism. Burleson et al.’s (1988) Perceived Realism scale assessed the topic and message. Hayes (2002) used this scale to measure the messages that participants read. The ratings of how likely the topic is normally discussed with their partner reflected very good perceived realism (α = .93, M = 7.38, SD = 1.59). Perceived consistency between the type of talk used in the study and the way the partner would normally communicate was good (α = .93, M = 6.89, SD = 1.82). These ratings reflect a much greater level of perceived realism than in Hayes’ (2002) reactance research (M = 5.56 on a 9-point scale). The current study examined real couples in conversations, while participants in Hayes’ research responded to hypothetical scenarios. Message clarity. Kim and Wilson’s (1994) two-item measure of message clarity served as a manipulation check of message explicitness. Participants rated their partner’s communication on a semantic differential scale between Indirect/Direct and Not to the Point/To the Point. Kim and Wilson believed that ratings of message clarity reflected message explicitness. In the current study, comparing the means between the clarity for the implicit (M = 15.00) and explicit (M = 15.74) using a t-test did not yield significant differences; t(62) = - .90, p = .36 (two-tailed). Thus, the manipulation check failed. It is plausible that participants misunderstood this measure and interpreted it as asking whether their partner’s message was understandable rather than the degree of explicitness. The scale was reliable, with a Cronbach alpha of .86. Because this was an experiment and random assignment of participants to treatment conditions was used, it is likely Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 33 that differences in reactance between message groups could be attributed to the type of message participants received.

Results

Tests of Hypotheses and Research Questions

Although H1 proposed a positive linear relationship between relational commitment and state reactance, the correlation indicated a non-significant, negative relationship between these variables (p < .24). The correlation between the Behavioral Indicators of Commitment and state reactance was also negative, yet revealed a marginally significant trend (r = -.19, p < .06). There was no linear relationship between romantic commitment and reactance. H1 is not supported. H2 predicted a positive relationship between reactance and resistance to persuasion. The correlation between participants’ ratings of reactance and resistance to persuasion produced a moderate and significant positive correlation (r = .37, p < .001). Thus, the hypothesis is supported. H3 predicted a positive relationship between pre-communication attitude importance and level of reactance. Contrary to predictions, the correlation between participants’ issue importance ratings and levels of reactance was negative and marginally significant (r = -.19, p < .06). H3 is not supported. H4 predicted a positive relationship between reactance and the importance of other freedoms. The more reactance experienced by participants, the more importance they should place on all attitudes. As predicted, the correlation between change scores from pre- and post-communication ratings for attitude importance for all issues and levels of reactance was significant and positive (r = .21, p < .05). H4 is supported. H5 predicted that participants who were forewarned would evidence higher resistance to persuasion scores compared with participants who were not forewarned. ANOVA procedures comparing the three different message types produced insignificant results, F(2, 64) = 1.29, p < .28, h2 = .04, d = .27. H5 is not supported. It is important to note that although there were not between group differences, there was a main effect for resistance. Participants perceived less overall agreement with confederates after the discussions than before. The pre-discussion mean (6.03, SD = 1.99)

34 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships differed from the post-discussion mean (5.62, SD = 2.08), t(63) = 2.03, p < .05, two-tailed. Thus, there was a main effect for resistance to persuasion. Specifically, the degree of change was greater for the explicit message condition (M = -0.77, SD = 1.90) than for the forewarning explicit message condition (M = -0.41, SD = 1.31) and the implicit message condition showed absolutely no change (M = 0.00, SD = 1.58). RQ1 asked if forewarned and non-forewarned influence attempts produce different levels of reactance. An ANOVA produced significant results, F(2,64) = 4.13, p < .05, 2 = .12. Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences between the implicit message group (M = 21.47, SD = 11.71, n = 21) and the other two message types (explicit M = 34.68, SD = 19.17, n = 22; explicit/forewarning M = 30.28, SD = 18.40, n = 21), but did not produce a significant difference between the explicit message condition and the explicit/forewarning condition. H6 predicted that relational partners who receive explicit messages would produce more reactance than those receiving implicit messages. The results from the same ANOVA procedure used to answer RQ1 tested this hypothesis. Pairwise comparisons showed that the implicit and explicit message types were significantly different. Specifically, the implicit group (M = 21.47) had significantly less reactance than the explicit group (M = 34.68), F(2,64) = 4.13, p < .05, 2 = .12. H6 was supported. H7 predicted that relational partners who receive explicit messages would experience greater resistance to persuasion than implicit messages. Identical to the test for H5, no significant differences were found for the main effect of message type on resistance to persuasion and pairwise comparisons did not reveal significant differences between any message types, F(2, 64) = 1.29, p = .28, 2 = .04. H7 was not supported.

Discussion

This study focused on a specific context: one romantic partner trying to change the attitude of the other during a conversation on an issue important to the relationship. When messages were delivered explicitly and/or included forewarning, receivers reported greater reactance. Implicit messages are far less threatening to receivers (H6 supported). The expected positive relationship between romantic commitment and reactance (H1), originally proposed by Brehm and Brehm (1981), was not supported. This study was the first to test this Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 35 proposition with romantic partners. The Brehms relied on research by Dickenberger (1979) and Pallak and Heller (1971) as the empirical basis for the theoretical reasoning about reactance effects in close interpersonal relationships, but this previous research experimentally manipulated commitment by forcing participants to pair together for a task. These partners had no history, and it is doubtful that they had any emotional attachment. Romantic commitment reported in this study is different from the commitment that one has for a task group; therefore, the propositions are not consistent in this context. Couples’ positions on these issues may not be very malleable and may have been established well before the study. The four-minute conversation was not likely to make a significant other shift their attitude closer to their partner’s position. As DeWall, Maner, Deckman, and Rouby (2011) explained, reactance may be a non-conscious motive, and therefore reactance effects may be present but partners cannot self report the experience. Furthermore, reactance may have competed with a desire to remain bonded to the relational partner. Couples experience multiple motives including reactance and a drive to remain together, be at peace, and be attitudinally balanced. Even though reactance effects were present, they did not cause large enough shifts in agreement to observe differences in resistance between message groups. However, there was a main effect for resistance; therefore, resistance was reported for both the explicit and forewarning/explicit conditions, but the differences between groups were not significant. Ratings of reactance helped explain the relationship between attitude-restrictive messages and resistance to persuasion. Analyses revealed a moderate and significant positive correlation between reactance and resistance (H2 supported). Why were there significant differences for reactance between message conditions, a main effect for resistance, but no significant differences for resistance (H5 and H7 not supported) as a function of message type? Reactance does not guarantee resistance in the form of attitude change. Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, and Voulodakis (2002) suggested that only a small portion of people might respond to attitude- threatening messages by believing or behaving the opposite. Furthermore, Burgoon at al. (2002) commented that early research on reactance focused too much on producing boomerang effects when it is more meaningful to explore how messages prime situational reactance. The proposition of threats to other freedoms (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) was supported (H4). A threat to one freedom could imply a threat to other freedoms, which enhances reactance. Participants rated

36 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships other issues as more important after the conversations with their partner. This finding has important implications for romantic partners’ communication about relational issues. Partners should recognize that issues are not discussed in a vacuum. In one way or another, issues are interrelated by either topic or emotional . Reactance and anger are related and importance may increase when emotions are higher. Alternatively, issues were rated higher because the relationship overall became more salient once one issue was discussed. Overall, the finding in the current study that increases in reactance were related to increases in importance warrants future research on theoretical explanations and empirical tests. The Relationship Issues Index created in this study should be useful to future researchers interested in romantic partners’ persuasion. Brehm and Brehm (1981) provided theoretical propositions for reactance in committed relationships. H4 was supported but H3, that the magnitude of reactance a person experiences is contingent upon the perceived importance of a freedom and whether implied threats are present, was not supported. People may have multiple motives when processing persuasion from romantic partners. Baxter and Montgomery’s (1996) work on dialectical tensions supports the notion that persuasive attempts for agreement in relationships create a dual process of wanting to be independent but also wanting to remain connected. The desire for autonomy should enhance reactance, while the desire for interdependence may counteract this desire. Understanding how these desires affect the persuasive process could help researchers develop more specified models of how influence attempts are processed in romantic relationships and help educate people to get along better. Stet’s (1995) data indicated that increases in relational intimacy between romantic partners led to greater conflict and control attempts. Understanding more about the desire to maintain freedom (reactance) and a healthy relationship will help explain Stet’s (1995) data and thus provide greater knowledge about the conflict process in relationships. Attitude agreement is important to the development and maintenance of close relationships. According to Newcomb’s (1961) balance theory, disagreement between relational partners creates a state of imbalance. When an imbalance occurs, they can do one of three things to restore balance: ignore the issue, reduce attraction for their partner, or change the degree of agreement with their partner to a more balanced state. In this study, the desire to restore balance may have been occurring simultaneously with the desire to restore a threatened freedom, thus, reducing reactance effects and resistance to persuasion. Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 37

Participants in the implicit message condition were expected to experience less resistance because of a greater perception of freedom (of choice) than in the explicit message condition. The way people interpret an implicit message from a romantic partner may be very different from a stranger. Romantic partners have a history. Kardes, Kim, and Lim (1994) suggested that senders using implicit messages for persuasion are successful because receivers are free to draw their own conclusions. Kardes et al. (1994) relied on previous research where there was no history between the sender and receiver. However, in the current study, it is likely that participants knew their partner’s position and the level of agreement on the issue. The act of warning participants of their partner’s intent and topic of persuasion five minutes prior to the conversations was expected to result in greater resistance to persuasion than the other two message types. The data did not support this hypothesis. Again, confederates’ arguments were probably well known because of the couples’ history. In an attempt to enhance the realism of the experiment, the messages confederates delivered were not controlled. This lack of control over what was said reduced internal validity. However, the messages had a better chance of being authentic and the perceived realism in this study was high. Another possible limitation is reflected in the fact that H3 was not supported. Confederates were required to select an issue that was important to their partner, and this requirement likely restricted the range of attitude importance. The variance for importance is the likely explanation for the lack of significant findings for H3. A lack of statistical power is another possibility. The results support Brehm and Brehm’s (1981) proposition of threats to other freedoms but do not support the principle of the magnitude of reactance based on importance. People in romantic relationships probably experience a desire to maintain a healthy relationship and remain balanced. This desire could dilute reactance effects on attitude change. The findings provide useful knowledge of the resistance process in romantic relationships. This knowledge can help couples reduce disagreements in that relational partners, in order to avoid reactance, should allow their partners to form their own conclusions about relational issues.

38 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships References

Ah Yun, K. (2002). Similarity and attraction. In M. Allen, R. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. A. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 145-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford. Benoit, W. L. (1998). Forewarning and persuasion. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 139-154). Creskill, NJ: Hampton. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Marrow. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic. Buller, D. B., Borland, R., & Burgoon, M. (1998). Impact of behavioral intention on effectiveness of message features: Evidence from the family sun safety project. Human Communication Research, 24, 433-453. Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationship satisfaction. Communication Reports, 9, 127-139. Burleson, B. R., Wilson, S. R. Waltman, M. S., Goering, E. M., Ely, T. K., & Whaley, B. B. (1988). Item desirability effects in compliance gaining research: Seven studies documenting artifacts in the strategy selection procedure. Human Communication Research, 14, 429-486. Chartrand, T.L., Dalton, A., & Fitzsimons, G.J. (2007). Nonconscious relationship reactance: When significant others prime opposing goals. Journal of Experimental , 43, 719-726. DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Deckman, T., Rouby, D. A. (2011). Forbidden fruit: Inattention to attractive alternatives provokes implicit relationship reactance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 621-629.

Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 39

Dillard, J. P., Anderson, J. W., & Knobloch, L. K. (2002). Interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Ed.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.), (pp. 425- 474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dillard, J. P., & Kinney, T. A. (1994). Experiential and physiological responses to interpersonal influence. Human Communication Research, 20, 502-528. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144-168. Dowd, E. T. (1999). Toward a briefer therapy: Overcoming resistance and reactance in the therapeutic process. In W. J. Mathews, & J. H. Edgette (Eds.), Current thinking and research in brief therapy (pp. 263-286). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich. Feldman-Summers, S. (1977). Implications of the buck-passing phenomenon for reactance theory. Journal of Personality, 45, 543- 553. Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Pomery, E. A., Wright, R. A., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, S. S. (2004). Risk and reactance: Applying social- psychological theory to the study of health behavior. In Motivational analyses of social behavior: Building on Jack Brehm’s contributions to psychology (pp. 149–166).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Grandpre, J., Alvario, E., Burgoon, M., Miller, C., & Hall, J. (2003). reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15, 349–366. Hass, R. G., & Grady, K. (1975). Temporal delay, type of forewarning, and resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 459-469. Hayes, J. G. (2002). Unilateral attempts to establish new rules in close relationships: The potentially destructive consequences of psychological reactance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Hong, S. M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173-182. Jacks, J. Z., & Devine, P. G. (2000). Attitude importance, forewarning of message content, and resistance to persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 19-29.

40 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314. Kardes, F. R., Kim, J., & Lim, J. S. (1994). Moderating effects of prior knowledge on the perceived diagnosticty of beliefs derived from implicit versus explicit product claims. Journal of Business Research, 29, 219-224. Kerckhoff, A. C., & Davis, K. E. (1962). Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Sociological Review, 27, 295-303. Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross-cultural-comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communication Monographs, 61, 210-235. Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (Eds.). (2004). Resistance and persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 191-229). New York: Academic. Miller, C. H., Burgoon, M., Grandpre, J. R., & Alvaro, E. M. (2006). Identifying principal risk factors for the initiation of adolescent smoking behaviors: The significance of psychological reactance. Health Communication, 19, 241–252. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. O’Keefe. D. J. (1997). Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 1-12. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pallak, M. S., & Heller, J. F. (1971). Interactive effects of commitment to future interaction and threat to attitudinal freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 325-331. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979a). Effects of forewarning on persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 173- 176. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979b). Issue involvement can increase can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message- relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.

Ohio Communication Journal / Vol. 49 – 2011 41

Quick, B. L., & Considine, J. R. (2008). Examining the use of forceful language when designing exercise advertisements for adults: A test of conceptualizing reactance arousal as a two-step process. Health Communication, 23, 483-491. Quick, B. L. & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examining the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking on reactance-inducing messages, reactance, and reactance restoration. Human Communication Research, 34, 448-476. Quinn, J. M., & Wood, W. (2004). Forewarning’s of influence appeals: Inducing resistance and acceptance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 193-213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33, 241-269. Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156-1166. Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2004). When resistance is futile: Consequences of failed counterarguing for attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 219-235. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391. Sawyer, A. G., & Howard, D. J. (1991). Effects of omitting conclusions in advertisements to involved and uninvolved audiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 467-474. Silvia, P. J., (2005). Deflecting reactance: The role of similarity in increasing compliance and reducing resistance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 277-284. Smith, M. J. (1978). Discrepancy and the importance of attitudinal freedom. Human Communication Research, 4, 308-314. Snyder, M., & Wicklund, R. A. (1976). Prior exercise of freedom and reactance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 120- 130. Stets, J. E. (1995). Modeling control in relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (2002). Investigating the behavioral indicators of relational commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 403-423.

42 Wagner / Reactance in Romantic Relationships Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 119-138. Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Effects of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 18-22. Zuwerink, J. R., & Devine, P. G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It’s not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 931-944.

Copyright of Ohio Communication Journal is the property of Ohio Communication Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.