Reactance Effects of Forewarning and Message Explicitness
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ohio Communication Journal Volume 49 – 2011, pp. 15-42 Resistance to Persuasion 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 attitude 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 health 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 affect 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