CHAPTER 11 Reactance Theory and Persuasion Brian L. Quick, Lijiang Shen, and James Price Dillard ir Isaac Newton famously claimed that for by first considering the theory’s original formu- every action there is an equal and opposite lation alongside the empirical research done to Sreaction. It is doubtful that he had persua- test it. The second section focuses on refinement sion in mind when formulating his third law of of the theory, before turning, in the third move- motion, but, the principle alerts us to the parallel ment, to contemporary research. Following from possibility that suasory efforts may too instigate that, directions are offered for future inquiry. reactions that run counter to the intended action of the message. Quite apart from the laws of motion, the literature suggests that opposing Overview of Reactance reactions may vary greatly in degree. Some Theory and Classic Research appeals are so effective that the counter-reaction is scarcely measurable. Others may produce no There are four components to reactance theory: discernable persuasive change, perhaps because Freedom, threat to freedom, reactance, and resto- the action and reaction are closely balanced. In ration of freedom. Freedoms are beliefs about the still other cases, the predominant response is ways in which one can behave. Brehm and Brehm counterpersuasion, a condition that has come to (1981) argue that freedoms are “not ‘abstract be known as a boomerang effect. considerations,’ but concrete behavioral realities” All of these outcomes are of interest to per- (p. 12). Nonetheless, freedom is defined broadly suasion researchers, but boomerangs and failure to include actions as well as emotions and atti- to persuade are both common and pragmatically tudes (Brehm, 1966). In other words, freedom to frustrating. The perspective that is most fre- do, freedom to feel, or freedom to hold a particu- quently called on to give account of them is psy- lar evaluation, or not to. Individuals possess chological reactance theory (PRT; Brehm, 1966). freedoms only to the extent that they have Consequently, this chapter reviews and synthe- knowledge of them and perceive that they are sizes work on this landmark theory. It proceeds capable of enacting the behavior. 167 (c) 2013 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 168——PART II. Theories, Perspectives, and Traditions Given that an individual perceives a specific Corollaries of Reactance Theory freedom, anything that makes it more difficult for him or her to exercise that freedom consti- PRT is built around four principles (Brehm, tutes a threat (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1966). The first specifies that reactance can only 1981). Even an impersonal event, such as the be aroused if individuals believe they have free- weather can be viewed as a threat, if it renders the dom over a particular outcome. An early study exercise of a freedom more difficult. However, illustrating PRT’s first principle was conducted by social influence as a threat is most pertinent to Wicklund and Brehm (1968), in which partici- questions of persuasive communication. Impor- pants were asked to evaluate a job applicant. Their tant to understanding the theory is recognition results revealed differences among high competent that the term threat is used narrowly to mean individuals following exposure to the freedom- threat-to-freedom, and not threats as used in threatening condition. That is, competent indi- everyday language, nor threats to well-being used viduals exposed to the freedom-threatening in research on fear/threat appeals, or threats as a communication resulted in greater reactance than forewarning of social influence in research on exposure to the non-freedom-threatening condi- inoculation. tion. No significant difference emerged for non- Psychological reactance is “the motivational competent individuals (Wicklund & Brehm, state that is hypothesized to occur when a free- 1968). In other words, for individuals aware of dom is eliminated or threatened with elimina- their abilities, exposure to freedom-threatening tion” (Brehm & Brehm, 1981, p. 37). This is the messages resulted in heightened reactance. key mediator and central explanatory mecha- Principle two pertains to the relationship nism of the theory. Its proposed existence follows between the importance of a freedom and the from the assumption that humans place a high magnitude of reactance. Specifically, PRT asserts value on choice, autonomy, and control. As that as the threatened behavior increases in reflected in many worn phrases, people seek to be attractiveness, so does the amount of reactance the captains of their own destinies, the masters of aroused. Brehm and Weinraub (1977) recruited their own fates. toddlers to participate in an experiment in which The fourth component of the theory is resto- 2-year-olds were presented with two toys. How- ration. PRT contends that when a perceived free- ever, one of these toys was placed behind a trans- dom is eliminated or threatened with elimination, parent barrier, whereas the other was next to the the individual will be motivated to reestablish barrier. As expected, when the toys were different that freedom. Direct restoration of the freedom in shape, as opposed to similar in shape, consis- involves doing the forbidden act. In addition, tent with the second principle, preference for the freedoms may be restored indirectly by increas- obstructed toy was heightened among boys. ing liking for the threatened choice (Brehm, However, this hypothesized finding was not true Stires, Sensenig, & Shaban, 1966; Hammock & for the girls. As will be shown in the subsequent Brehm, 1966), derogating the source of threat pages, more recent work has shown a relation- (Kohn & Barnes, 1977; Schwarz, Frey, & Kumpf, ship between the importance of the threatened 1980; Smith, 1977; Worchel, 1974), denying the freedom and reactance arousal. existence of the threat (Worchel & Andreoli, The third principle states that reactance 1974; Worchel, Andreoli, & Archer, 1976), or by increases as the number of freedom threats exercising a different freedom to gain feeling of increases. Although conceptually cogent, extant control and choice (Wicklund, 1974). (See Quick PRT research is inconsistent in supporting this & Stephenson, 2007b for a measure of various principle (for a review, see Brehm & Brehm, means for restoring reactance.) 1981). One such study finding support for threat (c) 2013 Sage Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Chapter 11. Reactance Theory and Persuasion——169 intensity on reactance was conducted by Heller, collision between a freedom and a threat to Pallak, and Picek (1973). In their project, in line freedom. Nearer the end of the process, reactance with PRT, as persuasive intent and freedom is the state that is responsible for efforts to restore threats increased, participants’ attitude change in freedom. In either case, it has been defined in the opposite direction spiked. These researchers terms of either what causes or what effect it has, reasoned that perceiving a message as a freedom but not what it is. Apart from a brief mention of threat results in maladaptive responses such as the possibility that individuals “may be aware of unfavorable attitudes toward the advocacy. hostile and aggressive feelings” (Brehm, 1966, The fourth principle maintains that as implied p. 9), if the level of reactance arousal is high, the threats are present, the magnitude of reactance nature of reactance itself is rarely addressed. will increase (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, Brehm’s apparent reluctance to explicate the 1981). Implied threats are often communicated in principle mechanism of the theory may have fol- the form of a persuasive message. An earlier study lowed his estimate of its potential for measure- conducted by Reich and Robertson (1979) exam- ment. According to Brehm and Brehm (1981), ined littering behaviors following exposure to “reactance has the status of an intervening, hypo- variations in freedom-threatening language. Spe- thetical variable. We cannot [emphasis added] cifically, in their three-study experiment, they measure reactance directly, but hypothesizing its found individuals presented with messages fea- existence allows us to predict a variety of behav- turing explicit commands such as “Don’t you dare ioral effects” (p. 37). litter” resulted in greater littering than exposure The position that reactance cannot be mea- to messages featuring appeals to social norms. As sured is logically consequential. In effect, it shown earlier, their study provides support for assigns reactance to a black box. Message features the fourth principle of PRT in that as implied go in the box and outcomes emerge, but the threats increase, reactance arousal increases. operations within the box itself remain mysteri- However, it should be noted that the previously ous and unknowable. When results match with mentioned research in support of these four prin- theoretical predictions, then it is assumed that ciples was conducted without measuring reactance. the process-in-a-box must have occurred. But, That is, these researchers merely hypothesized the when results do not work out as expected, then presence of reactance given the outcomes believed the failure must be with the messages, the cir- to be linked to this aversive state. As will be shown cumstances, the sample, or something other than later in this chapter, following a validated opera- the box. Indeed, it has been common to invoke tionalization of psychological reactance (Dillard reactance as the explanation for a failed persua- & Shen, 2005), more recent work has begun and sion attempt. In this regard, it became the default continues to test the four theoretical principles assumption for any persuasive effort that pro- advanced by Brehm (1966). duced a boomerang or a no-effect finding. It is better to have a black-box theory than no theory at all. But, it is vastly preferable to understand Progress in Refining and measure the workings inside the box. Only Reactance Theory then can the entire theoretical process be open to empirical test. Hence, it was important to under- The Nature of Reactance stand the nature of reactance in order that it might be assessed directly.