New Directions in Reactance Research

According to reactance theory, formulated by Jack Brehm in 1966, the motivational state of psychological reactance is aroused when an individual perceives any of her or his free behaviors she or he can engage in to be threatened (Brehm, 1966). Reactance theory does not hold that people believe that they have freedom in all daily life situations but that they perceive themselves as having specific freedoms. The amount of reactance experienced when a perceived freedom is threatened depends on the intensity of the threat as well as the importance of the restricted freedom (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Miron & Brehm, 2006; Worchel & Brehm, 1971). Reactance as research topic has attracted attention in both basic and applied research in areas such as health, marketing, politics, and education. Nevertheless, Miron and Brehm pointed out several research gaps in their review paper on reactance research 40 years later. This review article inspired us to develop this special issue in order to highlight new insightful theory and research concerning reactance processes. “Reactance” is often used as an ex post explanation for different phenomena occurring in applied research, such as research in work- or health-related contexts. Yet, interesting new theory-guided research has also been testing a priori hypotheses in different domains over the last decade. And there are still remaining open questions in understanding basic theoretical assumptions concerning the classic social psychology theory of reactance. The purpose of this issue is therefore to present recent research and developments in reactance theory that both offer new knowledge and illuminate issues still in need of resolution. This special issue contains one review article, five empirical articles, and a research spotlight.

The review article by Steindl, Jonas, Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch, and Greenberg (2015) introduces the special issue with an overview of research that has been conducted since Miron and Brehm’s review article from 2006. The article presents new developments concerning the measurement of reactance, research on cultural differences in the experience of self-experienced and vicarious reactance, and research revealing different processes involved in reactance. Furthermore, the authors encourage future research to gain a better understanding of the state of psychological reactance per se and to also look at the positive motivational side of reactance.

In the empirical paper by Bessarabova, Turner, Fink, and Beary Blustein (2015) data showed that guilt had a direct effect on the affective component of reactance, anger, whereas guilt influenced the cognitive component of reactance via awareness that a message was a guilt appeal. This is an interesting approach in extending reactance theory by relating reactance to guilt appeals and examining the process by which reactance translates into action.

The next contribution in persuasion research by Shen and Coles (2015) investigates fear-reactance processes. Results showed that a within-individuals perspective instead of the between-individuals perspective might help to increase our understanding of fear-reactance processes.

In the third empirical contribution, De Lemus, Bukowski, Spears, and Telga (2015) found out that the motivational state of reactance can also result from perceived threats to one’s group norms and social identities. More precisely, the authors show that examples of stereotypic women arouse reactance responses in progressive women (feminist identifiers) and examples of counterstereotypic women arouse reactance in more traditional women.

The article by Ungar, Sieverding, Schweizer, and Stadnitski (2015) addresses the question of whether an intervention designed to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables could elicit reactance. Results indicated that even a relatively brief intervention (i.e., eating according to a 5 a day or just 1 more goal for one week) led to reactance that persisted on the same level 1 week later, with effects on attitude, intention, and behavior lasting as much as 4 months later.

The final empirical paper presents the validation of a state reactance scale, the Salzburger State Reactance Scale (SSR Scale). Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch, Steindl, and Jonas (2015) propose a three subscaled measurement of reactance comprising the experience of reactance, aggressive behavioral intentions, and negative evaluations.

In their research spotlight, Wright, Agatarap, and Mlynski (2015) point out that more research is needed to better understand the role of perceived difficulty of freedom restoration in reactance striving. Wright et al. offer an integration of reactance theory and motivational intensity theory (Brehm & Self, 1989), which proposes that reactance should increase the willingness to use effort to restore freedoms, but that the conversion of willingness into action depends on what can, will, and must be done to achieve these ends.

Naturally, the reviewed and reported studies in this special issue represent only a sampling of the new research in the field of reactance theory, but we believe that this collection provides some important new knowledge and research directions. Overall, it is our hope that the original research, literature review, and the research spotlight presented here not only provide a useful overview and new insights, but will also stimulate future research in this area.