Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Reactance (psychology)

Psychological reactance is an unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when individuals experience a threat to or loss of their behavioral freedoms, directing them toward actions or thoughts aimed at restoring those freedoms.^[1] This theory, originally proposed by Jack W. Brehm in 1966, posits that people possess a set of free behaviors essential to their autonomy, and any perceived reduction—whether through external forces like rules or social pressure, or internal factors like self-doubt—triggers this aversive state.^[2] The magnitude of reactance depends on the importance of the threatened freedom and the intensity of the threat, often manifesting as resistance, aggression, or derogation of the threat source.^[1] Over the past five decades, psychological reactance theory has evolved through distinct waves of research, beginning with foundational empirical tests in social psychology and extending into clinical and communication domains.^[3] Early work linked it to cognitive dissonance theory, emphasizing its role as a motivational framework for understanding resistance to influence.^[1] Subsequent developments in clinical psychology reconceptualized reactance as both a state and a trait, influencing therapeutic approaches such as paradoxical interventions that leverage reactance to promote change.^[3] In communication studies, research has highlighted how message features—like controlling language in persuasive appeals—increase reactance, particularly in health campaigns and anti-smoking efforts.^[3] Key manifestations of reactance include behavioral restoration (e.g., directly reclaiming the freedom or derogating the influencer) and cognitive efforts (e.g., counterarguing or affirming unrelated freedoms), often intertwined with emotions like anger and freedom-related thoughts.^[1] Measurement has advanced with tools such as the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale for trait assessment and state-specific instruments like the Situational Reactance Scale, alongside physiological indicators of arousal.^[3] Cultural and individual differences, including self-construal and reactance proneness, moderate its intensity, with recent studies exploring triggers like identity threats or uncertainty.^[1] Applications span marketing, education, and public policy, where minimizing reactance through autonomy-supportive strategies enhances persuasion effectiveness.^[3]

Definition and Origins

Definition

Psychological reactance is a motivational state directed toward the restoration of behavioral freedoms that an individual perceives as threatened or eliminated.^[1] This arousal emerges when people sense a loss of autonomy in their actions or choices, prompting them to counteract the perceived restriction through various means, such as increased engagement in the forbidden behavior or rejection of the influencing agent.^[3] Originally formulated by Jack Brehm in 1966, reactance functions as an adaptive response to preserve personal control and freedom.^[1] A key characteristic of reactance is its aversive nature, which generates discomfort and negative emotions, such as anger or irritation, motivating efforts to reestablish the threatened freedom.^[3] The intensity of this state varies based on the magnitude of the threat—greater restrictions elicit stronger reactance—and the personal importance of the affected freedom, with more valued options provoking heightened responses.^[1] Reactance distinctly opposes concepts like compliance and obedience, where individuals yield to external pressures or authority by accepting limitations on their behavior.^[3] In contrast, reactance fuels resistance against such impositions, prioritizing the reclamation of autonomy over acquiescence.^[1]

Historical Development

The concept of psychological reactance originated in 1966 with Jack W. Brehm's seminal book A Theory of Psychological Reactance, which formalized the idea as a motivational response to threats against behavioral freedoms.^[4] This work was influenced by earlier psychological traditions, including the shift from behaviorism to cognitive approaches in the mid-20th century, Gestalt psychology introduced by émigré scholars like Kurt Lewin in the 1930s, and cognitive dissonance theory developed by Leon Festinger in 1957, on which Brehm had collaborated in his 1962 book with Arthur Cohen.^[5] Brehm's theory emerged from the Yale Attitude Change Program led by Carl Hovland, emphasizing resistance to social influence as a counterpoint to prevailing persuasion models.^[5] In the 1970s, the theory saw early empirical extensions through Robert A. Wicklund's research, including his 1974 book Freedom and Reactance, which explored the consequences of freedom loss in social contexts and tested reactance arousal through experimental manipulations of behavioral options.^[6] By the 1980s, Sharon S. Brehm expanded the framework in collaboration with Jack Brehm, co-authoring Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control in 1981, which refined the theory's application to clinical settings and integrated it with concepts like learned helplessness.^[3] This period also marked its incorporation into persuasion research, as evidenced by Robert B. Cialdini's 1984 book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, where reactance was highlighted in the scarcity principle to explain resistance to compliance tactics. The theory experienced a resurgence in the 2000s, driven by applications in health communication and emerging digital contexts, where threats to autonomy in persuasive messages—such as anti-smoking campaigns or online privacy restrictions—elicited measurable reactance.^[7] Researchers like James P. Dillard and Lijiang Shen developed validated scales for measuring state reactance in 2005, facilitating broader empirical testing in communication studies.^[3] A 2016 retrospective review marked the theory's 50th anniversary, synthesizing its motivational foundations and interdisciplinary expansions.^[8] In the 2020s, meta-analyses have confirmed the theory's predictive power across contexts like social media prohibitions and policy compliance, underscoring its ongoing relevance as of 2025.^[9] Over time, the concept evolved from its initial emphasis on individual behavioral freedoms to wider social psychology applications, including resistance in therapeutic, marketing, and technology-mediated environments.^[1]

Theoretical Framework

Core Principles

Psychological reactance theory posits that individuals possess a set of free behaviors that they perceive as volitional and attainable. When these freedoms are threatened or eliminated, reactance arises as a motivational state directed toward restoring the lost or threatened options. The magnitude of reactance is proportional to the importance of the specific freedom at stake, with more valued behaviors eliciting stronger responses.^[8] The primary goal of reactance is to reinstate the threatened freedom, prompting individuals to engage in actions that counteract the restriction. This often manifests as an increased desire for the forbidden option, known as the boomerang effect, where the threat paradoxically enhances the attractiveness of the restricted behavior. As originally formulated by Brehm, reactance functions as a directional force aimed at freedom restoration rather than mere arousal reduction.^[8] The intensity of reactance varies based on several factors, including the directness of the threat—more explicit and intentional restrictions provoke greater reactance—and the personal relevance of the freedom to the individual. Additionally, individual differences, such as a heightened need for autonomy, amplify reactance in response to perceived threats. These factors determine the strength of the motivational state without altering its core restorative aim.^[8] Reactance is conceptualized as a transient motivational state, arising acutely in response to specific threats and dissipating once freedoms are restored, rather than a enduring personality trait. It differs from other motivational theories, such as cognitive dissonance, by emphasizing threats to behavioral freedom over inconsistencies in beliefs or attitudes; while both involve arousal, reactance is uniquely tied to volitional control and directed opposition to external constraints.^[8]

Underlying Mechanisms

Psychological reactance is initiated through the process of threat perception, where individuals detect a restriction on their behavioral freedoms via cognitive appraisal of the situation. This appraisal involves evaluating whether an external influence, such as a persuasive message or regulation, limits one's autonomy, often triggering negative cognitions like counterarguments against the restriction.^[1] The magnitude of the perceived threat depends on the importance of the threatened freedom and the intensity of the restriction, with greater threats eliciting stronger reactance.^[10] A key aspect of this cognitive appraisal is the attribution of intent behind the threat, which modulates the intensity of reactance. For instance, threats perceived as paternalistic—such as regulatory policies aimed at correcting individual choices (e.g., soda size limits)—are often viewed as illegitimate impositions, heightening threat perception and reactance compared to those framed as protective, like health campaigns emphasizing well-being without direct coercion.^[11] Illegitimate threats, attributed to controlling motives, provoke immediate arousal, whereas legitimate ones, seen as benevolent, may delay or attenuate the response.^[12] Once perceived, the threat arouses reactance as an energizing motivational state akin to drive theory, propelling individuals toward resistance behaviors to restore freedom without prescribing specific outcomes. This arousal manifests physiologically, such as increased heart rate, and functions as a directional force that prioritizes freedom restoration, similar to how drives energize goal-directed action in classical motivation models.^[13] Unlike outcome-specific drives, reactance energizes a broad resistance impulse, varying in intensity based on threat severity. Several moderating variables influence the activation and intensity of these mechanisms. Self-reactance, arising from direct threats to personal freedoms, tends to be impulsive and immediate, whereas vicarious reactance—triggered by observing restrictions on others—is more reflective and depends on empathic identification with the affected party.^[12] Cultural factors further shape threat sensitivity; in individualistic cultures, personal freedom threats arouse stronger reactance due to heightened emphasis on autonomy, while collectivistic cultures show greater sensitivity to group-level restrictions.^[10] Reactance mechanisms also intersect with broader motivational frameworks, particularly self-determination theory, where threats to autonomy elicit a similar aversive state driving efforts to reassert control. However, reactance activation remains distinct, focusing on the acute motivational surge from freedom threats rather than the full spectrum of need satisfaction.^[1] This integration highlights reactance as a specific pathway for autonomy thwarting, energizing restoration without encompassing competence or relatedness needs.

Manifestations and Effects

Behavioral Manifestations

Psychological reactance manifests in observable behaviors aimed at restoring threatened freedoms, primarily through direct and indirect restoration strategies. Direct restoration occurs when individuals actively engage in the prohibited or threatened behavior to reassert their autonomy, often intensifying the action beyond previous levels. For instance, exposure to high-threat anti-smoking messages can lead to increased cigarette consumption among smokers as a way to counteract the perceived restriction on their choice.^[14] This boomerang effect, where attitudes and actions polarize in opposition to the imposed position, is a classic behavioral outcome, as seen in marketing contexts where labeling a product as "forbidden" heightens consumer preference and purchase intent for that item.^[15] Indirect resistance involves alternative actions that circumvent the threat without directly performing the restricted behavior, such as derogating the source of the threat or seeking out comparable options. Individuals may reject advice from an authority figure by dismissing their credibility or turning to alternative information sources that align with their preferences, thereby preserving a sense of control. Another form includes vicarious restoration, where people associate with others who engage in the threatened behavior, observing or supporting such actions to indirectly affirm their own freedoms.^[16] In compliance scenarios, like parental restrictions on teenagers' activities, indirect resistance might appear as adolescents aligning with peers who flout the rules, fostering a collective pushback.^[3] These behavioral manifestations typically endure as long as the perceived threat persists but dissipate once freedoms are restored or reactance habituates over time. For example, in enforced compliance settings such as mandatory health policies, initial vigorous opposition—through heightened engagement in restricted activities—fades if alternative freedoms become available or if the restriction proves unavoidable, leading to behavioral adaptation.^[3] In cases of moderate threat difficulty, however, restoration efforts may persist longer, sustaining resistant behaviors until the motivational drive wanes.^[3]

Emotional and Cognitive Effects

Psychological reactance elicits primary emotional responses such as anger, frustration, and annoyance, which are directed at the agent perceived to be imposing the threat to one's freedoms. These affective states arise as part of the motivational drive to restore autonomy, with anger serving as a key indicator of the reactance experience.^[17] The intensity of these emotions correlates with the perceived magnitude of the threat; greater threats to important freedoms provoke stronger negative affect, amplifying the urgency to counteract the restriction.^[1] On the cognitive front, reactance prompts distortions in threat appraisal, where individuals heighten their perception of the threat's illegitimacy to justify resistance. This often manifests as derogation of the threat source—viewing it as untrustworthy or manipulative—and a reaffirmation of personal freedoms through counterarguing or bolstering attitudes toward the restricted behavior.^[1] Such cognitive processes reinforce the emotional arousal, creating a unified internal pushback against perceived control.^[17] Secondary emotional outcomes may emerge depending on the resolution of the threat. Persistent failure to restore freedom can prolong the aversive state, potentially escalating into broader negative affects like anxiety from unresolved tension.^[18] Conversely, successful resistance or restoration can foster a sense of empowerment by reaffirming autonomy. Individual differences modulate these effects; those with a strong autonomy orientation exhibit heightened reactance proneness, leading to more intense emotional and cognitive responses to threats.^[7]

Empirical Research

Foundational Studies

The foundational studies on psychological reactance were pioneered by Jack W. Brehm in his 1966 book, A Theory of Psychological Reactance, which introduced the concept through a series of experiments demonstrating how threats to behavioral freedom motivate individuals to restore that freedom. One key experiment involved a choice paradigm where female participants were asked to select and work on one of several puzzles as part of a supposed study on manual dexterity. In the control condition, participants freely chose from eight puzzles; in the experimental conditions, the experimenter limited choices to two or four options and explicitly eliminated others, implying a threat to the participant's freedom. Post-task ratings revealed that restricted participants evaluated the eliminated puzzles more favorably than available ones, with the attractiveness of the forbidden option increasing proportionally to the perceived threat, thus providing initial empirical support for reactance as a motivational force directed toward the threatened freedom.^[19] Supporting Brehm's framework, contemporaneous studies like Hammock and Brehm (1966) extended the choice paradigm to children, examining reactions to social agents restricting options. In this experiment, first- and sixth-grade boys and girls were presented with pairs of toys (or candies in a variant) and allowed to choose one, but in the threat condition, an adult authority figure intervened to forbid one option, stating it was unavailable due to experimenter preference. Children in the threat condition subsequently rated the forbidden toy as significantly more desirable than those in the no-threat condition, where they freely selected without interference, illustrating reactance arousal even in young participants and across social influence contexts. In the 1970s, replications solidified these findings by exploring reactance in scenarios involving forbidden items, such as toys and foods, often correlating the magnitude of reactance with the importance of the threatened freedom. For instance, studies replicated the forbidden choice effect using desirable toys, where prohibiting access led to heightened evaluations of the restricted item compared to freely available alternatives; the strength of this reversal was greater when the freedom was salient and personally relevant. Similar patterns emerged in food-related studies, like those testing restrictions on snack choices, where threats to dietary freedom increased desire for prohibited items, directly tied to the freedom's perceived value. These experiments collectively evidenced that reactance intensity scales with threat severity and freedom salience, as predicted by the theory.^[19] Contemporary reviews of these early works noted limitations that tempered their scope, including small sample sizes (often n<50 per condition) and artificial laboratory settings, which confined observations to controlled threats and raised questions about ecological validity in real-world freedoms. These constraints suggested the need for expanded field research to validate reactance beyond contrived choice scenarios.^[8]

Contemporary Findings

Recent research since the early 2000s has increasingly applied psychological reactance theory to contemporary challenges, particularly in health compliance, digital environments, and cross-cultural contexts, while also exploring its neuroscientific underpinnings. In health domains, studies on vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated how perceived threats to personal freedom from mandates and restrictions elicit reactance, thereby reducing acceptance. For instance, a 2022 cross-national study comparing Iran and France found that psychological reactance, driven by government restrictions (β = 0.403) and perceived vaccine scarcity (β = 0.386), significantly decreased COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Iran, though it had no such effect in France where convenience factors dominated (β = 0.119). Similarly, experimental research has shown that higher levels of trait reactance are associated with greater vaccine hesitancy, as individuals interpret promotional messages as freedom-threatening, leading to boomerang effects where attitudes become more negative. Meta-analyses of health campaigns further reveal that forceful anti-smoking messages often provoke reactance, resulting in increased intentions to smoke among adolescents exposed to industry-sponsored ads, which prioritize corporate image over prevention and amplify resistance rather than compliance. In digital media, reactance arises from content moderation and censorship on social platforms, fostering behaviors that reinforce echo chambers. A 2019 study on social media censorship threats found that users experience heightened reactance when platforms restrict content, prompting avoidance or migration to less moderated spaces that echo preexisting views. This resistance contributes to echo chamber formation, as a 2024 investigation using psychological reactance theory demonstrated that high information density and similarity within these chambers trigger freedom threats and fatigue, leading users to engage in discontinuance, limited self-disclosure, or misrepresentative interactions to restore autonomy. Such dynamics have been observed in the 2010s and 2020s, where platform bans or algorithmic filtering exacerbate polarization by motivating users to seek confirmatory content. Cross-cultural studies from the 2010s onward highlight variations in reactance, with individualistic cultures like the United States exhibiting stronger responses to personal freedom threats compared to collectivist Asian societies. A 2023 experiment comparing China and the US revealed that controlling language in anti-smoking messages elicited more state reactance and anger among Americans, mediated by lower power distance beliefs, whereas high power distance in China buffered the effect for some but amplified it for others with strong trait reactance. Earlier work confirmed that individualistic self-construals heighten direct reactance to self-restrictions, while collectivists show elevated vicarious reactance when observing threats to group members, contributing to persuasion failures in global campaigns targeting diverse audiences. Emerging neuroscientific research in the 2020s has begun to map reactance's brain correlates using fMRI, addressing gaps in understanding its motivational basis. A 2024 fMRI study differentiated reactance from related states like anger by showing activation in mentalizing networks during freedom threats, suggesting cognitive evaluation of interpersonal implications plays a key role. Additional 2025 neuroimaging work on health advertising identified neural patterns of reactance to dogmatic messages, linking them to threat perception regions, which aligns with amygdala involvement in processing freedom restrictions as aversive stimuli, though integration with misinformation spread remains an active area of inquiry.

Measurement and Applications

Assessment Methods

The assessment of psychological reactance primarily relies on self-report scales designed to capture either dispositional (trait) tendencies or situational (state) responses to perceived freedom threats. The most widely used measure for trait reactance is the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS), originally developed by Hong and Page in 1989 through exploratory factor analysis of responses from 257 college students, yielding a four-factor structure encompassing freedom of choice, conformity reactance, behavioral freedom, and reactance toward recommendations.^[20] This initial 14-item Likert-type scale was later refined to an 11-item version by Hong and Faedda in 1996, focusing on a unidimensional construct of general reactance proneness, with items such as "Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in me."^[21] The HPRS demonstrates good internal reliability, with Cronbach's alpha typically ranging from 0.81 to 0.84 across diverse samples, including adolescents and adults.^[22] For situational reactance, which arises immediately following a perceived threat, Dillard and Shen (2005) proposed a composite measure integrating affective and cognitive components, assessed via self-reports of anger (using adapted items from the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, such as "I feel angry") and the count of negative cognitions (e.g., source derogation or counterarguments generated in response to a message).^[17] This approach, often operationalized with around 8-10 items in total depending on the anger subscale length, evaluates transient arousal post-threat, such as in persuasive health communications, and has shown high reliability (alphas > 0.85 for components) in experimental contexts with samples of 196-200 participants.^[23] Another state-oriented tool is the Salzburger State Reactance (SSR) Scale (2015), a brief 7-item measure of impaired autonomy and defensiveness (e.g., "The speaker wants to talk me into something"), which captures immediate motivational resistance with strong reliability (alpha = 0.89) and sensitivity to experimental manipulations.^[24] Recent developments include the State Reactance Questionnaire (2024), a 35-item tool across 7 dimensions assessing reactance appraisal (freedom limitation) and motivation phases (emotional and strategic responses), with a separate 17-item Reactance Behavior Scale; validation studies (N=1000) were completed in late 2024, showing promising reliability for digital and dynamic contexts.^[25] Behavioral proxies provide indirect assessments by observing overt resistance indicators in controlled settings, such as choice reversal (selecting an initially avoided option after a restriction) or refusal rates in compliance tasks, which serve as quantifiable signs of freedom restoration efforts without relying on verbal reports.^[3] These methods, rooted in Brehm's original experiments, track metrics like increased selection of forbidden alternatives in decision paradigms, offering ecological validity for real-time reactance but requiring careful experimental design to isolate from other influences.^[26] Regarding validity and reliability, both trait and state scales exhibit convergent validity through positive correlations with autonomy needs, as measured by the Basic Psychological Needs Scale; for instance, the SSR Scale shows moderate correlations (r ≈ 0.30-0.40) with autonomy frustration, underscoring reactance's link to self-determination theory constructs.^[24] The HPRS similarly correlates with trait autonomy deficits and related outcomes like anger proneness (r > 0.40), supporting its construct validity across cultures and demographics, though test-retest reliability over longer intervals remains moderate (r ≈ 0.70).^[27] Limitations include challenges in distinguishing transient state reactance from stable dispositional tendencies, potential response biases in self-reports due to social desirability, and lower sensitivity of behavioral proxies to subtle emotional arousal components of reactance.^[3]

Practical Applications

In persuasion and marketing, reactance theory informs strategies to avoid boomerang effects by emphasizing consumer choice rather than imposing directives. For instance, assertive advertisements that command actions like "Just do it!" or "Buy now!" often trigger reactance among committed consumers, leading to reduced brand liking and purchase intentions due to perceived threats to autonomy.^[28] Anti-drug campaigns have similarly backfired; the U.S. National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign's threatening messages increased marijuana use intentions among some adolescents by arousing reactance, as youth perceived restrictions on their behavioral freedoms.^[29] To mitigate this, marketers employ autonomy-supportive phrasing in ads, such as offering multiple options, which preserves perceived freedom and enhances persuasion without resistance.^[7] In health and policy domains, reactance theory guides the design of compliance messages, particularly by using autonomy-supportive language to counteract resistance in regulatory contexts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health communications incorporating phrases like "you could" instead of "you must" reduced reactance and improved adherence to restrictions, as controlling language heightened perceptions of freedom loss.^[30] Classic applications include seatbelt laws, where initial mandates in the 1970s provoked reactance by eliminating choice, resulting in public backlash and lower voluntary compliance until campaigns shifted to emphasize personal benefits and alternatives.^[31] Post-2020 policy efforts, such as vaccination drives, have applied these insights by framing recommendations as volitional, thereby minimizing boomerang effects observed in earlier coercive health interventions.^[32] In digital and social contexts, reactance theory addresses challenges in content algorithms and misinformation interventions, where corrective messages can inadvertently amplify false beliefs. On platforms like social media, attempts to fact-check health misinformation often elicit reactance through denial of threat, prompting users to share misleading content as a freedom restoration behavior, as seen in 2020s analyses of pandemic-related corrections. As of 2025, extensions include AI chatbots in health promotions, where emotional support features reduce reactance compared to directive styles, and a meta-analysis of 146 effect sizes (2005–2024) confirms that message transparency and choice options minimize reactance in online persuasion.^[33]^[34]^[35]^[36] Guidelines from this era recommend algorithm designs that prioritize user agency, such as customizable feeds or non-intrusive warnings, to avoid reactance from perceived censorship and foster voluntary engagement with accurate information.^[34] Key interventions to manage reactance include restoration techniques that reaffirm freedoms, such as adding postscripts to messages stating "The choice is yours," which has proven effective in health campaigns by lowering perceived threats and boosting acceptance.^[1] Preemptive affirmations of autonomy, like providing behavioral alternatives (e.g., multiple compliance options in policy directives), further prevent reactance arousal, as demonstrated in studies where such strategies reduced resistance in persuasive communications.^[7] These methods, rooted in reactance restoration, enable targeted applications across domains by restoring perceived freedoms without diluting the persuasive intent.^[1]

References

[1]
Understanding Psychological Reactance: New Developments and ...
Reactance theory, following the tradition of dissonance theory, is a theory of motivation. Using Brehm's description of reactance, it is “a motivational state ...
[2]
A Theory of Psychological Reactance - Google Books
Author, Jack Williams Brehm ; Publisher, Academic Press, 1966 ; Original from, the University of Michigan ; Digitized, Oct 2, 2008 ; Length, 135 pages.
[3]
None
### Summary of 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory
[4]
A theory of psychological reactance.
This theory states that individuals have certain freedoms with regard to their behavior. If these behavioral freedoms are reduced or threatened with reduction,
[5]
(PDF) Reactance Theory - 40 Years Later - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · PDF | In this paper we review the basic assumptions formulated by Jack Brehm in 1966 in his theory of psychological reactance and we sample ...
[6]
Freedom and Reactance | Robert A. Wicklund
Oct 1, 2024 · Brehm's theory of psychological reactance in 1966 marked the beginning of a psychological investigation into the consequences of losing freedom.
[7]
Psychological Reactance and Persuasive Health Communication
Psychological reactance theory is a commonly relied upon framework for understanding audience members' resistance to persuasive health messages.
[8]
https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091
[9]
https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaf016
[10]
[PDF] Examining Psychological Reactance in the Lab and the Field1
We present a theoretical framework of individual response to paternalistic interventions which considers, in addition to the set of behavioral responses ...Missing: attribution | Show results with:attribution
[11]
https://files.webservices.illinois.edu/7370/jakinadebnamjmp.pdf
[12]
[PDF] Free Form Friday: Psychological Reactance Theory
Brehm and Brehm (1981) noted, “…as with any motivational state, when reactance is aroused, the organism is propelled toward a goal. Motivational arousal has the ...
[13]
The Reactance Restoration Scale (RRS): A Measure of Direct and ...
Aug 5, 2025 · Direct measures of restoration involve engaging in a behavior running counter to the advocated behavior, also known as a boomerang effect. More ...
[14]
On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health ...
Feb 3, 2007 · This paper develops four alternative conceptual perspectives on the nature of reactance (ie, combinations of cognition and affect), then provides an empirical ...
[15]
Threat to Freedom and the Detrimental Effect of Avoidance Goal ...
May 17, 2016 · According to Brehm (1966), psychological reactance is an aversive motivational state directed toward the re-establishment of freedom, even if ...
[16]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233310631_The_Reactance_Restoration_Scale_RRS_A_Measure_of_Direct_and_Indirect_Restoration
[17]
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637750500111815
[18]
A Psychological Reactance Scale: Development, Factor Structure ...
This paper describes the development of Hong's Psychological Reactance Scale ... (1989) Further evaluation of Merz's Psychological Reactance Scale.
[19]
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(66)90086-2
[20]
Therapeutic reactance in adolescents: the psychometrics of the ...
Past studies (8) have shown that the overall reliability of this scale is good (α = 0.84). The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS). The original HPRS ...
[21]
(PDF) On the Nature of Reactance and Its Role in Persuasive Health ...
Psychological reactance is a trait-level characteristic that can exacerbate feelings of defensiveness when an individual feels threatened (Dillard & Shen, 2005) ...
[22]
Salzburger State Reactance Scale (SSR Scale) - NIH
Dillard and Shen (2005) proposed measuring state reactance as an amalgamation of anger and negative cognitions. Their overall approach was guided by Brehm (1966) ...
[23]
Psychological reactance theory: An introduction and overview.
We introduce a special issue dedicated to new empirical studies and theoretical advances. We begin by describing PRT's core concepts and assumptions.
[24]
Psychometric Properties of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale
The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS; Hong & Felda, 1996) was developed to measure the individual difference in reactance proneness.
[25]
[PDF] Just do it! Why committed consumers react negatively to assertive ads
Research shows that assertive ads, which direct consumers to take specific actions (e.g., Visit us; Just do it!), are ineffective due to reactance.Missing: applications | Show results with:applications
[26]
Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on Youths
Sep 20, 2011 · One idea, which comes from psychological reactance theory, argues, in part, that youths react against threats to their freedom of ...
[27]
Applying reactance theory to study consumer responses to COVID ...
May 3, 2022 · The purpose of the study is to highlight the relevance of reactance theory for modeling consumer responses to COVID restrictions.
[28]
[PDF] Guidance on Messaging to Avoid Psychological Reactance and ...
can arouse reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Reactance is a “counterforce motivating the person to reassert or restore the threatened or eliminated freedom ...
[29]
Should or could? Testing the use of autonomy-supportive language ...
Feb 27, 2019 · Many health messages have not been formulated in an autonomy-supportive manner and therefore could arouse reactance, resulting in reduced ...
[30]
Extending Psychological Reactance Theory to Include Denial of ...
Previous studies have found that psychological reactance plays a significant role in how people cope with attempts to correct health misinformation on social ...
[31]
The Roles of Psychological Reactance and Misperceptions
Mar 31, 2022 · Vraga E. K., Bode L. (2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621–645.