Читать книгу Theories in Social Psychology - Группа авторов - Страница 23

Is psychological reactance strongly associated with a disposition, or as most of the earlier research assumed, a state condition? The relationship between reactance and personality traits was discussed by Dowd et al. (1994). They identified a number of factors that may contribute to obstacles in therapeutic sessions including reactance. A psychological reactant personality profile was identified using the California Psychological Inventory – Revised (CPI-R), the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS), and the Questionnaire Measuring Psychological Reactance (QMPR). Their study found that psychologically reactant individuals were less concerned with impressing others or adhering to social norms and regulations, were “somewhat careless about fulfilling duties and obligations,” were inclined to express strong emotions and feelings, and were preoccupied with future possible problems. The researchers also found that women classified as reactants displayed more capability in decision making and were more “self-assured, sociable, and action-oriented.” The psychological profile developed in this study highlighted certain similarities between reactant persons and individuals with psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorders.

Another study (Huck, 1998) found that paranoid, antisocial, and sadistic disorders were highly correlated with reactance, and that persons with histrionic, avoidant, and/or dependent disorders displayed low reactance behavior. According to Seibel and Dowd (2001), there is an optimum normal level of reactance. Once this threshold is crossed, excessive reactance behavior loses utility and begins to have a negative impact on the individual. The authors found that persons with personality disorders (e.g., obsessive-compulsive) characterized by autonomy or mistrust exhibit high reactance.

Dowd and Wallbrown (1993) tested motivational components of psychological reactance utilizing the QMPR, the TRS, and a Personal Research Form (PRF). Their findings suggest that persons high in reactance are aggressive, dominant, defensive, autonomous, quick to feel offended, and low in social desirability. In sum, they were seen as loners who are deficit in strong relations with others. Positive characteristics associated with high-reactant individuals were high levels of confidence in their beliefs and goal orientation. Persons higher on external locus of control were more likely to be reactant (Pepper, 1996). These findings contradict previous studies (Mallon, 1992; Morgan, 1986 as cited in Pepper, 1996). However, an earlier study found no significant difference in levels of reactance between internally and externally oriented persons on locus of control (Cherulnik & Citrin, 1974).

Findings from Pepper (1996) suggest that type A personalities are more reactant, oppositional, perceive more threats to freedom, and show increased attraction to the eliminated choice and non-compliance to clinical treatment. Individuals with high reactance were more likely to make self-attributions, having a stronger belief that they can manage problems for themselves. In actuality, they were unable to perform equally or better than persons who had sought assistance (Rhodewalt & Marcroft, 1988 as cited in Pepper, 1996). Carver (1977), exploring self-awareness and reactance, suggested that greater self-awareness led to increased feelings of coercion by reactant persons. Further studies (Brockner et al., 1983; Carver & Sheier, 1981 as cited in Pepper, 1996) categorized self-awareness into private self-consciousness and public self-consciousness. Private self-consciousness encompasses the subjective awareness of an individual’s feelings and perceptions, whereas public self-consciousness is an awareness of oneself as a social object. Private self-consciousness was associated with high reactance, whereas public self-consciousness acted as a suppressant of reactance.

Psychological reactance has been associated with depression in persons living with HIV (Brown et al., 2016) and with psychiatric outpatients required to comply with stringent treatment (De Las Cuevas et al., 2014). Similarly, attempting to address patients’ delusion may also contribute to a perception of threat to freedom (Arnold & Vakhrusheva, 2016). Research suggests that message campaigns seeking to assist persons with depression should be cognizant of the reactance effect as good intention messages may be misperceived as controlling (Lienemann & Siegel, 2016).

Pepper (1996) found no significant relationship between gender and reactance, identifying gender as a situational variable better explained by cultural factors. These findings have also been supported by Dowd et al. (1992) and Carli (1989). Using Erikson’s stage theory, Pepper (1996) argued that inherent in many of Erikson’s stages is the potential for psychological reactance. Reactance was linked with both the successful and unsuccessful completion of stages, and Pepper (1996) identified autonomy, mistrust, intimacy, and isolation as being associated with psychological reactance.

Family history was also found to be a predictor of psychological reactance. Persons who lived in a high-conflict family environment or a family that emphasized autonomy, achievement, and moral values were more likely to show psychological reactance (Buboltz et al., 2003). These persons may be more aware of perceived or actual threats to their freedom. The literature, with few exceptions, paints a negative portrait of the personality profile of a psychologically reactant person, who is seen as antisocial, low in social desirability, incapable of strong relations with peers, isolated, independent, aggressive, not easily trusting, dominant, and worried about an uncertain future. Table 2.2 summarizes research that focuses on psychological reactance as a disposition.

Table 2.2 Research on Dispositional Psychological Reactance.

Author	Comments
Cherulnik and Citrin (1974)	Explored individual differences and psychological reactance with relevance to locus of control. External and internal locus of control participants exhibited the same levels of reactance.
Tucker and Byers (1987)	Assessed the factorial validity of Merz’s Psychological Reactance Scale. Findings were inconsistent with Merz’s, concluding that the instrument is psychometrically unacceptable.
Hong and Ostini (1989)	Evaluated the questionnaire for the measurement of psychological reactance. Identified a four factor structure that was inconsistent with findings of Merz (1983) and Tucker and Byers (1987) concluding the scale psychometrically unstable.
Hong and Page (1989)	Developed Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale. Identified a four factor structure to measure reactance that was reliable.
Joubert (1990)	Used Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale to assess the relationship among self esteem, reactance and personality variables. Men scored significantly higher than women on psychological reactance measures. Happiness ratings correlated negatively with psychological reactance. Women’s self esteem scores were negatively correlated with psychological reactance.
Dowd et al. (1991)	Developed the Therapeutic Reactance Scale to measure trait psychological reactance. Factorial analysis identified two sub-scales: verbal reactance and behavioral reactance
Hong (1992)	Assessed the validity of Hong’s psychological reactance scale. Findings supported the factorial stability and reliability of the scale.
Mallon (1992)	Reviewed the QMPR, Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale and TRS. Developed the Proneness Reactance Inventory to measure dispositional reactance.
Dowd and Wallbrown (1993)	Determined the motivational personality characteristics associated with psychological reactance. Findings identified a personality pattern of the psychologically reactant person as defensive, aggressive, dominant, autonomous, and non-affiliative.
Dowd et al. (1994)	Further explored personality characteristics of a psychologically reactant individual. Identified that psychologically reactant women were more decisive and self –assertive than non-reactant women. Reactant individuals tend to worry more about future problems and have weak social relations.
Hong et al. (1994)	Used Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale to explore gender and age effects on dispositional reactance. Younger persons displayed more reactance than older participants and no difference between genders was observed.
Hong and Faedda (1996)	Refined Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale to 11 items that showed greater factorial stability than the original 14 item scale.
Pepper (1996)	Explored the psychosocial precursors of psychological reactance with emphasis on Erikson’s developmental theory. The following factors predicted psychological reactance: autonomy, trust, intimacy and isolation.
Hellman and McMillin (1997)	Examined the relationship between psychological reactance and self esteem using Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale. These results suggest that the HPRS scale should be used with caution since combining all four factors of the HPRS in an additive format may suppress its potential to measure reactance.
Huck (1998)	Assessed psychological reactance and its relations to personality through the utilization of Millon’s Personality theory. Found seven personality disorders that evoke reactance more likely than others.
Seibel and Dowd (1999)	Analyzed the relationship between the client’s psychological reactance and specific compliance behaviors and general improvements in an actual therapy situation. Identified that reactant clients would engage in boundary augmentation and boundary reducing behaviors as opposed to non-reactant clients.
Johnson and Buboltz (2000)	Explored the link between Bowen’s (1978) concept of differentiation of self and psychological reactance. Detected three measures of differentiation that predicted psychological reactance (i.e., intergenerational individuation, peer intimacy and peer individuation).
Donnell et al. (2001)	Assessed the factor structure and internal consistency of questionnaire for the measurement of psychological reactance. Concluded that the QMPR was an unreliable measure of the dimensions of psychological reactance.
Seibel and Dowd (2001)	Further explored the psychological profile of a psychologically reactant person as well as delved into corrective techniques for developmental issues that arise due to separation and individuation. Identified that individuals have an optimum level of reactance that balances issues of engulfment and separation. Personality disorders based on trust and autonomy were a predictors of reactance.
Baumeister et al. (2002)	Explored a narcissistic reactance theory approach to sexual coercion and rape. Findings concluded that theories of reactance and narcissism combined are a good tool of analysis when exploring cases of rape.
Buboltz et al. (2002)	Analyzed and assessed the factor structure of the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS). The results showed that reactance is seemingly a multidimensional construct with four relatively independent structures underlying psychological reactance. The use of a one-dimensional score may not give an accurate picture of the reactance level/potential of an individual.
Buboltz et al. (2003)	Assessed the relationship between variables concerned with origins of family and psychological reactance. Findings suggest that five family dimensions (cohesion, conflict, moral-religious emphasis, independence and achievement orientation) can encourage psychological reactance.
Dillard and Shen (2005)	Develop four alternative conceptual perspectives on the nature of reactance utilizing a combinations of cognition and affect. Anger and negative cognition mediated threat to freedom and trait reactance. . .
Seeman et al. (2005)	Further elaborated the profile of a psychologically reactant person by implementing the five-factor model of personality as measured by the NEO PI-R. Results suggested that highly reactant individuals appear very independent and somewhat suspicious, they are likely to be skeptical of others intentions, competitive, intolerant, distrustful, secretive, and detached, and they put on a good social face but are actually uncomfortable in social situations
Shen and Dillard (2005)	Assessed the psychometric properties of the 11 item version of the Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale. Concluded that a single score on the HPRS is theoretically and empirically justifiable.
Jonason and Knowles (2006)	Assessed the one-dimensional measure of Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Concluded that the scale is only moderately stable and reliable although its one-dimensional characteristic appears to be the most consistent and reliable construct.
Quick et al. (2011)	Examined the effectiveness of character framing and freedom-threating language in persuasiveness, as well as the moderating effects of trait reactance and issue involvement on freedom threat perception.
Kim et al. (2013)	Assessed effects of freedom threat, argument quality and insult as message features in independently producing feelings of anger and negative thought and explain message failure.
Rains (2013)	Reviewed Dillard and Shen (2005) study on the nature of psychological reactance and provided support for the use of the intertwined model.
De Las Cuevas et al. (2014)	Assessed the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Hong Psychological Reactance scale (Spanish version) in psychiatric outpatient care.
De Las Cuevas et al. (2014)	This study explored depression among psychiatric outpatients and their stringent adherence to treatments. The association between health locus of control, self-efficacy, and reactance was examined.
Richards and Banas (2015)	Examined the possibility of inoculating against/decreasing psychological reactance in a health campaign message aimed to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. Simply warning audiences about the possibility of negative reactions to health messages can improve efficacy.
Scott and Quick (2012)	Examined family communication patterns as a means of explaining how interpersonal talk influences peoples’ response to persuasive messages about organ donation using reactance theory. Family conformity orientation and family conversation orientation moderate the relationship between willingness to communicate with family about organ donation and psychological reactance.
Murray and Matland (2015)	An exploration into the effects of social interactions and social pressure techniques utilized by campaigns to increase voter turn-out. Reactance emerges as a negative backlash of persuasive mobilization techniques as majority perceives invasion of privacy.
Lee et al. (2015)	Investigated the effects of communal versus exchange styles and how these created impressions influence consumers’ perceived irritation to brand messages. Additionally, the effect of trait reactance and communication styles on the perceived level of irritation caused by the brand messages were examined.
Middleton et al. (2015)	Explored relationships between psychological reactance and emotional intelligence (EI). Males with lower behavioral reactance have higher scores on EI subscales of self-control, well-being, and emotionality, and males with higher verbal reactance have higher scores on EI subscales on self-control, well-being, sociability, and emotionality. Whereas females with higher verbal reactance have higher scores on EI subscales of emotionality and sociability.
Shen (2015)	Investigated three potential antecedents to psychological reactance: threat to freedom, message frame, and behavioral choice utilizing the intertwined model of reactance measure. Threat to freedom and the loss frame increased psychological reactance while the gain frame and offering behavioral choice had a reversed effect. When the threat to freedom was high, offering choice and gain frame were most salient.
Shen and Coles (2015)	Analyzed the process of psychological reactance in fear appeal. Psychological reactance can be mitigated or avoided if high levels of fear are reduced by efficacy information/positive valence information.
Sittenthaler et al. (2015)	In an attempt to extend past work on reactance examines the degree to which people’s responses to a legitimate vs. an illegitimate constraint. Different responses were observed to illegitimate and legitimate restrictions. Immediate arousal is experienced with illegitimate restrictions and delayed physiological arousal with legitimate restrictions.
Ungar et al. (2015)	Assessment of long-standing effects of an increase intake of fruits and vegetables and reactance. Limited reactance was evoked from those individuals who were tasked with providing documentation and monitoring their consumption of fruits and vegetables in contrast to those who were task of changing their fruits and vegetables consumption.
Arnold and Vakhrusheva (2016)	Opposing delusions in patients may evoke feelings of reactance and fortify the unyieldingness of their delusions. Effort to correct delusions may lead to reactance as patients interpret these efforts as transgressions on their freedom.
Brown et al. (2016)	Examined the association between psychological reactance and HIV-related stigma among women living with HIV. Overall, psychological reactance, opposition and irritability were positively associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms.
Lienemann and Siegel (2016)	Good intention camps seeking to assist persons with depression should consider psychological reactance as a possible inhibitory factor. Language perceived as autonomy-supportive language may be perceived as controlling by persons with depression.
Thrasher et al. (2016)	Examined the impact of reactance, response efficacy, and self-efficacy on responses to threatening messages. Vivid, pictorial health warning labels encourage actions of cessation among smokers.
Coppola and Girandola (2017)	Investigated the reactance effects of linguistic and lexical features defined as “scalar adverbs.” Enhanced persuasive messages with the use of scalar adverbs result in perception of restrained autonomy to decide evoking reactance.
LaVoie et al. (2017)	Explored psychological reactance in response to graphic cigarette warning labels. Graphic imagery on cigarette packaging enhances freedom threat perceptions, perceived source domineeringness, negative cognition and reactance.
Wehbe et al. (2017)	Assessed the impact of attack messages on reactance and coping responses. Consistent with predictions, counter-advertisements, due to personal relevance of the content, appeared to arouse maladaptive coping mechanisms in smokers than non-smokers.
Xu (2017)	Explored the impact of controlling language and locus of control (LOC) on the information processing of young adults.
Beutler et al. (2018)	Reviewed definitions, measures, and clinical examples of reactance in psychotherapy. High reactant patients benefit more in psychotherapy when the therapist use acceptance and nondefensiveness (nondirective treatment)
Ehrenbrink and Möller (2018)	Articulated the development and assessment of a reactance scale for human–computer interaction.
Rosenberg and Siegel (2018)	Review of psychological reactance theory across fifty (50) years in the fields of social psychology, clinical psychology, and communications research.
Rudorf et al. (2018)	Explored the neural mechanisms involved in the underlying differences of control-averse behaviors. Utilizing fMRI assessed brain activity of persons in situations of others controlling decisions.
Bertini and Aydinli (2020)	Price promotions including discounts can lead to counter effect as a result of perception of promotional favours motivating reduction in spending. Findings discussed in the context of reactance.
Rosenberg and Siegel (2020)	Examined freedom in the context of religion and reactance theory. Three main issues were addressed in the context of reactance: social, political and environmental threats to religious freedom; the arousal of reactance within religions; communication strategies to avoid or reduce reactance.
Hajek and Veronika (2021)	Test theoretical model on the channeling process between reactance arousal and coping strategies toward compliance or resistance.
Resnicow et al. (2021)	Assessed the psychological factors, including trait reactance, on the adoption or rejection of protective COVID-19 public health measures. Minimizing controlling language may be effective for reactant prone persons..