Dissatisfied with existing measures, Hong and Page (1989) translated (German to English) and revised Merz’s (1983) questionnaire, thereby creating the 14-item Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS). The first investigation of the scale structure yielded a four-factor solution whose factors were labeled Freedom of Choice, Conformity Reactance, Behavioral Freedom, and Reactance to Advice and Recommendations. Subsequent efforts also produced structurally similar results after discarding three items (Hong, 1992; Hong & Faedda, 1996). Although it is not clear that the individual factors are sufficiently reliable to justify scientific application, there is evidence that the overall sum of the items is a useful, single indicator of proclivity to experience reactance (Brown, Finney, & France, 2011; Shen & Dillard, 2005). The set of items formed well-fitting, second-order factor model that exhibited parallelism across both theoretically relevant and tangential reference indicators (e.g., attitude vs. biological sex; Shen & Dillard), or in a bifactor framework, they formed a single general factor that captured the variances beyond the common residual variances explained by specific factors (Brown et al.; Table 11.1. provides the items).
Table 11.1 Items for the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (Hong & Faedda, 1996)
1. I become frustrated when I am unable to make free and independent decisions.
2. It irritates me when someone points out things which are obvious to me.
3. I become angry when my freedom of choice is restricted.
4. Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in me.
5. I find contradicting others stimulating.
6. When something is prohibited, I usually think, “That’s exactly what I am going to do”.
7. I resist the attempts of others to influence me.
8. It makes me angry when another person is held up as a role model for me to follow.
9. When someone forces me to do something, I feel like doing the opposite.
10. I consider advice from others to be an intrusion.
11. Advice and recommendations usually induce me to do just the opposite.
Source: Abridged and modified from “Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale,” by S. M. Hong and S. Faedda, 1996, Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, p. 177, Copyright 1996 by Sage Publications.
Research indicates that trait reactant individuals are autonomous, independent, nonconformist, self-determined, and somewhat rebellious (Dowd, Wallbrown, Sanders, & Yesenosky, 1994; Hong & Faedda, 1996; Miller, Burgoon, Grandpre, & Alvaro, 2006; Miller & Quick, 2010). In line with these characteristics, research supports a positive association between reactance proneness and anger, autonomy, denial, dominance, independence, interpersonal mistrust, intolerance, negative cognitions, nonconformity, and self-sufficiency (e.g., Dowd et al., 1994; Seibel & Dowd, 2001).
For the sake of clarity, it is worth emphasizing one final point regarding reactance as an individual difference. Specifically, the HPRS does not capture a steady state form of reactance. Rather, the HPRS assesses sensitivity and responsiveness to circumstances and messages that may be seen as curtailing autonomy. Individual differences in reactance are differences in propensity to experience the process specified by reactance theory. Accordingly, measurements via the HPRS might be expected to contribute to predicting responses to persuasive messages either (1) above and beyond messages effects alone or (2) in conjunction with them. Research pertaining to trait reactance as both a main effect and as a moderator is considered in more detail later in this chapter.
Modeling the Reactance Process
Although research has modeled the freedom threat induction check as both an endogenous and exogenous variable, Quick and his colleagues encouraged PRT researchers to treat freedom threat and reactance measures both as mediators (Quick & Considine, 2008; Quick & Stephenson, 2008). That is, they advocate modeling reactance as a two-step process featuring a freedom threat as induction check followed by reactance. Although many alternatives are possible, Quick and colleagues have used four items (drawn from Dillard & Shen, 2005) and provided consistent evidence of their reliability and validity. The four items are given in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2 Items to Measure Perceived Threat to Freedom
1. The message threatened my freedom to choose.
2. The message tried to make a decision for me.
3. The message tried to manipulate me.
4. The message tried to pressure me.
The reasoning behind including the freedom threat induction check is that individuals could reasonably express anger and negative cognitions for any number of reasons having nothing to do with a threatened or eliminated freedom (e.g., fallacious reasoning or noncredible sources). To fully test the process proposed by PRT, researchers should ensure that the antecedents under investigation are directly related to a freedom threat, which in turn predicts reactance. Inclusion of the threat induction check creates a more demanding and theoretically precise test of the theoretical process under scrutiny. Modeling this portion of the process is akin to opening another viewing window on the contents of the black box. It has considerable practical application too in that it permits persuasion practitioners to trace the effects of their appeals or campaigns through the process from beginning to end. Recent demonstrations of the utility of this two-step logic can be found in Quick and Kim (2009); Quick, Scott, and Ledbetter (2011), and Quick (2012).
Summary
Whereas classic reactance research generally adopted a black box approach to process, contemporary inquiry has made significant strides toward understanding the process more directly. Recent advances directly measuring threat to freedom and reactance allow researchers to trace the effects of individual differences and message variations through the multiple steps proposed by PRT.
Contemporary Research on Reactance Effects
* * *
A good deal of recent research examines message and audience features associated with psychological reactance. This section reviews that literature for the purpose of highlighting factors that are likely to increase or decrease reactance.
Inducing Reactance
Domineering Language
One of the most obvious predictions of PRT is that high pressure communicators will induce reactance. But, how exactly, is pressure exerted? One common means of answering this question has been to experimentally manipulate the language of the persuasive appeal. For example, in high pressure conditions, individuals are told to “Stop the denial!” or “Any reasonable person would agree that not exercising is a problem!” (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Grandpre, Alvaro, Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003; Quick & Kim, 2009; Rains & Turner, 2007). The ineffectiveness of using this type of language has been reported within the context of alcohol consumption (Bensley & Wu, 1991; Rains & Turner, 2007), drug use (Burgoon, Alvaro, Broneck, Miller, Grandpre, Hall, et al., 2002), exercise (Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007; Quick & Considine, 2008; Quick & Stephenson, 2008), meningitis (Rains & Turner, 2007), sunscreen (Buller, Borland, & Burgoon, 1998; Quick & Stephenson, 2008), strep throat (Rains & Turner, 2007), and tobacco use (Grandpre et al., 2003).
The research assessing the ineffectiveness of controlling language has benefited from several studies sampling from various demographics. For example, Rains and Turner (2007) found exposure to freedom-threatening language resulted in greater reactance in her two-study experiment utilizing college students. Similarly, Quick and colleagues discovered that domineering language was perceived as a freedom threat among adolescent (Quick & Kim, 2009), college student (Quick & Stephenson, 2008), and adult samples (Quick & Considine, 2008) across multiple topics. Additionally, Henriksen, Dauphinee, Wang, and Fortmann (2006) discovered that adolescents exposed to ads containing strong language, such as “Buy our product. It will kill you,” “Think. Don’t smoke!” and “Tobacco is whacko if you’re a teen,” received poor evaluations, thus resulting in increased curiosity toward cigarettes. Overall, while the labels identifying this language feature are inconsistent (e.g., cont
rolling, dogmatic, forceful, threat-to-choice language), each demonstrates the ineffectiveness of intense language in persuasion.
Intent to Persuade
Several classic studies demonstrate that manipulations of perceived intent to persuade produces results that are consistent with the theoretical predictions of reactance theory (e.g., Heller et al., 1973; Kohn & Barnes, 1977). More contemporary evidence of the negative impact of intent can be found in Benoit’s (1998) meta-analysis, which reported a homogeneous effect across 12 investigations. Wood and Quinn (2003) describe a subsequent meta-analysis that shows diminished postmessage attitude change in forewarned conditions. Their results suggest that counter-persuasion effects may be limited to high-involvement topics, a side condition that seems to have been anticipated by PRT’s claim that importance of the freedom enhances reactance. Evidence can also be drawn from the impact of threat (of influence attempt) on inducing resistance in inoculation research (chapter 14 in this volume).
There are, however, two important qualifications to the research on intent. One is that the data base is relatively small. Thus, it precludes strong tests of distinctions among types of forewarning. That is, warning of a pending message, warning of the topic of a pending message, and warning of the topic of the message as well as its position (i.e., counter- vs. pro-attitudinal). Second, none of the available studies utilized a methodology that directly assessed reactance or located it in a process model. While this is true of much reactance research, as discussed earlier in this chapter, it limits the confidence with which one can claim that reactance is implicated in persuasion or boomerang effects.
Narrative
Many of the messages that have been used to study reactance consist of arguments and evidence. But, research on narrative tells us that stories may also be an effective means of inducing change in beliefs and attitudes (chapter 13 in this volume). Moyer-Gusé (2008) theorized that one of the reasons for narrative effectiveness is the relative inhibition of reactance. This is thought to occur to the extent that the narrative form obfuscates persuasive intent. Indeed, Moyer-Gusé and Nabi (2010) found that perceived persuasive intent was positively associated with reactance for individuals exposed to a dramatic narrative. Hence, individual differences in perceived persuasive intent were in evidence even though a single narrative message was presented. Those differences corresponded directly with reactance.
One complicating factor is that their index of reactance was composed of items such as The show tried to pressure me to think a certain way and The show tried to force its opinions on me. The item content suggests a closer correspondence with threat to freedom (see Table 11.2.) than to reactance as it has been discussed in this chapter. But, either way, the measure taps an important piece of the reactance process. And, the findings suggest that when individuals perceived that an entertainment program was attempting to influence their health attitudes, then threat-to-freedom or reactance was likely to follow. In sum, even if, on average, narratives are less likely to induce reactance than argument, individuals exposed to narrative may still experience something like reactance as a result of trait-type differences.
Magnitude of the Request
Recent PRT research suggests the magnitude of the request, as well as emphasizing the gains or losses of performing an act (see Quick & Bates, 2010; Reinhart, Marshall, Feeley, & Tutzauer, 2007), influences the degree of reactance arousal. For instance, Rains and Turner’s (2007) results suggest that as the magnitude of the request increased [ranged from small requests (e.g., reporting unclean conditions on campus) to large requests (e.g., donating $250 each semester to fund a sanitization company)], psychological reactance also increased.
Reactance Proneness as an Audience Segmentation Variable
As noted by Atkin and Salmon (chapter 17 this volume), the purpose behind segmenting an audience is to create groups of similar individuals. One reason to seek similarity is that group membership may correspond with the target of change. Another is that group similarity may indicate a propensity for members of the group to make similar responses to any given message.
On the first point, recent work suggests reactance proneness should be considered when segmenting at-risk audiences in public health campaigns (Miller et al., 2006; Miller & Quick, 2010; Quick, Bates, & Quinlan, 2009). Specifically, Miller et al. (2006) made a strong case for segmenting audiences by reactance proneness as they found it to be a “prominent predictor” of smoking in adolescents (p. 246). More recently, Miller and Quick (2010) report that reactant-prone individuals were more likely to use tobacco products and engage in risky sex than low-reactant prone individuals. Importantly, these researchers found reactance proneness to be a better predictor of certain risky behaviors than sensation seeking, an individual, characterized as individuals seeking out novel, arousing, emotionally complex, or intense situations (Stephenson et al., 1999). For years, sensation seeking has been a primary segmentation variable for illicit drug use as well as other hedonic behaviors, including risky sex and tobacco use. Thus, despite a positive correlation between the traits (r = .34–.38 in Miller & Quick, 2010, and in Quick & Stephenson, 2008), it is intriguing that reactance seems to predict certain risky behaviors with greater power than sensation seeking.
The second reason to utilize reactance proneness as an audience segmentation variable emphasizes the potential for high or low reactance prone individuals to respond similarly within group but differently between groups. In other words, trait reactance may interact with message features. A few studies report just such an effect, but sometimes in a form more complex than anticipated. For instance, Dillard and Shen (2005) found that trait reactance moderated the effect of domineering language on reactance, such that high reactant individuals were significantly more sensitive to linguistic variations than were low reactant individuals. However, the interaction was observed for a message on the use of dental floss, but not one on reducing binge drinking.
Quick and Stephenson (2008) applied the multigroup method to test for differences in the association between message features, freedom threat, reactance, and a motivation to perform the advocated behavior. In doing so, they discovered that the association between a freedom threat and reactance was stronger for high trait reactant individuals than low trait reactant individuals within the context of sunscreen promotion. However, this finding was not replicated within the context of exercise. From this research, it appears that reactance proneness influences how individuals process persuasive messages, although these differences are not consistent across contexts/topics.
With partial empirical support for reactance proneness as a moderator of PRT, questions remain about why this individual difference variable impacts the message processing of freedom-threatening messages within some contexts but not others. One explanation for this inconsistency could be the importance of an issue. Recently, Quick et al. (2011) discovered that trait reactance was positively associated with a freedom threat within the context of organ donation. Moreover, among high trait reactant individuals with low issue involvement toward the issue, exposure to the message increased perceptions of a freedom threat compared to individuals with high issue involvement. A criticism of this study is their broad conceptualization of involvement. Specific types, such as impression-, outcome-, and value-relevant involvement (Johnson & Eagly, 1989, 1990), might render different effects on reactance arousal.
Diminishing Reactance
Choice-Enhancing Postscripts
Just as domineering and controlling language induces reactance, the presence of choices tends to diminish it. Brehm and Brehm (1981) reviewed the impact of choice on reactance. Choice can impact reactance from the dispositional as well as situational perspectives. The dispositional approach considers individual differences in external versus internal locus of control. The basic argument is there is an interaction between locus of control and language used in counseling: Controlling and directive language is more effective for externals; and nondirective and unstructured language w
orks better for internals (Abramowitz, Abramowitz, Roback, & Jackson, 1974; Kilman, Albert, & Sotile, 1975). The situational approach examines the outcomes of the presence of choice. Gordon (1976) found that choice led to significantly more perceived value of a clinical treatment, as well as more relaxation. Kanfer and Grimm (1978) found that free choice participants (choices offered and preference honored) improved significantly more than lost choice participants (choice offered, but preference not honored); however, no choice participants (choices not offered) did not differ significantly from either group.
However, without a measure of reactance, these studies cannot rule out the possibility that these results could have been produced due to cognitive dissonance, which unfortunately did not have a measure either. Miller et al. (2007) examined the impact of postscripts that restore one’s freedom. Basically, a restoration postscript tells the recipient, “the choice is yours. You are free to decide for yourself”; while a filler postscript does not contain such an argument. Their results showed that the restoration postscript significantly reduced perceived threat to freedom. However, the authors did not report the impact of the postscript on negative cognition or anger, or on the persuasion outcomes. Although the evidence could have been stronger, this research has important implications for research and practice at the same time. Theoretically speaking, such research is consistent with the theorization of Brehm and Brehm (1981). Practically speaking, this offers a cost-effective means of message design to reduce psychological reactance.
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 35
