Empathy
Given that reactance can be considered as an alloy of anger and negative cognition (Dillard & Shen, 2005), messages that inhibit unintended anger and reduce counter-argument should diminish reactance as well. It has been proposed that empathy-arousing messages fall into that strategy (Shen, 2010b, 2011). Empathy during message processing is defined as a perception-action process that occurs when the perception of the characters’ state automatically activates the recipients’ vicarious experience of the characters’ state, situation, and objectives. Such empathic responses are conceptualized to have three components: perspective taking, emotional contagion, and identification (Shen, 2010a). Perspective taking means that the message recipients adopt the viewpoint of the message and its source, which means counter-argument is less likely. Emotional contagion means that the recipient’s emotional experiences would be similar to those portrayed in the message, thus less unintended emotions (including anger).
The function of empathy lies in social bonding and relationship development, which indicates that it contradicts or inhibits the core relational theme for anger (a demeaning offense against me and mine, Lazarus, 1991). Identification with the persuasive message means that the recipients tend to consider the persuasive attempt as less external, which reduces perceived threat to freedom, hence mitigating psychological reactance. There has been empirical evidence that in addition to a direct impact on persuasion, state empathy indeed mitigates psychological reactance (Shen, 2010b, 2011). Shen also identified three message features that are believed to induce empathy: the degree to which a message portrays characters’ pain and suffering, the degree to which the message is realistic, and the degree to which the message is affect-laden. These studies provided initial evidence that empathy can be an effective means to reduce reactance.
Sensation Value
Message sensation value refers to “the degree to which formal and content audio-visual features of a message elicit sensory, affective, and arousal responses” (Palmgreen, Donohew, Lorch, Rogus, Helme, & Grant, 1991, p. 219), with sensation value being a critical determinant in message effectiveness. Messages high in sensation value elevate arousal or stimulation due to being dramatic, exciting, and novel (Morgan, Palmgreen, Stephenson, Lorch, & Hoyle, 2003). Similarly, perceived message sensation value refers to a message recipient’s judgments of message sensation value along three dimensions (Palmgreen, Stephenson, Everett, Baseheart, & Francies, 2002): dramatic impact, emotional arousal, and novelty. Kang, Cappella, & Fishbein (2006) advance the intriguing argument that high sensation value messages can distract audiences from refuting the argument, that is, reduce counter-arguing, thereby enhancing ad persuasiveness. The results are complex. They show an interaction between argument quality, message sensation value, risk for marijuana use such that high risk adolescents judged the high quality–high sensation value messages as particularly ineffective. As the authors note, one challenge to interpretation lies with the fact that the high quality argument messages contained five times more commands than the low quality argument messages. A reactance perspective might suggest that this aspect of the message reduced persuasive impact especially among the pro-attitudinal (i.e., high risk group).
Working in the same area, Quick (in press) explicitly examined the relationship between the three dimensions of perceived message sensation value and reactance. His study of anti-marijuana messages showed no observable effect for either dramatic impact and emotional arousal. However, perceived novelty did significantly reduce reactance levels. Hence, the available data, though few in number, indicate that message novelty may be an effective means of preventing reactance effects. This knowledge provides direction for research and application, but cannot alone solve the context-bound problem of developing genuinely new reasons for behavior change.
Reactance as a Persuasive Strategy
Quick and colleagues (2009) argued that arousing reactance could serve as a motivator for individuals to support clean indoor air policies. They discovered that as individuals’ anger increased following exposure to secondhand smoke, they were more likely to support clean indoor air policies. Therefore, as a rhetorical strategy, Quick et al. advocated the use of messages emphasizing the violation of one’s right to breathable air could be an effective strategy, which in turn would motivate individuals to actively support clean indoor air initiatives. Mining a similar conceptual vein, Turner (2007) presents a framework for understanding political action that is motivated by choice-reduced anger.
A similar application of reactance-based persuasion can be seen in the “truth” campaign, a successful long-term effort to discourage smoking among Florida youth (Bauer, Johnson, Hopkins, & Brooks, 2000; Siegel & Biener, 2000). Interestingly, the website notes explicitly the potential for reactance effects: “Tell someone not to do something and they will. … We’re not here to tell people not to smoke, because, well, it doesn’t work” (truth®, 2012). However, the anti-smoking ads themselves leverage reactance effects by portraying the tobacco industry as controlling and deceptive (Farrelly, Davis, Haviland, Messeri, & Healton, 2005). One message underscores industry efforts to manipulate adolescents in this way:
In response to the fact that 5 million people around the world die annually due to tobacco, individuals outside of a major tobacco company sing and dance to a catchy song suggesting the ingredients in cigarettes, the health costs associated with smoking, and the number of deaths annually must be a typo. At the end of the ad, one of the performers say, “Wait, there is no way there is that many typos.”
The campaign itself was a notable applied success. More intensive study of the messages using contemporary methods for assessing reactance could provide insight into the basis for that achievement.
New Directions for PRT Research
* * *
In keeping with the themes developed throughout this chapter, we see several promising possibilities for future research. Foremost among them is working toward a better understanding of the message features that enhance and diminish reactance. As currently formulated, many of the message concepts discussed in this chapter have their roots in lay perceptions of language rather than crafted scientific theories. A turn toward sociolinguist frameworks, such as politeness theory, or basic interpersonal communication theory might provide a perspective on message design that would move PRT in a forward direction.
Future research might also assess reactance proneness as a moderator variable in large-scale campaigns in much the same way sensation seeking has been examined in the past. In theory, reactance proneness appears to be an especially important segmentation strategy for adolescents and young adults, in particular because this is an age when reactance arousal is heightened (see Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, et al., 2002; Woller, Buboltz, & Loveland, 2007). Answers to at least two questions are needed before it can be concluded that trait reactance is a useful general strategy: (1) To what extent, if any, is it empirically distinct from sensation seeking? (2) Can trait reactance predict patterns of message choice and consumption (as has been done so effectively for sensation seeking)?
Future research should seek to understand reactance as a strategy of empowerment. By broadening depictions of reactance as a potentially useful state, not just an aversive state, social influence researchers might be able to capitalize on opportunities to infuse change, particularly among adolescents who value their freedom and strongly oppose persuasive attempts aimed at reducing these freedoms. Understanding reactance as the basis for change is surely equal in importance to its role as a force for counter-persuasion.
Finally, we reemphasize the value of studying reactance as a process. Mass communication research might also benefit from application of PRT. Extant work has hypothesized that PRT can play a pivotal role in media selection, particularly among adolescents (Bushman & Cantor, 2003; Scharrer & Leone, 2008; Sneegas & Plank, 1998). Essentially, these researchers assert that media ratings restricting individuals from viewing particular prog
rams or playing certain videogames enhance the attractiveness of the content (referred to as forbidden-fruit effect). Like other classic studies of PRT, media selection is limited by its reliance on outcomes associated with reactance rather than measuring the state directly. Media effect research would benefit from this approach, just as classic PRT inquiry has advanced by focusing on mediating processes.
Conclusion
* * *
As of this writing, reactance theory is almost half a century old. The fact that it still inspires questions and motivates research is testimony to the power of its ideas. Looking back, there is ample evidence that PRT has made signal contributions to our understanding of persuasion. As efforts are made to further refine the theory and to meld it with ongoing research, we anticipate that its value to future generations of persuasion researchers will equal or exceed its past achievements.
References
* * *
Abramowitz, C. V., Abramowitz, S. I., Roback, H. B., & Jackson, C. (1974). Differential effectiveness of directive and non-directive group therapies as a function of client internal-external control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 849–853.
Bauer, U. E., Johnson, T. M., Hopkins, R. S., & Brooks, R. G. (2000). Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: Findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998–2000. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 723–728.
Benoit, W. L. (1998). Forewarning and persuasion. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 139–154). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Bensley, L. S., & Wu, R. (1991). The role of psychological reactance in drinking following alcohol prevention messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1111–1124.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Brehm, J. W., & Brehm, S. S. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brehm, J. W., Stires, L. K., Sensenig, J., & Shaban, J. (1996). The attractiveness of an eliminated choice alternative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 301–313.
Brehm, S. S., & Weinraub, M. (1977). Physical barriers and psychological reactance: 2-year-olds’ responses to threats to freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 830–836.
Brown, A. R., Finney, S. J., & France, M. K. (2011). Using the bifactor model to assess the dimensionality of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 71(1), 170–185.
Brugoon, M., Alvaro, E., Broneck, K., Miller, C., Grandpre, J. R., Hall, J. R., & Frank, C. A. (2002). Using interactive media tools to test substance abuse prevention messages. In W. D. Crano & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Mass media and drug prevention: Classic and contemporary theories and research (pp. 67–87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buboltz, W. C., Thomas, A., & Donnell, A. J. (2002). Evaluating the factor structure and internal consistency reliability of the therapeutic reactance scale. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 120–125.
Buller, D. B., Borland, R., & Burgoon, M. (1998). Impact of behavioral intention on effectiveness of message features: Evidence from the family sun safety project. Human Communication Research, 24, 433–453.
Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bushman, B. J., & Cantor, J. (2003). Media ratings for violence and sex: Implications for policy-makers and parents. American Psychologist, 58, 130–141.
Dillard, J. P., & Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and the structure of affect. In J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and research (pp. 309–327). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dillard, J. P., & Peck. E. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27, 461–495.
Dillard, J. P., & Peck. E. (2001). Persuasion and the structure of affect: Dual systems and discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27, 38–68.
Dillard, J. P., Plotnick, C. A., Godbold, L. C., Freimuth, V. S., & Edgar, T. (1996). The multiple affective consequences of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23, 44–72.
Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168.
Donnell, A. J., Thomas, A., & Buboltz, W. (2001). Psychological reactance: Factor structure and internal consistency of the questionnaire for the measurement of psychological reactance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 679–687.
Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The therapeutic reactance scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 541–545.
Dowd, E. T., Wallbrown, F., Sanders, D., & Yesenosky, J. M. (1994). Psychological reactance and its relationship to normal personality variables. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 601–612.
Farrelly, M. C., Davis, K. C., Haviland, M. L., Messeri, P., & Healton, C. G. (2005). Evidence of a dose-response relationship between “truth” antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 425–431.
Gordon, R. M. (1976). Effects of volunteering and responsibility on perceived value and effectiveness of a clinical treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 799–801.
Grandpre, J. R., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15, 349–366.
Hammock, T., & Brehm, J. W. (1966). The attractiveness of choice alternatives when freedom to choose is eliminated by a social agent. Journal of Personality, 34, 546–554.
Heller, J. F., Pallak, M. S., & Picek, J. M. (1973). The interactive effects of intent and threat on boomerang attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 273–279.
Henriksen, L., Dauphinee, A., Wang, Y., & Fortmann, S. (2006). Tobacco companies’ antismoking ads and adolescent reactance: Test of a boomerang effect. Tobacco Control, 15, 13–18.
Hong, S. M. (1992). Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale: A further factor analytic validation. Psychological Reports, 70, 512–514.
Hong, S. M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173–182.
Hong, S. M., & Ostini, R. (1989). Further evaluation of Merz’s psychological reactance scale. Psychological Reports, 64, 707–710.
Hong, S. M., & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64, 1323–1326.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375–384.
Kanfer, F. H., & Grimm, L. G. (1978). Freedom of choice and behavioral change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 873–878.
Kang, Y., Cappella, J. N., & Fishbein, M. (2006). The attentional mechanism of message sensation value: Interaction between message sensation value and argument quality on message effectiveness. Communication Monographs, 73, 351–378.
Kelly, A. E., & Nauta, M. M. (1997). Reactance and thought suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1123–1132.
Kilman, P. R., Albert, B. M., & Sotile, W. M. (1975). Relationship between locus of control, structure of therapy, and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 588.
Kohn, P. M., & Barnes, G. E. (1977). Subject variables and reactance to persuasive communications abo
ut drugs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 97–109.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 119–186). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Lindsey, L. L. M. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behavioral motivation: An examination of appeals to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. Human Communication Research, 31, 453–481.
Merz, J. (1983). A questionnaire for the measurement of psychological reactance [in German]. Diagnostica, 29, 75–82.
Miller, C. H, Burgoon, M., Grandpre, J. R., & Alvaro, E. M. (2006). Identifying principal risk factors for the initiation of adolescent smoking behaviors: The significance of psychological reactance. Health Communication, 19, 241–252.
Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219–240.
Miller, C. H., & Quick, B. L., (2010). Sensation seeking and psychological reactance as health risk predictors for an emerging adult population. Health Communication, 25, 266–275.
Morgan, S. E., Palmgreen, P., Stephenson, M. T., Lorch, E. P., & Hoyle, R. H. (2003). The relationship between message sensation value and perceived message sensation value: The effect of formal message features on subjective evaluations of anti-drug public service announcements. Journal of Communication, 53, 512–526.
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment in persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of EE messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407–425.
Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26–52.
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 36
