PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY Jessica J Tomasello Conservation Behavior

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY Jessica J. Tomasello Conservation Behavior October 14, 2008

BACKGROUND: REACTANCE THEORY Brehm & Brehm (1966): A Theory of Psychological Reactance Brehm & Brehm (1981): Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control Department of Psychology, University of Kansas Laboratory-based social psychological research

PURPOSE Outlines a set of motivational consequences that can be expected to occur whenever freedoms are threatened or lost Specifies: � What freedoms are � How they can be threatened � How the resulting psychological state (reactance) is manifested (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)

GENERAL TENETS OF REACTANCE Freedoms are specific, discrete; behavioral and attitudinal It is important for an individual to maintain his or her choice alternatives to maximize rewards of behavior Reduction of choice alternatives results in a motivational state to reinstate lost alternatives or engage in behavior which was threatened reassertion of freedom increased interest in threatened behaviors or attitudes decreased attraction to forced behaviors Threats can be either social or interpersonal

WHAT IS REACTANCE? Threat to or loss of freedoms motivates person to restore freedom Reactance = intense motivational state � Manifested through behavior or action to restore freedom � Person is often emotional, irrational, and single-minded

EXAMPLES OF REACTANCE? ? ?

VARIABLES Freedoms: � Free behaviors which are realistically possible � Person must have physical and psychological abilities to engage in behavior � Must know that he or she can do the behavior (knowledge) Restriction/threat to freedom � Must be perceived as an “unfair” restriction � Something is denied and this is simply unfair! Reactance

PROCESS OF REACTANCE Perception of unfair restriction toward actions/behaviors Reactance is activated Take action to reduce/remove reactance (Butterfield-Booth, 1996)

STUDIES Mazis & Settle, 1972: laundry detergent in Dade, County, Florida Reich & Robertson, 1979: anti-littering campaigns Propst & Kurtzz, 1989: framework for leisure behavior Fogarty, 1997: health care industry & patient noncompliance Schwartz (1970): blood marrow donors

ASSUMPTIONS A person, at any given time, has a set of “free behaviors” which he or she could engage in now or in the future Person has knowledge of these “free behaviors” Reactance is aroused to the extent that a person believes he or she has control over potential outcome The greater the importance of threatened freedoms, the greater the reactance aroused The amount of reactance is direct function of number of freedoms threatened Freedoms can be threatened by implication--magnitude of reactance is greater when implied threats occur (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES Advantages: Applicable to any situation in which there is expectation of freedom and threat arises • Provides recommendations for ways to reduce reactance in behavior change campaigns • Disadvantages: Assumes people have an expectation of freedom • Can be difficult to measure reactance, freedom • Others? ? ?

IMPLICATIONS Individuals are often motivated to resist or act counter to social influence (e. g. mass persuasion) Important to examine possibilities of repercussions of prohibitive laws Behavior change: reactance can reduce durability and reliability (De. Young, 2000) What implications does this theory have for conservation behavior?