To better understand attitude change among individuals, scholars have highlighted the need for greater understanding of the resistance process.  Psychological reactance has been studied for how it affects individuals’ resistance to persuasive messages. Messages with warnings or restrictions can cause reactance prompting individuals to ignore the message or actually produce boomerang effects leading individuals to perform the opposite of the behavior advocated.

While much research has been done on reactance, not many scholars have studied the cognitive and affective processes that comprise reactance. Dillard and Shen’s 2005 work1 in which they tested four different models of reactance was one of few that have explored the role of cognitions in reactance. In this present study Raines and Turner sought to test and extend Dillard and Shen’s work through two experiments examining the best-fitting model of reactance and testing three factors associated with reactance: argument quality, severity of consequences, and size of request.

Study 1:

Three proposed models of reactance were tested in Study 1 through an experiment involving messages to college students about a potential ban on alcohol on campus and in the community. The study used a 2 X 2 design, with a threat to freedom vs. no threat to freedom and a strong vs. weak message.

Findings:

• The most support was found for the intertwined model of reactance, where reactance in the threat condition was greater and actually led to increased favorability of alcohol consumption.
• Negative cognitions and anger were both significant indicators of reactance.
• Argument quality had no significant impact on reactance.

Study 2:

In the second experiment, a 2 X 2 design used different levels of severity of consequence and different magnitude of request.  Participants experienced a threat to freedom in all conditions.

Findings:

• Again the most support was found for the intertwined model of reactance.
• The magnitude of the request impacted the level of reactance, with reactance increasing as the request size increased.
• The severity of the issue did not influence reactance.

Overall, the intertwined model of reactance most closely fits the findings from Study 1 and Study 2.  The authors conclude that further research is needed to test this model more conclusively.

1 Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168.