p sychological r eactance t heory jessica j. tomasello conservation behavior october 14, 2008
Post on 01-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE THEORY
Jessica J. TomaselloConservation BehaviorOctober 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
(DeYoung, 2000)
What implications does this theory have for conservation behavior?
top related