Abstract. Since Brehm first proposed reactance theory in 1966, many studies have explored the remarkable psychological phenomenon of reactance, which Miron and Brehm reviewed in 2006. We present an overview of research that has been done since then. A variety of studies have provided interesting new insights into the theory, adding to what is known about the phenomenon of reactance and the processes activated when people are confronted with threats to their freedom. Nevertheless, many issues that have not been clarified remain to be examined. We therefore close with proposing some suggestions for future research.

Threats to our freedom are part of our daily social interactions. They are accompanied by an aversive state of motivational arousal, called reactance, which leads people to strive to reestablish their threatened freedom. This is especially the case if the threat seems to be illegitimate in nature. However, reactance theory suggests that reactance should also be aroused when people are exposed to legitimate freedom threats. In this article we first aim to show that both illegitimate and legitimate freedom threats evoke reactance. Second, we aim to extend past work on reactance by exploring the underlying process of experiencing a legitimate vs. an illegitimate restriction. In the current study (N= 57) participants were restricted in an illegitimate (unexpected and inappropriate) or legitimate (unexpected but appropriate) way, or were not restricted at all. We assessed participants’ experience of reactance, their behavioral intentions to restore their freedom, their approach motivational states, as well as their physiological arousal (heart rate). Results indicated that when restricted in an illegitimate or a legitimate way, participants indicated the same amount of reactance as well as anger. However, when looking at people’s physiological reactions, important differences between illegitimate and legitimate restrictions become apparent. Illegitimate restrictions led to an immediate arousal, whereas legitimate restrictions led to a time delayed arousal. This suggests that illegitimate restrictions lead to a sudden increase in aversive arousal. Legitimate restrictions, however, seem to be associated with a more cognitive process in which people first need to structure their thoughts and reflect upon the situation before getting into the feeling of reactance in a physiologically arousing sense. Moreover a mediation analysis could show that behavioral intentions to regain one’s freedom result in positive and negative approach motivation. In sum we propose a combined dual-process and intertwined-process model explaining people’s reactions to legitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions.

Previous research has demonstrated a considerable amount of negative consequences resulting from psychological reactance. The purpose of this study was to explore opportunities to reduce the amount of reactance. Using the method of perspective taking as an intervention, the current study of 196 Austrians and 198 Filipinos examined whether reactance could be reduced and whether individualists and collectivists differ concerning reactance and their perspective taking abilities. Our results indicated that participants who took the perspective of the person who threatened them experienced less reactance than participants who did not take this approach. This was the case for people from both cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, comparisons among the two cultural groups yielded different reactions to restrictions. This indicates that individualists are more sensitive to a self-experienced restriction than collectivists, but less sensitive to a restriction of another person. Consequently, we consider culture to be a crucial determinant in predicting the amount of reactance.

Abstract. This paper describes the construction and empirical evaluation of an instrument for measuring state reactance, the Salzburger State Reactance (SSR) Scale. The results of a confirmatory factor analysis supported a hypothesized three-factor structure: experience of reactance, aggressive behavioral intentions, and negative attitudes. Correlations with divergent and convergent measures support the validity of this structure. The SSR Subscales were strongly related to the other state reactance measures. Moreover, the SSR Subscales showed modest positive correlations with trait measures of reactance. The SSR Subscales correlated only slightly or not at all with neighboring constructs (e.g., autonomy, experience of control). The only exception was fairness scales, which showed moderate correlations with the SSR Subscales. Furthermore, a retest analysis confirmed the temporal stability of the scale. Suggestions for further validation of this questionnaire are discussed.

In social interactions, individuals may sometimes pursue their own interests at the expense of their interaction partner. Such self-interested behaviors impose a threat to the interaction partner’s freedom to act. The current article investigates this threat in the context of interdependence and reactance theory. We explore how vested interests influence reactance process stages of an advisor–client interaction. We aim to explore the interactional process that evolves. In two studies, participants took the perspective of a doctor (advisor) or a patient (client). In both studies we incorporated a vested interest. In Study 1 (N = 82) we found that in response to a vested interest of their interaction partner, patients indicated a stronger experience of reactance, more aggressive behavioral intentions, and more biased cognitions than doctors. A serial multiple mediation revealed that a vested interest engendered mistrust toward the interaction partner and this mistrust led to an emerging reactance process. Study 2 (N = 207) further demonstrated that doctors expressed their reactance in a subtle way: they revealed a classic confirmation bias when searching for additional information on their preliminary decision preference, indicating stronger defense motivation. We discuss how these findings can help us to understand how social interactions develop dynamically.