Theories in Social Psychology

4 The higher the affect arousal level associated with a threat to a free behavior, the greater the motivation to reduce the associated level of psychological reactance. Specifically, the higher the affect arousal level, and especially if it is a motivational approach arousal, associated with the threatened free behavior the greater the magnitude of psychological reactance and the greater the motivation for its reduction.

5 Among the reduction of psychological reactance strategies is the reduction of affect intensity/arousal. Reduction of affect arousal, ceteris paribus, will reduce the intensity of psychological reactance. High affect arousal could inhibit cognitive strategies which may otherwise have facilitated approaches in reduction of psychological reactance.

The first three propositions address the issue of intensity, and the last two propositions address the reduction of psychological reactance.

Figure 2.1 describes the process involved in the emergence of psychological reactance but considers the affect state. A threat to a free behavior is evaluated, provoking a negative affect state, the more important the threat, the greater the intensity of the affect state.

Figure 2.1 Affect arousal reactance model.

Cognitive appraisal, together with the concomitant affect, leads to approach motivation or an avoidance motivation. The cognitive evaluation with the affect state either accentuates or attenuate reactance. As evaluation is undertaken and, should the threat persist, reactance striving and/or reactance behavior continue. However, as discussed, reactance is moderated by a number of factors. The subjective experiences of emotions influence: the processing of information, decision-making processes, our attention, reaction time, and the way we intend to behave or actually behave (e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Derryberry & Tucker, 1994). Research undertaken by Kostic et al. (2011) has shown that the subjective experiences and intesity of emotions vary across cultures. For example, an unpleasant situation of uncertainty with threat toward the removal of a free behavior and the potential to create frustration and anger, emotion with the high intensity, has high reactance potential.

Threat to free behavior that provokes affect states associated with approach motivation will create a higher magnitude of reactance, ceteris paribus, than affect states associated with avoidance motivation. However, the magnitude of psychological reactance may vary across cultures, and this may not necessarily be a result of situational factors but a consequence of the subjective experience of emotions in these cultures. Clearly, research is needed to fully test an affect arousal reactance theory. In partial support of AART, Nesterkin (2013) in a conceptual paper postulates the relationship between negative affect states and reactance, energizing the latter and heightening the reaction toward the threat to a freedom. Clayton et al. (2019) emphasizing the emotion of anger only refer to the fight-flight energizing or demotivating effect on psychological reactance. The research agenda of Mühlberger et al. (2020) moves along a direction to understand the affect arousal relationship of reactance. These and other studies recognize the intermediate effect of affect states in energizing behavior toward the removal of freedom threats. However, there has been no attempt to systematically conceptualize this relationship within a theory that has been, over the years, argued as a cognitive social psychological theory.

Reactance theory is a fundamental theory in the discipline of social psychology and has contributed to an understanding of behavior in response to actual or perceived threats in a wide variety of settings. The theory is as useful today as it was over fifty years ago. However, the theory needs modification. The systematic introduction into the theory of the affect state is crucial, with an understanding of the relationship between emotions, moods, arousal and motivation. The articulated propositions of an Affect Arousal Reactance Theory (AART) attempt to move the psychological reactance discourse to another level. This much-needed structural modification will definitely give new insights into previous research and hopefully stimulate research. AART has utility in the understanding and reduction of arousal states, including situations that are volatile and interactions that are potentially aggressive. As the theory evolves, so too will our understanding of human behavior as cognitive and affect-driven in action.

1 Akhtar, N., Nadeem Akhtar, M., Usman, M., Ali, M., & Iqbal Siddiqi, U. (2020). COVID-19 restrictions and consumers’ psychological reactance toward offline shopping freedom restoration. The Service Industries Journal, 40(13–14), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1790535

2 Andreoli, V. A., Worchel, S., & Folger, R. (1974). Implied threat to behavioural freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(6), 765–771. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037529

3 Arnold, K., & Vakhrusheva, J. (2016). Resist the negation reflex: Minimizing reactance in psychotherapy of delusions. Psychosis: Psychological, Social and Integrative Approaches, 8(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2015.1095229

4 Baer, R., Hinkle, S., Smith, K., & Fenton, M. (1980). Reactance as a function of actual versus projected autonomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(3), 416–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.3.416

5 Baker, K., Sullivan, H., & Marszalek, J. (2003). Therapeutic reactance in a depressed client sample: A comparison of two measures. Assessment, 10(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103010002004

6 Ball, H. (2016). Applying psychological reactance theory to communication between adult child caregivers and their older adult parents. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.5150

7 Ball, H., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). An experimental investigation of the antecedents and consequences of psychological reactance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 63(3), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.918634

8 Bargh, J. A., & Apsley, D. K. (2001). Introduction. In J. A.Bargh & D. K.Apsley (Eds.), Unravelling the complexities of social life (pp. 3–10). American Psychological Association.

9 Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Wallace, H. M. (2002). Conquest by force: A narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology, 6(1), 92–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.1.92

10 Berkowitz, L. (1973). Reactance and the unwillingness to help others. Psychological Bulletin, 79(5), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034443

11 Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive–neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45(4), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.494

12 Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. McGraw-Hill.

13 Berkowitz, L. (1999). Anger. In T.Dalgleish & M.Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 411–428). Wiley.

14 Berkowitz, L. (2003). Affect, aggression, and antisocial behavior. In R. J.Davidson, K. R.Scherer, & H. H.Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 804–823). Oxford University Press.

15 Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4(2), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.107

16 Bertini, M., & Aydinli, A. (2020). Consumer reactance to promotional favors. Journal of Retailing, 96(4), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.03.002