People often resist attempts to persuade or control them. This instinctive pushback against external influence is not merely stubbornness or defiance but an automatic response to a perceived loss of autonomy. Understanding this reaction is crucial because attempts at influence frequently backfire, causing the opposite of the intended effect. This concept is fundamental to how humans maintain a sense of control over their own lives and decisions.
What is Psychological Reactance
Psychological Reactance Theory (PRT) formally defines this phenomenon as an unpleasant motivational state that emerges when an individual perceives a threat to their established behavioral freedoms. Psychologist Jack W. Brehm first introduced this idea in 1966, proposing that humans possess an inherent desire for autonomy and self-determination. When this sense of choice is challenged, the resulting state of reactance drives the person to restore that threatened freedom.
Reactance is fundamentally a motivational state that energizes and directs subsequent behavior. This aversive arousal can include feelings of anger, hostility, and frustration directed at the source of the perceived threat. The theory assumes people believe they have a set of free behaviors they can enact, and a threat to these behaviors triggers the motivational response.
The Mechanism of Threatened Freedom
The psychological process that initiates reactance is centered not on the restriction itself, but on the individual’s subjective perception that their freedom is being limited or removed. A person must first believe they possess the freedom to perform a certain action before its restriction can trigger a response. This perception of a threat to autonomy is the direct trigger for the motivational state of reactance.
The magnitude of this reaction is not uniform; it depends on several factors. The importance of the threatened freedom plays a significant role, with more valued freedoms generating a stronger reaction. If multiple freedoms are threatened simultaneously, the overall magnitude of reactance increases significantly. An individual may also believe that the source of the restriction, such as a coercive authority figure, has ill intent, which intensifies the feeling of a threat to their autonomy.
How Reactance Affects Behavior
Once reactance is aroused, the individual is motivated to restore the lost or threatened freedom, which manifests in several observable behavioral and cognitive responses.
Direct Restoration
The most direct response is direct restoration, where the individual simply engages in the forbidden behavior immediately. For instance, a person told not to touch a museum exhibit might feel an intense urge to do exactly that.
Subjective Restoration
This involves increasing the attractiveness of the forbidden option and decreasing the appeal of the mandated option. A teenager told they must attend a specific family event may find that event unappealing, while the forbidden alternative becomes far more desirable. This cognitive shift strengthens their motivation to defy the instruction.
Indirect Restoration
The individual engages in a behavior similar to the forbidden one, or resists the source of the threat in unrelated ways. A government mandate to stop using a specific product might lead consumers to purchase a similar, unregulated product.
This collection of responses often leads to the boomerang effect, where the attempt at influence or control backfires, causing the individual to adopt an attitude or behavior contrary to the one intended.
Strategies for Minimizing Reactance
The most effective way to prevent reactance is to avoid triggering the perception of a freedom threat, focusing instead on preserving an individual’s sense of control.
One soft persuasion technique involves using non-coercive language, framing suggestions as empowering information rather than as demands. Instead of forceful phrases like “You must do X,” communicators can use suggestions like “Have you considered the benefits of X?”.
Offering choices, even limited ones, can significantly reduce the feeling of being controlled. For example, a parent can ask a child, “Do you want to clean your room now or in 10 minutes?” This achieves the goal while giving the child a sense of autonomy in the timing of the task.
Adding a restoration postscript, such as saying “but of course, it’s up to you,” explicitly reminds the person that they are free to decide, which reduces resistance to the message. Providing rationale and showing empathy for potential resistance helps to disarm the reactance response by acknowledging the other party’s autonomy and avoiding the perception of manipulation.