The Type of Threat Matters: Differences in Similar Magnitude Threats Elicit Differing Magnitudes of Psychological Reactance

Psychological reactance theory (Brehm, J. 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981) describes the tendency of an individual to act in some way to restore lost freedoms or protect oneself from the loss of personal freedoms. The concept of threat to a personal freedom is central to psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981), but the type of threat itself has not been a focus of investigation. Silvia (2005, 2006a) focused on the mechanics of threat and how threat leads to disagreement (2006a), and interpersonal similarity as a factor that mediates or even removes the effects of threat (and thus reactance) in persuasive communications (2005). Silvia (2005) found that similarity between the communicator and target of a threat to attitudinal freedom effectively nullified the threat; in essence, the target agreed with the speaker in spite of threat if the two were similar. When the person perceiving the threat is different from the person making the threat, reactance is more likely to occur. Silvia (2006a) found that reactance may be caused by negative cognitive responses to a threat or directly by the threat itself. These studies contributed significantly to the development of reactance theory but, as of this writing, no study of which we are aware has addressed the role of the type of threat itself and the differences between similar threats. Reactance theory states that each person has a number of deeply held freedoms, called free behaviors, to which he or she feels a strong personal entitlement (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). People will act in order to protect access to these free behaviors (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993; Seemann, Buboltz, & Thomas, 2005; Seibel & Dowd, 2001; Silvia, 2006b). Reactance has been described as one of social psychology's primary theories of resistance to social influence (Silvia, 2006b) and is described by Brehm and Brehm (1981) as a theory of freedom and control. Reactance theory predicts that individuals in a state of reactant motivation will, for example, resist coercive messages, engage in a behavior that is threatened or restricted, act against the directives of supervisors, resist change in counseling and psychotherapy, or choose not to comply with physicians' medical advice (Bensley & Wu, 1991; Fogarty & Youngs, 2000; Karno & Longabaugh, 2005; Sachau, Houlihan, & Gilbertson, 1999; Silvia, 2006b). A review of the literature reveals a number of studies examining reactance as the outcome of a specific type of threat (e.g., Bensley & Wu, 1991; Silvia, 2006b) or as an individual differences variable in specific situations (e.g., Fogarty & Youngs, 2000; Sachau, et al., 1999; Seibel & Dowd, 1999). No study to date has compared specific threats of different types to determine if they elicit similar levels of reactance. The majority of existing studies employed a coercion-based threat to a free behavior assumed to be important to the individual. Silvia (2005, 2006a, 2006b), for example, threatened the freedom to disagree with a persuasive message; Bensley & Wu (1991) threatened the freedom to consume alcohol with an alcohol abuse prevention message, and Fogarty and Youngs (2000) found that medical patients experienced reactance to physicians' directives and recommendations. Reactance occurs if the person receiving the threat acts in some way to restore or protect threatened free behaviors. (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991; Silvia, 2006b). A person acting to protect or restore a free behavior may engage in a prohibited behavior, act in a passive-aggressive manner to restore access to a lost freedom, or resist the source of the threat directly (Brehm, 1966; Seemann, et al, 2005). The boomerang effect (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Silvia, 2006b) is a common example in the existing literature of reactance to threat. The boomerang effect occurs when the participant acts against the direction of a coercive message or changes an expressed attitude or belief after encountering a threat that limits the freedom to choose. …