Assessing the Unidimensionality of Trait Reactance Using a Multifaceted Model Assessment Approach

Abstract

This study employed a multifaceted model assessment approach to investigate the dimensionality and nomological network of a popular measure of trait reactance, the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS; Hong & Page, 1989 ). To address confusion regarding the scoring and modeling of the HPRS as well as its limited external validity evidence, we tested competing factor models, diagnosed model-data misfit, examined relationships between competing factor models and key personality traits, and cross-validated the results. Confirmatory factor analytic results supported modeling the HPRS via a bifactor model and, when this model was applied, trait reactance was negatively related to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and conformity, and positively related to entitlement, as expected. However, we also demonstrated the consequences of championing a 1-factor model by highlighting differences in relationships with external variables. Specifically, although modeling the HPRS scores with the bifactor model resulted in greater model-data fit than the 1-factor model, relationships with external variables based on the 2 models differed negligibly. Moreover, bifactor statistical indexes indicted that scores were essentially unidimensional, providing some support that HPRS scores can be treated as unidimensional in structure. Implications for using and scoring the HPRS are discussed.

The factorial structure of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale in two Finnish samples

“…In the present, relatively large, sample (N ¼ 624), both confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of the HPRS supported a one-factor solution. This finding contradicts some previous results suggesting a multifactorial structure for the scale (De las Cuevas et al, 2014;Hong & Faedda, 1996;Thomas et al, 2001), but supports (Jonason & Knowles, 2006) or is partly in line with others who advocate the use of a unitary HPRS score (Brown et al, 2011;Moreira et al, 2019;Yost & Finney, 2018). This discrepancy may stem from our use of the polychoric correlation matrix, while most previous studies have assumedly used the Pearson correlation matrix and thus, potentially, underestimated the associations between the ordinal-scale HPRS items.…”

“…10 This model did not include items 3, 5, 7, and 10, it achieved good model fit on only one of the fit indices, and it departs from the typical 14-or 11-item versions. The absence of some of the items could in part explain why the reduced unidimensional model showed the best fit, as previous research has suggested that trait reactance is a unidimensional construct, but that the HPRS artificially produces multiple factors due to similar item wording and/or content (Moreira et al, 2019;Yost & Finney, 2018). Therefore, by removing some of the items, the wording/content-specific overlap between the remaining items might have been reduced.…”

“…In Study 1, we assessed the fit of previously suggested factor structures of the HPRS in Finnish parents, which is a hitherto unstudied population within this context. Additionally, we attempted to replicate previous research indicating that trait reactance is negatively associated with the Big Five traits Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (Yost & Finney, 2018).…”

“…Jonason and Knowles (2006) argued for a one-factor solution (see also Jonason et al, 2010). Brown et al (2011; see also Yost & Finney, 2018) and Moreira et al (2019) argued for somewhat different bifactor models, while De las Cuevas et al (2014) observed that a two-factor model (cognitive, affective) provided the best fit in a sample of psychiatric outpatients. Regarding statistical methodology, Hong's original work has been criticized for implementing principal components analysis with orthogonal rotation 1 (Brown et al, 2011;Jonason & Knowles, 2006).…”

“…These negative associations were hypothesized to result from more agreeable individuals being more accepting towards relinquishing personal freedom due to their cooperative and compliant nature. On the other hand, those lower in Conscientiousness tend to be less responsible and dependable, which could also be related to a higher dislike of rules and regulations that should be relevant for reactance-propensity (Yost & Finney, 2018). This replication was motivated by the need to establish a nomological network of trait reactance, that is, demonstrate how trait reactance is related to other established individual difference variables (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993;Seemann et al, 2005).…”