Characterizing Reactance in Communication Research: A Review of Conceptual and Operational Approaches

Abstract

Psychological reactance, or simply reactance, has become a major concept of interest in communication research. Although this spike in scholarly attention has greatly advanced our understanding of reactance as a communication effect, its growing popularity has been accompanied by lack of conceptual and operational precision and agreement. This review characterizes the wide spectrum of approaches to defining, labeling, and examining reactance in communication research, summarizing major areas of variability. The overall landscape suggests that greater methodological consensus is needed, and there is opportunity to build on prior explications to hone the best approaches to measuring this phenomenon. Ideas for future research are offered to help guide (1) refinement and expansion of current prevailing methodologies, (2) development of measures appropriate to a broader range of communication contexts, and (3) use of more precise and consistent reactance terminology in the communication literature.

Are some narratives better than others?: The impact of different narrative forms on adolescents’ intentions to text and drive

“…Freedom threats trigger psychological reactance, and how to best model reactance is the focus of a growing program of research (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Rains, 2013; Ratcliff, 2019). Dillard and Shen (2005) postulated that reactance is the product of an intertwined model of affect (anger) and cognition (negative thoughts).…”

“…Psychological reactance theory is still being adapted and translated in communication research and one of the goals in advancing the framework is to continue to examine alternative model formulations (Quick & Stephenson, 2008; Ratcliff, 2019). For example, researchers are examining the strength of loadings for unfavorable cognitions and anger on state‐based reactance (Kim et al., 2017; Quick & Considine, 2008; Rains & Turner, 2007).…”

“…However, in line with recommendations of the entertainment overcoming resistance model (Moyer‐Gusé & Nabi, 2010), narrative studies measuring reactance often do not capture anger (e.g.,Keer et al., 2013; Moyer‐Gusé et al., 2012; Quintero Johnson & Sangalang, 2017). How anger operates in narrative reactance studies needs to be examined (Ratcliff, 2019). A separated model posits that anger and negative thoughts should be treated as separate variables in psychological reactance theory but modeled as a sequential chain.…”

“…Whether the intertwined model (i.e., freedom threat → intertwined anger and negative thoughts; Dillard & Shen, 2005) is the optimal way to model and test reactance in narrative communication contexts has not been established and requires further study (Ratcliff, 2019). Thus, a secondary goal of this study is to test whether the intertwined model, or another model, is optimal for capturing narrative effects on reactance.…”

Is Involvement a Good Thing? The Undesirable Consequences of Topical and Conversational Involvement in the Context of Alcohol Consumption

“…Therefore, whereas our findings usefully advance understanding of involvement in the context of conversations about alcohol, we argue for research that seeks to replicate our findings and to additionally test these self-protective and reactance-focused possible explanations. Such work would benefit from methods designed to measure defensive processing, counterarguments and other markers of reactance (e.g., Quick, Shen, & Dillard, 2013;Ratcliff, 2019), and internalization of negative associations of alcohol (e.g., Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998).…”