Psychological Reactance and Promotional Health Messages: The Effects of Controlling Language, Lexical Concreteness, and the Restoration of Freedom

Abstract

Recent social influence research utilizing psychological reactance theory (J. W. Brehm, 1966) has focused on how reactance motivates message rejection due to threats to perceived freedoms posed by controlling language. Although reactance has been shown to increase message rejection and source derogation, persuasive appeals employing alternative forms of restoration of freedom, as suggested by the theory, have received little if any empirical scrutiny. The present study manipulated the levels of controlling language and lexical concreteness within health messages targeting a young adult population. Results show a number of negative outcomes associated with the use of controlling language but suggest more positive outcomes associated with the use of restoration postscripts. Findings also indicate that relative to abstract language, messages using concrete language receive more attention, are viewed as more important, and generate more positive assessments of the source.

When Artificial Social Agents Try to Persuade People: The Role of Social Agency on the Occurrence of Psychological Reactance

“…[6,8,9,17,19,[21][22][23]25]. This research indicates that when language becomes more controlling, people are more prone to respond in 1 The original theory of psychological reactance [3] speaks of perceived freedom instead of perceived autonomy.…”

“…A study by Miller and colleagues [17] provided insights in the underlying processes leading to psychological reactance. This research indicated that the use of concrete (descriptive) language that avoids any doubts about the meaning of the message, resulted in more compliant behavior.…”

“…However, when a message contains controlling language (i.e., containing explicit directives) persuasion was diminished and psychological reactance was enhanced. Specifically, Miller and colleagues' results [17] indicate that highcontrolling language makes use of imperatives (i.e., commands and orders) and controlling terms such as "have to", "must", "should", "ought to", or "need to". On the other hand, low-controlling language makes use of terms like (i.e., suggestions) "could", "can", "may", "might", or "could try to" [17].…”

“…Specifically, Miller and colleagues' results [17] indicate that highcontrolling language makes use of imperatives (i.e., commands and orders) and controlling terms such as "have to", "must", "should", "ought to", or "need to". On the other hand, low-controlling language makes use of terms like (i.e., suggestions) "could", "can", "may", "might", or "could try to" [17]. High-controlling messages are directive and clearly show the persuaders intentions, whereas lowly controlling messages are experienced more as suggestions and as autonomy-supportive [17].…”

“…On the other hand, low-controlling language makes use of terms like (i.e., suggestions) "could", "can", "may", "might", or "could try to" [17]. High-controlling messages are directive and clearly show the persuaders intentions, whereas lowly controlling messages are experienced more as suggestions and as autonomy-supportive [17]. In short, Miller and colleagues [17] showed that when using a (low-controlling) concrete message, persuasion will be enhanced.…”