Salzburger State Reactance Scale (SSR Scale)

Sittenthaler, Sandra; Traut‐Mattausch, Eva; Steindl, Christina; Jonas, Eva

doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000227

Cited by 44 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also found that control-averse behavior was accompanied by negative affects ( Dillard and Shen, 2005 ) and the motivation to restore one's freedom of choice ( Brehm, 1966 ; Miron and Brehm, 2006 ). This is consistent with previous research on reactance that has focused on behavioral intentions in hypothetical scenarios ( Sittenthaler et al, 2015 ) or behavior in nonsocial settings ( Chartrand et al, 2007 ). Our study complements and extends this research by providing evidence of the motivation to act against the restriction of one's freedom of choice during social decisions with actual consequences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Neural Mechanisms Underlying Individual Differences in Control-Averse Behavior

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When another person tries to control one's decisions, some people might comply, but many will feel the urge to act against that control. This control aversion can lead to suboptimal decisions and it affects social interactions in many societal domains. To date, however, it has been unclear what drives individual differences in control-averse behavior. Here, we address this issue by measuring brain activity with fMRI while healthy female and male human participants made choices that were either free or controlled by another person, with real consequences to both interaction partners. In addition, we assessed the participants' affects, social cognitions, and motivations via self-reports. Our results indicate that the social cognitions perceived distrust and lack of understanding for the other person play a key role in explaining control aversion at the behavioral level. At the neural level, we find that control-averse behavior can be explained by functional connectivity between the inferior parietal lobule and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, brain regions commonly associated with attention reorientation and cognitive control. Further analyses reveal that the individual strength of functional connectivity complements and partially mediates the self-reported social cognitions in explaining individual differences in control-averse behavior. These findings therefore provide valuable contributions to a more comprehensive model of control aversion.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Control aversion is a prevalent phenomenon in our society. When someone tries to control their decisions, many people tend to act against the control. This can lead to suboptimal decisions such as noncompliance to medical treatments or disobeying the law. The degree to which individuals engage in control-averse behavior, however, varies significantly. Understanding the proximal mechanisms that underlie individual differences in control-averse behavior has potential policy implications, for example, when designing policies aimed at increasing compliance with vaccination recommendations, and is therefore a highly relevant research goal. Here, we identify a neural mechanism between parietal and prefrontal brain regions that can explain individual differences in control-averse behavior. This mechanism provides novel insights into control aversion beyond what is accessible through self-reports.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Neural Mechanisms Underlying Individual Differences in Control-Averse Behavior

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Building on the classic measure of reactance, that is, the decrease in attractiveness of an imposed option (Brehm, 1966; Brehm and Brehm, 1981), we assessed participants’ ratings of the initiative’s actions. To provide another measure of reactance, we used items of the validated Salzburger State Reactance Scale (SSR Scale; Sittenthaler et al, 2015). On a scale ranging from 1 ( not at all ) to 5 ( very much/strong ), participants evaluated their current experience of reactance ( α = 0.90, seven items, M = 2.33, SD = 0.69, e.g., “To what extent do you perceive the implementation of the initiative as a restriction of freedom?”) and behavioral intentions ( α = 0.80, four items, M = 1.88, SD = 0.92, e.g., “How strong is your desire to complain about the implementation to the curricular committee?”).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We randomly assigned participants to the voluntary ( n = 32) or mandatory ( n = 33) condition. As in Study 1, we afterward assessed participants’ experience of reactance and behavioral intentions (Sittenthaler et al, 2015; experience of reactance: M = 1.93, SD = 0.70; α = 0.85; behavioral intentions: M = 1.47, SD = 0.49; α = 0.71).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indirect freedom restoration can be achieved by observing others, who show the forbidden behavior or motivating others to engage in the behavior, or aggressively forcing the suppressor to remove the threat. Besides these behavioral reactions, reactance is accompanied by subjective reactions: restricted individuals experience anger or annoyance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm and Brehm, 1981; Dillard and Shen, 2005; Sittenthaler et al, 2015) and find the affected options more attractive than before (Brehm and Brehm, 1981; for an overview of reactance theory, see Miron and Brehm, 2006; Steindl et al, 2015; Muehlberger and Jonas, 2019). For example, recommendations to eat healthy food increased people’s choice of unhealthy alternatives (Fitzsimons and Lehmann, 2004), and learning about the health risks of smoking resulted in a greater desire for cigarettes and more positive attitudes toward smoking (e.g., Hylland and Birrell, 1979; Hansen et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Turning Restriction Into Change: Imagine-Self Perspective Taking Fosters Advocacy of a Mandatory Proenvironmental Initiative

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandatory policies are needed to mitigate environmental problems but often elicit resistance if individuals perceive them as freedom restrictions. Encouraging people to take the perspective of individuals who suffer from environmental problems may help increase support. This should especially be the case with imagine-self as opposed to imagine-other perspective taking, because the former elicits more personal involvement than the latter. To test this hypothesis, we conducted two studies in which we announced the introduction of a voluntary vs. a mandatory proenvironmental initiative and asked people to take an imagine-self vs. imagine-other perspective on an individual, who suffers from human-caused environmental problems. The imagine-self condition increased the support of mandatory compared to voluntary initiatives. In addition, we found an influence of environmental attitude: the mandatory initiatives received higher support than voluntary initiatives by environmentally minded individuals. These findings highlight imagine-self perspective taking as a potentially useful tool for implementing proenvironmental policies.

show abstract

“…To account for the possibility that the peer effects on control-averse behavior might be moderated by subjects’ general tendency to rebel against restrictions of their freedom of choice, we asked subjects to fill in a German version of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS) 19,20,36 . The HPRS consists of 14 items that describe general attitudes and habits.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer effects on control-averse behavior

Rudorf

Baumgärtner

Knoch

2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The urge to rebel against external control affects social interactions in many domains of our society with potentially far-reaching consequences. Nevertheless, it has remained unclear to what degree this control-averse behavior might be influenced by the people in our surroundings, our peers. In an experimental paradigm with real restrictions of the subjects’ freedom of choice and no systematic incentives to follow the peer, we are able to demonstrate both negative and positive peer effects on control-averse behavior. First, we find that information about a peer’s strongly control-averse behavior, although irrelevant for the subjects’ outcome, increases the subjects’ individual control-averse behavior. Second, we find that information about a peer’s more generous and only weakly control-averse behavior increases subjects’ generous behavior, even though it is associated with greater costs for the subjects. Critically, each subject’s behavior determined the monetary payoff of both the subject and a third person, thereby constituting a social behavior with actual consequences. Interestingly, these peer effects are not moderated by self-assessments of the general resistance to peer influence or the general tendency to rebel against restrictions of one’s freedom of choice. Contributing new insights into a complex and highly relevant social phenomenon, our results indicate that information about a single peer’s behavior can influence individual control-averse behavior.

show abstract

Salzburger State Reactance Scale (SSR Scale)

Cited by 44 publications

References 52 publications

Neural Mechanisms Underlying Individual Differences in Control-Averse Behavior

Neural Mechanisms Underlying Individual Differences in Control-Averse Behavior

Turning Restriction Into Change: Imagine-Self Perspective Taking Fosters Advocacy of a Mandatory Proenvironmental Initiative

Peer effects on control-averse behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About