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

Abstract

Psychological assessment scales need to be psychometrically sound, but previous research on the factorial structure of one of the most common measures of trait reactance, the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS), has provided multiple latent structures and contradicting findings, and the statistical methodology of previous research can be criticized. These issues raise questions regarding the interpretability and usefulness of the HPRS as a measure of trait reactance. In this two-part study, we followed contemporary statistical recommendations and tested the fit of 12 previously observed factor solutions of the HPRS using confirmatory factor analysis in two relatively large Finnish samples (n ¼ 624 & 518). Furthermore, we tested what factor structure was supported by a data-driven exploratory factor analysis approach. Both our confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses supported a one-factor solution for the HPRS. However, in the exploratory analyses, the single factor accounted for only approximately 40% of the total variance. Our results also indicated that a reduced scale provided the best fit in our confirmatory analyses. Combined, these findings imply that the HPRS could use some improvement. Finally, to shed more light on the reactance construct and the construct validity of the HPRS, we replicated previous research showing negative associations between trait reactance and the Big Five Agreeableness and Conscientiousness traits.

Everything Under Control? The Impact of Electronic Monitoring Type and Social Norms on Privacy and Reactance

“…Cronbach’s α was .83. The cognitive component of reactance was measured with five adapted items from the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (Waris et al, 2020; e.g., “I will resist my employer’s attempt to monitor me electronically” or “The described electronic monitoring has triggered a sense of resistance in me”). Cronbach’s α was .63.…”

Testing psychological inoculation to reduce reactance to vaccine-related communication

“…Trait reactance was measured with the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS; Hong and Page, 1989). Of the 14 items that are included in the scale, we presented nine that have been shown to result in a satisfactory one-factor solution in Finnish samples (Waris et al, 2021). Participants responded to the items on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).…”

“…The CFA showed that the one-factor solution for the HPRS scale suggested by Waris et al (2021) fit the data well when including two residual correlations between indicators, χ 2 (25) = 150.89, CFI = .977, TLI = .967, RMSEA = .084; 90% CI[.072, .097], SRMR = .046 (Table S5). One-way ANOVAs with group (six levels; 2 [inoculation] x 3 [threat to freedom]) as independent variable and the HPRS and the 5C variables as dependent measures did not show any statistically significant differences between groups, indicating that the groups were balanced on trait reactance and vaccine attitude (Table S6).…”

Gestión y salud pública: estrategias y políticas alternativas

“…No solo las personas reconocían y reconocen los significados en torno al quehacer en estos casos, sino también, sobre el cómo hacerlo. Esto es, China cuenta con un desarrollo económico y sociocultural para hacer que estas herramientas medico sociales se estructuren como estrategias y políticas alternativas de cerco y aniquilamiento epidemiológico, garantizando así su éxito en tiempos cortos (Waris et al, 2020). Otro factor es la estructura de la organización social en China por varios, sectores, provincias, zonas demográficas regionales, etc., que le permite al Partido Comunista de China garantizar el cumplimiento de las normas, en la comunidad.…”