Theories in Social Psychology. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
with the threatener. However, in this study there is an indirect interaction. Baer et al.’s (1980) study assesses the extent to which the expression of autonomy moderated by self-presentation can reduce psychological reactance. Though their research tested a similar hypothesis to Brehm and Mann (1975) study, which did not find differences in psychological reactance in public and private expressions of autonomy, they used a different experimental design than the 1975 study. They randomly assigned respondents to each of the experimental conditions to ensure that they were not primed in the public or private attitude conditions. The study utilized a 3 (prior exercise of freedom: public exercise, private exercise, no exercise) × 2 (threat: mild or severe) × 2 (manner of postcommunication attitude disclosure: public or private) factorial design. The study hypothesized that the prior exercise of public expression of freedom condition would more likely reduce reactance than private and nonprior conditions since it acted as a mechanism for the projecting of autonomy. The study also found that postcommunication attitude change occurred in the opposite direction to the threatening communication, and only in the projection of autonomy condition, that is the public postcommunication condition.
The findings of Baer et al. (1980) suggest that private attitudes, although maintaining autonomy, do not allow for the projection of autonomy and are unable to reduce psychological reactance. The major findings of the study support the self-presentation model of projected autonomy in the reduction of psychological reactance. This held true whether the expression of the autonomy was prior or subsequent to the threat. The inability of projecting autonomy motivated people to engage in postcommunication reactance attenuation.
Social exchange theory suggests that norms of reciprocity underlie social interaction, and people are motivated to return rewards and favors of others (Homans, 1974). Counter to the social exchange proposition on norms of reciprocity, Brehm and Cole (1966) argue that favors and rewards may provoke non-reciprocation. They posit that the favored person will experience reactance because there is a pressure, as a result of the norms of reciprocity (see Gouldner, 1960), to return the favor which is interpreted as a threat to one’s freedom. The intensity of reactance actually experienced will result from the degree to which one will want to be freed from the pressures of reciprocation, that is returning the favor. The authors (p. 420) note:
If a person thought he was free to engage in Behaviors X, Y, and Z, and Behavior X were then somehow made impossible, he would experience reactance and would be motivated to recover his freedom to engage in X. Conversely, if he were “forced” to engage in X, his consequent reactance would lead him to avoid X and attempt Y or Z.
The reactance reduction strategy may involve the elimination of any sense of obligation toward the favorer and show little or no gratitude to the favorer. Reactance theory also questions the hypothesis on the inverse relationship between group attractiveness and disagreement with others in groups – that is, as group attractiveness increases, group disagreement within the group decreases. Brehm and Mann’s (1975) study hypothesizes that threats to freedoms of low importance encourage a direct relationship between group attractiveness and movement toward the group position. However, there is an inverse relationship between group attractiveness and gravitation to group position in conditions of high importance of freedom. The findings showed that a boomerang effect (i.e., reactance resistance) occurred privately and pushed behaviors toward public display of this effect in the high importance of freedom condition with pressure for conformity.
However, modifications of this condition (high importance of freedom condition with pressure for change), with the removal of the pressure but keeping the high importance of freedom, created a sleeper effect (i.e., change occurring but not immediately), with private opinion modifying in a positive direction toward the group.
The Forbidden Fruit
Messages are sources of information. Reactance theory emphasizes the sensitivity of the message in persuasion. For example, in one of the many studies undertaken in this area, Bushman (1998) assesses the relationship between reactance and warning labels, that is to what extent were warning labels viewed by consumers as a constraint to their choice of freely using a product – did labels create the effect of “forbidden fruit” or “tainted fruit”? The forbidden fruit theory underlies psychological reactance in that restrictions on the acquisition of something act as a constraint on our freedom, inducing reactance. Proscribed behaviors become more attractive and reduce reactance. Authoritative warning labels on products may create a boomerang effect, making the product more appealing to the consumer.
Bushman posits that the tainted fruit theory reduces attractiveness to the product because consumers conceptualize warning labels as signals of possible harm. However, citing Bushman and Stack (1996) and Snyder and Blood (1992), he notes that research is more supportive of attraction than repulsion by warning labels. Utilizing information labels, warning labels (information labels from an authoritative source), and no label (no warning/information label) on a high caloric product, Bushman found that though the warning label and no label conditions were more attractive, people were less likely to taste the product in the information and warning label conditions. Bushman (2006) also found that warning labels on violent television programs across five age groups (ranging from 9 to 21 years and over) were more likely to attract persons in these groups to the violent program than information labels and no label. Psychological reactance was utilized to explain the attraction to the “forbidden fruit.”
Gender (Nature–Nurture)
Is psychological reactance only experienced and displayed by those who have an understanding of their sense of freedom? As Brehm and Weinraub (1977) put it, must there be complex cognitive ability for psychological reactance to be displayed, in that an understanding of sense of freedom is needed for the arousal of psychological reactance? Their study utilized children (boys and girls) at the age of 2 and randomly assigned them to one of three physical barrier conditions: (1) a large physical barrier with identical objects behind the barrier; (2) a large barrier with dissimilar objects; and (3) a small barrier with dissimilar objects. Boys were more attracted to objects in the second condition, while girls were more attracted to objects in the third condition. The boys were more sensitized to situations of threats to their freedom to freely obtain objects behind the barriers. Once the desired object was obtained, there was a decrease in psychological reactance, and factors other than reactance became influential, including the intrinsic attraction of toys and attention span. Girls were more likely to approach objects that were less difficult to obtain. This study demonstrated that there are motivational processes that may transcend cognitive ability in the arousal of psychological reactance. Possible explanations proposed in the study for the gender differences in the findings include a greater emphasis on visual cues by boys and verbal cues by girls (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), the higher accommodation of restrictions by girls than boys, and the evasion of obstacles by boys (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969).
Social Influence
Reactance is also a function of pressure to comply (social influence), varying from subtle to outright attempts to achieve compliance. A consequence of social influence is its eroding effect on an individual’s effort to exert influence in a social setting. For example, Brehm and Sensenig (1966) argue that social influence that leads to the usurpation of choice, especially when we are aware of our freedom to make a particular choice, will arouse reactance, resulting in rejection of the source of the social influence. Their study showed that the continuing evaluation of perception of threat was a function of the magnitude of reactance and inclination toward the denunciation of the social influence.
How does reactance or compliant behavior influence regret? Crawford et al. (2002) assess the relationship among reactance, compliance, regret, and persuasive attempts at changing behavior. In assessing anticipated regret, the study found that individuals were more likely to estimate higher regret for any loss if reactant behavior rather than compliance was likely to be displayed to a persuasive attempt. However, in actuality, in an attempt to reduce anticipated regret, individuals were more likely to engage in complying behavior to a request. In fact, individuals displaying anticipated regret and compliant behavior, as against persons