steve's primer of practical persuasion version 2.0
Reactance Theory: But I Wanted That One!
If you are around a bunch of toddlers someday and are feeling like a social scientist, you can try this experiment. All you need is some time and a large piece of plexiglass. First, observe the children in a play setting and determine each child's preference for toys. Ultimately you must find for each child two toys that are about equally liked.
The second thing you need to do is select one child, the child's two toys, and the large sheet of plexiglass. Then put the two toys in front of the child about three or four feet apart. Now, put the large piece of plex in front of one toy such that the child can easily see the toy, but because of the plexiglass, cannot get to it. Now let the kid pick a toy.
What happens?
Of course, the child immediately toddles over to the toy with the plexiglass barrier and starts wailing. He will plow into the glass like a little robot. He will pound on the plex. He will try to crawl over it like a Marine in boot camp. He will do everything but go after the other toy that is freely and easily available to him. He wants THAT one!
Children are so silly, aren't they? And a perfect illustration of reactance. According to this theory of reactance, whenever we perceive a threat to our freedom of action, we experience a state of reactance. We get angry. We are being unfairly put upon. We pound on the plex. We want THAT one!
Kids provide daily examples of reactance. But so do adults.
Did you hear about the Great Detergent Riots? This one is amazing. In the 1960s a city in Florida banned the sale of detergents that contained phosphates. You could not own Tide or Cheer or Whisk if it had phosphates in it. Now, it is important to note that phosphates have no impact whatsoever on the cleaning effectiveness of the detergent. The phosphates were banned for environmental reasons.
Here's the amazing part. In the weeks before the ban went into effect, stores reported a run on phosphate-containing detergents. Not the "clean" detergents. Just the ones with phosphates. And, after the ban when into effect, stores in the city limits reported a drop in the sale of their detergents. Instead, stores outside the city limits reported increases in the sales of their phosphate-laden detergents!
Process Of The Theory
Reactance Theory is really quite simple. It operates in three simple steps that are sequentially connected. Pay close attention to the first step because it is the key and defining feature of Reactance Theory.
Step 1. People perceive an unfair restriction on their actions.
The key word here is, "unfair." People can accept restrictions, but they must feel that the restriction is reasonable, equal, and just. For a toddler, the unfair restriction is the plexiglass panel. For adults, the unfair restriction is the banned phosphates. Something is denied and that denial is unreasonable, unjust, and maybe even un-American.
Another classic example concerns teen-age dating. Take a case where a daughter brings home a young man who is totally unacceptable to her father. If the father were to "ban" dating that boy, he would run the risk of eliciting reactance from the daughter. Indeed, this is almost a cliché and everyone knows of an instance where a hardheaded parent literally drove a child into the arms of an undesirable partner.
When the restriction is unfair (they don't know why it was applied, or it only applies for some people, or it is too tough), the next stage occurs. It may sound familiar.
Step 2. A state of reactance is activated.
Reactance is an intense motivational state. A person with reactance is emotional, single-minded, and somewhat irrational. It arises because we have been wronged and we aren't gonna take it anymore. Reactance is important to understand because it has strong motivational properties and leads to the final stage.
Step 3. The person must act to remove the reactance.
The motivational qualities of reactance are so strong that the person must do something about it. The reactance cannot be ignored or put aside. In particular the person is motivated to either "right the wrong" or to get around the restriction. In other words, people with reactance will try to get the unfair restriction removed or they will try to subvert the restriction.
Another consequence of reactance at Step Three is that people will tend to overvalue the action that was unfairly restricted. In the study on detergents, housewives rated the phosphate-based detergent as a better cleaning product than the one without phosphates even though phosphates have no real chemical impact on cleaning.
If you think about reactance, you realize that it operates a lot like dissonance in consistency theory. Both reactance and dissonance are powerful motivating agents. It is reasonable to think of reactance as a special type of dissonance. Reactance, while very similar, has one distinctive feature. People experience reactance when someone else does something to them (the unfair restriction). Dissonance, by contrast, is experienced when people themselves do some thing inconsistent.
Real Life Implications
I think you need to know about Reactance for one very important reason. Virtually everyone has some power to create and enforce rules, procedures, events, etc. You decide what will happen, when it will happen, in what order, and by whom. You need to realize that if you use that power in a way that is perceived as an unfair restriction on your target’s freedom, they will be unhappy campers. And the reason this occurs is reactance.
Everyone has had the bewildering and enraging experience of giving a "lawful order" and then seeing people erupt in defiance and rebellion. What this theory suggests is that we somehow or another managed to present the order in a way that pushed the Reactance button.
When this happens, nothing good follows and people usually don't like each other, too. Instead of dealing with the problem the new order was supposed to fix, you are dealing with the problems caused by giving the order. This is not effective.
Worse still, some of us do not respond well when our targets question our authority. We then get defensive and strike back at this unbelievable display of insolent aggression and put them in their place. We'll show 'em this time. Lob in a couple of nukes. This, too, is not effective.
Remember, reactance is not a logical or reasonable response. It is the reaction of a highly motivated, emotional person who believes that a serious injustice has been perpetrated. It does no good to ignore the reactance, nor is it a good idea to fight the reactance. Fighting the reactance throws more fuel on the fire, giving the person an even stronger motivation to rebel, to resist, to deny.
So, what does it all mean?
First, when you sense that your targets are responding with reactance, take a step back. The situation is telling you that you probably need to take a few minutes to understand what is going on and to try and understand how everyone is reacting. This is a great moment to apply all your effective communication skills. What you are trying to find is the "unfair restriction."
Second, when you are making rules, present them in a way that is likely to minimize Reactance. Remember, Reactance comes from perceived unfairness, not from the rule itself. People do not tend to object to rules, but rather how those rules are developed, presented, or interpreted. Several tactics are effective here.
First, provide a rationale or explanation, then present the rules. If everyone first understand the "problem," they are more likely to accept the "solution" without Reactance.
Second, involve the targets in making the rules. Certainly there are some situations where your targets cannot make all the rules, but there must be areas you think they can handle this responsibility. If people participate in the rule-making, it is almost impossible for reactance to occur. The process is inherently fair and reasonable if everyone is involved in it (taxation with representation, right?).
Third, accept feedback on the rules and modify them appropriately. If during your presentation of rules, a student has a good suggestion, use it. Change a rule. Maybe even throw one out. And if you want to be a Serious Influence Agent, you might even put in a rule or two that you know is outrageous so that you can trade it off when your targets object (remember door-in-the-face?).
References And Recommended Readings
Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brehm, J., & Weintraub, M. (1977). Physical barriers and psychological reactance: 2-year-olds response to threats to freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 830-836.
