3
On the Nature of Reactance and Its Role in Persuasive Health Communication
It has been observed that public health campaigns often fail to produce the desired
persuasive effects (Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voulodakis, 2002). In fact, in some cases,
they produce results directly at odds with their intent (Hornik, 2002). The theory of
psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974) provides one
theoretical perspective through which these suasory miscarriages might be understood. The
theory contends that any persuasive message may arouse a motivation to reject the advocacy.
That motivation is called reactance.
The primary limiting factor in the application of reactance theory to public health
campaigns is the ephemeral nature of its central, explanatory construct. The creator of the theory
contends that reactance cannot be measured (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Although
that claim may have been accurate during the infancy of reactance theory, advances in the study
of persuasion since that time suggest that it should be reconsidered.
The rationale for this project is presented in four parts. First, we provide a brief overview
the theory of psychological reactance. Second, we examine reactance itself in more detail. Part of
this examination necessarily involves conceptualizing reactance along more contemporary lines.
Third, we consider a subset of the many variables that are likely to lead to reactance arousal and
propose a corresponding series of hypotheses. The general supposition is that the effect of these
variables on attitude is mediated by one or more of the alternative conceptualizations of
reactance. Fourth, two studies, designed to test that supposition, form the empirical core of this
paper.
Convention