Reactance: why an injunction can produce the opposite of its aim

In 1966, in A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Jack Brehm put forward a simple idea. When people perceive that one of their freedoms is threatened, they experience a motivational state directed towards restoring that freedom.

Applied to opinions, the freedom at stake is that of thinking for oneself. A message felt as pressure can then make the position it opposes more attractive, simply because that position becomes once again a means of asserting one's autonomy. In this case, the content of the message matters less than the way it is delivered.

The research that followed converges on a few factors. Imperative language, the impression of being manipulated, the importance attached to the freedom concerned and the perception of an intention to persuade all strengthen the reaction, regardless of the quality of the arguments.

Its intensity also varies from one person to another. Some react sharply to the slightest instruction, others very little. This disposition does not coincide with any political orientation: it is found everywhere, as soon as a subject touches on what people regard as their own decision.

In its clearest form, reactance produces a boomerang effect: after the message, the person adheres more strongly to the position being opposed. This effect has been observed under certain conditions, notably in response to injunctions perceived as authoritarian.

It would nonetheless be wrong to conclude that all persuasion fails. Most often, reactance weakens the effect of a message rather than reversing it, and an argument presented without pressure retains part of its influence. Explicitly leaving the choice to the other person is among the means studied for limiting the reaction.

A first reading sees it as an obstacle. Useful information may be rejected for the sole reason that it is presented insistently, and reactance then protects errors rather than convictions.

A second reading sees it as a protection. Resisting pressure defends autonomy of judgement against attempts at influence, including ill-intentioned ones. Both readings are well founded, and the same reflex can play either role depending on the quality of the information and the intentions of whoever conveys it.

Faced with a strongly held position, it is useful to ask whether it was formed against an injunction. A conviction born in reaction is no less legitimate, but it depends in part on whatever it contradicts.

The marker is this: if the pressure disappeared, would the position be just as firm? When the answer is uncertain, reactance has probably contributed to the intensity of the opinion more than to its content.

For a questionnaire, the consequence is direct. Items worded without a prescriptive tone reduce the risk of defensive answers, and make it possible to measure a position rather than a reaction to the way it is asked for.