Psychological Reactance: The Role of Individualism and Collectivism

Imagine that someones choice to do something that he feels he has the right and freedom to do has been taken away, such as drinking a beer at a restaurant. What would his reaction to this be?  Would he be angry or want that beer even more?  Now suppose that he was given viable explanations for these prohibitions. The inventory of beer has been contaminated and is unsafe to drink. At this point, would he be more persuaded that the restriction placed upon him is justified?
 The purpose of this study is to investigate persuasion and psychological reactance in relation to collectivism and individualism. There has been little research in this specific area, but the studies that have been conducted on this topic show that there is a difference in these effects based on a collectivistic or individualistic belief structure (Han & Shavitt, 1994).
Psychological reactance theory was first proposed by Brehm (1966) and is conceptualized as a motivating factor that pushes individuals to seek the restoration of a previously restricted or eliminated freedom in the event that the individuals personal choices and rights have been threatened or eradicated. The resulting actions from this motivation are reactance effects and can be conveyed in many different ways, including behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally. Brehm states that while most reactance effects can be perceived as defiance, they can manifest either directly or indirectly. Individuals can directly engage in the banned behavior. However, they do not have to partake in the behavior directly in order to produce a reactance effect. They can indirectly partake in the behavior by watching others partake, participating in a related behavior, or display anger and hostility towards the source of the restriction (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981).
When it was first proposed, reactance was approached as a situation-specific construct, but many researchers now argue that reactance would be more accurately described as an individual difference, or trait-specific variable (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991; Hong & Page, 1989; Jahn & Lichstein, 1980; Merz, 1983; Thomas, Donnell, & Buboltz, 2001). Certain individuals are simply more reactive to restricted freedoms and behaviors, in comparison to others. Still other researchers believe that reactance is a combination of both state and trait characteristics (Shoham-Salomon, Avner, & Neeman, 1989).
Brehm (1966) asserts that there are several different methods by which to arouse reactance, including perceived importance of the prohibited behavior, duration of the limitation, and possibility of similar, acceptable alternatives. The proposed study will focus on sufficient or insufficient justification and reactance arousal. If the freedom is restricted and the individual perceives the prohibition as unjustified, then there is a greater likelihood of reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). For example, an individual wants to drink in a particular bar, but the bouncer does not allow her to enter the bar. If the bouncer provides no explanations as to why she is not allowed inside, that individual would be more likely to react, compared to if the bouncer provided sufficient justification (i.e., she is underage and cannot drink legally, or the bar has already reached maximum occupancy so allowing more people inside would be a fire hazard).
In much of the research on attitude change, resistance to persuasion, and especially reactance, an important factor that is rarely taken into consideration is the value systems of collectivism and individualism. By examining these two value structures, the proposed study could provide better understanding of the different conditions under which reactance might or might not occur, given sufficient justification for the eliminated freedom. Furthermore, with the debate of reactance being a situational factor, dispositional factor, or both, collectivism and individualism might present more information as to when reactance would be more likely.
Often times, collectivism and individualism are conceptualized as being on opposite sides of a single construct. However, according to Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002), this is not necessarily always the case. It would be more precise to see them as different value systems or views that affect the way individuals perceive their environments (Kwan & Singelis, 1998). The individualistic and collectivistic beliefs structures are one of the underlying mechanisms for individuals opinions, thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Because of their strong influence on individuals values, decisions, and actions, these structures should be taken into consideration because they could be potential moderators of the previously discussed effects, mainly persuasion and reactance.
The proposed study will examine the moderating effects of a collectivistic or individualistic value system on attitude change and psychological reactance. There have been very few studies that examine the impact of these value systems on attitude change and even fewer studies on reactance. These value systems may influence individuals reactance due to their perceptions of sufficient justification. Furthermore, by investigating collectivism and individualism, this study might be able to clarify reactance as being state-specific or trait-specific.
It is expected that participants will display the most reactance when no justifications or explanations are provided after introducing the behavior that will be restricted in the study. When a justification is given, whether it does or does not match the value systems that they hold, either collectivistic or individualistic, reactance will be less compared to when no explanation is given. Participants will be the least reactive when explanations or justification match, or are consistent, with their collectivistic or individualistic value systems because at that point, participants will perceive sufficient justification for the restriction of their behavior or choices. If collectivistic participants are given a collectivistic argument regarding the reasons for restricting a particular behavior, they will be more persuaded and less likely to react because those arguments will provide valid explanations for that limitation. The same should be true for individualistic participants. They will be less reactive if the provided justifications emphasize individualistic values and beliefs. However, in general, participants with an individualistic value system will be more reactive than collectivistic participants because individualists hold personal choices and freedoms in higher regard than collectivists.
Method
Participants
Approximately 240 undergraduate university students will participate in the proposed study. Participants must be at least 18 years of age or older. Participants will be recruited from undergraduate psychology courses. In exchange for their participation, participants will be given a voucher, which can be used for extra credit in a psychology course according to the instructors policy. The time commitment for the study will be thirty minutes.
Design
This experimental study will have a between-subjects design. The independent variable will be the type of justification the participants will receive after reading that a particular behavior will be restricted. The justification will give reasons for the restriction and will map onto either collectivistic or individualistic values. In a third, control condition, participants will receive no justification. Thus, there will be three levels of justification (collectivistic, individualistic, and no justification). The dependent variable will be psychological reactance, which will be measured using an attitude measure (corresponding to the restricted behavior) assessed before and after the justification manipulation. Collectivism or individualism will be examined as a potential moderator of the effects of these conditions on persuasion and psychological reactance.
Procedure
Research assistants working on this project will recruit participants from undergraduate psychology classes. The project will be described as a study investigating the current views of college students. This study will be completely anonymous, so research assistants will specifically inform participants not to give any identifying information, except for when signing up to participate in the proposed project. For those who are interested in the study, they will be given an informed consent to read through. They will then sign up for a lab appointment to come into the research lab to participate in the study on the computer.
As the participants enter the lab, the attending research assistant will direct them to a computer. The computer program containing the study will already be open. The participant will then complete the computer questionnaire. First, participants will answer questions regarding their demographics and background information. They will then respond to the attitudes measure (Time 1), the trait reactance scales, and the collectivism/individualism scales. After those scales, the participants will be exposed to the issue and manipulation (i.e., justification for restricted behavior).  
The issue being utilized in this study that will hopefully elicit a reaction from participants will be the elimination of student participation in research studies for extra credit in psychology classes. They will be told that research participation will now be mandatory in all psychology courses and will account for a particular percentage of their final grades in those classes. For all conditions, the beginning paragraph of the arguments will be the same. After introducing the issue, will be exposed to one of three conditions  two experimental conditions, where justifications will either map onto individualistic beliefs or collectivistic values, and one control condition, where participants will not be exposed to any arguments or justifications. Lastly, the attitudes measure (Time 2) will appear again to assess their reactance to the manipulation. All items will appear on the computer screen one at a time.
Upon completion of the questionnaire computer program, the participants will be debriefed and given a voucher for extra credit in a psychology course as specified by the course instructor.
Measures
Individualism-Collectivism Scale. The Individualism-Collectivism Scale (ICS; Triandis, 1995) assesses collectivism and individualism at an individual level. The scale has 32 items total, with 16 items assessing collectivism and another 16 items measuring individualism. Response sets range from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Sample items include I feel it is all right to depend on family and friends for many important things and One should be independent of others as much as possible.
Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS; Hong & Page, 1989) looks at reactance on four different factors (freedom of choice, conformity reactance, behavioral freedom, and reactance to advice and recommendations). There are 14 items total, with answer choices ranging from one (disagree completely) to five (agree completely). Sample items include Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in me and When someone forces me to do something, I feel like doing the opposite.
Attitudes measure. This measure will assess participants opinions on the previously described issue (mandatory instead of optional research participation). Time 1 will be used as a baseline assessment, and Time 2 will be the outcome measure. This measure will have 8 items, examining their thoughts and feelings toward optional research participation (4 items) and mandatory research participation (4 items). Participants will respond to statements regarding their opinions on a response set ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). Sample items include I prefer to participate in research studies for extra credit in psychology classes and I think it would be beneficial if all students were required to participate in research studies.
Discussion
It is expected that participants will be most reactive when they are not provided any justification for the restriction. Participants should be the most persuaded and least reactive when they are given justifications that match their collectivistic or individualistic belief systems.  
If the hypothesis is supported, then participants would display the least reactance when they are provided with justifications that match their cultural beliefs and the most reactance when no justification is provided. Significant findings resulting from the proposed study can be utilized in understanding the impact of collectivism and individualism in psychological reactance. If collectivism and individualism are found to be significant moderators for persuasion and/or reactance, this understanding could be applied in many different areas. Some research has already demonstrated that realizing these cultural differences in quite important, such as in business and marketing. In the realm of psychology, acknowledging potential differences between collectivists and individualists might be helpful in tailoring persuasive messages, counseling programs, and rules in order to maximize persuasion and minimize reactance. If messages and programs are framed in a way that is consistent with peoples beliefs and values, they might be more persuaded and less reactive because the messages map onto something that is central and influential to their belief structure.
If the hypothesis is not supported, then there would be no difference in reactive feelings, regardless of the justifications provided. Matching justification arguments to cultural beliefs would have no effect on whether or not the participants would experience reactance to having a particular right taken away. In this case, it would not matter the type of justification provided to different cultures. So then, there would be no need to tailor persuasive messages to individualistic or collectivistic cultures since no difference would have been found between the two. Regardless of whether or not the message is framed in a way that is consistent with their belief systems, people would be just as reactive.
A potential limitation that might occur could be that the arguments or justifications supposedly tailored to individualistic or collectivistic cultures might not be strong enough. For instance, the collectivistic justifications that will be used might not adequately emphasize the values systems, opinions, and goals associated with the culture. As a result, the justifications would not be sufficient to reduce reactance, even though the justification is tailored to a collectivistic audience. In this case, it would be argument strength, and not the justifications associated with individualistic or collectivistic cultures, that would fail to yield significant results.
Future research could investigate other factors that might have an influence on reactance (i.e., gender, age). It is possible that sufficient justification to reduce reactance could be perceived as different depending on these factors, such that men and women could view justifications differently. There could also be differences between college students and the elderly. Further investigation of reactance and sufficient justification is important because of their implications in the area of persuasion.
 References
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Brehm, J. W., & Brehm, S. S. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The therapeutic reactance scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 541-545.
Han, S., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 326-350.
Hong, S. M., & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure, and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64, 1323-1326.
Merz, J. (1983). Questionnaire for measuring psychological reactance. Diagonistica, 29, 75-82.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Shoham-Salomon, V., Avner, R., & Neeman, R. (1989). Youre changed if you do and changed if you dont: Mechanisms underlying paradoxical interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 590-598.
Jahn, D., & Lichstein, K. L. (1980). The resistive client: A neglected phenomenon in behavior therapy. Behavior Modification, 4, 303-320.
Kwan, V. S., & Singelis, T. M. (1998, August). Panculture expansions for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Paper presented at the Stanford Mini-Conference on Cultural Psychology, Palo Alto, CA.
Thomas, A., Donnell, A. J., & Buboltz, W. C. (2001). The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 2-13.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.