How Should Politicians Justify Reforms to Avoid Psychological Reactance, Negative Attitudes, and Financial Dishonesty?

Abstract

Necessary changes through political reforms meant to solve current problems can be justified in different ways. Politicians can focus on the communication of increased limitations resulting from the changes (limitation justification) or they can communicate improvements of the institutional setting, e.g., with respect to more equitable rules (improvement justification). Based on reactance theory we argued that a limitation justification threatens one’s freedoms, and, therefore, leads to direct and indirect reactance effects compared to an improvement justification. Study 1 showed that the participants reacted with more negative attitudes when the changes were justified through limitations compared to improvements. This difference was mediated by the experience of reactance. Study 2 revealed that a limitation justification had a negative impact on financial honesty through a lower identification with one’s country. The implications of our results for the communication of political reforms are discussed.