On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication

TLDR

Reactance theory could explain failures in persuasive health communication, yet its developer claims it cannot be measured. This study develops four alternative conceptualizations of reactance and empirically tests each. Two parallel studies—one on flossing, one on limiting alcohol—used a composite index of anger and negative cognitions to mediate the effects of threat‑to‑freedom and trait reactance on attitudes and intentions. The data demonstrate that reactance can be operationalized as a composite of self‑reported anger and negative cognitions, with implications for persuasive communication and specific effects on flossing and drinking behaviors.

Abstract

Reactance theory might be profitably applied to understanding failures in persuasive health communication but for one drawback: The developer of the theory contends that reactance cannot be measured. Rejecting this position, this paper develops four alternative conceptual perspectives on the nature of reactance (i.e., combinations of cognition and affect), then provides an empirical test of each. Two parallel studies were conducted, one advocating flossing the other urging students to limit their alcohol intake In both cases, a composite index of anger and negative cognitions fully mediated the effects of threat-to-freedom and trait reactance on attitude and intention. The data showed that, in fact, reactance can be operationalized as a composite of self-report indices of anger and negative cognitions. The implications for persuasive communication, in general, are considered as well the specific findings for flossing and drinking.