Reactance
Human Communication Research ISSN 0360-3989
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Psychological Reactance and Persuasive Health Communication: A Test and Extension of the Intertwined Model
Stephen A. Rains1 & Monique Mitchell Turner2
1 Department of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0025 2 Department of Communication, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
This manuscript reports 2 experiments that were conducted to test and extend the work of J. P. Dillard and L. Shen (2005) examining the cognitive and affective processes involved in psychological reactance. In particular, the studies reported here (a) examined the best-fitting model of reactance processes and (b) tested 3 factors that may affect reactance including argument quality, severity of the consequences associated with the message topic, and magnitude of the request made in the message. The results showed that the intertwined cognitive–affective model was the best-fitting model of reactance processes. Magnitude of the request was the only variable that affected reactance. The implications of these findings for research on reactance and persuasive health campaigns are discussed. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x
Although a great deal of research has been conducted to understand factors that lead to attitude change, scholars have recently argued that more attention should be paid to resistance processes (Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voloudakis, 2002; Dillard & Shen, 2005; Jacks & Cameron, 2003). The import of exploring how individuals resist attitude change is evidenced by the failure of persuasive health campaigns (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992; Hornik, 2002; Salmon & Murray-Johnson, 2001), as well as those campaigns resulting in relatively small effect sizes (Snyder, 2001). In the broader context of research on resistance to persuasion, psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) has been offered as one cause for message rejection (Burgoon, Alvaro, et al., 2002). Ringold (2002), for
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Psychological Reactance and Persuasive Health Communication: A Test and Extension of the Intertwined Model
Stephen A. Rains1 & Monique Mitchell Turner2
1 Department of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0025 2 Department of Communication, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
This manuscript reports 2 experiments that were conducted to test and extend the work of J. P. Dillard and L. Shen (2005) examining the cognitive and affective processes involved in psychological reactance. In particular, the studies reported here (a) examined the best-fitting model of reactance processes and (b) tested 3 factors that may affect reactance including argument quality, severity of the consequences associated with the message topic, and magnitude of the request made in the message. The results showed that the intertwined cognitive–affective model was the best-fitting model of reactance processes. Magnitude of the request was the only variable that affected reactance. The implications of these findings for research on reactance and persuasive health campaigns are discussed. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x
Although a great deal of research has been conducted to understand factors that lead to attitude change, scholars have recently argued that more attention should be paid to resistance processes (Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voloudakis, 2002; Dillard & Shen, 2005; Jacks & Cameron, 2003). The import of exploring how individuals resist attitude change is evidenced by the failure of persuasive health campaigns (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992; Hornik, 2002; Salmon & Murray-Johnson, 2001), as well as those campaigns resulting in relatively small effect sizes (Snyder, 2001). In the broader context of research on resistance to persuasion, psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) has been offered as one cause for message rejection (Burgoon, Alvaro, et al., 2002). Ringold (2002), for
References: Human Communication Research 33 (2007) 241–269 ª 2007 International Communication Association S Human Communication Research 33 (2007) 241–269 ª 2007 International Communication Association 267 268 Human Communication Research 33 (2007) 241–269 ª 2007 International Communication Association Human Communication Research 33 (2007) 241–269 ª 2007 International Communication Association 269