Psychological reactance PDF

Preview

Summary

The importance of conduct is a direct function of the unique instrumental value that such behavior has for the satisfaction of the need, multiplied by the current maximum or potential magnitude of that need. The unique instrumental value is determined by the fact that if a need can be met by a large...

Description

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE Nature of psychological reactance We will treat the reactions of the subjects when they are prevented from performing behaviors that they would voluntarily perform. Psychological reactance is the motivation that leads the subject to restore a threatened or eliminated freedom. Sources of freedom removal canbe: Personal threats (e.g., the teacher asks the student to study). Impersonal threats (e.g.: I won't be able to go hiking because of a storm). Self-imposed threats (e.g. Pros and cons when making a decision). Jones and Brehm point out 3 preconditions for the reactance arousal: The person should feel free to choose from a particular set of alternatives. This freedom of choice must be important to the person The person perceives that his freedom is threatened.

Determinants of reactance The amount of reactance a person experiences is a function of: The expectation of freedom The importance of freedom The force of the threat The proportion or number of freedoms threatened The legitimacy of the threat. Expectation of freedom A person will show reactance when a certain behavioral option is eliminated only if he perceives himself as free to deal with the behavior in question. The more freedom you feel, the more reactance will be activated

.

Importance of freedom The importance of conduct is a direct function of the unique instrumental value that such behavior has for the satisfaction of the need, multiplied by the current maximum or potential magnitude of that need. The unique instrumental value is determined by the fact that if a need can be met by a large number of possible behaviors, the loss of one of these behaviors is of less importance than when the need can only be met with a behavior. The multiplicative relationship expresses that the greatest amount of reactance will be shown with an important need and with a single behavior to achieve your satisfaction. The importance of freedom under consideration increases when the importance of other freedoms decreases. Strength of the threat The higher the threat, the higher the reactance amount you will activate. Two aspects to consider: A threat to freedom may, by implication, affect other freedoms. And the greater the freedoms involved in a threat, the greater the reagent will be activated. A person may experience reactance when observing the freedom of others threatened. Proportion of freedoms threatened The greater the number of freedoms threatened, the greater the reactance experienced. Legitimacy of the threat This variable has two effects: can increase the motivational reaction limitthe effects of reactance. One effect of legitimacy is that the threat is limited to specific conduct, from the moment when illegitimate interference against one's freedoms is generally less likely to occur. Legitimate limitations against freedom (laws, etc.) will elicit indirect attempts to restore endangered freedom.

Effects of reactance Ways to restore freedom can be direct and indirect: Direct Restoration: means engaging in that kind of behavior that one knows that one cannot or should not undertake. This type of restoration depends on the costs expected by the action of the threatened behavior. Indirect Restoration: conduct conduct that is in some way equivalent to the threatened. In this type is the"vicarious restoration": It occurs when person B, who has been limited to behavior, also limited to person A, carries out such action and thus, A restores his freedom by implication. Subjective answers: In addition to these two forms of restoration are the perceptual effects consisting of the cognitive restructuring of the situation that triggers reagent: for example, by changing the attractiveness of the available alternatives and the threatened alternative, or for example, showing hostility towards the agent who has threatened the freedom of conduct of the subject. When the reactance is activated, it is usually accompanied by feelings of discomfort, but hostility will depend on factors such as the intent of the agent, the legitimacy of the threat, etc.

Wortman and Brehm's Integrative Attempt It seems that in the face of loss of control there are two opposing reactions: helplessness, which would lead the subject to behave passively and reactance, which would lead him to try to restore his freedom. These two authors point out that similarities can be found between the two theories: Control expectations: these mean that if a person expects to control the results, finding that they are out of their control should trigger reactance. When only a few trials of the training have passed, it should act as a threat to the freedom of the subject, activating reactance. The amount of training: will determine the level of reactance (the number of trials is small) or helpless (if it is a long workout). The importance of the result: affects the amount of reactance that the subject will have in the face of the inability to exercise control.

The integrative hypothesis says: when a person becomes convinced that he cannot control a result, the state of helplessness will be directly proportional to the importance of the result on which he is trying to influence. Biphasic process The wortman and Brehm model points to the integration of reactance and helplessness in terms of a two-phase process, in which the subject will trigger reactance, to move to a 2nd phase in which he will experience helplessness. Observe Fig. 36.1 and its interpretation. Experimental evidence Two jobs, one in which control expectations are manipulated and another in which the importance of the result and the amount of training are considered. Sahban and Welling's work manipulating expectations of control, subjecting subjects to a frustrating bureaucratic experience. Subjects who must pass through the Department are noted to complete a questionnaire. The relationship with the administrative officer in charge could be of three types: "Responsible Personnel" condition: After completing the questionnaire, the official indicated that it had not been done satisfactorily for him, so the subject should fill it out again. "Responsible for the System" condition: the official reported that he did not follow the established rules and must be re-completed. Control Condition: Subjects filled out the questionnaire only once. It was expected that subjects in condition (a) would become more hostile and negativist insofar as subject had expectations of being able to control the situation, while in condition (b), they would be more passive and condescending, since they would have expectations of non-control. Results: As expected. Two variables are manipulated: the importance of the result in a two-tiered concept training task: "high" (success was said to be a good indicator of academic performance) "low" (only indicated to solve the problem). Defensive training: with three levels:

control: subjects received contingent feedback with the result so that, at a few trials, they could find the right concept. under helplessness training: subjects received non-quota feedback so it became impossible to solve the problem. high training in helplessness:subjects received non-contingent feedback, coupled with the additional realization of supposedly easier problems after the failure of the task. Results: When moderate-based helpless training subjects show reactance and when high, they show helplessness.

reformulation in terms of conflict: Dickerberger and Gniech model. There can be three different forms of interaction between two opposing forces: mutually exclusive so that one or the other has the total behavioral expression supplemental, so that, as reactance increases, the tendency to conform decreases and vice versa. independent, so that the two can express each other in the same situation. This latter possibility is consistent with Miller's model, according to which the tendency to approach or avoid a particular goal increases when the proximity of the goal is greater. If we apply this model to reagent situations, the proximity of the goal can be understood as the "pressure to conform". This pressure will increase in direct proportion to the strength of social influence: the more influence, the greater the condescension. But, when influence reaches a point where it compromises the freedom of the individual, the competitive reason for reactance will also be activated. This difference in the form of gradients of the tendency to conform and the tendency to resist (reactance) is explained by the fact that as the influence increases more freedoms become threatened....