LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

& Faedda, 1996 ) to an 11-item scale. Three items of the original scale were considered to be vague and removed. Shen and Dillard (2005) argue that a single score on the HPRS to measure trait psychological reactance is theoretically and empirically justifiable. However, Jonason and Knowles (2006) and Jonason (2007) indicate that while the HPRS tends toward unidimensionality, it is a moderately stable and a reliable measure of reactance and improvement of the scale is needed. Jonason, Bryan and Herrera (2010), utilizing confirmatory factor analysis, argue for a one-factor 10-item Hong’s Psychological Reactance Scale. For critiques on the HPRS see Rosenberg and Siegel (2018) and Jonason and Knowles (2006).

      Another method utilized in the measuring of reactance is the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS). This scale uses a 28-item self-report questionnaire with two subscales (i.e., verbal reactance and psychological reactance) in attempting to measure reactance as a trait. The TRS has recorded convergence validity with personality characteristics of dominance, locus of control (internal), and aggression (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993; Shoham et al., 2004). A major problem identified with this measurement of reactance is the lack of construct validity. Shoham et al. (2004) argue that what has been conceptually identified as a reactant disposition may not necessarily be a disposition or trait but rather an oppositional style consistent with particular behavioral styles. Inman et al. (2019) added to the understanding of the factor structure of the TRS. Noting that Dowd et al. (1991) TRS identified two factors (i.e., behavioral and verbal) and Buboltz et al. (2002) identified four factors in the TRS (i.e., resentment of authority, avoidance of conflict, susceptibility to influence, and preservation of freedom), their 2019 findings suggest a four-factor scale structure similar to Buboltz et al. (2002) but with the following structures: resentment of authority, conflict seeking, susceptibility to influence and preservation of freedom.

      In another attempt to measure reactance, Beutler et al. (1991) utilized two indices from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) in developing what they refer to as a reactant score. The two scales that they adopted were Taylor’s Manifest Anxiety Scale and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale. The authors utilized an arithmetic summation of the scores from both scales to derive a reactance score. Critics of Beutler et al. (1991) noted that there is no rationale articulated as to why high anxiety and social desirability should correlate with reactance (Lukin et al., 1985; Shoham et al., 2004). In fact, Spielberg’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the TRS have no statistical relationship. Shoham et al. (2004) reported that Dowd et al. (1994) showed a weak correlation between the TRS and social interaction. A question that can be asked is: Are Beutler et al.’s (1991) measure and the TRS measuring the same construct? Baker et al. (2003) found that there was no correlation between these two reactance measures.

      Shoham et al. (1996) utilize a naturalistic method to measure expressed reactance. This method involves the rating of participants’ content-filtered voice in reply to a question that provokes reactance. High-reactant persons’ voice tones sound inhibited, spiteful, and active.

Dillard and Shen (2005) utilize a composite of self-report indices of anger and negative cognitions to measure psychological reactance. This intertwined model integrates the cognitive and affect in understanding reactance and was one of the first meaningful attempts to measure state reactance. Reactance researchers (e.g., Quick et al., 2015; Clayton et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2013; Rains & Turner, 2007; Scott & Quick, 2012; Xu, 2015) have utilized Dillard and Shen (2005) composite index to measure psychological reactance in varying contexts. Their scale is one of the most used reactance scales. Lindsey (2005) constructed a scale to understand the influence of guilt in bone-marrow donation. However, as Quick (2012) notes, her scale has been utilized by reactance researchers. Lindsey’s scale was informed by Brehm (1966) and Hong and Faedda (1996) and has four items modified from Hong and Faedda (1996) to measure state reactance instead of trait reactance. Her scale has been utilized in the literature (see LaVail et al., 2010; Reinhart & Anker, 2012). Quick’s (2012) article provides a comparison between Lindsey’s (2005) and Dillard and Shen (2005) scales. In an attempt to create a scale to measure state reactance Sittenthaler et al. (2015) undertook three studies to develop the Salzburger State Reactance scale (SSR). They identified three subscales in the SSR, namely experience of reactance, aggressive behavioral intentions, and negative attitudes. The scale has nineteen original items with responses to each item varying from “not at all” to “very much” on a five-point Likert scale.

      The Crowell Lowery Multicultural Training Reactance Scale (CL-MTRS) is a relatively new scale attempting to measure students’ psychological reactance in a specific context (see Lowery et al., 2020). The scale utilizes 22-items to measure psychological reactance toward multicultural training experience. Cognitive, behavioral, and affective evaluations of the training experience, including course topics, facilitator, and processes, are measured (see Kelly et al., 2019).

      Cognitive Dissonance and Reactance

      To what extent is psychological reactance the same as cognitive dissonance? Do we always experience cognitive dissonance when we experience reactance? There are a number of commonalities between psychological reactance and cognitive dissonance. Both theories are motivational arousal theories emphasizing cognitive evaluation and gravitation toward psychological consistency. Arousal is a noxious state in both cognitive dissonance and psychological reactance theories, and a drive is buildup-directed to achieve a state of equilibrium (consonance or removal of threat to freedom). The importance of the cognition or threatened freedom determines the degree of cognitive dissonance or psychological reactance, respectively.

      Several strategies are used to obtain equilibrium, and these methods vary from cognitive to behavioral to emotional changes. The reevaluation of importance, changing or adding new cognitions, adoption of new behavior, or changing existing behaviors are some of the common strategies of arousal reduction adopted by both theories. Neither theory is set up to be scientifically falsified, and therefore, in that sense, they cannot be considered scientific theories. Also, both theories are parsimonious. The difference in parsimoniousness is one of degree. However, there are some major differences.

      Although both theories state that arousal is unpleasant, in the case of reactance the unpleasantness is always associated with negative emotions, unlike dissonance, in which both positive and negative emotions can be experienced. Sources of arousal are different: reactance involves a threat associated with a freedom, and therefore there is a “victim” and “victimizer” interaction, an externally social threatening factor, which is not the typical cognitive dissonance scenario. Therefore, there is a narrower scope of the application of reactance theory as compared to cognitive dissonance.

Wicklund (1974) was one of the first authors to attempt to address the issue of overlaps between the theories of dissonance and reactance. He argues that as far as decision making is concerned, cognitive dissonance occurs at the postdecisional stage but reactance at the predecisional stage. This sequential effect is a distinguishing difference. That is, prior to the reactant behavior is the motivational drive of psychological reactance. After the behavior, the decision is the postdecisional dissonance and dissonance reduction to justify the committed action. The force compliance studies of dissonance (e.g., Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959) and the barrier studies of reactance research provide a conceptually similar situation. However, Wicklund (1974) advocates that the difference between these groups of studies lies in the pre-decisional making without a behavioral commitment in reactance and the postdecisional dissonance as a result of behavioral commitment. However, dissonance is not only experienced in postdecisional situations. The threat to remove a freedom or the actual removal of a freedom is inherently a dissonant phenomenon. In fact, Wicklund (1974, p. 57) acknowledges this:

      There is a parallel between the two theories when simple statements of preference are made, independent of whether or not those statements constitute absolute commitments. Dissonance theory allows that the statement will produce dissonance and regret (convergence) while reactance theory indicates that the preference statement will threaten freedom and thereby result in convergence.

      Therefore, if there is an overlap between reactance and dissonance the investigation of the neurosocial psychological processes has to be evaluated. However, it should be remembered that reactance theory, from its genesis, had conceptual similarities and was

Скачать книгу