LITMIR.BIZ

Figure 2.1 Affect arousal reactance model.

      Cognitive appraisal, together with the concomitant affect, leads to approach motivation or an avoidance motivation. The cognitive evaluation with the affect state either accentuates or attenuate reactance. As evaluation is undertaken and, should the threat persist, reactance striving and/or reactance behavior continue. However, as discussed, reactance is moderated by a number of factors. The subjective experiences of emotions influence: the processing of information, decision-making processes, our attention, reaction time, and the way we intend to behave or actually behave (e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Derryberry & Tucker, 1994). Research undertaken by Kostic et al. (2011) has shown that the subjective experiences and intesity of emotions vary across cultures. For example, an unpleasant situation of uncertainty with threat toward the removal of a free behavior and the potential to create frustration and anger, emotion with the high intensity, has high reactance potential.

      Threat to free behavior that provokes affect states associated with approach motivation will create a higher magnitude of reactance, ceteris paribus, than affect states associated with avoidance motivation. However, the magnitude of psychological reactance may vary across cultures, and this may not necessarily be a result of situational factors but a consequence of the subjective experience of emotions in these cultures. Clearly, research is needed to fully test an affect arousal reactance theory. In partial support of AART, Nesterkin (2013) in a conceptual paper postulates the relationship between negative affect states and reactance, energizing the latter and heightening the reaction toward the threat to a freedom. Clayton et al. (2019) emphasizing the emotion of anger only refer to the fight-flight energizing or demotivating effect on psychological reactance. The research agenda of Mühlberger et al. (2020) moves along a direction to understand the affect arousal relationship of reactance. These and other studies recognize the intermediate effect of affect states in energizing behavior toward the removal of freedom threats. However, there has been no attempt to systematically conceptualize this relationship within a theory that has been, over the years, argued as a cognitive social psychological theory.

      Conclusion

Reactance theory is a fundamental theory in the discipline of social psychology and has contributed to an understanding of behavior in response to actual or perceived threats in a wide variety of settings. The theory is as useful today as it was over fifty years ago. However, the theory needs modification. The systematic introduction into the theory of the affect state is crucial, with an understanding of the relationship between emotions, moods, arousal and motivation. The articulated propositions of an Affect Arousal Reactance Theory (AART) attempt to move the psychological reactance discourse to another level. This much-needed structural modification will definitely give new insights into previous research and hopefully stimulate research. AART has utility in the understanding and reduction of arousal states, including situations that are volatile and interactions that are potentially aggressive. As the theory evolves, so too will our understanding of human behavior as cognitive and affect-driven in action.

      References