Psychological Reactance Theory

Assumptions and conditions

Jack Brehm (1966) argued that people believe they hold freedoms to perform certain behaviors and that when such a freedom is reduced or threatened, a motivational state aimed at regaining it, psychological reactance, is aroused. Its magnitude depends on how important the threatened freedom is, how many freedoms are threatened and how strong the threat is. Reactance can also grow through implication, when restricting one freedom suggests that others may be restricted too. It shows up as performing the restricted behavior directly, substituting a similar behavior, hostility toward the restricting agent, or rating the restricted option as more attractive. Hammock and Brehm (1966) found that when another person removed a candy children could have chosen, they rated that candy more attractive.

Persuasion and consumer research

Reactance theory has been widely used to explain boomerang effects, in which forceful persuasion backfires. Mazis, Settle and Leslie (1973) reported that after phosphate detergents were banned in Miami, residents rated them as more effective. Pennebaker and Sanders (1976) found in a field study that the more threatening a sign forbidding graffiti in restrooms, the more graffiti appeared. Clee and Wicklund (1980) noted that limited editions or sellouts can threaten consumers' freedom of choice and heighten desire to buy. The finding that reactance grows with forceful language such as "must" or "never" and with obvious persuasive intent has made it, alongside persuasion theory, a key topic in research on communication design.

Measurement and recent research

Early theory treated reactance as an unobservable state, but Dillard and Shen (2005) proposed an intertwined model in which reactance is a blend of anger and negative cognitions or counterarguments, and measured it; Rains's (2013) meta-analysis supported the model. Brehm and Brehm (1981) extended the theory into a broader framework of freedom and control, and Hong and Faedda (1996) developed a trait reactance scale capturing individual differences in the tendency to react. Steindl et al. (2015) reviewed newer work on vicarious reactance, cultural differences and physiological responses, and Rosenberg and Siegel (2018) surveyed fifty years of research. Today the theory, alongside cognitive dissonance theory and self-determination theory, is often cited in discussions of respecting autonomy, messages that preserve choice and the design of nudges.

FAQ

What is psychological reactance in simple terms?

It is the urge to reclaim a freedom you feel is being threatened, like wanting to do something more precisely because you were told not to.

When is reactance stronger?

It is stronger when the threatened freedom matters more, when a demand is forceful or openly manipulative, and when several freedoms seem to be restricted at once.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press.
2. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York: Academic Press.
3. Wicklund, R. A. (1974). Freedom and Reactance. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
4. Hammock, T., & Brehm, J. W. (1966). The attractiveness of choice alternatives when freedom to choose is eliminated by a social agent. Journal of Personality, 34(4), 546–554.
5. Mazis, M. B., Settle, R. B., & Leslie, D. C. (1973). Elimination of phosphate detergents and psychological reactance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(4), 390–395.
6. Pennebaker, J. W., & Sanders, D. Y. (1976). American graffiti: Effects of authority and reactance arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2(3), 264–267.
7. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168.
8. Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 47–73.
9. Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory—40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 9–18.
10. Hong, S.-M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 173–182.
11. Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(4), 205–214.
12. Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389–405.
13. Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300.