Frontiers | Psychological Reactance and Persuasive Health

Psychological Reactance Theory (PRT) Articles RukhsanaAhmed DepartmentofCommunication,UniversityatAlbany,UnitedStates M.TeresaAnguera UniversityofBarcelona,Spain PeterJ.Schulz UniversityofItalianSwitzerland,Switzerland Theeditorandreviewers'affiliationsarethelatestprovidedontheirLoopresearchprofilesandmaynotreflecttheirsituationatthetimeofreview. Abstract PsychologicalReactanceTheory(PRT) ReactanceandPersuasiveHealthCommunication FutureDirections AuthorContributions ConflictofInterest References SuggestaResearchTopic> DownloadArticle DownloadPDF ReadCube EPUB XML(NLM) Supplementary Material Exportcitation EndNote ReferenceManager SimpleTEXTfile BibTex totalviews ViewArticleImpact SuggestaResearchTopic> SHAREON OpenSupplementalData REVIEWarticle Front.Commun.,31October2019 |https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00056 PsychologicalReactanceandPersuasiveHealthCommunication:AReviewoftheLiterature TobiasReynolds-Tylus* SchoolofCommunicationStudies,JamesMadisonUniversity,Harrisonburg,VA,UnitedStates Psychologicalreactancetheoryisacommonlyrelieduponframeworkforunderstandingaudiencemembers'resistancetopersuasivehealthmessages.Thisreviewarticleprovidesanoverviewofreactanceresearchinthecontextofpersuasivehealthcommunication.Thearticlebeginswithanoverviewofpsychologicalreactancetheory.Themajorconceptsofthetheoryarediscussed,aswellasrecentdevelopmentsbycommunicationresearchersinmeasuringreactance.Followingthis,contemporaryreactanceresearchinthecontextofpersuasivehealthcommunicationissummarized.Anemphasisisplacedonresearchexaminingmessagefeaturesassociatedwithreactance,aswellasthemoderatingroleoftraitreactance.Thearticleconcludeswithadiscussionofseveralpromisingdirectionsforfutureresearch. Thedesignofpersuasivehealthmessagesisofinteresttomanyhealthcommunicationresearchersandpractitioners.ManyoftheactualcausesofdeathintheUnitedStates—includingtobaccouse,dietarybehaviors,physicalinactivity,alcoholconsumption,andsexualpractices—arebehavior-related,andthereforepreventable(Mokdadetal.,2004;CentersforDiseaseControlPrevention.,2017).Thoughcommunicationcampaignsareofteneffectiveatchangingindividuals'behavior(Ankeretal.,2016),insomecasescampaignmessagescanresultinaudiencemembersadoptingbehaviorsoppositeoftherecommendedaction(ByrneandHart,2009).Inattemptingtoaccountforthese“boomerangeffects”ofpersuasivemessagesandcampaigns,acommonlyutilizedtheoreticalframeworkispsychologicalreactancetheory(PRT,Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981). PRTisbasedonthefoundationalprincipalthatindividualscherishtheirfreedom,choice,andautonomy(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981).Accordingly,whenanexternalstimulus(e.g.,apersuasivemessage)isperceivedtothreaten,hinder,oreliminateanindividuals'freedomtochoose,psychologicalreactanceishypothesizedtooccur.Reactanceisoperationalizedasanamalgamofangerandnegativecognitions(DillardandShen,2005),precededbyafreedomthreat(QuickandStephenson,2008).Reactanceisamotivationalstatethatprovokesindividualstoseektorestoretheirthreatenedorlostfreedom(Brehm,1966).Ashealthcampaignsandmessagesoftendirectlydiscourageunhealthybehaviors,orinthecaseofthosethatencouragehealthybehaviors,implicitlydiscourageunhealthyones,promotionalhealthmessagesmayinherentlybeperceivedasfreedomthreats.Thisunderlinesaninherentcontradictionthatexistswhencraftingpersuasivehealthmessages.Persuasivemessagesmustbynecessitybedirectinadvocatingfortherecommendedaction,yetmustalsobalancethisneedwiththeinherentconsequencesofthreateningindividuals'freedomtochoose(Rains,2013).Giventhischallenge,PRTprovidesatheoreticalaccountforunderstandingandexaminingresistancetopersuasivemessages. ThepurposeofthisarticleistoprovideoverviewofPRTresearchinthecontextofpersuasivehealthcommunication.First,anoverviewofPRTisprovided.ThekeytheoreticalconstructsunderlyingPRTwillbeintroduced,followedbyadiscussionoftheoperationalizationandmeasurementofreactance.Next,anoverviewofPRTresearchinthecontextofpersuasivehealthcommunicationwillbeprovided.Inparticular,anemphasisisplacedonmessagefeaturesassociatedwithreactance,aswellasthemoderatingroleoftraitreactance.Thearticleconcludeswithadiscussionofseveralpromisingdirectionsforfutureresearch. PsychologicalReactanceTheory(PRT) KeyConstructsFreedom PRTrestsonthenotionoffreedoms.Freedomsarebeliefsindividualshaveaboutthewaysinwhichtheymayact(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981).PRTassumesthatforagivenperson,thereareamultitudeoffreedomsthatheorsheperceives.FreedomsaredefinedbroadlyinPRTtoincludeactions,emotions,aswellasattitudes.Individualsaresaidtopossessspecificfreedomstotheextentthattheyhaveknowledgethatthefreedomexists,andperceivetheyareabletoactonthatfreedom.Freedomsthatarenotperceivedtoexistbydefinitioncannotbethreatenedoreliminated,andthus,willnotarousereactanceifthreatened(Brehm,1966). ThreattoFreedom Asindividualsperceivespecificfreedoms,anythingthatmakesexercisingafreedommoredifficultrepresentsathreattofreedom(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981).Inthecontextofpersuasion,threatstofreedomaremostoftenattemptsatsocialinfluence.Toacertainextent,allpersuasiveattemptscanbeconsideredathreattoone'sfreedom(Burgoonetal.,2002). PsychologicalReactance Psychologicalreactanceis“themotivationalstatethatishypothesizedtooccurwhenafreedomiseliminatedorthreatenedwithelimination”(BrehmandBrehm,1981,p.37).Althoughanypersuasivecommunicationholdsthepotentialtoarousereactanceifitthreatensoreliminatesapreviouslyheldfreedom,themagnitudeofreactancearousedishypothesizedtobepositivelycorrelatedwiththeimportanceofthethreatenedfreedom(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981).Formanyyears,researcherslackedavalidatedmeasurementofreactance(Quicketal.,2013).Recentresearchhasdemonstratedthatthereactanceisbestmeasuredasanamalgamofangerandnegativecognitions(DillardandShen,2005;Quick,2012;Rains,2013),precededbyafreedomthreat(QuickandStephenson,2008). ThoughBrehm(1966)initiallyconceptualizedpsychologicalreactanceasapsychologicalstate,hedidleaveopenthepossibilityofindividualdifferencesinreactionstofreedom-threateningstimuli.LaterworkbyBrehmandBrehm(1981)recognizedreactanceasanindividualdifferencevariable,asindividualsvaryintheirneedsforautonomyandself-determination(Wicklund,1974).Highlyreactantindividualsarecharacterizedbyaresistancetorulesandregulations,highdesireforautonomy,highdefensiveness,andlowconcernforsocialnorms(Dowdetal.,1994;SeibelandDowd,2001).Perhapsunsurprisingly,reactanceproneindividualshavebeenfoundtobemorelikelytoengageinriskyhealthbehaviorssuchastobaccouse(Milleretal.,2006)andriskysexualbehaviors(MillerandQuick,2010).Inthecontextofpersuasivemessaging,researchshowsthatindividualsexhibitinghightraitreactanceexperiencegreaterfreedomthreats,andthereforearemoreresistanttopersuasiveattempts(QuickandStephenson,2008;Quicketal.,2011;LaVoieetal.,2017).Althoughmanyscaleshavebeenofferedtomeasuretraitreactance(Merz,1983;Dowdetal.,1991),ShenandDillard(2005)arguethatthescalewiththegreatestconceptualcorrespondencetoPRTistheHongPsychologicalReactanceScale(HongandFaedda,1996). RestorationofFreedom Thefourthcomponentofthetheory,restorationoffreedom,encapsulatesthepotentialconsequencesthatmayoccurasaresultofreactancearousal.PRTcontendsthatwhenaperceivedfreedomisthreatenedoreliminated,individualswillbemotivatedtoreestablishthatfreedom(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981).Inherenttothispredictionistheunderstandingthatreactanceis“amotivationalstateandassuchisassumedtohaveenergizingandbehavior-directingproperties”(BrehmandBrehm,1981,p.98).PRTproposesthatindividualsmayactuponthismotivationtorestoretheirfreedomeitherdirectlyorindirectly.Directrestorationmayincludedirectlyengaginginanadmonishedbehavior(e.g.,consumingalcoholafterexposuretoananti-drinkingmessage),orbyresistinganadvocatedbehavior(e.g.,refusingafluvaccinationafterexposuretoapro-fluvaccinationmessage).Thistypeofdirectrestorationisoftenreferredtoastheboomerangeffect(Hovlandetal.,1953;ByrneandHart,2009),andisperhapsthemostintuitivemanifestationoffreedomrestoration. Consideringthatdirectrestorationisnotalwaysfeasibleorsuitable,PRTalsoproposesthatindividualsmayalsoacttorestoretheirfreedominmoreindirectways(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981).Indirectrestorationmayincludesuchresponsesasincreasingone'slikingofthethreatenedchoice,vicariouslyperformingthethreatenedbehaviorbyobservingothersactinginafreedomrestoringmanner,derogatingthesourceofthefreedomthreat,denyingtheexistenceofthethreat,orbyexercisingarelatedfreedomtoregainfeelingsofcontrolandchoice(Wicklund,1974;BrehmandBrehm,1981).Forinstance,inresponsetoananti-bingedrinkingmessage,individualsexperiencingreactancemaychoosetorestoretheirfreedombyincreasingtheirlikingforbinge-drinking,byassociatingthemselveswiththosewhobingedrink,byderogatingthesourceofthemessage,bydenyingthatbinge-drinkingisasignificantproblem,orbyusingarelatedsubstancesuchasmarijuanaorcigarettes.Considerableresearchhasdemonstratedthatreactancearousalisassociatedwithavarietyofundesirablepersuasiveoutcomes,includingunfavorablemessageappraisals(Grandpreetal.,2003),unfavorablesourceappraisals(Milleretal.,2007),aswellasdecreasedattitudes(DillardandShen,2005;Quick,2012),andintentions(RainsandTurner,2007)towardtheadvocatedbehaviors. OperationalizationofReactance IntheirwritingsonPRT(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981),BrehmandBrehmwerereluctanttoexplicatereactance,theprinciplemechanismofPRT.Thismayhavebeendrivenbytheirbeliefsabouttheabilityofresearcherstoadequatelymeasurereactance.AsstatedbyBrehmandBrehm(1981),“reactancehasthestatusofanintervening,hypotheticalvariable…Wecannotmeasurereactancedirectly[emphasisadded],buthypothesizingitsexistenceallowsustopredictavarietyofbehavioraleffects”(p.37).Thepositionthatreactancecannotbemeasureddirectlyislogicallyconsequential,asformanyyearsthisrelegatedreactance—thecentralanddefiningconceptofthetheory—toaproverbialblackbox.Instead,researchersmerelypositedtheexistenceofreactancebasedonobservableoutcomessuchassourcederogation(Smith,1977),theadoptionofpositionsorbehaviorsoppositefromtheadvocatedresponse(WorchelandBrehm,1970),orincreasedlikingforthreatenedchoice(HammockandBrehm,1966).Unfortunately,withoutavalidatedoperationalizationofreactance,itbecametoocommonforresearcherstocitereactanceasacausalmechanismwhenstudyfindingsindicatedthepersuasiveappealfailed,orwhenboomerangeffectswereobserved(Quicketal.,2013).Itwasnotuntilcommunicationresearchersbegantoapplyreactancewithinthecontextofpersuasivehealthmessagesthatresearchersbegantochallengethepositionthatreactancecouldnotbemeasureddirectly. SpearheadingtheeffortstovalidateameasurementofpsychologicalreactancewereDillardandShen(2005),whoconductedatestoffourdistinctoperationalizationsofreactanceinthecontextsofflossingandstudentalcoholuse.DillardandShen(2005)disagreedwithBrehmandBrehm's(1981)positionthatreactancecouldnotbemeasureddirectly,notingthatthe“primarylimitingfactorintheapplicationofreactancetheorytopersuasivecampaignsistheephemeralnatureofitscentral,explanatoryconstruct”(p.145).Buildingfromtheworkofpreviousresearchers,whothroughouttheirapplicationofPRTtovariousdomainshavedefinedreactanceinavarietyofways,DillardandShen(2005)identifiedfourdistinctpossiblewaystocharacterizereactance:(a)asapurelycognitiveprocesscomprisedofcounterarguing,(b)asapurelyaffectiveprocesscomprisedofanger,(c)asaparallelprocesscomprisedofcognitiveandaffectivecomponents(i.e.,angerandcounterarguinghaveseparateanduniqueeffectsonpersuasiveoutcomes),or(d)asanintertwinedcognitiveandaffectiveprocess(i.e.,counterarguingandangerareinseparablyintertwined—theireffectsonpersuasiveoutcomescannotbedisentangledfromoneanother). Totestthesefourconceptualizationsofreactance,DillardandShen(2005)conductedtwoexperimentscomparingthefourmodelsinthecontextofalcoholconsumptionandflossing.Freedomthreatwasexperimentallymanipulated(highvs.low)andthefourdistinctconceptualizationsofreactanceweremodeledasmediatingtherelationshipbetweenfreedomthreatandattitude.Acrossbothhealthtopics,theintertwinedcognitiveandaffectivemodelwasfoundtobestfitthedata.Furthermore,theobservedfactorloadingsdemonstratedthatbothangerandnegativecognitionscontributedaboutequallytoindividuals'motivationtorestoretheirfreedom.Hence,DillardandShen(2005)concludedthatnotonlyisreactancemeasurable,butthatitisbestoperationalizedasanamalgamofangerandnegativecognitions. Theintertwinedmodelofreactancehasbeenfurthersupportedbynumerousstudies.ThefirsttodosowasRainsandTurner(2007),whoalsoexaminedafifthpossiblemodel,wherebyreactanceisconceptualizedasatwo-steplinearprocesswithangerastheproximalantecedenttocounterarguing.SimilartoDillardandShen(2005),theresultsofRainsandTurner(2007)alsosupportedtheintertwinedmodelassuperiortothealternativeconceptualizations.Furtherstudieshavealsofoundsupportfortheintertwinedmodelasthebestfittingmodelacrossvarioushealthcontextsincludingalcoholconsumption(QuickandBates,2010;Kimetal.,2013;RichardsandBanas,2015),organdonation(Quicketal.,2011,2015;Quick,2012;ScottandQuick,2012),physicalactivity(QuickandConsidine,2008),safersexbehaviors(QuickandStephenson,2007),antismokingPSAs(Shen,2010,2011),graphiccigarettewarninglabels(LaVoieetal.,2017),andskincancerprevention(Shen,2015).Arecentmeta-analysisbyRains(2013)(K=20,N=4,942)onlylendsfurthersupporttotheintertwinedmodelasthebestfittingmodelforoperationalizingreactance. MeasuringReactance DillardandShen's(2005)methodformeasuringreactanceinvolvestwoprocedures.Inregardstoanger,participantsareaskedtoindicateonsemantic-differentialscales(0=noneofthisfeeling,4=agreatdealofthisfeeling)towhatdegreethemessagetheyjustreadmadethemfeel:(a)angry,(b)irritated,(c)annoyed,and(d)aggravated.Negativecognitionsareassessedutilizingthethought-listingtechnique(PettyandCacioppo,1986),wherebyparticipantsareaskedtowritewhateverthoughtswereintheirmindswhiletheyreadthemessage.Researchassistantsthencodeparticipants'responsesinafour-stepprocesswherebythey:(a)unitizethedataintopsychologicalthoughtunits,(b)identifyandremoveaffectiveresponsesusingalistoffeelingtermscompiledbyShaveretal.(1987),(c)determinewhetherornotthecognitiveresponsesarerelevantorirrelevanttothemessage,and(d)codetherelevantthoughtsaseithersupportive,neutral,ornegative.Negativecognitionsarethensubsequentlyretainedandsummedintoasinglescaletousefordataanalysis. AdditionalMeasurements FollowingtheburgeoningpopularityofPRT,researchersbegantoreassessthevalidityofDillardandShen's(2005)measureofpsychologicalreactance.Thoughnottheprimaryfocusofherstudy,Lindsey(2005)developedanalternativemeasureofreactancetobonemarrowdonationmessagesusingafour-itemscalebasedonHong'sPsychologicalReactanceScale(HongandFaedda,1996).Inordertoestablishwhichofthetwomeasuresrepresentedthebestmeasureofreactance,Quick(2012)conductedastudytoexaminethereliabilityandvalidityofbothLindsey's(2005)andDillardandShen's(2005)measurementsofreactance.ThoughQuick(2012)foundthatbothmeasuresdemonstratedacceptablereliability,herecommendedthecontinueduseofDillardandShen's(2005)measureduetostrongervalidity.Specifically,theabilityofDillardandShen's(2005)measureofreactancetoexplaingreatervarianceinattitude,reactancemotivation,andsourceappraisalscomparedtoLindsey's(2005)scale.Furthermore,Quick(2012)cautionedthecontinueduseofLindsey's(2005)measureduetoitsinabilitytoreliablydistinguishfreedomthreatfromreactance,adistinctionthatisconsistentwithBrehm's(1966)earliesttheorizingonPRT.DespiteQuick's(2012)recommendationinfavorofDillardandShen's(2005)scale,hedidacknowledgetheadvantageofLindsey's(2005)scaleintermsofmeasurementeconomy.Accordingly,Quick(2012)recommendedthatcontinuedeffortsassesshowtomoreeffectivelyandefficientlyoperationalizereactance. Onemethodtomoreefficientlygaugereactanceingeneral,andnegativecognitionsinparticular,istheuseofparticipantcodingforassessingtheircognitiveresponses(QuickandStephenson,2007;RainsandTurner,2007).ParticipantcodinghasbeensuggestedduetotwoinherentlimitationstoDillardandShen's(2005)techniqueforassessingnegativecognitions.First,duetothetrainingandtimerequiredtoimplementDillardandShen's(2005)techniqueforassessingnegativecognitions(i.e.,thoughtunitization,screeningoutemotions,removingunrelatedcognitions),thismethodissomewhatunwieldy,particularlyoutsideoflaboratoryexperiments.Second,andperhapsmorecritically,asthought-listingproceduresoftenresultinresponsesthatareambiguousintheirverynature(e.g.,“Isthisclaimtrue?”),researchersoftenarelefttoguessastowhetheraparticipant'sthoughtispositive,negative,orneutral.Therationalefortheuseofparticipantcodingofresponsesisstraightforward,asbydefinition,researchparticipantshavemoredirectaccesstotheirownevaluationsthandoresearchers.Hence,participantscanfeasiblyprovidemorevalidjudgmentsastothevalenceoftheirthoughts.Althoughparticipantcodingofresponsesisawidelyusedandacceptablealternative(e.g.,RainsandTurner,2007;QuickandStephenson,2008),focusedresearchhasyettosystematicallyevaluatewhetherparticipantcodingdoesindeedprovidemorevalidjudgmentsthantrainedcoders. Otherworkattemptingtomoreefficientlyassessreactancehasabandonedthethought-listingapproachentirely,andinsteadhasreliedonsemantic-differentialscalestoassessparticipants'negativecognitions(Silvia,2006;Milleretal.,2007;VaravaandQuick,2015;GardnerandLeshner,2016).Forinstance,inGardnerandLeshner's(2016)investigationofnarrativeandother-referencingmessagesindiabetesself-careeducation,theauthorsutilizedathree-itemmeasuredevelopedfromSilvia(2006)toassessnegativecognitions(e.g.,“Didyoucriticizethemessageyoujustsawwhileyouwerereadingit?”).Otherwork,includingVaravaandQuick's(2015)examinationofadolescents'moviechoices,hasutilizedatwo-itemscale(e.g.,“Mythoughtsaboutthismovieratingare…”[1=negative]to[7=positive]).Theadvantageofthistechniqueforassessingnegativecognitionsisofcourse,economyofmeasurement,andtheflexibilitytoimplementthesemeasuresoutsidethelaboratory(Quicketal.,2015),inmorelongitudinalstudies(GardnerandLeshner,2016),andamongnon-collegestudentpopulations(VaravaandQuick,2015).However,focusedresearchhasyettosystematicallyevaluateiftheuseofsemantic-differentialscalesprovidesasequallyasvalidofanassessmentofnegativecognitionsasdoesthethought-listingtechnique. ModelingReactanceasaProcess Brehm(1966)theorizedthatpsychologicalreactanceshouldresultwhenaspecificfreedomhasbeenthreatenedoreliminated.Accordingly,PRTresearchershaveencouragedthemodelingofreactanceasatwo-stepprocesswithfreedomthreatprecedingreactance(QuickandConsidine,2008;QuickandStephenson,2008).Therationaleformodelingfreedomthreatperceptionspriortoreactanceisthatpeoplecanexperienceangerandnegativecognitionsinresponsetoamessageforanynumberofreasonsthatmaybeunrelatedtofeelingasiftheirfreedomthreatenedoreliminated(e.g.,grammaticalerrors,poorfontchoice).Therefore,totestthereactanceprocessinthemannermostconsistentwithBrehm's(1966),theorizing,Quicketal.(QuickandConsidine,2008;QuickandStephenson,2008)recommendmodelingreactanceasatwo-stepprocesswithfreedomthreatprecedingreactanceinordertoserveasaninductioncheck.Themostcommonlyusedmeasureoffreedomthreatisafour-itemscale(e.g.,“Themessagetriedtomakeadecisionforme”)fromDillardandShen(2005). ReactanceandPersuasiveHealthCommunication Advancesbycommunicationresearchershaveshownthatreactancecanbemeasuredasalatentconstructcomprisedofangerandnegativecognitions(DillardandShen,2005;Rains,2013),precededbyafreedomthreat(QuickandConsidine,2008;QuickandStephenson,2008).Havingavalidatedmeasurementofreactancehasallowedcommunicationresearchers—particularlyintheareasofhealthcommunicationandpersuasion—tomoredirectlyexaminethereactanceprocessasoriginallyconceptualizedbythetheoriststhemselves(Brehm,1966;BrehmandBrehm,1981).Followingthedevelopmentofameasurementofreactance,communicationresearchersutilizingPRThavepredominantlyfocusedonidentifyingthemessagefeaturesmostlikelytostimulateanddiminishreactance(seeTable1forasummaryofthekeyfindingsinthisarea).Inthissection,researchutilizingPRTinthecontextofpersuasivehealthcommunicationwillbereviewed.Specificattentionisgiventothemessagefeaturesmostlikelytogalvanizeormitigatereactance,aswellastheroleoftraitreactance. TABLE1 Table1.Descriptionofmessagefeaturesandtheirrelationshiptoreactance. MessageFeaturesFreedom-ThreateningLanguage OneofthemosttestablepropositionsstemmingfromPRTisthatpersuasivemessagesusinglanguagethatmoreexplicitlyattemptstolimitone'sautonomywillelicitgreaterfreedomthreat(BrehmandBrehm,1981).Thoughalitanyoftermshasbeenusedintheliteraturetodescribefreedom-threateninglanguage,including“controllinglanguage”(Milleretal.,2007,p.222),“dogmaticlanguage”(QuickandStephenson,2008,p.450),“domineeringlanguage,”(Quicketal.,2015,p.44),and“forcefullanguage”(QuickandConsidine,2008,p.483),repleteintheseexperimentalmanipulationsoffreedom-threateninglanguagearesuchphrasesas“youmust,”“itisimpossibletodeny,”and“stopthedenial”(seeRains,2013,Table1,pp.54–57).Freedom-threateninglanguageiscommonlydefinedintermsofmessageexplicitness(Searle,1995).Explicitpersuasivemessagesareclearanddirectinthemeaningbeingconveyed,leavingthereceiverwithlittleroomforinterpretation.Implicitmessages,bycontrast,arelessdirectandcanoftenconveymultiplemeaningsorinterpretations(Milleretal.,2007).Thoughattimesindividualscertainlyappreciateplain,directtalkduetoitsfrankness(Dillardetal.,1996),moreexplicitpersuasivemessagesbytheirverynaturearemorefreedomthreatening(Miller,2015).Theineffectivenessoffreedom-threateninglanguageuseinpersuasivemessageshasbeenwell-documentedacrossavarietyofhealthcontextsincludingalcoholconsumption(RainsandTurner,2007),druguse(Milleretal.,2007;QuickandConsidine,2008;QuickandStephenson,2008),meningitis(RainsandTurner,2007),sunscreenusage(QuickandStephenson,2008),strepthroat(RainsandTurner,2007),andtobaccouse(Grandpreetal.,2003).Likewise,theineffectivenessoffreedom-threateninglanguagehasbeenobservedacrossvariouspopulations,includingadolescents(QuickandKim,2009),collegestudents(Milleretal.,2007;QuickandStephenson,2008),adults(QuickandConsidine,2008). Theconsistentfindingsofthevariousstudiesinvestigatingfreedom-threateninglanguagepointtoanunderlyingtensionthatexistsforresearchersandcampaigndesignersattemptingtocreateeffectivepersuasiveappeals.Ononehand,messageswiththeobjectiveofbehavioralchangeorreinforcementmustbynecessitybeclearinadvocatingforaspecificrecommendedaction.Thoughexplicitpersuasivemessagesaremorelikelytobeunderstoodbymessagerecipients,theyarealsomorelikelytoincitereactanceduetobeinginherentlyfreedomthreateninginnature.Thus,apervasivechallengeforhealthcampaignsisbalancingtheneedtobedirectinadvocatingfordesiredbehaviorswhilesimultaneouslyavoidinglanguagethatmay,eitherexplicitlyorimplicitly,threatenanaudiencemember'sfreedomtochoosetheircourseofaction.Inattemptingtocircumventthenegativeeffectsofreactance,whilestillmaintainingclearpersuasivemessages,researchershaveinvestigatedavarietyofstrategiesforreducingfreedomthreatperceptionsinthecontextofpromotionalhealthmessages. Choice-EnhancingLanguage Whereasfreedom-threateninglanguagehasbeenshowntoprovokereactance(Quicketal.,2013;Rains,2013),theuseofmoreimplicit,autonomysupporting,andchoice-enhancinglanguagehasbeenshowntodiminishreactancearousal(RosenbergandSiegel,2018).Moreimplicitmessages,oftenusingqualifiertermssuchas“perhaps,”“possibly,”and“maybe,”arethoughttobemoresuccessfulatachievingdesiredpersuasiveoutcomesastheymoresuccessfullyavoidtheperceptionoftryingtocontrolbehavior(Miller,2015).Forinstance,intheirexaminationofpro-andanti-tobaccoadvertisements,Grandpreetal.(2003)foundthatadolescentsexposedtoimplicitanti-tobaccomessagereportedbeingsignificantlylessinclinedtosmokeinthefuturethanthoseexposedtoexplicitanti-tobaccomessage. Themostcommonlyexaminedtypeofchoice-enhancinglanguagearerestorationpostscripts.Restorationpostscriptsarebriefstatementsattheendofamessagethatemphasizetothemessagerecipientthatthedecisiontocomplywiththemessagerecommendationsistheirchoice(Milleretal.,2007;Bessarabovaetal.,2017).Restorationpostscriptsareaparticularlyappealingmessagestrategy,astheyarethoughttoovercomethedetrimentaleffectsofmoreexplicit,controllinglanguage,whilestillmaintainingthebenefitofincludingclear,directivestatements(Milleretal.,2007).Restorationpostscriptsusesuchlanguageas,“Thechoiceisyours.Youarefreetodecideforyourself”(Milleretal.,2007,p.240).Themessagewiththefreedom-restoringpostscriptisthencomparedtoamessagewithafillerpostscriptabsentthischoice-enhancinglanguage(e.g.,“Wewillnowaskyousomequestionsaboutthisparticularmessage.Pleasemovetothenextstep,”Milleretal.,2007,p.240).Inaninitialstudyonthetopic,Milleretal.(2007)foundthatcollegestudentswhoreadaphysicalactivitymessagewithafreedom-restoringpostscriptexperiencedlessfreedomthreatthanthoseinacontrolcondition.Bessarabovaetal.(2017)foundthattheinclusionofafreedom-restoringpostscriptwaseffectiveatreducingfreedomthreatperceptionsamongcollegestudentsexposedtoahighthreatmessagepromotingrecyclingbehaviors.However,noeffectforafreedom-restoringpostscriptwasfoundforthoseparticipantsexposedtoalowthreatmessage.MorerecentworkbyQuicketal.(2015),however,failedtosupporttheeffectivenessoffreedom-restoringpostscriptsinthecontextofradioadsadvocatingorgandonation.However,Quicketal.(2015)studydifferedfromtheaforementionedstudiesinseveralimportantways,including—butnotlimitedto—mediumofdelivery(radioadvs.text-message)andpostscriptdosage(<10wordsvs.>50words). ProvisionofChoice Shen(2015)wasthefirsttoinvestigatetheimpactofprovidingbehavioralalternatives(i.e.,choice)asstrategyforreducingfreedomthreatandreactance.InShen's(2015)study,undergraduateparticipantsreadmessagespromotingeitherskin-cancerprotectionordetectionbehaviors.Messageseitherprovidedparticipantswithonerecommendedresponse(e.g.,applysunscreenregularly)ortwo(e.g.,wearprotectiveclothingorapplysunscreenregularly).Resultsrevealedthattheprovisionoftwobehavioraloptions(comparedtoone)resultedinsignificantlylessfreedomthreatandsubsequentreactance.Furthermore,thiseffectwasmoresalientwhenmoreexplicit,controllinglanguagewasused.Morerecently,Reynolds-Tylusetal.(2019)examinedtheprovisionofchoicewithinaclusterofenvironmentalconservationbehaviors.Participantswereprovidedwithfiverecommendedbehaviors(eitherenergyorwaterconservation)andwereeithertoldtheyhadtodoallfivebehaviors(i.e.,nochoice),orwereprovidedwithachoice(“Choosetheoptionsthatbestfityourlifestyle,”p.6).Provisionofchoice(vs.nochoice)resultedindiminishedfreedomthreat,andsubsequentreactance. NarrativeMessages Narrativesaredefinedas“arepresentationofconnectedeventsandcharactersthathasanidentifiablestructure,isboundedinspaceandtime,andcontainsimplicitorexplicitmessagesaboutthetopicbeingaddressed”(Kreuteretal.,2007,p.222).Incontrast,non-narrativemessages“includeexpositoryanddidacticstylesofcommunicationthatpresentpropositionsintheformofreasonsandevidencesupportingaclaim”(Kreuteretal.,2007,p.222).Researchhasshownthatnarrativesareaparticularlyeffectiveformatfordeliveringpersuasivehealthmessages(SlaterandRouner,2002;Moyer-Gusé,2008;BilandzicandBusselle,2013).Thoughavarietyofmechanismshavebeenproposedtoexplaintheeffectivenessofnarrativesonpersuasiveoutcomes(seeBilandzicandBusselle,2013),acommonrationalesupportingtheuseofnarrativeappealsistheabilityfornarrativestocommunicatepersuasivemessagesinamannerthatobfuscatepersuasiveintent,subsequentlyminimizingreactance(SlaterandRouner,2002;DalCinetal.,2004;Moyer-Gusé,2008). InastudybyMoyer-GuséandNabi(2010),undergraduateparticipantswatchedeitheradramaticnarrativeoranon-narrativeprogramabouttheconsequencesofanunplannedteenpregnancy.Participantsinthenarrativeconditionperceivedlowerpersuasiveintentthanthoseinthenon-narrativecondition.Perceivedpersuasiveintentwaspositivelyassociatedwithreactance.Inturn,reactancewasnegativelyassociatedwithsafersexintentionsbothatanimmediateposttestanda2-weekfollowup.MorerecentworkbyGardnerandLeshner(2016)examinedtheroleofnarrativeversesnon-narrativedeliverystyleinwritteneducationalmaterialspromotingdiabetesself-care(i.e.,healthydiet,physicalactivity).Resultsrevealedthatnarrativemessagesgeneratedlowerfreedomthreat,fewercounterarguments,andelicitedlowerstateangerthannon-narrativemessages.Furthermore,thenarrativemessagesresultedinsignificantlymorepositiveattitudestowardboththemessageandtheadvocatedhealthbehaviors. Empathy Empathyispsychologicalstate,notamessagefeature.However,severalfeaturesofmessageshavebeenshowntoelicitempathy(seeShen,2019).Researchontheroleofempathyandpersuasionhassuggestedthatmessage-inducedempathycanenhancepersuasionbymitigatingpsychologicalreactance(Shen,2010,2011).Empathy,derivedfromtheGreekwordempatheia,meaning“feelinginto,”canbedefinedas“sharingthesubjectiveexperienceofanotherperson”(CampbellandBabrow,2004,p.160).Thereisbroadconsensusthatempathyiscomprisedofbothcognitiveandaffectivecomponents(Lazarus,1991;PrestonanddeWaal,2002;DecetyandJackson,2004,2006).Affectiveempathyreferstotheexperienceofothers'emotionalexperiences—includingunderstandingandsharingothers'feelings.Cognitiveempathyischaracterizedbyperspectivetaking(i.e.,placingoneselfpsychologicallyinanotherperson'scircumstances),thusallowingforcomprehensionandunderstandingoftheirpointofview(Lazarus,1991).Accordingly,affectiveempathyisthoughttodiminishangerinmessageprocessing,whereascognitiveempathyishypothesizedtodecreasecounterarguing(Shen,2010,2011).Evidenceinsupportofthereactance-mitigatingfunctionofempathycomesfromShen(2010,2011).Acrosstwostudies,Shendemonstratedthattheexperienceofstateempathyduringexposuretoanti-smoking(Shen,2010,2011)andanti-drunkdrivingPSAs(Shen,2010)hadbothapositivedirectimpactonpersuasiveoutcomes,aswellasapositiveindirectimpactonpersuasiveoutcomesasmediatedbypsychologicalreactance. MessageFraming Alargeliteraturehasexaminedtherelativeeffectivenessofgain-vs.loss-framedmessagesonpersuasiveoutcomes(seeO'KeefeandJensen,2006,2007,2009forrecentmeta-analyses).Gain-framedmessagesemphasizetheadvantagesofadoptingtherecommendedaction(e.g.,“Ifyouwearsunscreen,you'llhaveattractiveskin,”O'Keefe,2012,p.4),whereasloss-framedmessagesemphasizethedisadvantagesoffailingtoadopttherecommendedaction(e.g.,“Ifyoudon'twearsunscreen,you'llhaveunattractiveskin,”O'Keefe,2012,p.4).Loss-framedmessagesarethoughttobesuperioratpersuasionduetotwoprimarypsychologicalphenomena:negativitybiasandlossaversion(O'Keefe,2012).Thoughresearchoneconomicbehaviorshowsstrongevidenceinsupportofloss-framemessagesassuperiortogain-framedmessages(Levinetal.,1998),meta-analysesofresearchonmessageframinginthecontextofhealthbehaviorshasconsistentlyshownnoappreciabledifferenceintheeffectivenessofgain-vs.loss-framedmessages(O'KeefeandJensen,2006,2007,2009). Giventhatmeta-analyticevidencehasshownnoappreciabledifferenceinpersuasiveoutcomesbetweengain-andloss-framedmessagesforhealthpromotion(O'KeefeandJensen,2006,2007,2009),researchershavesuggestedtheneedtofurtherexaminemediatingandmoderatingvariablestobetterunderstandtheeffectsofmessageframing(e.g.,RothmanandUpdegraff,2011).Psychologicalreactancehasbeenproposedasanexplanationfortherelativedifferencesintheeffectivenessofgain-vs.loss-framemessages(Reinhartetal.,2007;QuickandBates,2010;ChoandSands,2011;Quicketal.,2015;Shen,2015).Theexperienceofreactancehasbeenhypothesizedtobeafactorthatoffsetsnegativitybias,thusunderminingtheeffectivenessofloss-framedmessages(Shen,2015).Furthermore,asloss-framedmessagesoftenusemorecontrollinglanguage(ChoandSands,2011),loss-framedmessagesmaybeinherentlymorefreedomthreateningthangain-framedmessages.Moreover,loss-framedmessagehavebeenshowntoarousegreaterfear(ShenandDillard,2007),andpreviousworkhasdemonstratedthatfearappealmessagescanleadtogreaterreactancearousal(Shen,2011).Thus,researchersinvestigatingreactanceasamediatingmechanismhaveproposedthatloss-framedmessagesshouldarousegreaterreactance,andsubsequentlyleadtomoreunfavorablepersuasiveoutcomes(Reinhartetal.,2007;QuickandBates,2010;ChoandSands,2011;Quicketal.,2015;Shen,2015). Theempiricalevidenceontheimpactofmessageframingandpsychologicalreactance,however,hasbeensomewhatmixed.Reinhartetal.(2007),foundconsistentevidencefortheimpactofmessageframeonreactanceacrossthreestudies,suchthatgain-framedmessageselicitedlowerreactanceandmorefavorablemessageevaluationstowardorgandonationmessages.QuickandBates(2010),however,foundnoeffectofmessageframe(gainvs.loss)onfreedomthreatperceptionsinthecontextofanti-drinkingmessages.ChoandSands(2011)foundevidencethataloss-framedmessageproducedagreaterperceivedthreattofreedominsunsafetymessaging.However,nodirecteffectoftheloss-framedmessageonreactancewasobserved.Shen(2015)foundthatloss-framedskincancerprotectionanddetectionmessagesresultedinagreaterfreedomthreat,andsubsequentlyreactance,thangain-framedmessages.Contrarytotheirexpectations,Quicketal.(2015)foundthatagain-framedorgandonationmessagearousedhigherfreedomthreatthanaloss-framedmessage.LeeandCameron(2017)foundthataloss-framedweightlossmessageelicitedlessfavorablecognitiveappraisalthanagain-framedmessage.However,nodifferencewasobservedbetweenthegain-andloss-framemessagesintermsoffreedomthreat,anger,orcounterarguing. MessageSensationValue Messagesensationvaluerefersto“thedegreetowhichformalandcontentaudio-visualfeaturesofamessageelicitsensory,affective,andarousalresponses”(Palmgreenetal.,1991,p.219).Messageshighinsensationvaluearedramatic,exciting,andnovel(Morganetal.,2003).Highsensationmessagesarethoughttobemorepersuasivethanlowsensationmessagesastheydistractreceivers,andthus,reducecounterarguing(Pettyetal.,1976;Kangetal.,2006).Furthermore,highsensationmessagesarethoughttobeparticularlyappealingtohighsensationseekers,asthesemessagesmeettheirpsychobiologicalneedsforactivation(Palmgreenetal.,2002;Stephenson,2003).Quick(2013)foundpartialsupportfortheroleofperceivedmessagesensationvalueasamessagestrategyfordeterringreactance.InQuick'sstudy(Quicketal.,2013),undergraduateswereexposedtoaseriesofanti-marijuanaPSAs.Participantsratedtheadsinrespecttothreeaspectsofmessagesensationvalue:dramaticimpact,emotionalarousal,andnovelty(Palmgreenetal.,2002).Onlyperceivedmessagenoveltywasfoundtohaveaneffectonparticipants'freedomthreatperceptions.Specifically,themorethatindividualsperceivedananti-marijuanaPSAtobeunique,thelesstheyperceivedthattheadwastryingtothreatentheirfreedom. MorerecentworkbyXu(2015)examinedtheinteractionbetweenmessagesensationvalueandcontrollinglanguage.Acrosstwostudies,undergraduateparticipantswereexposedtoanti-drunkdrivingPSAs(study1)andanti-smokingPSAs(study2)thatvariedinmessagesensationvalue(highvs.low)andcontrollinglanguage(highvs.low).Acrossbothtopics,perceivedmessagesensationvaluewaspositivelyassociatedwithperceivedadpersuasiveness.Aconsistentpatternoffindingsemergedinrespecttotheinteractionbetweenmessagesensationvalueandcontrollinglanguage,suchthatmessageswithhighsensationvalueandlowcontrollinglanguagewereperceivedasthemosteffective.Interestingly,highsensationvaluemessageswithhighcontrollinglanguageconsistentlyarousedthemoststateanger,suggestinghighsensationvaluemessagesmaybeparticularlylikelytoarousereactancewhencontrollinglanguageisused.However,Xu's(2015)studyassessedonlytheaffectivecomponentofreactance(i.e.,stateanger)butnotthecognitivecomponent(i.e.,counterarguing). Other-ReferencingMessages Other-referencingmessagesemphasizethepotentialinfluenceofanindividual'schoicesonothers,typicallyfriends,family,andlovedones.Self-referencingmessages,incontrast,emphasizethedirectpersonalconsequencesofone'sbehavior(GardnerandLeshner,2016).GardnerandLeshner(2016)manipulatedother-referencingmessagesineducationmaterialspromotingdiabetesself-caremessagesbyemphasizingthepotentialbenefitsorharmfulconsequencesofthediabetic'slifestylechoicesonothers(e.g.,“Whenyourkids,grandchildrenorfriendswatchyourfoodchoices,whatlessonsaretheylearning?”p.742).Incontrast,self-referencingmessagesemphasizedthepersonalconsequencesofthediabetic'slifestylechoicesratherthantheimpactofthesechoicesonothers(e.g.,“AfterspendingsomuchtimenotfeelingorlookingthewayIwantedto,Isaidtomyself,‘Youhavetodosomething,anddoitnow!”'p.742).GardnerandLeshner's(2016)findingssupportedamaineffectofother-referencingmessagesonreactance,suchthatother-referencingmessageswereratedaslessfreedomthreatening,andgeneratedlessangerandfewercounterargumentsthanself-referencingmessages.Furthermore,andinsupportofPRT,other-referencingmessagesproducedsignificantlymorepositiveattitudestowardthemessageandtheadvocatedhealthbehaviors. InoculationMessages Inoculationtheory(McGuire,1961,1964),basedontheanalogyofmedicalinoculationagainstdisease,proposesthatpeoplebecomemoreresistanttopersuasioniftheyareforewarnedinadvanceofasubsequentpersuasiveattempt,andiftheyarepreemptivelygivenargumentstorefutetheensuingpersuasiveappeal(BanasandRains,2010;Compton,2013).Followingtheanalogyofmedicalinoculationagainstdisease,justasavaccineinjectsaweakenedversionofavirussufficienttoavertinfectionbutstrongenoughtoproduceantibodies,theprovisionofweakenedversionsofpersuasiveargumentsshouldconferindividualswithprotectionagainststrongerpersuasiveattemptsinthefuture(McGuire,1961,1964).RichardsandBanas(2015)werethefirsttoexamineifitwaspossibletodecreasereactancetohealthmessagesbyutilizingapre-exposureinoculationmessagewarning.Intheinoculationtreatmentcondition,undergraduateparticipantsreadamessageprescriptthatforewarnedthatthebrochuretheywereabouttoreadmightthreatentheirfreedom(“Afterreadingthroughtheinformation,youmightfeelthatyourfreedomtochoosehowyouwillconsumealcoholisbeingthreatened,”p.455).Theinoculationmessagealsoprovidedinformationtotheparticipantastowhytheyshouldnotfeelthreatenedbytheproceedingmessage(i.e.,“thefactsthatarereportedareprettypowerfulwhenyouthinkaboutthem,andthesuggestionsthatareproposedaboutdrinkingresponsiblyactuallymakealotofsense,”p.455).Participantsinthecontrolconditionreadashortpassageaboutthehistoryofsushi.Resultsrevelatedthatinoculationmessagesdiminishedfreedomthreatperceptions,andsubsequentlyreactance.Inafollow-upstudy,Richardsetal.(2017)failedtoreplicatethesefindingsintheirfirstexperiment.Intheirsecondexperiment,Richardsetal.(2017)foundthataninoculationmessagecandiminishreactance,butonlyunderconditionsoflowfreedomthreateninglanguage—aninoculationmessagewasfoundtobenomoreeffectivethanacontrolmessagewhenfreedomthreateninglanguagewashigh. TraitReactance InBrehm's(1966)originalformulationofPRT,reactancewasconceptualizedasasituationallyarousedpsychologicalstate.Accordingly,classicreactanceresearchpredominantlyfocusedontheantecedentsandbehavioralconsequencesofreactancefollowingexperimentallyinducedrestrictionofalternatives(seeBurgoonetal.,2002;Chadee,2011).ThoughBrehm's(1966)originalconceptualizationofpsychologicalreactancedidnotspecificallydiscussreactanceasanindividualtrait,hedidrecognizethepossibilitythatindividualsmaydifferintheirreactionstofreedom-threateningstimuli.IntheirlaterrefinementofPRT,however,BrehmandBrehm(1981)acknowledgedreactancecouldindeedbeconceptualizedasanindividualtrait,asthisconceptualizationwasconsistentwiththetheory'soriginalformulationthatindividualsdifferintheirneedsforautonomyandself-determination(Brehm,1966;Wicklund,1974). Followingthedevelopmentofavalidatedmeasurementfortraitreactanceasalatentdispositiontorespondtofreedom-threateningstimuli(HongandFaedda,1996),contemporaryresearchershavebeenabletoinvestigateboththedirectandindirecteffectsoftraitreactance.Agrowingbodyofworksuggeststhattraitreactancehasadirecteffectonriskyhealthbehaviors,andassuchresearchershavearguedthattraitreactanceisanimportantaudiencesegmentationvariable(Milleretal.,2006;Quicketal.,2009;MillerandQuick,2010).Specifically,Milleretal.(2006)foundthattraitreactancewasastrongpredictorofsmokinginitiationamongadolescents.Similarly,MillerandQuick(2010)foundtraitreactancepredictedbothtobaccouseandriskysexualbehavior,evenaftercontrollingforotherknownbehavioralpredictors.AparticularlyconsequentialfindingofMillerandQuick's(2010)studywasthattraitreactancewasshowntobeastrongerpredictorofriskyhealthbehaviorsthansensationseeking,aconstructwhichhasbeenwidelyusedasaprimaryaudiencesegmentationvariable.Extendingthesefindingstoanadultpopulation,Quicketal.(2009)demonstratedthattraitreactancehadbothadirectandindirecteffect(asmediatedbyanger)onindividualssupportforindoorairpolicies.Morerecently,LaVoieetal.(2017)foundthathightraitreactantindividualsexperiencedgreaterfreedomthreat,anger,andperceivedgreatersourcedomineeringnessinresponsetographiccigarettewarninglabelsthantheirlowtraitreactantcounterparts.Similarly,RichardsandLarsen's(2017)foundthatcollegestudentshighintraitreactanceexperiencedgreaterfreedomthreattoasexualhealthmessagethanthoselowintraitreactance. Furtherworkhasalsoexaminedtheinteractionbetweentraitreactanceandspecificmessagefeatures.DillardandShen(2005)foundthattraitreactanceinteractedwithfreedom-threateninglanguage,suchthathightraitreactantindividualsexposedtomorecontrollinglanguageinamessagepromotingflossingexperiencedgreaterfreedomthreat.However,thisinteractionwasnotreplicatedinthecontextofananti-bingedrinkingmessage.Similarly,QuickandStephenson(2008)foundthatindividualshighintraitreactancedemonstratedastrongerassociationbetweenfreedomthreatandreactanceinresponsetoamessageadvocatingforsunscreenuse.However,thisfindingwasnotreplicatedinthecontextofmessagespromotingexercisebehaviors.Inastudyexaminingpromotionalorgandonationmessages,Quicketal.(2011)foundnotwo-wayinteractionbetweenfreedomthreateninglanguageandtraitreactance,butdidfindathree-wayinteractionbetweeninvolvement,freedom-threateninglanguage,andtraitreactance,suchthatthosewithhigh-traitreactanceandlowinvolvementinthetopicdemonstratedthegreatestfreedomthreatwhenexposedtomessageswithhighfreedom-threateninglanguage. FutureDirections PRTisacommonlyappliedframeworkforunderstandingresistancetopersuasivehealthmessages.Followingthedevelopmentofempiricallyvalidatedmethodsformeasuringandmodelingpsychologicalreactance(DillardandShen,2005;QuickandStephenson,2008;Rains,2013),communicationresearchershavecontributedgreatlytoourunderstandingofthemessagefeaturesassociatedwithreactance.Aseffortsarefurthermadetorefineourunderstandingofreactance,aswellasitsantecedentsandconsequences,severalpromisingfuturedirectionsareapparent. Avarietyofstrategiesforreducingreactancehavebeenidentified,includingrestorationpostscripts(Milleretal.,2007;Bessarabovaetal.,2017),provisionofchoice(Shen,2015;Reynolds-Tylusetal.,2019),narrativeappeals(Moyer-GuséandNabi,2010;GardnerandLeshner,2016),message-inducedempathy(Shen,2010,2011),gain-framedmessages(Reinhartetal.,2007;ChoandSands,2011;Shen,2015),novelmessages(Quick,2013),other-referencingmessages(GardnerandLeshner,2016),andinoculationmessages(RichardsandBanas,2015;Richardsetal.,2017).Thoughthesestudiesaddtoanever-growinglistofthemessagefeaturesassociatedwithdiminishedorelevatedreactance,furtherexaminationofmessageandlanguagefeatures,particularlythosethataretheoreticallyderived,willaddtoourunderstandingofPRTinparticular,aswellasourbroaderunderstandingofpersuasioningeneral.Furthermore,giventherelativelysmallnumberofstudiesexaminingeachofthesemessagefeatures,theexistingliteraturewouldbenefitgreatlyfromreplicationstudies. FuturePRTresearchshouldalsoseektorecruitfrommoreheterogeneouspopulations.Todate,themajorityofreactanceresearchersrelyonconveniencesamplesofadolescentsorundergraduatestudents.Unfortunately,investigationsofreactanceamongadultpopulationsaretheexception(e.g.,Quicketal.,2015;GardnerandLeshner,2016),ratherthanthenorm.Forthesereasons,futureworkmaybenefitbyexaminingreactanceprocessesacrossdiverseagecohorts,asmuchofourcurrentknowledgeonthemessagefeaturesmostlikelytomitigateorgalvanizereactancearebasedpredominantlyondatacollectedfromadolescentandcollege-agedparticipants.Whetherornotthesemessagestrategiesremaineffectiveoutsidethesepopulationsisanempiricalquestionworthyoffurtherinvestigation. Futureworkshouldalsocontinuetorefineourmeasurementofreactance.Arecentmeta-analysisbyRains(2013)foundthatangerisastrongerindicatorofreactancethannegativecognitions(λ=0.62vs.λ=0.52).Furthermore,angerwasshowntomorestronglycorrelatewithattitude(r=0.20)thannegativecognitions(r=0.16).Likewise,Rains(2013)meta-analysisfoundthatthezero-ordercorrelationbetweenangerandnegativecognitionsissomewhatlow(r=0.31),perhapssuggestingpotentialissueswithDillardandShen's(2005)measurementofreactance.Furthermore,inresponsetothesomewhatcumbersomenatureofthethought-listingprocedureforassessingnegativecognitions(DillardandShen,2005),someauthorshaveadoptedalternativeapproachesformeasuringnegativecognitions(e.g.,Quicketal.,2015;VaravaandQuick,2015),implementedalternativemeasurementsofreactancewithinferiorvalidity(e.g.,Reinhartetal.,2007),orinsomecasessimplyneglectedtoassessnegativecognitionsatall(e.g.,Xu,2015).Clearly,workshouldcontinuetodevelopstrategiestomoreefficientlyandeffectivelygaugereactance,particularlyoutsideoflaboratorysettings.Forinstance,futureresearchcouldcomparethethought-listingprocedureformeasuringnegativecognitions(DillardandShen,2005)withalternativemeasurementsofnegativecognitions(e.g.,Silvia,2006)inordertodemonstratewhichmethodproducesmorereliableandvalidresults. Finally,futureresearchshouldcontinuetobroadenourunderstandingofreactancenotonlyasanaversivestateantitheticaltopersuasion,butalsoasastrategyforempowerment.Oneilluminatingexampleofhowreactancecanbeharnessedasapersuasivestrategycomesfromthetruth®campaign,acounter-marketingantismokingcampaign—arguablyoneofthemostsuccessfulpublichealthcampaignsinU.S.history(Farrellyetal.,2008;Cowelletal.,2009;Davisetal.,2009).Intheircampaignmessages,thetruth®campaignfocusesonpainting“bigtobacco”asamanipulativeentityattemptingtocircumventteenagers'choicesandfreedomsthroughliesanddeception.Forinstance,onthetruth®campaign'swebpage,theystate,“We'vealwaysbeenaboutexposingbigtobacco'sliesandmanipulation.Andwhiletheykeepadaptingtheirtactics,wekeepitreal”(truth®,2019).Furthermore,thetruth®campaign'smessagesconsistentlyemphasizeadolescents'autonomyinmakingtheirowninformeddecisionsabouttobaccouse.“We'renotheretocriticizeyourchoices,ortellyounottosmoke.We'reheretoarmeveryone—smokersandnon-smokers—withthetoolstomakechange”(truth®,2019). Todate,intentionallyelicitingreactanceasatoolforpersuasionhasbeendrasticallyunderstudied.Quicketal.(2009)arguedthatreactancecouldserveasamotivationforindividualstosupportairpoliciesprohibitingsmokingindoors.Theirresultsrevealedthatasindividuals'angertowardsecondhandsmokeincreased,sodidtheirsupportforcleanindoorairpolicies.Asarhetoricalstrategy,Quicketal.(2009)advocatedforframingoppositiontocleanindoorairpoliciesasaviolationofone'sfreedomtobreathecleanair.Similarly,inthecontextofpoliticalaction,Turner's(2007)angeractivismmodelhighlightsthepotentialforharnessingangertowardconstructiveaction.Accordingtotheangeractivismmodel,angercanfacilitateactionwhentheaudienceisfavorabletothepositionbeingadvocatedandfeelefficaciousinactingtoreestablishtheirthreatenedfreedoms.Amongthosewhohaveanegativeattitudetowardthetopic,however,angerislikelytoinhibitpersuasion.Moreintensivestudyoftheuseofreactanceasapersuasivestrategywouldprovideinvaluableinsightforfuturehealthpromotionefforts. AuthorContributions Theauthorconfirmsbeingthesolecontributorofthisworkandhasapproveditforpublication. ConflictofInterest Theauthordeclaresthattheresearchwasconductedintheabsenceofanycommercialorfinancialrelationshipsthatcouldbeconstruedasapotentialconflictofinterest. References Anker,A.E.,Feeley,T.H.,McCracken,B.,andLagoe,C.A.(2016).Measuringtheeffectivenessofmass-mediatedhealthcampaignsthroughmeta-analysis.J.HealthCommun.21,439–456.doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1095820 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Banas,J.,andRains,S.(2010).Ameta-analysisofresearchoninoculationtheory.Commun.Monogr.77,281–311.doi:10.1080/03637751003758193 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bessarabova,E.,Miller,C.H.,andRussell,J.(2017).Afurtherexplorationoftheeffectsofrestorationpostscriptsonreactance.WesternJ.Commun.81,385–403.doi:10.1080/10570314.2016.1254815 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bilandzic,H.,andBusselle,R.(2013).“Narrativepersuasion,”inTheSAGEHandbookofPersuasion:AdvancesinTheoryandResearch,2ndEdn.,edsJ.P.DillardandL.Shen(LosAngeles,CA:Sage,200–219. GoogleScholar Brehm,J.W.(1966).ATheoryofPsychologicalReactance.NewYork,NY:AcademicPress. GoogleScholar Brehm,J.W.,andBrehm,S.S.(1981).PsychologicalReactance:ATheoryofFreedomandControl.SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress. GoogleScholar Burgoon,M.,Alvaro,E.M.,Grandpre,J.R.,andVoulodakis.(2002).“Revisitingthetheoryofpsychologicalreactance:communicatingthreatstoattitudinalfreedom,”inThePersuasionHandbook:DevelopmentsinTheoryandPractice,edsJ.P.DillardandM.Pfau(ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,213–233. GoogleScholar Byrne,S.,andHart,P.S.(2009).“Theboomerangeffect:asynthesisoffindingsandapreliminarytheoreticalframework,”inCommunicationYearbook33,edC.Beck(Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum,3–37. GoogleScholar Campbell,R.G.,andBabrow,A.S.(2004).Theroleofempathyinresponsestopersuasiveriskcommunication:overcomingresistancetoHIVpreventionmessages.HealthCommun.16,159–182.doi:10.1207/S15327027HC1602_2 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar CentersforDiseaseControlPrevention.(2017).DeathsandMortality.Retrievedfrom:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm(accessedOctober21,2019). PubMedAbstract Chadee,D.(2011).“Towardfreedom:reactancetheoryrevisited,”inTheoriesinSocialPsychology,edD.Chadee(WestSussex:Wiley-Blackwell),13–43. GoogleScholar Cho,H.,andSands,L.(2011).Gain-andloss-framesunsafetymessagesandpsychologicalreactanceofadolescents.Commun.Res.Rep.28,308–317.doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.616242 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Compton,J.(2013).“Inoculationtheory,”inTheSAGEHandbookofPersuasion:AdvancesinTheoryAndResearch,2ndEdn.,edsJ.P.DillardandL.Shen(LosAngeles,CA:Sage,220–236. GoogleScholar Cowell,A.J.,Farrelly,M.C.,Chou,R.,andVallone,D.M.(2009).Assessingtheimpactofthenational‘truth'anti-smokingcampaignonbeliefs,attitudes,andintenttosmokebyrace/ethnicity.Ethn.Health14,75–91.doi:10.1080/13557850802257715 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar DalCin,S.,Zanna,M.P.,andFong,G.T.(2004).“Narrativepersuasionandovercomingresistance,”inResistanceandPersuasion,edsE.S.KnowlesandJ.A.Linn(Mawah,NJ:Erlbaum,175–191. GoogleScholar Davis,K.C.,Farrelly,M.C.,Messeri,P.,andDuke,J.(2009).Theimpactofnationalsmokingpreventioncampaignsontobacco-relatedbeliefs,intentionstosmokeandsmokinginitiation:resultsfromalongitudinalsurveyofyouthintheUnitedStates.Int.J.Environ.Res.PublicHealth6,720–740.doi:10.3390/ijerph6020722 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Decety,J.,andJackson,P.(2004).Thefunctionalarchitectureofhumanempathy.Behav.Cogn.Neurosci.Rev.3,71–100.doi:10.1177/1534582304267187 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Decety,J.,andJackson,P.(2006).Asocialneuroscienceperspectiveonempathy.Curr.Dir.Psychol.Sci.15,54–58.doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00406.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Dillard,J.P.,Kinney,T.A.,andCruz,M.G.(1996).Influence,appraisals,andemotionsincloserelationships.Commun.Monogr.63,105–130.doi:10.1080/03637759609376382 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Dillard,J.P.,andShen,L.(2005).Onthenatureofreactanceanditsroleinpersuasivehealthcommunication.Commun.Monogr.72,144–168.doi:10.1080/03637750500111815 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Dowd,E.T.,Milne,C.R.,andWise,S.L.(1991).Thetherapeuticreactancescale:ameasureofpsychologicalreactance.J.Counsel.Dev.69,541–545.doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb02638.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Dowd,E.T.,Wallbrown,F.,Sanders,D.,andYesenosky,J.M.(1994).Psychologicalreactanceanditsrelationshiptonormalpersonalityvariables.Cognit.Ther.Res.18,601–612.doi:10.1007/BF02355671 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Farrelly,M.C.,Davis,K.C.,Duke,J.,andMesseri,P.(2008).Sustaining‘truth':changesinyouthtobaccoattitudesandsmokingintentionsafter3yearsofanationalanti-smokingcampaign.HealthEduc.Res.24,42–48.doi:10.1093/her/cym087 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Gardner,L.,andLeshner,G.(2016).Theroleofnarrativeandother-referencinginattenuatingpsychologicalreactancetodiabetesself-caremessages.HealthCommun.31,738–751.doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.993498 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Grandpre,J.,Alvaro,E.M.,Burgoon,M.,Miller,C.H.,andHall,J.R.(2003).Adolescentreactanceandanti-smokingcampaigns:atheoreticalapproach.HealthCommun.15,349–366.doi:10.1207/S15327027HC1503_6 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hammock,T.,andBrehm,J.W.(1966).Theattractivenessofchoicealternativeswhenfreedomtochooseiseliminatedbyasocialagent.J.Pers.34,546–554.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1966.tb02370.x PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hong,S.M.,andFaedda,S.(1996).Refinementofthehongpsychologicalreactancescale.Educ.Psychol.Meas.56,173–182.doi:10.1177/0013164496056001014 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hovland,C.I.,Janis,I.L.,andKelley,H.H.(1953).CommunicationandPersuasion;PsychologicalStudiesofOpinionChange.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress. Kang,Y.,Cappella,J.N.,andFishbein,M.(2006).Theattentionalmechanismofmessagesensationvalue:interactionbetweenmessagesensationvalueandargumentqualityonmessageeffectiveness.Commun.Monogr.73,351–378.doi:10.1080/03637750601024164 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Kim,S.-Y.,Levine,T.,andAllen,M.(2013).Comparingseparateprocessandintertwinedmodelsforreactance.Commun.Stud.64,273–295.doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.755639 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Kreuter,M.W.,Green,M.C.,Cappella,J.N.,Slater,M.D.,Wise,M.E.,Storey,D.,etal.(2007).Narrativecommunicationincancerpreventionandcontrol:aframeworktoguideresearchandapplication.Ann.Behav.Med.33,221–235.doi:10.1007/BF02879904 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar LaVoie,N.R.,Quick,B.L.,Riles,J.M.,andLambert,N.J.(2017).Aregraphiccigarettewarninglabelsaneffectivemessagestrategy?Atestofpsychologicalreactancetheoryandsourceappraisal.Commun.Res.44,416–436.doi:10.1177/0093650215609669 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lazarus,R.S.(1991).EmotionandAdaptation.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress. Lee,H.,andCameron,G.T.(2017).Utilizingaudiovisualandgain-framedmessagestoattenuatepsychologicalreactancetowardweightmanagementhealthmessages.HealthCommun.32,72–81.doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1099506 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Levin,I.P.,Schneider,S.L.,andGaeth,G.J.(1998).Allframesarenotcreatedequal:atypologyandcriticalanalysisofframingeffects.Organ.Behav.Hum.Decis.Process.76,149–188.doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lindsey,L.L.M.(2005).Anticipatedguiltasbehavioralmotivation:anexaminationofappealstohelpunknownothersthroughbonemarrowdonation.Hum.Commun.Res.31,453–481.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00879.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar McGuire,W.J.(1961).Theeffectivenessofsupportiveandrefutationaldefensesinimmunizingandrestoringbeliefsagainstpersuasion.Sociometry24,184–197.doi:10.2307/2786067 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar McGuire,W.J.(1964).“Inducingresistancetopersuasion:somecontemporaryapproaches,”inAdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,Vol.1,edL.Berkowitz(NewYork,NY:AcademicPress,191–229. GoogleScholar Merz,J.(1983).FragebogenzurMessungderpsychologischenReaktanz[Aquestionnaireforthemeasurementofpsychologicalreactance].Diagnostica29,75–82. GoogleScholar Miller,C.H.(2015).“Persuasionandpsychologicalreactance:theeffectsofexplicit,high-controllinglanguage,”inTheExerciseofPowerinCommunication,edR.SchulzeandH.Pishwa(London:PalgraveMacmillanUK,269–286. GoogleScholar Miller,C.H.,Burgoon,M.,Grandpre,J.R.,andAlvaro,E.M.(2006).Identifyingprincipalriskfactorsfortheinitiationofadolescentsmokingbehaviors:thesignificanceofpsychologicalreactance.HealthCommun.19,241–252.doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1903_6 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Miller,C.H.,Lane,L.T.,Deatrick,L.M.,Young,A.M.,andPotts,K.A.(2007).Psychologicalreactanceandpromotionalhealthmessages:theeffectsofcontrollinglanguage,lexicalconcreteness,andtherestorationoffreedom.Hum.Commun.Res.33,219–240.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Miller,C.H.,andQuick,B.L.(2010).Sensationseekingandpsychologicalreactanceashealthriskpredictorsforanemergingadultpopulation.HealthCommun.25,266–275.doi:10.1080/10410231003698945 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Mokdad,A.H.,Marks,J.S.,Stroup,D.F.,andGerberding,J.L.(2004).ActualcausesofdeathintheUnitedStates,2000.J.Am.Med.Assoc.291,1238–1245.doi:10.1001/jama.291.10.1238 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Morgan,S.E.,Palmgreen,P.,Stephenson,M.T.,Lorch,E.P.,andHoyle,R.H.(2003).Therelationshipbetweenmessagesensationvalueandperceivedmessagesensationvalue:theeffectofformalmessagefeaturesonsubjectiveevaluationsofanti-drugpublicserviceannouncements.J.Commun.53,512–526.doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02605.x CrossRefFullText Moyer-Gusé,E.(2008).Towardatheoryofentertainmentpersuasion:explainingthepersuasiveeffectsofentertainment-educationmessages.Commun.Theory18,407–425.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Moyer-Gusé,E.,andNabi,R.L.(2010).Explainingtheeffectsofnarrativeinanentertainmenttelevisionprogram:overcomingresistancetopersuasion.Hum.Commun.Res.36,26–52.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar O'Keefe,D.J.(2012).“Frompsychologicaltheorytomessagedesign:lessonsfromthestoryofgain-framedandloss-framedpersuasiveappeals,”inHealthCommunicationMessageDesign:Theory,Research,andPractice,edH.Cho(ThousandOaks,CA:Sage,3–20. GoogleScholar O'Keefe,D.J.,andJensen,J.D.(2006).Theadvantagesofcomplianceorthedisadvantagesofnoncompliance?Ameta-analyticreviewoftherelativepersuasiveeffective-nessofgain-framedandloss-framedmessages.Commun.Yearbook30,1–43.doi:10.1080/23808985.2006.11679054 CrossRefFullText O'Keefe,D.J.,andJensen,J.D.(2007).Therelativepersuasivenessofgain-framedandloss-framedmessagesforencouragingdiseasepreventionbehaviors:ameta-analyticreview.J.HealthCommun.12,623–644.doi:10.1080/10810730701615198 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar O'Keefe,D.J.,andJensen,J.D.(2009).Therelativepersuasivenessofgain-framedandloss-framedmessagesforencouragingdiseasedetectionbehaviors:ameta-analyticreview.J.Commun.59,296–316.doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Palmgreen,P.,Donohew,L.,Lorch,E.P.,Rogus,M.,Helme,D.,andGrant,N.(1991).Sensationseeking,messagesensationvalue,anddruguseasmediatorsofadeffectiveness.HealthCommun.3,217–227.doi:10.1207/s15327027hc0304_4 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Palmgreen,P.,Stephenson,M.T.,Everett,M.W.,Baseheart,J.R.,andFrancies,R.(2002).Perceivedmessagesensationvalue(PMSV)andthedimensionsandvalidationofaPMSVscale.HealthCommun.14,403–428.doi:10.1207/S15327027HC1404_1 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Petty,R.E.,andCacioppo,J.T.(1986).CommunicationandPersuasion:CentralandPeripheralRoutestoAttitudeChange.NewYork,NY:Springer-Verlag. GoogleScholar Petty,R.E.,Wells,G.L.,andBrock,T.C.(1976).Distractioncanenhanceorreduceyieldingtopropaganda:thoughtdisruptionversuseffortjustification.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.,34,874–884.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.874 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Preston,S.,anddeWaal,F.(2002).Empathy:itsultimateandproximatebases.Behav.BrainSci.25,1–72.doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.(2012).Whatisthebestmeasureofpsychologicalreactance?Anempiricaltestoftwomeasures.HealthCommun.27,1–9.doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.567446 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.(2013).Perceivedmessagesensationvalueandpsychologicalreactance:atestofthedominantthoughtdisruptionhypothesis.J.HealthCommun.18,1024–1038.doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.768728 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,andBates,B.R.(2010).Theuseofgain-orloss-framemessagesandefficacyappealstodissuadeexcessivealcoholconsumptionamongcollegestudents:atestofpsychologicalreactancetheory.J.HealthCommun.15,603–628.doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.499593 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,Bates,B.R.,andQuinlan,M.R.(2009).Theutilityofangerinpromotingcleanindoorairpolicies.HealthCommun.24,548–561.doi:10.1080/10410230903104939 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,andConsidine,J.R.(2008).Examiningtheuseofforcefullanguagewhendesigningexercisepersuasivemessagesforadults:atestofconceptualizingreactancearousalasatwo-stepprocess.HealthCommun.23,483–491.doi:10.1080/10410230802342150 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,Kam,J.A.,Morgan,S.E.,MonteroLiberona,C.A.,andSmith,R.A.(2015).Prospecttheory,discreteemotions,andfreedomthreats:anextensionofpsychologicalreactancetheory.J.Commun.65,40–61.doi:10.1111/jcom.12134 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,andKim,D.K.(2009).ExaminingreactanceandreactancerestorationwithSouthKoreanadolescents:atestofpsychologicalreactancewithinacollectivistculture.Communic.Res.36,765–782.doi:10.1177/009365020346797 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,Scott,A.M.,andLedbetter,A.M.(2011).Acloseexaminationoftraitreactanceandissueinvolvementasmoderatorsofpsychologicalreactancetheory.J.HealthCommun.16,660–679.doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.551989 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,Shen,L.,andDillard,J.P.(2013).“Reactancetheoryandpersuasion,”inTheSAGEHandbookofPersuasion:AdvancesinTheoryandResearch,2ndEdn.,edsJ.P.DillardandL.Shen(LosAngeles,CA:Sage,167–183. GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,andStephenson,M.T.(2007).Furtherevidencethatpsychologicalreactancecanbemodeledasacombinationofangerandnegativecognitions.Communic.Res.34,255–276.doi:10.1177/0093650207300427 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quick,B.L.,andStephenson,M.T.(2008).Examiningtheroleoftraitreactanceandsensationseekingonperceivedthreat,statereactance,andreactancerestoration.Hum.Commun.Res.34,448–476.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00328.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rains,S.A.(2013).Thenatureofpsychologicalreactancerevisited:ameta-analyticreview.Hum.Commun.Res.39,47–73.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rains,S.A.,andTurner,M.M.(2007).Psychologicalreactanceandpersuasivehealthcommunication:atestandextensionoftheintertwinedmodel.Hum.Commun.Res.33,241–269.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Reinhart,A.M.,Marshall,H.M.,Feeley,T.H.,andTutzauer,F.(2007).Thepersuasiveeffectsofmessageframinginorgandonation:themediatingroleofpsychologicalreactance.Commun.Monogr.74,229–255.doi:10.1080/03637750701397098 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Reynolds-Tylus,T.,MartinezGonzalez,A.,andQuick,B.L.(2019).Theroleofchoiceclusteringanddescriptivenormsinattenuatingpsychologicalreactancetowaterandenergyconservationmessages.Environ.Commun.13,847–863.doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1461672 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Richards,A.S.,andBanas,J.A.(2015).Inoculatingagainstreactancetopersuasivehealthmessages.HealthCommun.30,451–460.doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.867005 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Richards,A.S.,Banas,J.A.,andMagid,Y.(2017).Moreoninoculatingagainstreactancetopersuasivehealthmessages:theparadoxofthreat.HealthCommun.32,890–902.doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1196410 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Richards,A.S.,andLarsen,M.(2017).Angerexpressionmoderatestheeffectsofpsychologicalreactancetosexualhealthmessages.HealthCommun.32,1491–1500.doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1230811 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rosenberg,B.D.,andSiegel,J.T.(2018).A50-yearreviewofpsychologicalreactancetheory:donotreadthisarticle.Motiv.Sci.4,281–300.doi:10.1037/mot0000091 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rothman,A.J.,andUpdegraff,J.A.(2011).“Specifyingwhenandhowgain-andloss-framedmessagesmotivatehealthybehavior:anintegratedapproach.inPerspectivesonFraming,edG.Keren(NewYork,NY:PsychologyPress,257–278. Scott,A.M.,andQuick,B.L.(2012).Familycommunicationpatternsmoderatetherelationshipbetweenpsychologicalreactanceandwillingnesstotalkaboutorgandonation.HealthCommun.27,702–711.doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.635135 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Searle,J.(1995).“Indirectspeechacts,”inSyntaxandSemantics3:SpeechActs,edsP.ColeandJ.Morgan(NewYork,NY:AcademicPress,59–82. GoogleScholar Seibel,C.A.,andDowd,E.T.(2001).Personalitycharacteristicsassociatedwithpsychologicalreactance.J.Clin.Psychol.57,963–969.doi:10.1002/jclp.1062 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Shaver,P.,Schwartz,J.,Kirson,D.,andO'Connor,C.(1987).Emotionknowledge:furtherexplorationsofaprototypeapproach.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.52,1061–1086.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1061 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Shen,L.(2010).Mitigatingpsychologicalreactance:theroleofmessage-inducedempathyinpersuasion.Hum.Commun.Res.36,397–422.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01381.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Shen,L.(2011).Theeffectivenessofempathy-versusfear-arousingantismokingPSAs.HealthCommun.26,404–415.doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.552480 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Shen,L.(2015).Antecedentstopsychologicalreactance:theimpactofthreat,messageframe,andchoice.HealthCommun.30,975–985.doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.910882 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Shen,L.(2019).Featuresofempathy-arousingstrategicmessages.HealthCommun.34,1329–1339.doi:10.1080/10410236.2018.1485078 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Shen,L.,andDillard,J.P.(2005).PsychometricpropertiesoftheHongpsychologicalreactancescale.J.Pers.Assess.85,74–81.doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_07 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Shen,L.,andDillard,J.P.(2007).Theinfluenceofbehavioralinhibition/approachsystemsandmessageframingontheprocessingofpersuasivehealthmessages.Commun.Res.34,433–467.doi:10.1177/0093650207302787 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Silvia,P.J.(2006).Reactanceandthedynamicsofdisagreement:multiplepathsfromthreatenedfreedomtoresistancetopersuasion.Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.36,673–685.doi:10.1002/ejsp.v36:5 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Slater,M.D.,andRouner,D.(2002).Entertainment-educationandelaborationlikelihood:understandingtheprocessingofnarrativepersuasion.Commun.Theory12,173–191.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Smith,M.J.(1977).Theeffectsofthreatstoattitudinalfreedomasafunctionofmessagequalityandinitialreceiverattitude.Commun.Monogr.44,196–206.doi:10.1080/03637757709390131 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Stephenson,M.T.(2003).Examiningadolescents'responsestoantimarijuanaPSAs.Hum.Commun.Res.29,343–369.doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00843.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar truth®(2019).AboutTruth.Retrievedfrom:https://www.thetruth.com/about-truth(accessedOctober21,2019). Turner,M.M.(2007).Usingemotioninriskcommunication:theangeractivismmodel.PublicRelat.Rev.33,114–119.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.11.013 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Varava,K.A.,andQuick,B.L.(2015).Adolescentsandmovieratings:ispsychologicalreactanceatheoreticalexplanationfortheforbiddenfruiteffect?J.Broadcast.Electron.Media59,149–168.doi:10.1080/08838151.2014.998224 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wicklund,R.A.(1974).FreedomandReactance.Potomac,MD:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. GoogleScholar Worchel,S.,andBrehm,J.W.(1970).Effectsofthreatstoattitudinalfreedomasafunctionofagreementwiththecommunicator.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.14,18–22.doi:10.1037/h0028620 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Xu,J.(2015).Designingmessageswithhighsensationvalue:whenactivationmeetsreactance.Psychol.Health30,423–440.doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.977280 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Keywords:psychologicalreactance,persuasion,healthcommunication,anger,freedomthreat Citation:Reynolds-TylusT(2019)PsychologicalReactanceandPersuasiveHealthCommunication:AReviewoftheLiterature.Front.Commun.4:56.doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00056 Received:30April2019;Accepted:15October2019;Published:31October2019. Editedby:RukhsanaAhmed,UniversityatAlbany,UnitedStates Reviewedby:PeterJohannesSchulz,UniversityofLugano,SwitzerlandM.TeresaAnguera,UniversityofBarcelona,Spain Copyright©2019Reynolds-Tylus.Thisisanopen-accessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense(CCBY).Theuse,distributionorreproductioninotherforumsispermitted,providedtheoriginalauthor(s)andthecopyrightowner(s)arecreditedandthattheoriginalpublicationinthisjournaliscited,inaccordancewithacceptedacademicpractice.Nouse,distributionorreproductionispermittedwhichdoesnotcomplywiththeseterms. *Correspondence:TobiasReynolds-Tylus,[email protected] COMMENTARY ORIGINALARTICLE Peoplealsolookedat SuggestaResearchTopic>