Reactance Theory in Consumer Research: the Past, Present

Reactance theory is a social psychological theory developed by Jack Brehm (Brehm 1966, 1972; Brehm, Stires, Sensenig and Shaban 1966; Hammock and Brehm 1966). LearnmoreaboutourTermsofServiceandPrivacyPolicy Dismiss ReactanceTheoryinConsumerResearch:thePast,PresentandFuture Citation: GregLessneandM.Venkatesan(1989),"ReactanceTheoryinConsumerResearch:thePast,PresentandFuture",inNA-AdvancesinConsumerResearchVolume16,eds.ThomasK.Srull,Provo,UT:AssociationforConsumerResearch,Pages:76-78. AdvancesinConsumerResearchVolume16,1989    Pages76-78REACTANCETHEORYINCONSUMERRESEARCH:THEPAST,PRESENTANDFUTUREGregLessne,UniversityofRhodeIslandM.Venkatesan,UniversityofRhodeIslandThesocialpsychologicalrootsofreactancetheoryarereviewedfollowedbyadiscussionoftheearlyconsumerresearchthatinvokedreactancetheory.Morerecentresearchisthendiscussedalongwithreasonswhythetheoryhasnotreceivedagreatdealofattentioninrecentyears.Finallyasetofunresolvedissuesarepresentedwhichcanservetoprovidesomeguidanceforthoseinterestedinconductingfutureresearchintoreactancetheory.ReactancetheoryisasocialpsychologicaltheorydevelopedbyJackBrehm(Brehm1966,1972;Brehm,Stires,SensenigandShaban1966;HammockandBrehm1966).Thetheoryisconcernedwithhowindividualsreactwhentheirfreedomtochooseisrestricted.Accordingtothetheory,whenanindividual'sfreedomtoengageinaspecificbehavioristhreatened.thethreatenedbehaviorbecomesmoreattractive.Forreactancetooccur,theindividualmusthaveanexpectationoffreechoiceandtheindividualmustperceivethefreedominquestionasbeingimportant(CleeandWicklund1980).Inotherwords,"Theconsumerwhosedecisionalternativeisblocked(partiallyorwholly)byabarriershouldbecomeincreasinglymotivatedtoobtainthatalternative"(CleeandWicklund,1980,p.39:.)lnBrehm's(1972,p.l)words,"Thebasicideaofthetheoryisthatapersonismotivationallyarousedanytimehethinksoneofhisfreedomshasbeenthreatenedoreliminated.Thismotivationalarousal,...movesapersontotrytorestorehisfreedom."AccordingtoCleeandWicklund(1980),twoconditionsmustbepresentfortheoperationofreactancetheory:(l)anindividualmustexpectameasureoffreedomtoactinthesituation,and(2)somethreatmustarisewhichimpingesuponthatfreedom.(AportionofthisdiscussionisdrawnfromCleeandWicklund,1980andLessneandNotarantonio,1988).Inoneoftheearliestlaboratoryinvestigationsofreactancetheory,Brehmetal.(1966)investigatedtheeffectsthatproductunavailabilityhadonproductattractiveness.Participantsinthefirstsessionofthestudylistenedtoandevaluatedfourphonographrecords.Atthesecondsessionparticipantsweretoldthattheyweregoingtolistentothesamefourrecords,evaluatethemandchooseonetokeep.Priortolisteningtotherecordsduringthesecondsession,onegroupofparticipantswasinformedthatoneoftherecordswasnolongeravailablebecauseitwasmissingfromtheshipment.Ineachcase,therecordthatwasreportedasunavailablewastheonethatwasratedastheparticipants'thirdchoice.Asreactancetheorypredicts,thethirdratedrecordincreasedinattractivenessasaresultofbecomingunavailable.Sixty-sevenpercentofthoseparticipantswhohadtheirthirdchoiceeliminatedraisedtheirevaluation.Onlyforty-threepercentofthosewhodidnothavetheirthirdchoiceeliminatedraisedtheirevaluation.Theearlieststudyperformedbyaconsumerresearcher(Venkatesan1966)waspublishedinthesameyearthatBrehm's(1966)seminalwork,ATheoryofPsychologicalReactance,appeared.Inthisstudy,thefocuswasongroupconformitybehavior.Inordertoascertainwhetherindividualsdemonstrateindependencefromthenormofthegroup,anexperimentalconditionwascreated.Inthiscondition,thethreeconfederatesnotonlyindicatedtheirchoices,buttheymadesurethattheywerefollowingthejudgmentofthepreviousconfederate(notanindependentJudgmentbyitself).Thus.whenfreedomtochoosewasartificiallyrestrictedinthisexperimentalcondition,thesubjectstendednottoconformasmuchasevidencedinthe"conformitycondition."Mazis,SettleandLeslie(1973)appliedreactancetheoryinafieldstudyinvestigatingtheeffectsofabanonphosphatedetergentsinMiami.TheyfoundthatMiamiresidentsevaluatedphosphatedetergentsmorefavorablythanresidentsofTampawherephosphatedetergentswerestillavailable.Thisstudyisperhapsthemostconvincingintermsofdemonstratingthetheory'srelevancetoconsumerresearch.Lessne(1987)investigatedwhetherretailadvertisementswhichdescribesalesoflimitedduration(e.g.OneDayOnly,ThreeDaysOnly)arecapableofincreasingconsumerdemand.OneofthekeyfindingsofthestudyisthatanadvertisementforaOneDayOnlysaleresultsingreaterpurchaselikelihoodthanadvertisementsforaThreeDayOnlysale,aFiveDayOnlysaleandasaleofanunstatedduration.LessneandNotarantonio(1988)investigatedtheeffectoflimitsinretailadvertisements(e.g.limit2percustomer,limit4percustomer).Akeyfindingofthisstudyisthatlimitsarecapableofincreasingattractiontotheadvertisedproduct(soda).Thoseinthelimit4treatmentgroupevidencedagreaterintendedpurchasequantityaswellasastrongerbeliefthat"manywillwanttopurchasethisproductafterseeingthisad"thanthosewhowereexposedtoacontroladwhichdidnotcontainalimitstatement.Inastrictsense,accordingtoreactancetheory,thosewhoareexposedtoanadvertisementwithalimit2statementshouldbemoreattractedthanthoseexposedtoalimit4statement.'Themagnitudeofreactancearousedbytheintroductionofabarrierisadirectfunctionofthesizeofthebarrieruptothatpointatwhichthebarrierbecomestoogreattoovercome."(Brehm,1972,p.17)LessneandNotarantonio's(1988)findingsindicatethatthelimit4statementresultedinagreaterlikelihoodofbuyingandastrongerbeliefthatmanywillwanttopurchase.Eventhoughthelimit2barrierwasnot"toogreattoovercome"participantsinthestudyactedasiftheyperceiveditastoorestrictive.The"sourgrapeseffect(CleeandWicklund,1980;HammockandBrehm,1966)providesanexplanationofthisoutcomebymaintainingthatobjectswhichbecomeunobtainablewillbederogatedbyindividuals.Thesourgrapeseffectandthereactanceeffectarethereforecountervailingforces.LessneandNotarantonio's(1988)findingsindicatethatthesourgrapeseffectcanbeoperationaleveniftheobjectisnotentirelyunobtainable.LessneandNotarantonio(1988)alsoinvestigatedwhethertheimpositionoflimitshasadifferentialimpactonindividualswithdifferentdemographicbackgrounds.Olderindividualsandthosewithhigherincomeswerefoundtobemorepositivelyaffectedbythelimit4treatmentthanothers.Theimportanceofthisfindingisthatcertainmarketsegmentsmaybemore''limit-influenced''thanothers.UNRESOLVEDISSUESTherehasbeenextremelylittleempiricalreactancetheoryconsumerresearchconductedsinceMazisetal(1973)(cfHenionandBatsell,1976;Lessne,1987;LessneandNotarantonio,1988).Asaresultofthispaucityofresearchwedonothaveagreatdealofinsightintohow"translatable"reactancetheoryistoaconsumerbehaviorcontext.Itisnotpossibleatthepresenttimetoknowwhatmodificationsorextensionsarenecessary(ifany)toapplythetheorytothecontextofconsumerbehavior.Perhapsoneofthereasonswhytherehasbeensolittleempiricalresearchinthecontextofconsumerbehaviormaybethatthetheoryisnotseenashavingmanagerialramifications.Anadditionalcomplicatingfactorisifthatthetheorycanbeappliedtoamanager'sbenefit,suchanapplicationmaybedeemedunethical.ThefindingsofLessne(1987)indicatethatreactancetheorymayhavemanagerialapplicationsbutsuchapplicationswouldindeedbeconsideredunethical.Clearlycorroborationofthesefindingswouldbemanageriallyrelevant;managersmightbeencouragedtoadvertisesalesaslastingforashortdurationtoincreasepurchaselikelihood.Perhapsanargumentcanbemadethatadvertisingsalesofshortdurationisindeedethicalbecausethosewhomakesuchpurchaseswillderivegreatersatisfactionfromthepurchasedproductbecausetheypurchaseditduringasaleofshortduration.Thisoutcomewouldstillbecauseforethicalconcerniftheconsumers'increasedlevelofsatisfactionwasduetothemistakenbeliefthatthepurchasemadeatasaleofshortdurationwasabettervaluethanasaleoflongerduration.Indeedapreliminaryanalysisofadvertisementsforsalesofshortdurationindicatesthatthelengthofthesaleisnotrelatedtoamountofsavings.(Lessne1988)Thecountervailingnatureofthereactanceeffectandthesourgrapeseffectmakesreactancetheoryresearchallthemorechallenging.Amessagethatisintendedtocausereactanceandthereforeincreaseattractionmayinsteadcausesourgrapesanddecreasedattraction.Accordingtoreactancetheory,reactanceappealsshouldincreaseconsumers'attractiontotheadvertisedproductbecausesuchappealsthreatenconsumers'freedom.(Lessne1988)Advertisementswhichdescribesalesofshortdurationorlimitedpurchasequantities(e.g.LimitOneperCustomer)maybeviewedasreactanceappeals.Thisdiscussionraisesanumberofimportantunresolvedissueswithrespecttoreactancetheoryimplicationsforconsumerbehaviorresearch.Centraltotheseissuesisthereactanceappealconstruct.Areactanceappealisdefinedasastatementinanadvertisementwhichisperceivedasrestrictingconsumers'behaviorwithrespecttotheadvertisedproduct.Theextenttowhichconsumersfeeltheirfreedomthreatenedbyapotentialreactanceappealwouldprovideanindicationoftherelativevalidityofthereactanceappealconstruct.Unfortunately,inclusionofaquestiononasurveyinstrumentsuchas,"Pleaseindicatetheextenttowhichyoufeltyourfreedomwasthreatenedbytheadvertisement",isnotveryplausible.Inotherwords,itisverydifficulttodeterminewhetherindividualsareindeedexperiencingreactance.Thisbeingthecase,inastrictsense,itisimpossibletodeterminewhetherreactanceisoperationalorifacompetingtheorycansatisfactorilyexplainthisbehavior(e.g.commoditytheoryBrock(1968)).Anyonewhoiscontemplatingperformingresearchusingreactancetheoryshouldrealizethatitwillremainvirtuallyimpossibletounequivocallydemonstratethatreactanceisbeingaroused.Doesthisthenmeanthatthetheoryshouldbeabandoned?No,itjustrequiresashiftinhowthetheoryshouldbeappliedinconsumerresearch.Itisourviewthatthedrivingforcebehindreactancetheoryapplicationsforconsumerresearchshouldnotbethetheorypersebutthephenomenonunderinvestigation.Thetheoryshouldplayaguidingrole,butconsumerbehaviorresearchwillnecessarilybecomeveryrestrictedifonemaintainsonlyastricttheory-testingperspective.Thisistruebecausethephenomenaweareconcernedwithtypicallydonotfitwithinthestrictconfines(assumptions)ofthetheory.Beingentirelytheory-drivenwouldresultinresearchintophenomenawhicharenotnecessarilyimportantbutratherphenomenawhichhappentofitcloselywiththetheorywhetherornotthephenomenaareimportant.Theadvocatedpositionwouldresultinreactancetheoryplayinganimportantguidingrole,possiblyinconjunctionwithotherrelevanttheories.Thefocusshouldbeonthephenomenaofinterestnotthetheory.Thelimitedresearchinconsumerbehaviorappearstodemonstratethatreactanceappealsmaybecapableofincreasingproductattraction,butithasnotshedmuchlightonthenatureoftherelationship(Lessne1987,1988;LessneandNotarantonio1983).Therelationshipbetweenareactanceappealandproductattractionmaybemediatedbyanumberofinferencesmadebytheconsumer,forexample:1.priceinferences(e.g.theproductmustbeabargain),2.scarcityinference.LessneandNotarantonio(1988)providessomesupportforthenotionthatthereactanceeffectisnotmediatedbypriceinferences.Reactancetheoryisalsopotentiallycapableofexplainingtheeffectsthata"hardsell"canhaveonconsumerchoice.Forexample,ifaconsumerperceivesthatasalespersonispressuringhim/herintothepurchaseofaspecificproduct.reactancemaybearoused.Thereactanceeffectwouldmotivatetheconsumertoreasserttheirfreedombynotpurchasingthepromoteditem.TherelativesuccessoftheHomeShoppingClub(HSC)maybepartiallyattributabletoreactance.HSCmarketsproductsviaacabletelevisionshow.Consumerscanonlypurchaseproductsbyphoningintheirorderduringtheverybriefperiod(5-15minutes)whentheproductisbeingfeatured.Thistemporalbarriermayservetopromotereactanceandthereforeresultinincreasedattraction.CONCLUSIONSWhilethereisnotconsiderableempiricalresearchintheapplicationofreactancetheorytotheconsumerbehaviorcontext,availableevidencetodatesuggeststhatreactancetheorywouldseemtobeapplicabletoalimitedsetofconditionswhereconsumers'freedomofchoiceisthreatened.Suchthreatscomefromproductunavailabilityorrestrictionsplacedonthenumberofitemsonecanpurchaseduringa"sale"orrestrictionsimposedbylimitingthedurationofa"sale."Whiletheseconditionsfittherequirementsofreactancetheory,experimentalfieldstudieshavenotbeenconductedwhichfullyexploretheutilityofthetheorytoconsumerbehavior.Whatissuggestedhereisthatthetheorynotbetestedinthestricttheorytestingperspectivebutratherthatthetheorybeusedasaguidingframeworkininvestigationsofimportantphenomena.REFERENCESBrehm,JackW.(1966),ATheoryofPsychologicalReactance,NewYork:AcademicPress,Inc.Brehm,JackW.(1972),ResponsetoLossofFreedom:ATheoryofPsychologicalReactance,Morristown,NJ:GeneralLearningPress.Brehm,JackW.,LloydK.Stires,JohnSensenigandJanetShaban(1966),'TheAttractivenessofanEliminatedChoiceAlternative,"JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,2,301-313.Brock,T.C.(1968),"ImplicationsofCommodityTheoryforValueExchange,"InA.G.Greenwald,T.C.BrockandT.M.Ostrom(Eds.)PsychologicalFoundationsofAttitude.NewYork:AcademicPress.Clee,MonaA.andRobertA.Wicklund(1980),"ConsumerBehaviorandPsychologicalReactance,"JournalofConsumerResearch,6(March),389-405.Hammock,ThomasandJackW.Brehm(1966),'The.AttractivenessofChoiceAlternativesWhenFreedomtoChooseisEliminatedbyaSocialAgent,"JournalofPersonality,34,546-554.Henion,KarlE.andRichardR.Batsell(1976),"MarketingofBloodDonorship,HelpingBehaviorandPsychologicalReactance,"Educator'sProceedings,Chicago:AmericanMarketingAssociation,652-656.Lessne,GregJ.(1987),"TheImpactofAdvertisedSaleDurationonConsumerPerceptions,"LnJ.M.Hawes(-Ed.)DevelopmentsinMarketingScience,Vol.X,Atlanta:AcademyofMarketingScience,pp.115117.Lessne,GregJ.(1988)"ReactanceAppealsinAdvertising:ANeglectedFieldofInquiry"unpublishedworkingpaper,UniversityofRhodeIslandLessne,GregJ.andElaineNotarantonio(1988),"TheEffectsofLimitsinRetailAdvertisements:AReactanceTheoryPerspective,"PsychologyandMarketing,Spring,Volume5,(l)pp.33-44Mazis,MichaelB.,RobertB.SettleandDennisC.Leslie(1973),"EliminationofPhosphateDetergentsandPsychologicalReactance,"JournalofMarketingResearch,10(November,)390-395Venkatesan,M.(1966),"ExperimentalStudyofConsumerBehaviorConformityandIndependence."JournalofMarketingResearch,3(November),384-387.Wicklund,RobertA.(1974),FreedomandReactance.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates---------------------------------------- Authors GregLessne,UniversityofRhodeIsland M.Venkatesan,UniversityofRhodeIsland Volume NA-AdvancesinConsumerResearchVolume16|1989 ShareProceeding Featuredpapers SeeMore Featured ExplainingtheAttractionEffect:AnAmbiguity-Attention-ApplicabilityFramework SharleneHe,ConcordiaUniversity,Canada BrianSternthal,NorthwesternUniversity,USA ReadMore Featured D2.WhenaNegativeReviewCanHelptheCompany:theRoleoftheUnfairnessandEmpathy MariaAlicePasdiora,UFRGS CristianePizzutti,UFRGS NataliaEnglert,UFRGS ReadMore Featured J14.YouReflectMe:NarcissisticConsumersPreferAnthropomorphizedArrogantBrands NorahAwad,HongikUniversity NaraYoun,HongikUniversity ReadMore EngagewithUs BecominganAssociationforConsumerResearchmemberissimple.MembershipinACRisrelativelyinexpensive,butbringssignificantbenefitstoitsmembers. JoinACRnow! Search Search Closemodalwindow