Why do we hate being told what to do?

How does reactance theory work?

Proposed by Jack W. Brehm in 1966, this theory suggests that when individuals perceive a threat to their freedom or control due to external advice or instructions, they are driven to defend their autonomy.

In such cases, the "forbidden fruit" or going against the instruction becomes even more appealing.

Psychological reactance revolves around the concept of freedom or free will. Here are the four basic principles implicated by the theory:

• In a given situation, reactance can only occur when an individual believes they have control or freedom over the outcome.
• Reactance to a threat correlates to the perceived importance of the freedom. If the freedom being threatened is very important, reactance to it will also be great.
• The greater the number of freedoms threatened, the greater the reactance. Ex: Quitting smoking is more difficult than smoking only in moderate amounts.
• Reactance to a threat may increase when there are implications of other threats. Ex: A “no eating allowed” sign could be perceived to include no drinking as well.

To really understand the way reactance theory works, you will need to know the roles that the following concepts play in our psychological thinking:

1. Cognitive Dissonance Theory. When individuals experience a conflict between their values or beliefs and their behaviors, they are motivated to align them to reduce discomfort.

Example: A socially conscious person who invests in fast fashion may downplay the significance of information about underpaid workers to alleviate their dissonance.

2. Trait reactance. Individuals with high trait reactance tend to view situations as threats to their freedom. They are more likely to experience negative emotions in response to perceived threats and show greater resistance to persuasion.

Example: A person who enjoys eating fast food is told that it’s unhealthy. Rather than reflecting on the advice, they dismiss it and may even defend their eating habits.

3. Reverse psychology. Also known as “strategic self-anticonformity”, is a tactic used when an individual expects a target to disagree with them, and indicates a false position which is the opposite of their true desire.

Example: If you want to go to cafe A, you may indicate that you prefer to go to cafe B. With their freedom threatened, your friend would show reactance and choose cafe A.

4. Prospect theory. This theory suggests that since people are more sensitive to losses than gains, they would take more risks to avoid losses than acquire equivalent gains.

Example: When faced with a price increase on a product they regularly buy, consumers may switch brands or seek alternatives rather than accept paying more.

Dive deeper into reactance theory throughout history in the full article here .

What does it look like in a work setting?

Behaving properly at work relies heavily on following procedures and the rules in place. In fact, there is an important distinction between compliance—aka forcing someone to do something, and acceptance—aka convincing people to do something.

Successful compliance requires three things:

1. Coercive Ability. A structured, formal organization will grant certain individuals the authority to discipline, penalize or even terminate employees.
2. Surveillance. Monitor your target to be sure they comply. If you are unable to determine if orders are followed, there is a good chance they will not be.
3. Willingness to Enforce. Just because you have the power does not mean you are willing to use it. Following through with a ‘punishment’ is harder than it looks.

When individuals feel coerced into actions against their will, reactance is likely to occur. This can lead to active resistance by doing the opposite or passive resistance by ignoring demands. At work this could manifest in the forms of:

• Arguing back to the supervisor and refusing to comply.
• Avoiding the supervisor so they don’t see them failing to comply.
• Becoming disengaged at work and losing motivation.
• Performing counterproductive work behavior to assert personal control. This can mean acting out and engaging in destructive acts to protest.
• Showing signs of stress and burnout.

Now that we are more aware of the reasonings behind some of the behaviors above—which could be caused by major psychological reactance, it will be easier to identify the right ways to address them.

See how you could avoid psychological reactance before it becomes catastrophic in the full article here .

Can we control our reactance levels?

Whether as a leader or a team member, you will have to either deal with your own reactance tendencies, or even manage others’.

Finding ways to support the autonomy of others to prevent reactance from occurring is vital for team productivity. A few methods you can try include:

1. Accommodate autonomy. Treat the people you collaborate with as autonomous agents. If a new process will be implemented, allow your team to provide their thoughts and suggestions. Give power instead of taking away freedom.
2. Set healthy constraints to breed creativity. A moderate level of guidance frames the task as a greater challenge, motivating experimentation and risk-taking. Find the healthy middle ground between complete freedom and micromanaging.
3. Use reactance as a motivator. In some situations, it may be possible to achieve more by restricting your freedom in some way. For instance, you may be driven to take more courses when told you can only enroll on 3 each year.

Your approach should of course be adjusted to the level of reactance the other person, or yourself, has. In their review paper, Miron and Brehm (2006) specify measurements such as the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to help assess one’s reactance level.

The scale include several factors to assess, such as:

• Emotional response toward restricted choice. Items include: (1) The thought of being dependent on others aggravates me, (2) It irritates me when someone points out things which are obvious to me.
• Reactance to compliance. Items include: (1) Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in me, (2) It disappoints me to see others submitting to society's standards and rules.
• Resisting influence from others. Items include: (1) I am contented only when I am acting of my own free will, (2) It makes me angry when another person is held
• Reactance to advice and recommendations. Items include: (1) I consider advice from others to be an intrusion, (2) Advice and recommendations usually induce me to do just the opposite.

Find more healthy ways to react to the threat of losing your freedom here , and read more on the recent psychological reactance findings in the journal here .

Without even realizing, we operate under very similar patterns. In your whole lifetime, you have probably fallen victim to psychological reactance more than once or twice.

Learned something new from this week’s Monday Mavens edition? Share it to your peers and colleagues and be the bearer of good news that they need!

See you next Monday for more productivity tips.