Reactance as a result of repeated threats and an intervening restoration of attitudinal freedom
Abstract
This experiment investigated the effect of successive threats to the same attitudinal
freedom on reactance arousal. Although the effect of repeated or successive threats
to freedom was not considered in the original statement of reactance theory, later
research suggests there will be special effects. A series of threats in close succession
may arouse greater reactance than an additive model would predict. One possible explanation
for such an increase in reactance is that the initial threat makes later threats more
salient. Another possibility is that the later threat helps to clarify the individual's
perception of the threatener's intention; that is, repeated threats imply that the
behavior is directed toward the individual with a goal in mind. A second factor in
the situation is whether the threatened individual has an opportunity to restore freedom
between threats. Experiments on the prior exercise of freedom imply that an intervening
reassertion of freedom will weaken the effect of subsequent threats by undermining
their credibility. An experimental situation was created in which subjects were
introduced to a (fictional) candidate for appointive office. After reading an initial
description of the candidate and completing an initial preference rating, subjects
received a pair of communications advocating his selection. Then a final rating of
preference was made. The first communication always contained a threat to the freedom
to reject the candidate. The first variable was the presence or absence of a threat
in the second communication (Two vs. One Threat). The second variable was the presence
or absence of an opportunity to restore freedom between the first and second communications
(Forced Restoration vs. No Restoration), in the form of an essay pointing up reasons
against the selection of the candidate. It was predicted that subjects' would exhibit
greater negative change (in the direction of greater opposition to the candidate)
after repeated threats than after a single threat when no intervening opportunity
to restore freedom was permitted. No increase in negative change after successive
threats v/as expected when an intervening restoration was allowed. A third variable,
whether the second communication was attributed to the original communicator or a
different one (Same vs. Different Source), was added to the design to gather support
for either the salience or the perceived intent explanation for repeated threat effects.
If the initial threat makes later ones more salient, the source of the later threat
should make no difference. If the later threat clarifies the intent behind the first,
then only repeated threats from the same source should produce an increase in negative
change. The results of the experiment were not arrayed as expected. The only significant
increase in negative change after repeated threats did occur when no restoration
came between them. However, the increase appeared when the threats had different sources
rather than the same source. This pattern of results supports neither the salience
nor the perceived intent explanations. In addition, the intervening restoration had
an unanticipated negative effect on change. These effects were considered as partial
confirmation of the hypothesis, and it was proposed that threats from different sources
aroused more reactance because they were perceived as different threats, while threats
from the same source were viewed as a single, extended threat. Alternative explanations
were discussed and issues for future research were raised.
Description
This thesis was digitized as part of a project begun in 2014 to increase the number
of Duke psychology theses available online. The digitization project was spearheaded
by Ciara Healy.
Type
DissertationDepartment
PsychologyPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/13581Published Version (Please cite this version)
http://search.library.duke.edu/search?id=DUKE000903717Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: Duke Dissertations
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info