Таңдау еркіндігіне қарсылық реакциясы

Unpleasant emotion experienced when behavioral freedom is threatened

In psychology, reactance is an unpleasant motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when an individual feels that an agent is attempting to limit one's choice of response and/or range of alternatives. Reactance can occur when someone is heavily pressured into accepting a certain view or attitude. Reactance can encourage an individual to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude which is indeed contrary to that which was which is to say, to a response of and can also increase resistance to persuasion. Some individuals might employ reverse psychology in a bid to exploit reactance for their benefit, in an attempt to influence someone to choose the opposite of what is being requested. Reactance can occur when an individual senses that someone is trying to compel them to do something; often the individual will offer resistance and attempt to extricate themselves from the situation. Some individuals are naturally high in reactance, a personality characteristic called trait reactance.

Psychological reactance is "an unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviors." An individual's freedom to select when and how to conduct their behavior, and the level to which they are aware of the relevant freedom—and are able to determine behaviors necessary to satisfy that freedom—affect the generation of psychological reactance. It is assumed that if a person's behavioral freedom is threatened or reduced, they become motivationally aroused. The fear of loss of further freedoms can spark this arousal and motivate them to re establish the threatened freedom. Because this motivational state is a result of the perceived reduction of one's freedom of action, it is considered a counterforce, and thus is called "psychological reactance". There are four important elements to reactance theory: perceived freedom, threat to freedom, reactance, and restoration of freedom. Freedom is not an abstract consideration, but rather a feeling associated with real behaviors, including actions, emotions, and attitudes. Reactance also explains denial as it is encountered in addiction counselling. According to William R. Miller, "Research demonstrates that a counselor can drive resistance (denial) levels up and down dramatically according to his or her personal counseling style". Use of a "respectful, reflective approach" described in motivational interviewing and applied as motivational enhancement therapy, rather than by argumentation, the accusation of "being in denial", and direct confrontations, lead to the motivation to change and avoid the resistance and denial, or reactance, elicited by strong direct confrontation.

The theory of psychological reactance specifies what is considered a freedom, how said freedom can be taken away or threatened, and how the psychological reactance will manifest itself. | With a given set of free behaviors, the greater the proportion threatened or eliminated, the greater will be the total level of reactance. | When an important free behavior has been threatened with elimination, the greater will be the threat, and the greater will be the level of reactance. Other core concepts of the theory are justification and legitimacy. A possible effect of justification is a limitation of the threat to a specific behavior or set of behaviors. For example, if Mr. Doe states that he is interfering with Mrs. Smith's expectations because of an emergency, this keeps Mrs Smith from imagining that Mr. Doe will interfere on future occasions as well. Likewise, legitimacy may point to a set of behaviors threatened since there will be a general assumption that an illegitimate interference with a person's freedom is less likely to occur. With legitimacy there is an additional implication that a person's freedom is equivocal.

In the phenomenology of reactance, there is no assumption that a person will be aware of reactance. When persons become aware of reactance, they will feel a higher level of self direction in relationship to their own behaviour. In other words, they will feel that if they are able to do what they want, then they do not have to do what they do not want. In this case, when the freedom is in question, that person alone is the director of their own behaviour. When considering the direct re establishment of freedom, the greater the magnitude of reactance, the more the individual will try to re establish the freedom that has been lost or threatened. When a freedom is threatened by a social pressure, then reactance will lead a person to resist that pressure. Also, when there are restraints against a direct re establishment of freedom, there can be attempts at re establishment by implication whenever possible. Freedom can and may be reestablished by a social implication. When an individual has lost free behavior because of a social threat, then the participation in a free like behavior by a similar person will allow the individual to re establish their freedom. Reactance is a motivational state that is aimed at re establishment of a threatened or eliminated freedom. In short, the level of reactance has a direct relationship with the importance of the eliminated or threatened freedom, and the proportion of free behaviours eliminated or threatened.

A number of studies have looked at psychological reactance, providing empirical evidence for the behaviour; some key studies are discussed below. Brehm's 1981 study, "Psychological reactance and the attractiveness of unobtainable objects: sex differences in children's responses to an elimination of freedom", examined the differences in sex and age in a child's view of the attractiveness of obtained and unobtainable objects. The study reviewed how well children respond in these situations and determined if the children being observed thought the "grass was greener on the other side". It also determined how well the child made peace with the world if they devalued what they could not have. This work concluded that when a child cannot have what they want, they experience emotional consequences of not getting it. A number of studies have also looked into media use and reactance. For instance, an experiment that exposed participants to immigration messages that was threatening (for example via group stereotypes and uncivil language) resulted in very large reactance, in the form of anger and counterarguing.