personality and psychological reactance: extending the nomological net

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and psychological reactance:extending the nomological net

Walter C. Buboltz Jr.a,*, David J. Williamsb, Adrian Thomasc,Eric A. Seemanna, Barlow Sopera, Kevin Wollerd

aDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana Tech University, PO Box 10048, Ruston, LA 71272, USAbDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University—Shreveport, One University Place, Shreveport, LA 71115, USA

cDepartment of Psychology, Western Kentucky University, 1 Big Red Way, Bowling Green, KY 42101, USAdSocial and Behavioral Sciences, Rogers State University, 1701 W. Will Rogers Blvd., Claremore, OK 74107, USA

Received 14 September 2001; received in revised form 28 March 2002; accepted 15 April 2002

Abstract

Psychological reactance is a construct that has potential wide ranging counseling implications. Recently,researchers have argued that reactance is characterological in nature and have attempted to delineate itsnomological network. This study extends the nomological network of psychological reactance using theMyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS). Personality type wasfound to be related to psychological reactance as measured by the TRS. The relationship between the TRSand MBTI, while significant, is complicated by a significant three-way interaction between Extraversion-Introversion, Intuition-Sensing and Thinking-Feeling. More specifically, thinkers consistently reportedhigher levels of psychological reactance than did Feelers, and intuitive-thinkers tended to report higherlevels of psychological reactance than did sensing-thinkers. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved.

Keywords: Personality; Reactance; MBTI; Type; Nomological net

Researchers have recognized that individual differences are related to the process and outcomeof therapy (e.g., Bergin & Lambert, 1978; Beutler & Crago, 1991). Differences have focused onboth therapist and client variables (e.g., Carpenter & Range, 1983; Fiske, Cartwright, & Kirtner,1964; Weighill, Hodge, & Peck, 1983). The pattern in which these variables interact to impacttherapy is not well understood and generalizability of findings is limited. Nonetheless, in a reviewof 25 years of process and outcome research, Frank (1974) concluded, ‘‘that the most important

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0191-8869(02 )00107-1

Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2003) 1167–1177

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-318-257-4039; fax: +1-318-257-2379.

E-mail address: [email protected] (W.C. Buboltz Jr.).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/paid/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

determinants of long term improvement lie in the patient’’ (p. 339). Likewise, Beutler and Crago(1991) contend that client variables account for the greatest variance in therapy outcome.A great deal of existing process and outcome research focused on demographic variables. In

light of this trend, Dowd, Milne, and Wise (1991) proposed that it would be beneficial to inves-tigate more refined and potentially more informative psychological client characteristics. Rothand Fonagy (1996) in an extensive review of psychotherapy research indicate that it would bebeneficial to further focus on client-specific factors and characteristics in order to maximize out-come. Type of intervention, theoretical mode (if any), length of therapy, intensity of sessions,directive or nondirective treatment, and scope of therapy are among the variables which shouldtake client-specific factors into account. It can be inferred that more efficient and less cumber-some client characteristics may provide useful information. One such variable recommended forfurther study is psychological reactance (Dowd et al., 1991).Psychological reactance is a promising construct which may have implications for under-

standing the impact of client variables on therapy (Dowd, 1993). The theory of psychologicalreactance was originally developed by Jack Brehm (1966) and further refined and elaborated byBrehm and Brehm (1981). This theory postulates that psychological reactance is a motivationalforce aroused to restore the loss of or the threatened loss of perceived behavioral freedoms, andostensibly results in compensatory or corrective behaviors known as reactance effects. Theseeffects can be expressed in direct or indirect fashion. Brehm (1966) noted that the amount ofpsychological reactance generated was mediated by four variables: significance of the free beha-viors threatened, belief that the individual originally possessed freedom, magnitude of the threatto free behaviors, and implications of the perceived threat to other freedoms. For example, a highdegree of psychological reactance would exist when fiercely independent individuals perceived asignificant threat to the well being of specific freedoms which they hold dear. Since reactance ispostulated as a motivational state, it is believed to possess energizing, behavior-directing propertieswhich may be expressed in several ways (Brehm, 1966).Reactance may manifest itself when an individual defiantly and directly performs prohibited

behavior, or as one vicariously, but defiantly, observes others engaging in the prohibited behavior.Individuals may also exhibit aggression toward agents who prohibit the behavior or they may engagein responses similar to the behavior that has been prohibited. For example, highly reactant, under-age, alcohol offenders may continue to drink, go to bars to observe others drinking, express angertowards probation officers, or begin abusing other drugs not expressly forbidden by the law. In fact,Dowd (1993) noted individuals do not have to directly engage in prohibited behavior to decreasereactance effects; they only need to perceive the potential freedom to do so.Research suggests that psychological reactance is an important client variable mediating the pro-

cess and outcome of therapy (Beutler, 1979; Dowd et al., 1988; Horvath & Goheen, 1990). Conse-quently, it is sensible to define the conceptual parameters of psychological reactance so that they canbe used in formulating counseling interventions for specific individuals (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993).Dowd and Wallbrown (1993) assessed the relationship between psychological reactance and

personality variables measured by the Personality Research Form in an effort to begin delineatingthe characteristics common among psychologically reactant individuals. They found several sig-nificant relationships. Their results suggested that psychological reactance was associated withdefensiveness, dominance, and aggressiveness. Psychologically reactant individuals also tended to

1168 W.C. Buboltz Jr. et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2003) 1167–1177

be forceful, domineering, individualistic, and controlling. Finally, reactant people had a tendencyto act without considering potential consequences.To expand upon this work, Dowd, Wallbrown, Sanders, and Yesenosky (1994) examined the

relationship between psychological reactance and the 20 Folk Concept Scales of the CaliforniaPsychological Inventory (CPI). Results indicated that reactant individuals were less concernedwith making a good impression on others, less tolerant of others, less likely to follow socialmores, and had a tendency to express strong feelings and emotions. Reactant individuals tendedto be more interested in being themselves than accommodating to the expectations of others.Given the limited but promising evidence in the literature that psychological reactance is char-

acterological in nature, it is important to continue to identify and clarify the nature of this con-struct by investigating its relationship to other psychological variables (Dowd et al., 1991). Dowdand Wallbrown (1993) argued that this research methodology is consistent with Cronbach andMeehl’s (1955) assertion that one acceptable means of establishing construct validity is to developthe construct’s nomological network. The nomological network demonstrates ‘‘how a newercsonstruct relates to other established constructs’’ (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993, p. 533).The present study extends the nomological network originated byDowd andWallbrown (1993) and

Dowd et al. (1994) by examining the relationship of psychological reactance to psychological type asmeasured by theMyers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI;Myers &McCaulley, 1998). Previous researchhas relied solely on trait approaches, as opposed to typological approaches, to conceptualize person-ality and its relationship to reactance. TheMBTI was the first instrument used to measure personalityfrom the type approach and is the most widely used typological instrument (Carless, 1999).The MBTI is a measure of personality types as defined by Jung (1923). Jung’s theory of per-

sonality describes different consistent behavioral patterns, or types, that result from how indivi-duals assimilate information and make decisions (Hammer & Kummerow, 1996). According toJung, individuals differ in interests, values, motivation, and skills. Such differences arise throughperceptions of events and experiences. The MBTI, therefore, is used to measure perceptions,judgments, and attitudes of individuals with different psychological types (Zunker, 1998). Thistest classifies individuals on the basis of their self-reported behaviors, preferences, and valuejudgments. Individuals are coded into dichotomous categories along each of four interactingdimensions (Jung, 1923). The MBTI is designed to shed light on the way personality preferencesinteract to produce predictable patterns for perceiving and behaving. Examination of the fourinterlocking poles and individual scores indicates how individuals prefer to interact with andmake sense of the world around them. Within the theory of psychological type, each polardimension provides information about this process. However, missing from the interactions ishow the concept of psychological reactance may be related to or influence the expression of thesepreferences. For example, the extraverted individual focuses on the external world and this wouldtend to be related to psychological reactance since reactant individuals continually scan theenvironment for threats to their freedoms. By examining the relations between psychologicalreactance and typology, individuals can get a clearer picture of how the types defined by Jung andthe MBTI may be expressed in the world.Thus, this project seeks to further establish the construct validity of psychological reactance in

relation to the MBTI’s type theory of personality. Additionally, the definition of types and polardimensions in type theory will be enhanced by the inclusion of information related to psychologicalreactance.

W.C. Buboltz Jr. et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2003) 1167–1177 1169

1. Method

1.2. Participants

Participants were 285 individuals enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses at a medium sizedsouthernUS university. The sample consisted of 100 (35%) males and 182 (64%) females; three (1%)failed to indicate gender. Additionally, 221 (77.7%) were Caucasian, 50 (17.4%) African American,seven (2.5%) Hispanic, four (1.4%) Asian American, and three (1.1%) listed themselves as ‘‘other’’.Ages ranged from 17 to 49 years, with a mean age of 22.1 years (SD=4.3). Participation was volun-tary and conducted with informed consent. Students were given extra credit for participation.

1.3. Measures

1.3.1. Myers–Briggs Type IndicatorPersonality variables were identified with the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Form G;

Myers & McCaulley, 1998). The MBTI is a 126-item, paper-and-pencil inventory. MBTI’s itemsare dichotomous, forced choice questions, and it classifies individuals on the basis of self-reportedbehavior, preferences, and value judgments. Individual items may be scored on more than onescale and each item is differentially loaded on its particular scale. Some items may be weightedmore heavily than others if scored in a particular direction. Individuals receive scores for eachpole in one of four interlocking dimensions. Individuals are coded into dichotomous categoriesalong each of these four dimensions based on the higher pole score of each of the four categories.The MBTI measures four specific indices. The extraversion-introversion attitude index indicates

whether people direct their perception and judgment functions most upon their environment (E)or upon their inner world of ideas (I). Extraverts are energized through activities with people andthings, while introverts via inner reflection and prefer time and space for themselves. The sensa-tion-intuition index, also labeled the perceiving function, indicates whether a person relies onsensing (S) or on intuiting (N) to process information. Sensing individuals take in and processinformation based on facts and details, focusing on what is (practical reality), while intuitiveindividuals focus on the big picture and possibilities, and what can be in the future. The thinking-feeling dimension, also called the judging function, indicates whether a person relies primarily onthinking processes (T) or on feeling processes (F) in making judgments. Thinking individuals basejudgments on objective and impersonal methods, analyzing the situation, while feeling individualsuse a personal, subjective, values-oriented approach to make judgments. The final dimension isthe judging-perceiving (J-P) index, which indicates whether a person uses a judging (J) or a per-ceptive (P) attitude to deal with the environment. Judging individuals are organized and preferplans and goals with definite decisions, while the perceptive individuals prefer to be spontaneous,open to new information, and not close off options by deciding too quickly.Personality preferences measured by the MBTI interact in unique ways. Sixteen types can be

generated through different 4-way interactions of the indices. Individuals with divergent typesdiffer in preferences, personality characteristics, value judgments, interests, and numerous surfacetraits (Ross, 1963).Reliability of the MBTI has been improved via increased internal consistency of the indices

(Myers & McCaulley, 1998). Levy, Murphy, and Carlson (1972) found stable test–retest reliability


for college students for the four major dimensions over a 2-month period. Carlyn (1977) reviewedthe MBTI literature and reported split-half reliabilities for the type categories as adequate in mostinstances, ranging from 0.66 to 0.92.Construct validity of the MBTI is broadly supported. Group differences and correlational evi-

dence reveal that the four scales measure specific dimensions of personality with predictivevalidity (Coan, 1978; Sipps, Alexander, & Friedt, 1985; Thompson & Borrello, 1986). Carlson(1985) and Carlyn (1977) reviewed available studies on content and predictive validity of theMBTI, and judged it reasonably valid. Myers and McCaulley (1998) stated that the instrument isuseful in counseling, career counseling, and educational settings.

1.3.2. The Therapeutic Reactance ScaleThe Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS; Dowd et al., 1991) is a 28-item instrument consisting of

a total score (TRS:T) and two factor analysis derived subscale scores labeled verbal (TRS:V) andbehavioral (TRS:B) reactance. The instrument includes general statements regarding verbal orbehavioral oppositional behavior (e.g. ‘‘If I receive a lukewarm dish at a restaurant, I make anattempt to let it be known’’). These are rated on a 4-point Likert type scale ranging from stronglydisagree to strongly agree. Total reactance is determined by summing all items. The originalsample had a mean total reactance score of 66.68 (S.D.=6.59; Dowd et al., 1991). A subsequentsample (Dowd, Trutt, & Watkins, 1989) at a different institution showed a mean of 68.87(S.D.=7.19).Dowd et al. (1991) reported internal consistency reliability scores for the original sample of 0.75

(verbal), 0.81 (behavioral) and 0.84 (total), whereas test–retest reliabilities (3 weeks) were 0.57(verbal), 0.59 (behavioral) and 0.60 (total). Internal consistency for the total score for this samplewas 0.74. Initial validity studies completed by Dowd et al. (1991) suggested that the scale pos-sesses both convergent and divergent validity. Convergent validity evidence (Dowd et al., 1991)showed that the TRS was correlated with the K scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personalityinventory (MMPI), and with externality as measured by Rotter’s Internal-External Locus ofControl Scale. Divergent validity showed that the TRS did not significantly correlate with theCounselor Rating Form, the State-Trait Anxiety Scale, or the Beck Depression Inventory. Con-struct validity showed that low-reactant clients scored higher than high-reactant clients onexpectation for change, perceived problem controllability, and lower on external justification forbehavior. High-reactant clients were also less satisfied with their efforts.Later studies using the TRS (Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993; Graybar, Antonucio, Boutilier, &

Varble, 1989; Loucka, 1990; Tracey, Ellickson, & Sherry, 1989) indicated a significant degree ofconstruct validity. Dowd and Wallbrown (1993) found that multiple regression techniquesrevealed strong significant relationships between total score for psychological reactance and theset of 22 predictor variables obtained from the Personality Research Form. The authors of theTRS contend that it is a solid measure of psychological reactance.

1.3.3. ProceduresParticipants were given a survey packet containing the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Ther-

apeutic Reactance Scale, and a demographic questionnaire. Surveys were completed duringscheduled classes. Participation was voluntary and all subjects were given a consent form to readand sign. Extra credit was given for participation, and an alternative assignment was provided for


those who preferred not to participate. Package assembly was randomized to control the pre-sentation position of the instruments. Independent variables were the four indexes of the MBTI:extraversion (E)-introversion (I), sensing (S)-intuiting (N), thinking (T)-feeling (F), and judging(J)-perceiving (P). Individuals were placed into a level of each independent variable based uponthe scoring instructions contained in the MBTI manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1998).

2. Results

A four-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with the TRS total score as thedependent variable, F(15, 261)=2.47, P<0.01. The independent variables were extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuiting, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving. Results revealed a main effectfor thinking/feeling, F(1, 261)=18.73, P<0.001; this main effect is confounded by a significantthree way interaction between extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuiting, and thinking-feelingpersonality preferences, F(1, 261)=7.55, P<0.01. Group means and standard deviations arepresented in Table 1. A summary of the complete model is presented in Table 2.Once the interaction was obtained, seven orthogonal comparisons were computed to clarify the

nature of the interaction; therefore, the Bonferoni adjustment procedure was not needed to cor-rect for inflation of family wise error The first orthogonal comparison contrasted individuals withthinking preferences (EST, IST, ENT, INT) and individuals with feeling preferences (ESF, ISF,ENF, INF). This analysis revealed that thinking individuals and feeling individuals significantlydiffered in their self-reported levels of reactance, F(1, 254)=21.44, P<0.05. Descriptive statisticsfor each group are reported in Table 3.The second orthogonal comparison contrasted sensing-thinking individuals (EST, IST) with

intuiting-thinking individuals (ENT, INT) and revealed a significant effect, F(1, 254)=4.0,P<0.05. The third orthogonal comparison failed to reveal a significant difference in self-reportedreactance scores between sensing-thinking extraverts (EST) and sensing-thinking-introverts (IST),

Table 1TRS means and standard deviations by MBTI type preferences

Variable
n Mean Standard deviation
Extravert-Introvert
Extravert 147 70.82 7.46
Introvert
118 71.05 8.01
Sensing-Intuiting
Sensing 116 70.39 7.94
Intuiting
99 71.81 8.01
Thinking-Feeling
Thinking 114 72.98 7.91 Feeling 148 69.43 7.76
Judging-Perceiving

Judging
136 70.01 7.94 Perceiving 129 71.79 7.97

F(1, 254)=3.24, P>0.05. The fourth orthogonal comparison revealed a significant differencebetween intuiting-thinking-extraverted (ENT) individuals and intuiting-thinking-introverted(INT) individuals, F(1, 254)=9.92, P<0.05. Fig. 1 illustrates the interaction between the sensing-intuiting dimension and extraversion-introversion dimension in thinking individuals.The remainder of the comparisons investigated whether different combinations of feeling indi-

viduals differed in their self-reported levels of reactance. No differences were found between: (1)feeling-sensing (ESF, ISF) individuals and feeling-intuiting (ENF, INF) individuals, F(1, 254)=0.57, P>0.05; (3) feeling-sensing-extraverted (ESF) participants and feeling-sensing-introverted

Table 3TRS cell means and standard error of measure statistics

Variable
n Mean Standard error of measure
Extraverted-Sensing-Thinking
49 74.10 1.17
Extraverted-Sensing-Feeling
36 67.60 1.27 Extraverted-Intuiting-Thinking 16 71.86 1.94 Extraverted-Intuiting-Feeling 13 70.00 1.60 Introverted-Sensing-Thinking 40 71.24 1.31
Introverted-Sensing-Feeling
40 69.59 1.27 Introverted-Intuiting-Thinking 40 79.00 2.19 Introverted-Intuiting-Feeling 28 69.55 1.68
All digits rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Table 2Analysis of variance for the MBTI using the TRS

Source
d.f. F
Model
15 2.4*
EI
1 1.71 JP 1 0.32 SN 1 3.03 TF 1 18.73*
EI�JP
1 0.777 EI�SN 1 2.84 EI�TF 1 0.37
JP�SN
1 1.84 JP�TF 1 2.57 SN�TF 1 0.52
EI�JP�SN
1 0.02 EI�JP�TF 1 0.12 EI�SN�TF 1 7.55*
JP�SN�TF
1 3.7 EI�JP�SN�TF 1 0.004
Error
246 (59.10)
Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. E=Extravert; I=Introvert; S=Sensing; N=Intuiting;T=Thinking; F=Feeling; J=Judging; P=Perceiving.

* P<0.01.


(ISF) participants, F(1, 254)=1.23, P>0.05; or, (3) feeling-intuiting-extraverted (ENF) indivi-duals and feeling-intuiting-introverted (INF) individuals, F(1, 254)=0.03, P>0.05. Fig. 2 illus-trates the interaction between the sensing-intuiting dimension and the extraversion-introversionfor feeling individuals.

3. Discussion

The current study sought to extend the nomological network supporting the construct of psy-chological reactance. Overall results indicate that psychological reactance is associated withaspects of psychological type. Specifically, self-reported levels of psychological reactance weremitigated by the interaction between extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuiting, and thinking-feeling. Thinkers consistently reported higher levels of psychological reactance than did Feelers.Myers and McCaulley (1998) reported that thinking individuals were more likely to developcharacteristics such as analytical ability, objectiveness, and criticality. Thinking individuals werereported to concern themselves with principles of justice and fairness. Feeling individuals werebelieved to make decisions based on what matters to others; as such, they value affiliation, acapacity for warmth, and preserving harmony. Since thinking individuals are driven by concernsfor justice and fairness rather than by a need to maintain harmony, they would be more prone torespond to perceived threats and therefore report higher levels of psychological reactance.

Fig. 1. Graphical illustration of the interaction between sensing-intuiting and extraversion-introversion among indivi-

duals with a thinking preference using the TRS as the dependent variable. Intuitive-thinkers reported significantlyhigher levels of psychological reactance than sensing thinkers. Introverted-intuiting-thinkers reported significantlyhigher psychological reactance than extraverted-intuiting-thinkers. There was no significant difference between extra-verted-sensing-thinkers and introverted-sensing-thinkers.


Intuitive-thinkers tended to report higher levels of psychological reactance than did sensing-thinkers. Intuitive-thinkers are clever, adroit, and ingenious, while sensing-thinkers are matter offact and practical. Intuitive-thinkers are more likely to recognize possibilities and view environ-mental or interpersonal constraints on those possibilities as threats to their freedom, and thereforereport higher levels of reactance. Conversely, sensing-thinking individuals are more practical andaccepting of their current situations and are less likely to be threatened, reporting less reactance.Interestingly, the interaction effect between extraversion-introversion and sensing-intuiting was

not found to be significant in feeling individuals. Either feeling individuals are less able thanthinking individuals to perceive environmental threats, or they are equally capable but choose torespond in a different way. According to the theory behind psychological type, feeling individualswould be able to perceive the environment as well as thinking individuals. In other words, theway people perceive their world is a separate preference than the way they prefer to judge theirworld. Therefore, it seems most likely that feeling individuals’ perceptive abilities are notimpaired, rather, it would seem that their interpretations of their perceptions differ. It is possiblethat feeling individuals report less reactance because they are less likely to acknowledge that theirperceptions are threatening.Three way interactions within an ANOVA can be difficult to interpret; fortunately, the strength

of a type theory of personality is the interaction between the component variables. As notedabove, higher reactance scores tended to be associated with a thinking preference. This thinkingpreference does not determine the level of psychological reactance, but rather it gives a clue to the

Fig. 2. Graphical illustration of the interaction between sensing-intuiting and extraversion-introversion among indivi-duals with a feeling preference using the TRS as the dependent variable. There was no significant difference found:between sensing-feeling and intuitive feeling individuals; between extraverted-sensing-feeling and introverted-sensing-

feeling individuals; or, between extraverted-intuitive-feeling and introverted-intuitive-feeling individuals.


nature of reactant behavior given the interaction between the four variables in the MBTI’s modelof personality. The higher reactance scores associated with thinking are clearly mediated byintroversion-extraversion preference and intuition-sensing preference. These interactions andtheir interpretations from the existing literature allow us to draw an inference as to what molarprocesses are necessary and sufficient for the development of reactant tendencies. While it is by nomeans definitive or completely explanatory, this preliminary examination opens an avenue forfuture research.

3.1. Limitations and implications

The construct of psychological reactance has cogent implications in a variety of research areas;however, any conclusions presented in this or other projects must be tempered until consensus isreached upon a reliable and valid measure of the construct. Furthermore, the current research isultimately correlational. Whether reactance is an artifact of other personality variables or acharacteristic unique in its own right will remain debated until researchers create true experi-mental designs to ascertain this relationship. Of course, generalizing this research to other popu-lations must be limited and any attempt to do so should be made with caution.Nonetheless, the results of the current study seem to have implications for the counseling pro-

fessional. Counselors have been admonished to recognize the importance of individualizingtreatment to clients’ needs. Recognizing that certain clients tend to be dispositionally more reac-tant than others could lead to possible changes in therapeutic approaches that could lead to bet-ter therapeutic outcomes. For example, a counselor dealing with a reactant client may want toconsider appealing to his or her thinking preference while respecting his or her preference forprivacy. Counselors could seek to ensure that they appeal to clients’ intuition by listing severalways that counseling can lead to lasting benefits while avoiding encroaching upon their desire tomake their own decisions. If it is true that reactant clients tend to be more introverted, therapistsshould not expect them to be expressive. If an introverted thinking client perceives this expecta-tion as being imposed upon them, they may choose to act defiantly—possibly by dropping out oftherapy. It appears that performing research with therapy clients to gauge the impact of psychologi-cal reactance and personality preferences on the therapeutic process and outcome is warranted.

References

Bergin, A. E., & Lambert, M. J. (1978). The evaluation of therapeutic outcomes. In S. L. Garfield, & A. E. Bergin

(Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. New York: Wiley & Sons.Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.Brehm, J. W., & Brehm, S. S. (1981). Psychological reactance. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Buetler, L. (1979). Toward specific therapies for specific conditions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47,882–897.

Buetler, L., & Crago, M. (1991). Psychotherapy research: an international review of programmatic studies. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Carless, S. (1999). Career assessment: Holland’s vocational interests, personality characteristics, and abilities. Journalof Career Assessment, 7, 125–144.

Carlson, J. G. (1985). Recent assessments of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,

356–365.


Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 461–473.

Carpenter, P. J., & Range, L. M. (1983). The effects of patients’ fee payment source on the duration of outpatientpsychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 304–306.

Coan, R. W. (1978). Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The Eighth Mental Measure-

ments Yearbook (pp. 970–975). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.Dowd, E. T. (1993). Motivational and personality correlates of psychological reactance and implications for cognitive

therapy. Psicologia Conductual, 1, 131–140.Dowd, E. T., Hughes, S., Brockbank, L., Halpain, D., Seible, L. A., & Seibel, H. P. (1988). Compliance-based inter-vention strategies and psychological reactance in the treatment of free and unfree behavior. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 35, 363–369.

Dowd, E. T., Milne, L. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The therapeutic reactance scale: a measure of psychological reactance.Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 541–545.

Dowd, E.T., Trutt, S.D., & Watkins, C.E. (1989). Effects of interpretation styles and reactance on counselor social

influence. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, New Orleans.Dowd, E. T., & Wallbrown, F. (1993). Motivational components of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling andDevelopment, 71, 533–538.

Dowd, E. T., Wallbrown, F., Sanders, D., & Yesenosky, J. M. (1994). Psychological reactance and it relationship tonormal personality variables. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 601–612.

Fiske, D. W., Cartwright, D. S., & Kirtner, W. L. (1964). Are psychotherapeutic changes predictable? Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 418–426.Frank, J. (1974). Therapeutic components of psychotherapy. A 25-year progress report of research. The Journal ofNervous and Mental Diseases, 159, 325–342.

Graybar, S. R., Antonucio, D. O., Boutilier, L. R., & Varble, D. L. (1989). Psychological reactance as a factor affecting

patient compliance to physician advice. Scandinavian Journal of Behavior Therapy, 18, 43–51.Hammer, A. L., & Kummerow, J. M. (1996). Strong and MBTI career development guide-revised. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Horvath, A. V., & Goheen, M. D. (1990). Factors mediating the success of defiance- and compliance-based interven-tion. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 363–371.

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Levy, N., Murphy, C., & Carlson, R. (1972). Personality types among Negro college students. Educational and Psy-chological Measurement, 31, 641–653.

Loucka, P. A. (1990). Client reactance and counselor interpretation: do they make a difference? (Doctoral Dissertation,

Kent State University, 1990). Dissertation Abstract International, 52–01B, 522.Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1998). Manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type indi-cator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Ross, J. (1963). The relationship between the Myers–Briggs type Indicator and ability, personality, and information tests.

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Roth, A., & Fonagy, P. (1996).What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research. New York: GuilfordPress.

Sipps, G. J., Alexander, R. A., & Friedt, L. (1985). Item analysis of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 45, 789–796.

Thompson, B., & Borrello, G. M. (1986). Construct validity of the Myers–Briggs type indicator. Educational and Psy-

chological Measurement, 46, 745–752.Tracey, T. T., Ellickson, J. L., & Sherry, P. (1989). Reactance in relation to different supervisory environments andcounselor development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 336–344.

Weighill, V. E., Hodge, J., & Peck, D. F. (1983). Keeping appointments with clinical psychologists. The British Journal

of Clinical Psychologists, 22, 143–144.Zunker, V. G. (1998). Career counselling (5th ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole.


personality and psychological reactance: extending the nomological net

Documents