D I S S E R T A T I O N I N B R I E F

Personality Characteristics Associatedwith Psychological Reactance

Ä

Cynthia A. SeibelPortage Path Behavioral Health, Akron, Ohio

Ä

E. Thomas DowdKent State University

This study compared six different personality disorders on level of psycho-logical reactance. Eighty clients met criteria for inclusion in one of sixpersonality disorder groups, including passive-aggressive, dependent, per-sonality disorder NOS (not otherwise specified), no personality disorder,obsessive-compulsive, and borderline. Instruments included the Therapeu-tic Reactance Scale (TRS) and the Questionnaire for the Measurement ofPsychological Reactance (QMPR). Four one-way analyses of variance (ANO-VAs) were conducted on the scales and subscales of the two reactancemeasures. All four ANOVAs were significant, although post hoc tests indi-cated significant differences only among the more extreme groups. Thepersonality disorders were generally ordered on reactance level accordingto predictions derived from the theory of separation-individuation. © 2001John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 57: 963–969, 2001.

Keywords: personality; reactance; development

Client resistance to psychotherapeutic assistance has both intrigued and baffled psychol-ogists since the days of Sigmund Freud. It may seem perverse that individuals shouldresist the efforts of the professionals they have sought out to help them overcome theiremotional distress—often while insisting that they are highly motivated to change.

The very nature of resistance to change has been the source of much discussion.Psychodynamic theories have traditionally assumed that resistance is a response to the

This article is based on a dissertation conducted by the first author under the direction of the second author.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: E. Thomas Dowd, Department of Psychology,118 Kent Hall, Kent, OH 44242.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 57(7), 963–969 (2001)© 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

threatened lifting of psychic repression and must be “worked through” for therapeuticchange to occur. Cognitive–behavioral theories of psychological change (Meichenbaum& Gilmore, 1984), by contrast, generally espouse the position that resistance is a naturalpart of the change process and should be worked with rather than opposed. Cognitivedevelopmentalists (e.g., Mahoney, 1991) argue that resistance is healthy in that it protectsthe core cognitive schemata from overwhelming assault and in the process protects theindividual’s sense of personal identity and meaning. Regardless of its nature and origin,resistance is a necessary fact of all therapies, and strategies must be developed for han-dling it as it arises.

Much of the literature on resistance tacitly assumes that the expression of resistanceis situation-specific, that is, it occurs in response to a particular schema-disconfirmingevent, in which the meaning of that event cannot be comfortably fitted into the individu-al’s existing meaning structure. However, research is now beginning to accumulate indi-cating that individuals vary considerably in the extent to which they are likely to exhibitresistance to psychotherapeutic change or indeed any kind of cognitive or behavioralchange. Much of this research has been done by Dowd and colleagues (e.g., Dowd, 1999)using the theory of psychological reactance developed by Jack Brehm (Brehm, 1966;Brehm & Brehm, 1981) as an organizing framework.

The theory of psychological reactance proposes that reactance is a motivational forcethat is aroused when perceived behavioral freedoms are eliminated or threatened withelimination. This motivational force is directed towards the restoration of those freedomsand can be expressed in a variety of direct or indirect ways. Reactance refers to controlmotivation rather than to achievement motivation (Brehm, 1993) and may arise frompowerful core assumptions of the necessity of personal and social control, hypothesizedto be especially strong in the individualistic cultures of North America and WesternEurope (Dowd, 1989). Indeed, Dowd (1976) argued that this control motivation is sostrong that if people cannot establish control in a creative and positive fashion, they willdo so in destructive ways.

Originally, psychological reactance was considered to be a function of the situationrather than a function of the individual. However, recent investigations have demon-strated individual differences in the tendency to exhibit psychological reactance. Dowd,Milne, and Wise (1991) and Merz (1983) independently developed self-report measuresof reactance and found them to be reliable, valid, and normally distributed in the population.

Several studies then were conducted to relate reactance to other psychological vari-ables. Dowd and Wallbrown (1993) and Dowd, Wallbrown, Sanders, and Yesenosky (1994)regressed these two reactance measures on two motivation and personality measures andfound reactance to be significantly and positively associated with such variables as dom-inance, independence, autonomy, denial, self-sufficiency, lack of tolerance, and lack ofconformity. Huck (1998) found reactance to be negatively associated with dependent,avoidant, and histrionic personality styles and positively associated with paranoid, border-line, and sadistic personality styles. Mallon (1992) found reactance to be associated withseveral antisocial behaviors while Morgan (1986) found it to be associated with no-showbehavior in therapy, with less improvement in therapy, and with length of treatment.

Reactance also has been shown to be related to developmental aspects of humanfunctioning. Seibel and Dowd (1994) found that reactance was related to autonomy andinterpersonal isolation. Pepper (1996) likewise found that reactance was related to auton-omy and lack of intimacy, and that behavioral reactance was associated with a negativeresolution of developmental stages whereas verbal reactance was related to a positiveresolution of developmental stages. Reactance also was associated with a negative reso-lution of Stage 1 (trust versus mistrust) and a positive resolution of Stage 2 (autonomy

964 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2001

versus shame and doubt). However, although reactance was linearly related to autonomyin both studies, it was not curvilinearly related to identity, as had been hypothesized byDowd (1993).

Reactance also has been investigated in therapy situations. Seibel and Dowd (1999)found reactance to be associated with distancing behaviors in therapy (labeledboundaryaugmentation) although not with a positive orientation to therapy (labeledcollaborativerelationship) nor with disengagement from therapy (labeledbehavioral disengagement).

In summary, psychological reactance has been shown to be related in theoreticallyexpected ways to a host of other individual difference variables. However, studies havenot been conducted on the relationship of reactance to psychopathology.

Especially in North American and Western European societies, there appears to be anemphasis on the development of a strong sense of identity. In object relations theory,identity has been posited as the product of the separation-individuation process (e.g.,Mahler, 1971). The concept of separation refers to the infant’s differentiation from themother while individuation refers to the development of intrapsychic autonomy. Theseevents are thought to occur between the 5th and 36th months of life and correspond toErickson’s first two stages of development, “trust versus mistrust” and “autonomy versusshame and doubt.” The separation-individuation process is thought to continue through-out the life cycle, but the described core events are the basis for the child’s capacity to“begin to develop an individual identity” (Christenson & Wilson, 1985, p. 561).

In order to develop more fully the psychological profile of the reactant person and toplace reactance within the framework of separation-individuation theory, this study wasconducted. Clients who were diagnosed with different personality disorders were com-pared on psychological reactance to determine if there were significant differences amongthe disorders. In doing so, theoretically expected differences based on separation-individuation theory were tested. According to this theory, it was expected that a trendwould emerge, with the passive-aggressive and dependent personality groups showingthe lowest reactance, the personality disorder NOS and the “No Axis II diagnosis” groupsshowing moderate reactance, and the obsessive-compulsive and borderline personalitygroups showing the highest reactance. The passive-aggressive and dependent personalitydisorders represent a fear of separation and abandonment while the obsessive-compulsivepersonality disorder signifies a need for autonomy and fear of engulfment. The borderlinepersonality disorder is thought to be characterized by vacillation between fear of separa-tion and fear of engulfment; however, the stormy oppositionalism of the borderline per-sonality is a hallmark symptom, and it was therefore predicted that clients in this groupwould exhibit higher measured reactance. It was hypothesized that the passive-aggressiveand dependent personality-disordered groups would exhibit the lowest reactance and,congruent with a fear of engulfment, the obsessive-compulsive and borderline personality-disordered groups would exhibit the highest reactance. The personality disorder NOSwas hypothesized to score in the moderate range.

Method

Participants

The participants were 90 adult psychotherapy clients recruited indirectly through theirtherapists and mental health facilities (59%), private practices (22%), university coun-seling centers (9%), incarcerated substance abuse clients (7%), and other settings (3%) inOhio and Pennsylvania. They ranged in age from 21 to 60, with 91% being Caucasian and61% being married either currently or in the past. They were relatively well-educated,

Personality and Reactance 965

with a mean of 13.7 years of completed education. Sixty-seven percent were female and33% were male.

Participants were divided into six groups representing Axis II personality disordersor clinically significant features of each personality disorder, including passive-aggressive, dependent, personality disorder NOS (not otherwise specified), no personal-ity disorder, obsessive-compulsive, and borderline. Because there were not enoughparticipants who met complete criteria for diagnosis with a personality disorder, someparticipants were included who had only clinically significant features of a personalitydisorder. These diagnoses were made at intake assessment for the personality-disorderedgroup and by the treating therapist for those participants identified as possessing clini-cally significant features of a personality disorder. Eighty participants met these criteria.

Instruments

The Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS; Dowd et al., 1991) and the Fragebogen zurMessung der psychologischen Reactanz (Questionnaire for the Measurement of Psycho-logical Reactance, [QMPR]; Merz, 1983) were used. Following Brehm’s (1966, 1981)theory of psychological reactance, they were designed to measure the motivational forceto restore lost or threatened freedoms. The TRS consists of a total score as well as verbalreactance and behavioral reactance subscores. The verbal reactance subscale consists ofitems that reflect a verbal oppositional style (e.g., argumentativeness). The behavioralreactance subscale consists of items that reflect a behavioral oppositional style (e.g.,doing the opposite of that asked). An example of the former is, “I find that I often haveto question authority.” An example of the latter is, “I enjoy seeing someone doing some-thing that neither one of us is supposed to do.”

The QMPR consists of a total score only, derived from factor analysis, and wastranslated from the original German by Dowd and colleagues. Despite its one-factorstructure, it appears to consist of both verbal and behavioral oppositional-type state-ments. An example is, “Suggestions and advice often make me want to do the opposite;”and, “I strongly resist people’s attempts to influence me.” The measures have been foundto be reliable and valid (Dowd et al., 1991; Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993; Dowd et al., 1994;Mallon, 1992).

Results

Four one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted, with the six Axis IIcategories as the independent variable and the four reactance scores (TRS-Total, TRS-Verbal, TRS-Behavioral, QMPR) as the dependent variables. All four were significant,supporting the hypothesis that reactance differs by personality disorder. These results areshown in Table 1. The ANOVA was significant for the QMPR (F 5 5.77,p , .001), butthe predicted trend did not materialize. Examination of Table 1 indicates that the No AxisII diagnosis group had a low QMPR score, second only to the passive-aggressive group.Mean scores of the remaining diagnostic groups followed the expected trend, with theobsessive-compulsive and borderline personality groups scoring highest. Post hoc testsindicated that the borderline group was significantly different from the passive-aggressive and no diagnosis groups and that the obsessive-compulsive and personalitydisorder NOS also were significantly different from the passive-aggressive group. Noother differences were significant.

The ANOVA for the TRS-Total also was significant (F 5 3.89,p , .01). The groupmeans exhibited a trend exactly as predicted. Post hoc tests showed that the borderline,

966 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2001

obsessive-compulsive, and no diagnosis groups were statistically different from the passive-aggressive group. No other differences were statistically significant.

The ANOVA for the TRS-Behavioral also was significant (F 5 3.63,p , .01), withthe ordering almost exactly as predicted. However, post hoc tests indicated that only theborderline and passive-aggressive groups were significantly different from each other.

The ANOVA for the TRS-Verbal also was significant (F 5 2.71,p , . 05). However,here the obsessive-compulsive group scored the highest followed by the borderline per-sonality group. The passive-aggressive and dependent groups exhibited the lowest means,with the personality disorder NOS and the no diagnosis groups in the middle. Thus, thetrend was not quite as predicted. Post hoc tests showed that the obsessive-compulsivegroup differed significantly from the passive-aggressive and from the dependent groups.No other group differences were significant.

Discussion

It was predicted that personality disorders related to fear of separation would correspondto low reactance and that personality disorders related to fear of engulfment (or vacilla-tion between fear of separation and fear of engulfment) would correspond to high reac-tance. Individuals without a diagnosis of personality disorder were expected to score inthe moderate range on reactance, indicating a balance between separation and engulfmentissues. A moderate and optimal level of reactance has been hypothesized to be develop-mentally healthy (Seibel & Dowd, 1990). The normal distribution of reactance in thepopulation (Dowd et al., 1991) also suggests that moderate reactance is optimally healthy.

For most of the analyses, the hypotheses were supported. All one-way ANOVAswere significant, indicating that (at least for the extreme groups) the diagnostic groupsdiffered on reactance. Given the small number of participants in some of the groups, it islikely that a study incorporating a largerN size would find more significant differencesamong groups. Likewise, the ordering of the groups on reactance, even when the differ-ences were not significant, was exactly as predicted for the TRS-Total, almost exactly as

Table 1Means and F-ratios for Four Reactance Scores by Personality Disorder/Features

Personality Disorder/Features Group

PASS-AGG DEP PERS NOS NO DX OBS-COMP BORD

Measure N 4 12 13 34 5 12 F(5,74)

QMPR M 37.57 48.58 53.23 45.57 57.20 61.58 5.77***SD 5.51 12.15 8.64 9.95 17.12 11.50

TRS-TOTAL M 58.03 63.44 65.94 67.08 70.64 72.71 3.89**SD 2.60 7.05 5.47 7.78 9.46 5.36

TRS-BEHAV. M 32.93 38.02 37.77 39.18 39.94 44.08 3.63**SD 1.55 4.92 4.89 5.56 6.31 4.81

TRS-VERBAL M 25.00 25.42 28.24 27.95 30.06 28.65 2.71*SD 2.94 3.15 2.25 3.57 4.34 3.42

*p # .05. **p # .01. *** p # .001.Note.QMPR5 Questionnaire for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance, From: Merz, 1983; TRS5 therapeutic reac-tance scale, From: Dowd et al., 1991; PASS-AGG5 Passive-Aggressive; DEP5 Depression; PERS-NOS (not otherwisespecified)5 Personality Disorder; NO DX5 No disorder; OBS-COMP5 Obsessive-Compulsive; BORD5 Borderline.

Personality and Reactance 967

predicted for the TRS-Behavioral, and partially as predicted for the TRS-Verbal and theQMPR. Thus, the results largely validate the separation-individuation hypothesis.

The results also supported previous research in that personality disorders character-ized by autonomy (obsessive-compulsive and borderline) exhibited high reactance. Inaddition, those disorders characterized by interpersonal mistrust (borderline) also exhib-ited high reactance. However, there were some differences between these results andthose of Huck (1998), who did not find that passive-aggressive or obsessive-compulsivepersonality disorder predicted reactance. These results did support Huck’s findings inthat both studies found borderline personality disorder to significantly predict high reac-tance and dependent personality disorder to predict low reactance. Perhaps the differ-ences in the population studied (outpatients with a diagnosable personality disorder orclinically significant features of such in this study; college students in Huck’s) may haveaccounted for the discrepancies.

Because this study included only a small number of participants actually diagnosedwith a personality disorder and had to use clients with clinically significant features ofeach disorder in addition, these results should be considered as tentative. In addition, thetreating clinicians themselves made the clinically significant features diagnoses, leadingperhaps to more errors and inaccuracies than may have occurred in making the originaldiagnoses at intake assessment. Further research with larger numbers of actual personality-disordered clients whose diagnoses were made under the same circumstances may resultin more statistically significant differences among the groups.

Nevertheless, these results are suggestive of differences among groups of personality-disordered participants on psychological reactance as well as provide support for hypoth-eses relating to the developmental issues of separation and individuation.

References

Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.

Brehm, J.W. (1993). Control, its loss, and psychological reactance. In G. Weary, F. Gleicher, & K.L.Marsh (Eds.), Control motivation and social cognition (pp. 3–32). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control.New York: Academic Press.

Christenson, R.M., & Wilson, W.P. (1985). Assessing pathology in the separation-individuationprocess by an inventory: A preliminary report. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,173, 561–565.

Dowd, E.T. (1976). The Goetterdammerung syndrome: Implications for counseling. Counselingand Values, 20, 139–142.

Dowd, E.T. (1989). Stasis and change in cognitive psycho therapy: Client resistance and reactanceas mediating variables. In W. Dryden & P. Trower (Eds.), Cognitive psychotherapy: Stasis andchange (pp. 139–158). New York: Springer.

Dowd, E.T. (1993). Motivational and personality correlates of psychological reactance and impli-cations for cognitive therapy. Picologica Conductual, 1, 131–140.

Dowd, E.T. (1999). Toward a briefer therapy: Resistance and reactance in the therapeutic process.In W. Matthews & J.W. Edgette (Eds.), Current thinking and research in brief therapy (pp. 263–286). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Dowd, E.T., Milne, C.R., & Wise, S.L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A measure ofpsychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 541–545.

Dowd, E.T., & Wallbrown, F.H. (1993). Motivational components of client reactance. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 71, 533–538.

968 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2001

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

Huck, N.O. (1998). Psychological reactance and Millon’s personality theory: An integrative com-parison. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.

Mahler, M. (1971). A study of the separation-individuation process and its possible application toborderline phenomena in the psychoanalytic situation. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 26,403–425.

Mahoney, M.J. (1991). Human change processes. New York: Basic Books.

Mallon, K.F. (1992). A scale for assessing psychological reactance proneness: Reliability and valid-ity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Meichenbaum, D., & Gilmore, B. (1984). Resistance: From a cognitive-behavioral perspective. InP. Wachtel (Ed.), Resistance in psychodynamic and behavioral therapies (pp. 273–298). NewYork: Plenum Press.

Merz, J. (1983). Fragebogen zur Messung der psychologischen Reactanz. Diagnostica, Band XXIX,75–82.

Morgan, R.D. (1986). Individual differences in the occurrence of psychological reactance andtherapeutic outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Pepper, H.F. (1996). An investigation of the psychosocial precursors of psychological reactance.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.

Seibel, C.A., & Dowd, E.T. (1990). A cognitive theory of resistance and reactance: Implications fortreatment. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 12, 458–469.

Seibel, C.A., & Dowd, E.T. (1994, November). The relationship between psychological reactanceand developmental factors. Paper presented at the 1994 annual meeting of the Association forAdvancement of Behavior Therapy, San Diego.

Seibel, C.A., & Dowd, E.T. (1999). Reactance and therapeutic noncompliance. Cognitive Therapyand Research. 23, 373–379.

Personality and Reactance 969