This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 14:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Psychological Reactance:Factor Structure andInternal Consistency ofthe Questionnaire for theMeasurement of PsychologicalReactanceAlison J. Donnell a , Adrian Thomas b & Walter C.Buboltz Jr. aa Department of Psychology , Louisiana TechUniversityb Department of Psychology , Western KentuckyUniversityPublished online: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Alison J. Donnell , Adrian Thomas & Walter C. Buboltz Jr.(2001) Psychological Reactance: Factor Structure and Internal Consistency of theQuestionnaire for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance, The Journal of SocialPsychology, 141:5, 679-687

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600581

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views

expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, 141(5), 679-687

Psychological Reactance: Factor Structure and Internal Consistency of the

Questionnaire for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance

ALISON J. DONNELL Department of Psychology Louisiana Tech University

ADRIAN THOMAS Department of Psychology

Western Kentucky University

WALTER C. BUBOLTZ, JR. Department of Psychology Louisiana Tech University

ABSTRACT. Psychological reactance, the theory that people resist attempts to constrain either their thoughts or their behaviors (J. W. Brehm, 1966), has been an influential con- cept in social psychology. In an attempt to measure reactance, J. Men. (1983) developed the Questionnaire for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance (QMPR). Subsequent researchers (S.-M. Hong & R. Ostini, 1989; R. K. Tucker & P. Y. Byers, 1987) have debat- ed both the exact factor structure and the psychometric stability of the QMPR. In the pre- sent study, 898 undergraduates completed the QMPR. Factor analysis suggested that psy- chological reactance is multidimensional. The authors found 3 factors underlying the QMPR, but the QMPR provided unreliable estimates for each of those factors. According to the results, the QMPR as currently written is psychometrically unsatisfactory.

Key words: dimensionality, factor structure, internal consistency, psychometric stability, psychological reactance, QMPR

THE THEORY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE-that people react against attempts to constrain their free behaviors (Brehm, 1966)-has been an influential concept in social psychology. In general, people believe that they pos- sess specific behavioral and cognitive freedoms. If those freedoms are threatened or eliminated, then individuals experience psychological reactance-that is, they perceive the threatened behaviors or thoughts as more attractive and desire to reestablish them (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Generally speaking, people want to

679

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

680 The Journal of Social Psychology

maintain the freedom to think, feel, and act as they (not others) choose. Thus, reactance refers to the negative feelings that individuals experience when they per- ceive that someone is trying to constrain their personal freedoms (Brehm, 1966).

Researchers initially viewed psychological reactance as a situationally spe- cific variable; however, other analysts have considered reactance to be a specific individual trait (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991; Hong & Page, 1989; Jahn & Lichstein, 1980; Rohrbaugh, Tennen. Press, &White, 1981). Brehm (1966) originally proposed that reactance may have applications in explaining concepts such as frustration, social power, and compliance. Empiri- cally, reactance has been (a) negatively correlated with self-esteem and self- ratings of happiness and (b) positively correlated with loneliness (Joubert, 1990). Hockenberry and Billingham ( 1993) reported that individuals in mutually violent relationships had significantly higher scores on reactance than did those in non- violent relationships. Merz (1 983) stated that psychological reactance may be an essential construct in explaining aggression, altruism, and depression. Therefore, psychological reactance has obvious potential as a mediator in human interaction and clearly merits further study as a critically important construct for both sci- entists and practitioners.

Despite the potential applicability of the theory of psychological reactance, relatively few researchers have explored that construct. The lack of a well- accepted self-report measure of psychological reactance has contributed to the paucity of research. In 1983, Merz developed one such measure in German, Fragebogen zur Messung der Psychologischen Reactanz (Questionnaire for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance; QMPR). Included in the development of the instrument were variables related to defiance, resistance, and oppositional behavior. Men generated the instrument empirically by first submitting 32 items to four professional psychologists for evaluation and then by excluding any items that two or more of those professionals found inappropriate for the designated variables. This procedure resulted in 26 items, which were then reduced to 18 after analyses (for QMPR items, see Table 1). Men administered the question- naire to 152 high school and university students in Germany by using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = nor at all appropriate, 6 = exfremely appropriate). Esti- mates were .90 for internal consistency and .86 for test-retest reliability (2-3 weeks). A principal components analysis with varimax rotation revealed a four- factor solution accounting for 53% of the total variance. However, Merz did not include the criteria for determining the factors or the labels for the factors; the omission of such criteria caused researchers to question the conceptualization of reactance as measured by the QMPR.

Tucker and Byers (1987) attempted to replicate the Merz (1983) study with a US. sample. After translating the scale to English, they administered the

Address correspondence to Adrian Thomas, 1 Big Red Way, Bowling Green, KY 42101; adrian.thomas@wku.edu (e-mail).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Donnell, Thomas, & Buboltz 681

TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Items on the Questionnaire for the

Measurement of Psychological Reactance (Men, 1983)

No.lItem M SD

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8

9

10

11 12 13 14 15

16

17 18

I react strongly to duties and regulations. I get a “kick” from contradicting others. I seldom behave according to others’ standards. When I am told not to do something, my reaction is “Now I’ll do it for sure.” The thought of being dependent on others is very unpleasant to me. When I get advice, I take it more as a demand. To make free and independent decisions is more important to me than to most people. It makes me angry when someone points out something that I already know. Often I lose enthusiasm for doing something just because others expect me to do it. I get very irritated when someone tries to interfere with my freedom to make decisions. Suggestions and advice often make me do the opposite. I only succeed in doing things well if I do them. I strongly resist people’s attempts to influence me. I get annoyed when someone else is put up as an example for me. When I am pushed to do something, I often tell myself, “For sure, I won’t do it.” It pleases me when I see how others disobey social norms and obligations. Excessive praise makes me suspicious. I get very irritated when somebody tells me what I must or must not do.

3.91 1.40 2.54 1.28 2.86 1.35

2.18 1.21 4.27 1.63 2.17 1.14

4.04 1.36

3.17 1.45

3.02 1.38

4.00 1.46 2.13 1.08 3.82 1.52 3.27 1.41 3.30 1.57

2.46 1.30

2.03 1.33 2.99 1.42

3.55 1.46

QMPR to 218 college students by using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at a11 appropriate, 5 = extremely appropriate). They did not report reliability estimates. They conducted a factor analysis by using principal components extraction with direct quartimin rotation. The factor structure revealed a two-factor solution that accounted for 21% of the total variance. According to the authors, the first factor focused on behavioral freedom, and the second factor focused on freedom of choice. The factor Behavioral Freedom reflected items concerning free will, oppositional behavior, and subservient behavior. The factor Freedom of Choice was concerned with free choice and decision making. Tucker and Byers con- cluded that the QMPR (Merz) in its present form was “psychometrically unac- ceptable” (p. 8 14). However, because the foregoing researchers did not report reliability estimates, their conclusion seems somewhat questionable. The factor- ial instability may have resulted from the translation or from Tucker and Byers’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

682 The Journal of Social Psychology

use of a 5-point scale. In any case, their divergent findings pointed to the need for continued research concerning the factorial stability of the QMPR.

In response to Tucker and Byers (1987). Hong and Ostini (1989) attempted to add to the psychometric data with an Australian sample. They administered the English version, as translated by Tucker and Byers, to 379 college students by using a 4-point Likert-type scale (anchors not provided by the authors). Esti- mates of reliability for total reactance was .80 (a). Hong and Ostini performed a factor analysis by using principal axis with both varimax and direct oblimin two rotations. On the basis of low correlations among the factors, the orthogonal (varimax) factor structure revealed a four-factor solution that accounted for 44% of the total variance. The first factor, labeled Freedom in Decision and Behavior, included the 3 items that constituted Tucker and Byers’s factor Freedom of Choice. The second factor was labeled Behavioral Reactance-that is, reactance manifested in an overt behavioral response. The third factor, labeled Skepticism Towards Others’ Advice, had an affective, rather than behavioral, orientation. The last factor, labeled Conformity Reactance, was defined as an objection to fol- lowing rules and regulations. Hong and Ostini’s second, third, and fourth factors contain many of the items that constituted Tucker and Byers’s Behavioral Free- dom factor. As a result of their evaluation, Hong and Ostini concluded that, as currently written, the QMPR was “psychometrically unstable” (p. 7 10). They recommended that researchers use the English version with caution until the scale is refined.

Taken together, the foregoing studies clearly indicate the need for further psychometric examination of the Merz (1983) scale of psychological reactance. Table 2 contains the descriptions of those three studies revealing the similarities and major differences among them. The consensus of previous investigators seems to be that psychological reactance is multidimensional and, as such, should no longer be interpreted as a unidimensional construct. Furthermore, the exact dimensionality of the QMPR (Merz) remains debatable. The relatively small sample sizes in each of the previous studies and the use of 4- and 5-point

TABLE 2 Description of the Previous Studies of the Questionnaire

for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance (Men, 1983) ~ ~ ~ ___ ~

Descriptor Men ( 1983) Tucker Br Byers (1987) Hong & Ostini (1989)

Extraction Principal components Principal components Principal axis Rotation Varimax Direct quartimin Varimax Factors 4 2 4 %variance 53 21 44 Sample size 152 218 379 Likert scale 6 points 5 points 4 points

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Donnell, Thomas, & Buboltz 683

scales (which may be less than ideal) may have contributed greatly to the confu- sion. Thus, we undertook the present study to further investigate the construct of psychological reactance as measured by the QMPR. We used a larger sample and the original 6-point scale to provide definitive answers concerning the QMPR.

Method

Participants

Participants in the present study were 898 undergraduates (55% women; mean age = 21.7 years, SD = 5.9) at a large university in the southern United States. The sample was approximately 57% Caucasian, 35% African American, and 2% Hispanic.

Insrrument

The QMPR (Men, 1983), as translated by E. T. Dowd (personal communica- tion, February 16, 1988), served as the measure of reactance in the present study. We used a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = does not apply ar all, 6 = always applies).

Procedure

We gave a brief demographics questionnaire and the QMPR (Men, 1983) to students enrolled in introductory psychology courses. Participation in the study was completely voluntary, and we maintained confidentiality at all times. Upon completion of the survey, we debriefed all participants and gave them the oppor- tunity to ask questions about the study.

Results

Table 1 contains the mean responses and standard deviations for each of the 18 items of the QMPR (Men, 1983). The mean reactance score was 55.7. We did not compare the present reactance scores with those reported by previous researchers because of the use of a 6-point scale in the present study. An inde- pendent samples t test with Bonferroni correction (p < .03) revealed a significant difference attributable to gender, r(871) = 2.55, p < .03, but not to ethnicity, r(8 14) = -1.99, p > .03. In the present sample, the men were slightly more reac- tant than the women. The estimate of the total-scale reliability was .76 (a).

We conducted exploratory factor analysis by using both principal compo- nents analysis and maximum likelihood methods of extraction. Cattell’s scree plot, Kaiser’s criterion, measures of substantive importance, and interpretability of rotated factors indicated that a three-factor solution was most appropriate. We conducted both varimax and direct oblimin rotations (as appropriate), which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

684 The Journul of Social Psychology

resulted in similar pattern matrices. On the basis of the moderate correlations among the factors (.25 to .35) in the orthogonal solution, we deemed the oblique solution more appropriate (see Table 3). The final solution (maximum likelihood with direct oblimin rotation) accounted for 38.3% of the variance; 13 items loaded with a .40 saliency. Those factors are best represented as Factor 1, Response to Advice and Recommendations (a = .69); Factor 2, Restriction of Freedom (a = S6); and Factor 3, Preference for Confrontation (a = .48). Factor 1 seems to represent a negative reaction to advice and recommendations (usual- ly unsolicited). Factor 2 represents a negative reaction when people feel that their independence is restricted either by their dependence on others or by others’ interference with their own decisions. Factor 3 demonstrates a mode of interac- tion in which people perceive contradiction and disobedience as exciting.

TABLE 3 Item Loadings of the Rotated Factor Pattern Matrix of the Questionnaire

for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance (Men, 1983)

No./Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

8

11

15

9

14

18

6 10

5

7

2 16

3

It makes me angry when someone points out something that I already know. Suggestions and advice often make me do the opposite. When I am pushed to do something, I often tell myself, “For sure I won’t do it.” Often I lose enthusiasm for doing something just because others expect me to do it. I get annoyed when someone else is put up as an example for me. I get very irritated when somebody tells me what I must or must not do. When I get advice, I take it more as a demand. I get very irritated when someone tries to interfere with my freedom to make decisions. The thought of being dependent on others is very unpleasant to me. To make free and independent decisions is more important to me than to most people. I get a “kick” from contradicting others. It pleases me when I see how others disobey social norms and obligations. I seldom behave according to others’ standards.

.52

.5 1

.49

.49

.47

.44

.40

.52

.5 1

.49 .47

.45

.45

Note. Factor I = Response to Advice and Recommendations. Factor 2 = Restriction of Freedom. Fac- tor 3 = Preference for Confrontation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Donnell, Thomas, & Buboltz 685

Discussion

Previous researchers have produced conflicting results concerning the QMPR (Merz, 1983). Although Men found the QMPR to have acceptable relia- bility, others have found the reliability to be somewhat questionable (Hong & Ostini, 1989; Tucker & Byers, 1987). Similarly, some researchers have found a two-factor solution (Tucker & Byers), whereas others have proposed a four- factor solution (Hong & Ostini). Unfortunately, the present results did not pro- vide definitive answers for either of those important debates.

By using an exploratory factor analysis, we found a three-factor solution to be most appropriate. The present study again provides evidence that psycholog- ical reactance is a multidimensional phenomenon among college students. As such, continued use and interpretation of overall measures of reactance seem unwise. In addition, the three factors herein appear somewhat unrelated to the factors produced by either the two-factor (Tucker & Byers, 1987) or four-factor solutions (Hong & Ostini, 1989). However, one factor appears throughout the three studies, whether termed Freedom of Choice (Tucker & Byers; Items 5, 7, lo), Freedom in Decision and Behavior (Hong & Ostini; Items 5,7,9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18), or Restriction of Freedom (present study; Items 5, 7, 10). That fac- tor represents the desire to express one’s freedom to make decisions and to be independent. Unfortunately, the other factors do not provide any consistency among the studies, and those discrepancies seem to indicate a lack of factorial stability in the QMPR (Merz, 1983). Therefore, we continue to question the psy- chometric properties of the QMPR.

Our inability to recover the putative factor structure of the QMPR (Merz, 1983) is not surprising, given that the scale lacks a theoretical conceptualization of the underlying dimensions. We found that the total-score reliability of the QMPR was adequate but not exceptional; however, factor-scale reliabilities were not acceptable. Again, that finding is not surprising, given the number of items per factor. Such low reliabilities were probably predictable in light of the empir- ical nature and the inadequate content sampling of the original scale. Therefore, despite the continued evidence of a multidimensional construct, the QMPR does not reliably tap the dimensions of psychological reactance.

Given the potential importance of psychological reactance as an explanato- ry concept, there remains a need for the development of a solid measure of that construct. Unfortunately, the QMPR (Merz, 1983) as currently written does not adequately capture the multidimensionality of psychological reactance. Since the original study (Merz), three different studies have produced distinct factor struc- tures with questionable reliability estimates. Although some differences may have resulted from slight variations in translation or from scales with varying numbers of points, the magnitude of those differences is enough to merit consid- erable concern. Given the continued evidence of the multidimensionality of psy- chological reactance, the need to measure and interpret underlying dimensions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

686 The Journal of Social Psychology

seems extremely important. The QMPRs inability to adequately tap the under- lying dimensions suggests that researchers must continue to use the question- naire only with great caution.

Future researchers should attempt to improve the reliability of existing fac- tor scales through either item analysis or the addition of relevant items. Accord- ing to the nature of scale reliability, increasing the number of items increases reli- ability if the items are of good quality. For the factor Response to Advice and Recommendations, the addition of items that tap the acceptance of advice and recommendations may be appropriate (e.g., “In discussions, I am easily influ- enced by others’ opinions”; “I don’t mind other people’s giving me their advice and recommendations”; “I am very tolerant of others’ attempts to persuade me”). In light of the low number of items that mark Factor 2, additional items may improve the reliability of Restriction of Freedom (e.g., “I have a strong desire to maintain my personal freedom”; “On a job, it would be important to have free- dom to do what I want”; “It does not upset me to change my plans because some- one in the group wants to do something else”). Factor 3, Preference for Con- frontation, also has a low number of items, and additional items (e.g., “I enjoy seeing someone else do something that neither of us is supposed to do,” “Noth- ing excites me as much as a good argument,” “I am sometimes afraid to disagree with others”) may improve its reliability.

The instability of the QMPR (Merz, 1983) across studies (Hong & Ostini, 1989; Tucker & Byers, 1987) may indicate that simple scale refinement (e.g., additiodremoval of items) may not solve the problem; thus, the generation of a completely new scale may be more appropriate. Unfortunately, the present analy- sis was dependent on the quality of the original instrument. We limited our research to statements concerning psychological reactance as measured by the QMPR. If the original scale missed entire dimensions of psychological reac- tance, we would not be able to recover those dimensions. Given the empirical development of the original instrument, that outcome seems quite likely.

REFERENCES Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory ofpsychological reactance. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press. Brehm. J. W.. & Brehm, S. S. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory offeedom and

control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dowd, E. T., Milne, C. R., & Wise, S. L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A mea-

sure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 541-545. Hockenberry, S. L., & Billingham, R. E. (1993). Psychological reactance and violence

within dating relationships. Psychofogical Reports, 73, 1203-1208. Hong, S.-M., & Ostini, R. (1989). Further evaluation of Merz’s psychological reactance

scale. Psychological Reports, 64. 707-7 10. Hong, S.-M., & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor

structure and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64, 1323-1326. Jahn, D., & Lichstein, K. L. (1980). The resistive client: A neglected phenomenon in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Donnell, Thomas, & Buboltz 687

behavior therapy. Behavior Modijkation, 4, 303-320.

personality variables. Psychological Reporrs, 66, 1 147-1 151.

for Measuring Psychological Reactance]. Diagonistica, 29, 75-82.

therapeutic paradox. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 454467.

scale. Psychological Reports, 61, 81 1-815.

Joubert, C. E. (1990). Relationship among self-esteem, psychological reactance, and other

Merz, J. (1983). Fragebogen zur Messung der Psychologischen Reaktanz [Questionnaire

Rohrbaugh, M., Tennen, H., Press, S., & White, L. (1981). Compliance, defiance, and

Tucker, R. K., & Byers. P. Y. (1987). Factorial validity of Merz’s psychological reactance

Received October 13, 1999 Accepted August 15, 2000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:38

08

Oct

ober

201

4