This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 09 October 2014, At: 11:46Publisher: 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

The Relationship BetweenPsychological Reactance andSelf-EsteemChan M. Hellman a & Wayne L. McMillin ba Tulsa Community Collegeb Phoenix Research GroupPublished online: 03 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Chan M. Hellman & Wayne L. McMillin (1997) The RelationshipBetween Psychological Reactance and Self-Esteem, The Journal of Social Psychology,137:1, 135-138, DOI: 10.1080/00224549709595424

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549709595424

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 viewsexpressed 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 [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

1:46

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal ofSocial Psychology, 1997, 137(1), 135-138

The Relationship Between Psychological Reactance and Self-Esteem

CHAN M. HELLMAN Tulsa Community College

WAYNE L. McMILLIN Phoenix Research Group

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE reflects the individual’s response to social influences; it is a counterforce that is aroused when an individual’s freedom is threatened or eliminated (Brehm, 1966). Reactance theorists argue that, if free- dom is considered important and the person has the ability and expects to control the outcomes, he or she will engage in behaviors that seek to reestablish freedom and control (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Whortman & Brehm, 1975). Reactions to violence, patient responses to therapy, and workplace behaviors have been partially explained in terms of psychological reactance theory (Austin, 1989; Dowd & Wallbrown, 1993; Hockenberry & Billingham, 1993).

Given these findings, the development of a valid and reliable measurement of psychological reactance would be beneficial to the field of psychology. One such scale, the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS) developed by Hong and Page (1989), has received promising empirical support. Data are presented on a 14-item, four-factor psychological reactance scale that purportedly mea- sures the individual’s predisposition for freedom of choice, conformity reac- tance, behavioral freedom, and reactance to advice and recommendations. Using responses on this scale from over 1,700 Australian adults, Hong, Giannakopou- los, Laing, and Williams (1994) examined the effects of age and gender on psy- chological reactance. Although no significant gender differences were found, the results of their study suggest that, as the individual ages, psychological reactance tends to decrease.

In another study, Hong and Giannakopoulos (1994) provided evidence, col- lected from a large population of Australian adults, suggesting that psychologi-

We would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Kay Bull.

Community College, 611 1 E. Skelly Drive, Tulsa, OK 74135-6198. Address correspondence to Chan M. Hellman. Ofice of Institutional Research, Tulsa

I35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

1:46

09

Oct

ober

201

4

I36 The Journal ofsociul Psychology

cal reactance is related to such personality characteristics as trait anger, locus of control, and depression; however, psychological reactance was not significantly related to self-esteem in that study. That finding seems contrary to reports in the self-esteem literature as well as to psychological reactance theory (Brockner, 1983; Brockner & Elkind, 1985). Arguably, individuals with low self-esteem may be more likely to engage in acceptance and approval by conforming to the demands placed on them, compared with those with higher levels of self-esteem. Furthermore, Brehm and Brehm (1981) stated, “If one does not see oneself as competent, reactance against a threat to that freedom will be minimal or nonex- istent” (p. 20). This statement is consistent with Whortman and Brehm’s (1975) reactance model, which integrated reactance theory and learned helplessness. As the individual loses control and has no expectancy to reestablish control, reac- tance decreases and helplessness follows. Finally, the relationship between the individual’s concept of self and learned helplessness is well established (Selig- man, 1974, 1975).

Extrapolating from these studies, researchers could justifiably hypothesize a positive relationship between self-esteem and psychological reactance. Joubert (1994), using the HPRS, tested this hypothesis. Surprisingly, a negative relation- ship that was significant only among the female respondents was found. Although Joubert offered an explanation for the gender differences, no explana- tion for the contradictory direction of the relationship between psychological reactance and self-esteem was provided.

In response to Hong’s (Hong, 1992; Hong & Page, 1989) invitation to fur- ther evaluate the HPRS, in the present study we aimed to provide empirical data that would further refine research involving this scale. More specifically, we examined the relationship between two factors of the HPRS (i.e., Freedom of Choice and Behavioral Freedom) and self-esteem among second-year college students from the midwestern United States.

Method

Eighty psychology students (39.2% men, 60.8% women) from a medium- sized, 2-year community college located in the midwestern United States were administered the pencil-and-paper-type questionnaire. They were informed about the purpose of the study and the voluntary and anonymous nature of the ques- tionnaire. Completion of the questionnaire was regarded as informed consent. The respondents’ ages ranged from 18 years to 50 years ( M = 24.92, SD = 7.85).

Psychological reactance was assessed using two factors (Freedom of Choice and Behavioral Freedom) of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Freedom of Choice consisted of four items (M = 14.87, SD = 2.60, a = .68). Similarly, Behavioral Freedom consisted of four items ( M = 13.52, SD = 2.66, a = .65). With these two factors combined, the mean score was 28.39 (SD = 4.57). Addi- tionally, this scale was found to be internally reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .76).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

1:46

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Hellman & McMillin 137

Hong and Page (1989) reported a similar overall internal reliability score (a = .77) for the four-factor scale.

Self-esteem was assessed with Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item Self-Esteem Scale (M = 37.53, SD = 6.35, a = .76). Each of the items was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree ( I ) , to neither disagree nor agree (3), to strongly agree (5). High scores reflect higher perceptions for each construct.

Results

Results of correlations indicate that the behavioral freedom component of the HPRS appears as a classic example of a suppresser variable between the rela- tionship of self-esteem and freedom of choice (r = .23, p < .05). Correlations between behavioral freedom and self-esteem (r = .01, ns) did not significantly vary from zero, whereas the relationship between behavioral freedom and free- dom of choice was considerably larger ( r = .51, p < .05). When behavioral free- dom was controlled, the partial correlation coefficient between self-esteem and freedom of choice increased to .27 0, < .05).

Although Hong et al. (1994) provided clear evidence of the multidimen- sional nature of their psychological reactance scale, the results of the present study suggest that it be used with caution. For example, when we combined the two components of this scale in an additive fashion and examined the relation- ship between this measure of psychological reactance and self-esteem, the influ- ences of each factor could have psychometrically “clouded” an understanding of the data and could have led to incorrect conclusions ( r = .14, p > .25).

To test the predictive relationship, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis. Given the findings presented in the preceding paragraph, behavioral freedom was entered first to control for its suppressing effect (R2 = ,000, F = 0.006, ns). Next, freedom of choice was entered into the equation on self-esteem and, as expected, accounted for significant variance (R’ = .07, F = 5.73, p < .02; full model, adjusted R’ = .05, F = 2.87, p = .06). Conversely, had we combined the two HPRS factors and entered this variable into the regression equation, the conclusion would have been different, adjusted R2 = .02, F( 1,76) = 1.49, p < .23.

Discussion

Several limitations of this study must be addressed. First, this research was based on a relatively small sample of community college students from the mid- western United States. Subsequent replications using larger samples from differ- ent groups are necessary. Additionally, the data are based on a cross-sectional design and may be plagued with common method variance as well as social desirability. Finally, in this study we used only two factors of the HPRS to assess psychological reactance. Subsequent replications in which all items from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

1:46

09

Oct

ober

201

4

138 The Journal of Social Psychologj~

HPRS are used should provide further clarity for this measurement construct and its relationship with other important psychological phenomena.

Still, the results presented in this study call into question the indiscriminate use of the HPRS. Specifically, combining all four factors of the HPRS in an addi- tive format may suppress its potential, thus providing a possible explanation of the findings reported by Hong and Giannakopoulos (1 994) and Joubert (1990).

REFERENCES

Austin, J. T. (1989). Effects of shifts of goal origin on goal acceptance and attainment.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory ofpsychological reactance. San Diego: Academic Press. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and

control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Brockner, J . (1 983). Low self-esteem and behavioral plasticity: Some implications. In L.

Wheeler & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Review ofpersonaliy und socialpsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 237-27 I ) . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brockner, J., & Elkind, M. (1985). Self-esteem and reactance: Further evidence of attitu- dinal and motivational consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21,

Dowd, E. T., & Wallbrown, F. (1993). Motivational components of client reactance. Jour- nal of Counseling & Development, 71, 533-538.

Hockenbeny, S. L., & Billingham, R. E. (1993). Psychological reactance and violence within dating relationships. Psychological Reports, 73, 1203-1 208.

Hong, S.-M. (1992). Hong’s psychological reactance scale: A further factor analytic vali- dation. Psychological Reports, 70, 5 12-5 14.

Hong, S.-M., & Giannakopoulos, E. (1994). The relationship of satisfaction with life to personality characteristics. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 547-558.

Hong, S.-M., Giannakopoulos, E., Laing, D., & Williams, N. A. (1994). Psychological reactance: Effects of age and gender. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 223-228.

Hong, S.-M., & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure, and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64, 1323-1 326.

Joubert, C. E. (1 990). Relationship among self-esteem, psychological reactance, and other personality variables. Psychological Reports, 66, I 147-1 15 1.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent’s self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1974). Depression and learned helplessness. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 83-120). Washington, DC: Winston.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 4 1 5 4 3 5 .

346-361.

Seligman, M. E. P. ( 1 975). Helplessness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Whortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An inte-

gration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 277-236). San Diego: Acade- mic Press.

Received October 27. 1995

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

1:46

09

Oct

ober

201

4