Reactance theory and
Darwinism: An example of theoretical reduction.
Human Ethology Newsletter,
Vol 8, issue 2, june 1993
One of the ideals usually embraced by scientists is theoretical
reduction. This means explaining theories with a limited domain by more general
theories. The ultimate goal would be that all theories are embedded in a
logical network. When one looks at social scientific theories, this ideal seems
very remote from the actual state of affairs. Most social scientific theories
seem completely unrelated. As evolutionary theory is undoubtedly the most
general (and the most successful) theory about life, it may play an important
role in explaining and integrating social-scientific theories. I will now
present an example of an explanation of a social psychological theory by
evolutionary theory. The theory to be explained is called Reactance Theory,
and it was first formulated by Jack Brehm in 1966. The theory deals with how
people react to a loss of their freedom. Freedom is defined by Brehm as the number
of behavior alternatives an individual possesses at a certain moment. A
central hypothesis of the theory is:
- If one or more of the
behavior-alternatives which an individual possesses are eliminated, or
threatened with elimination, the individual will experience ‘reactance’.
Reactance is defined by Brehm as a psychological state which results in
an increased attractiveness of the behavior-alternatives which are
eliminated, or threatened with elimination. This increased attractiveness of
the behavior which is eliminated, or threatened with elimination, motivates the
individual to defend or restore his freedom. If you have the possibility of
drinking coffee or lemonade, and someone forbids you to drink the lemonade, the
theory would predict that lemonade suddenly seems more attractive. You are then
motivated to find a way to drink lemonade, and thus to restore your freedom of
behavior. I will return to this idea, after mentioning another central
hypothesis of the theory:
- The less freedom an individual has, the
more reactance he or she will experience when one of the behavior-alternatives
is eliminated, or is threatened with elimination.
If you can drink only coffee or lemonade, and one of these alternatives
is taken away, the reactance-emotion will be stronger than when you have the
possibility of drinking coffee, tea, lemonade, beer, wine, milk, water, etc,
etc. Brehm’s theory can explain a wide range of phenomena, for instance why
children sometimes do the opposite as they are told, or why propaganda
frequently is ineffective, or why someone may dislike receiving a favour.
Experimental testing has been quite successful (See for a rather old overview:
Wicklund 1974).
Brehm has made but one remark about why people seem to behave as his
theory describes. He wrote that the reactance-emotion may have “survival-value”
(Brehm 1966, p. 1-2). This explanation seems quite plausible. People and other
organisms who are frequently in situations in which they can choose between
different behavior alternatives are likely to have evolved a capacity for
choosing what is most often best for their fitness. Moreover, creating,
defending and restoring situations in which the individual is free to make a
choice may in itself enhance fitness. Therefore, natural selection probably
favored individuals who not only perceive when their freedom is threatened, but
also act so as to defend that freedom. Brehm has described the psychological
mechanism by which people (and probably many other species) are motivated to
defend their freedom. That is, the attractiveness of behaviors varies with the
freedom an individual perceives to possess.
However, in my opinion Brehm has described only part of this mechanism.
If someone’s behavior-alternatives are drinking coffee or drinking lemonade,
and the option of lemonade is eliminated, there are, logically speaking, two
ways to motivate the individual to restore his freedom of choice. Brehm
described the first: an increase of the attractiveness of the eliminated
behavior – lemonade seems more attractive. The second way to motivate the
individual is a decrease of the attractiveness of the behavior which is
still available. If the possibility to drink lemonade is taken away, a sudden
dislike of coffee increases the chance that the individual will try to find
lemonade, and thus restore his freedom. It is interesting to note that in one
of the first experiments conducted to test the reactance-theory (Hammock and
Brehm 1966), this effect was unexpectedly found. As predicted by Brehm, the
attractiveness of the behavior which was eliminated increased. But the behavior
still available decreased in attractiveness, and this effect was even the
strongest! Further testing seems desirable.
In this short article I have not given reactance theory the full attention
it deserves. Instead, I have used this theory as an example of how a social
scientific theory can be explained, and perhaps even corrected, by deducing it
from evolutionary theory. In my view there are several social-scientific
theories just waiting for a Darwinist explanation. Theoretical reduction is an
interesting subject over which evolutionary theoreticists and social scientists
can meet.
References
Brehm, J.W. (1966) A Theory
of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brehm, J.W. (1972). Responses to Loss of Freedom. A Theory of
Psychological Reactance. General Learning Corporation.
Brehm, J.W. & Rosen, E. (1972). ‘Attractiveness of old alternatives
when a new attractive alternative is introduced.’ Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 20: 261-266
Brehm, J.W. & Mann, M. (1975). ‘Effect of importance of freedom and
attraction to group members on influence produced by group pressure’. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 816-824.
Brehm, S.S. & Brehm, J.W. (1981).
Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New
York, Academic Press.
Brockner, J. & Elkind, M. (1985) ‘Self-esteem and Reactance: Further
evidence of attitudinal and motivational consequences’. Journal of
Experimental and Social Psychology, 21: 346-361.
Gannon, L., Heiser, P., & Knight, S. ‘Learned Helplessness versus
reactance: The effect of sex-role stereotypy’. Sex Roles, 12: 791-806.
Hammock, T. & Brehm, J.W. (1966). ‘The attractiveness of choice
alternatives when freedom to choose is eliminated by a social agent’. Journal
of Personality 34: 546-554.
Minor, K.I. (1987). ‘Reactance and recidivism: Implications for
probation policy and research.’ Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64:
1047-1050.
Wicklund, R.A. (1974). Freedom and Reactance. Maryland: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.