Display options
Cite
Sittenthaler S, Steindl C, Jonas E. Legitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions - a motivational and physiological approach investigating reactance processes. Front Psychol. 2015;6:632doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00632.
Sittenthaler, S., Steindl, C., & Jonas, E. (2015). Legitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions - a motivational and physiological approach investigating reactance processes. Frontiers in psychology, 6632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00632
Sittenthaler, Sandra, et al. "Legitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions - a motivational and physiological approach investigating reactance processes." Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 (2015): 632. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00632
Sittenthaler S, Steindl C, Jonas E. Legitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions - a motivational and physiological approach investigating reactance processes. Front Psychol. 2015 May 18;6:632. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00632. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26042065; PMCID: PMC4434918.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2015 May 18;6:632. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00632. eCollection 2015.

Legitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions - a motivational and physiological approach investigating reactance processes.

Frontiers in psychology

Sandra Sittenthaler, Christina Steindl, Eva Jonas

Affiliations

  1. Division of Economic and Organizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg , Salzburg, Austria.
  2. Division of Social Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg , Salzburg, Austria.

PMID: 26042065 PMCID: PMC4434918 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00632

Abstract

Threats to our freedom are part of our daily social interactions. They are accompanied by an aversive state of motivational arousal, called reactance, which leads people to strive to reestablish their threatened freedom. This is especially the case if the threat seems to be illegitimate in nature. However, reactance theory suggests that reactance should also be aroused when people are exposed to legitimate freedom threats. In this article we first aim to show that both illegitimate and legitimate freedom threats evoke reactance. Second, we aim to extend past work on reactance by exploring the underlying process of experiencing a legitimate vs. an illegitimate restriction. In the current study (N= 57) participants were restricted in an illegitimate (unexpected and inappropriate) or legitimate (unexpected but appropriate) way, or were not restricted at all. We assessed participants' experience of reactance, their behavioral intentions to restore their freedom, their approach motivational states, as well as their physiological arousal (heart rate). Results indicated that when restricted in an illegitimate or a legitimate way, participants indicated the same amount of reactance as well as anger. However, when looking at people's physiological reactions, important differences between illegitimate and legitimate restrictions become apparent. Illegitimate restrictions led to an immediate arousal, whereas legitimate restrictions led to a time delayed arousal. This suggests that illegitimate restrictions lead to a sudden increase in aversive arousal. Legitimate restrictions, however, seem to be associated with a more cognitive process in which people first need to structure their thoughts and reflect upon the situation before getting into the feeling of reactance in a physiologically arousing sense. Moreover a mediation analysis could show that behavioral intentions to regain one's freedom result in positive and negative approach motivation. In sum we propose a combined dual-process and intertwined-process model explaining people's reactions to legitimate vs. illegitimate restrictions.

Keywords: anger; motivation; physiological arousal; reactance; restrictions; social interaction; threat

References

  1. J Abnorm Psychol. 1964 Sep;69:303-10 - PubMed
  2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Sep;85(3):528-40 - PubMed
  3. Biol Psychol. 2004 Oct;67(1-2):51-76 - PubMed
  4. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(3):220-47 - PubMed
  5. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1999;3(1):2-22 - PubMed
  6. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:375-400 - PubMed
  7. Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):434-40 - PubMed
  8. Brain Cogn. 2007 Feb;63(1):70-8 - PubMed
  9. Emotion. 2009 Apr;9(2):183-96 - PubMed
  10. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Sep;61(3):459-70 - PubMed
  11. Biol Psychol. 2010 Jul;84(3):451-62 - PubMed
  12. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Jan;100(1):172-81 - PubMed
  13. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2009 May;40(3):510-517 - PubMed
  14. Annu Rev Psychol. 1989;40:109-31 - PubMed
  15. Cogn Emot. 2003 Jan;17(1):1-24 - PubMed
  16. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Apr;54(4):679-86 - PubMed
  17. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70 - PubMed
  18. Soc Sci Med. 1986;22(5):509-16 - PubMed
  19. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Jul;51(1):55-65 - PubMed
  20. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979 Jan;37(1):39-47 - PubMed
  21. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1974 May;29(5):703-9 - PubMed
  22. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983 Oct;45(4):782-91 - PubMed
  23. Psychol Bull. 1993 Sep;114(2):296-322 - PubMed
  24. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 May;74(5):1310-6 - PubMed

Publication Types