Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026
12:12
Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm
Published on: May 14, 2014
Reactance versus rationalization: divergent responses to policies that constrain freedom
Kristin Laurin1, Aaron C Kay, Gavan J Fitzsimons
1University of Waterloo.
Psychological Science
|January 14, 2012
Summary
People rationalize absolute restrictions by viewing them more favorably. However, nonabsolute restrictions trigger reactance, leading to less favorable views and valuing freedoms more.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Behavioral Science
- Social Psychology
Background:
- Conflicting psychological theories exist regarding responses to restrictions on personal freedom.
- Existing literature presents contradictory findings on how individuals react to limitations imposed by policies or environments.
Purpose of the Study:
- To resolve discrepancies in psychological literature concerning reactions to restrictions on personal freedoms.
- To investigate the role of restriction 'absoluteness' in shaping individual responses to perceived freedom limitations.
Main Methods:
- Two experimental studies were conducted.
- Participants were exposed to either absolute or nonabsolute restrictions on personal freedoms.
- Responses were measured by evaluating participants' favorability towards restrictions and their valuation of restricted freedoms compared to control groups.
Main Results:
- Absolute restrictions (certain to be implemented) led to rationalization: increased favorability towards restrictions and decreased valuation of freedoms.
- Nonabsolute restrictions (with a small chance of not being implemented) triggered reactance: decreased favorability towards restrictions and increased valuation of freedoms.
- The perceived certainty of a restriction significantly influences whether individuals rationalize or react against it.
Conclusions:
- The absoluteness of a restriction is a critical determinant of psychological response.
- Understanding the nuances of restriction certainty is key to predicting and managing public or employee reactions to policies.
- Future research should explore moderators and boundary conditions of these effects.
Related Concept Videos
01:24Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs) are grounded in the belief that our thoughts profoundly influence our emotions and actions. Advocates of CBT emphasize three core assumptions: first, that cognitions are identifiable and measurable; second, that they are central to psychological functioning; and third, that irrational or maladaptive beliefs can be replaced with rational and adaptive ones. This transformative approach to therapy has paved the way for specific models such as Albert Ellis's...
01:14Frustration and Conflict: Avoidance-Avoidance, Double-Approach Avoidance
Avoidance-avoidance conflict refers to a psychological situation where a person must choose between two or more unpleasant alternatives. These conflicts are particularly stressful because neither option is desirable. This dilemma is often expressed in sayings like "caught between a rock and a hard place" or "between the devil and the deep blue sea." For instance, individuals who fear dental procedures may find themselves torn between enduring a painful toothache or facing the anxiety of...
01:38Cognitive Dissonance
Social psychologists have documented that feeling good about ourselves and maintaining positive self-esteem is a powerful motivator of human behavior (Tavris & Aronson, 2008). In the United States, members of the predominant culture typically think very highly of themselves and view themselves as good people who are above average on many desirable traits (Ehrlinger, Gilovich, & Ross, 2005). Often, our behavior, attitudes, and beliefs are affected when we experience a threat to our...
02:45Self-Discrepancy Theory
One influential perspective on what motivates people's behavior is detailed in Tory Higgin's self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). He proposed that people hold disagreeing internal representations of themselves that lead to different emotional states.
01:37Reason and Intuition
The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...
01:20Frustration and Conflict: Approach-Approach, Approach-Avoidance
Frustration occurs when people are obstructed or prevented from achieving a desired goal or fulfilling a perceived need. For example, when someone's input is ignored in a discussion, it can lead to feelings of frustration. Conflict, however, arises from opposing interests, goals, or actions. Conflicts can take various forms based on the nature of these opposing desires or goals.
One common type of conflict is the Approach–Approach Conflict. In this case, a person faces two desirable options,...
One common type of conflict is the Approach–Approach Conflict. In this case, a person faces two desirable options,...