Search

The purpose of this paper is to examine the difference between individualists and collectivists in their reasons for resistance to high-pressure communication. Reactance is assumed to be related to individualism. So, individualists would perceive high-pressure persuasion as a threat to freedom, and would resist it for this reason. In contrast, collectivists would perceive that coercive persuasion would disturb the harmony of group. It was hypothesized that horizontal individualism is positively associated with resistance due to freedom-infringement and that horizontal collectivism is positively associated with resistance due to harmony-disturbance, in response to coercive persuasion. Undergraduates （N=121） participated in a study to test these hypotheses. They were asked to read 5 short coercive communications and to rate these communications from two standpoints, that is, freedom-infringement and harmony-disturbance. A path analysis showed that horizontal individualism was positively associated with freedom-infringement, and that horizontal collectivism was positively associated with harmony-disturbance, as expected. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

This study examined the reliability and validity of Japanese psychological reactance scales. A total of 167 undergraduates completed a questionnaire of Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS), the Hong Reactance Scale (HRS), the Uniqueness Scale, and the Collectivism Scale. They also received messages involving three persuasion situations that were either high or low in terms of threat, and were asked to describe their reactions to them. The author categorized the reactions into three: acceptance, indirect resistance, and direct resistance. Reliabilities of the reactance scales were satisfactory. Their scores positively correlated with uniqueness scores, and negatively with collectivism scores. Those high on reactance proneness were less persuaded in two of the three situations. But in the third, an HRS by threat interaction was observed, indicating that only those who were high on reactance proneness under the high-threat condition showed resistance to persuasion. These results suggest that the Japanese versions of reactance scale were reliable and valid. However, the assertiveness aspect of TRS may not be appropriate for the definition of reactance. The influence of culture on psychological reactance was also discussed.

The present research investigated the effects of high threat on compliance, when the strength and importance of a freedom were low (low prerequisites for reactance arousal). This research varied attitudinal freedom and threats to it. Subjects read the prosecution summary for a court trial, and about half of the subjects were further informed of the defense's claim, which suggested that innocence was equally possible (high prerequisite condition). A low-, moderate- or high threat message, advocating that the defendant was guilty, contained respectively 0, 3, or 6 high-pressure statements. The predictions were as follows: (a) Under low prerequisite, moderate threat would decrease compliance, whereas high threat would increase it; (b) under high prerequisite, the greater the threat, the less the compliance. The significant prerequisite × threat interaction on the post-communication measures of opinion confirmed the predictions. The significance of these results, for the complex interplay between the strength and importance of a freedom and the magnitude of threat to it, is discussed.