8/3/2019 BREHM 1989

1/5

8/3/2019 BREHM 1989

2/5

Advances in Consumer R esearch (Volume 16) I 73intention to use the car, your spouse explains that aspecial emergency has arisen that requires use of thecar, then you will understand that pre-empting carusage is not likely to recur. How evo-, if there is noexplanation, or if the explanation suggests yourspouse wants to use the car on a whim or, worse, thatyour spouse will frequently want to use the car in thefuture, then your future freedoms to use the car are ingreat jeopardy.

The second type of implication is that otherfreedoms of the same general nature may bethreatened. These w ould be freedoms such as watchingyour favorite TV program, spending one evening aweek out with your friends, or going to bed early.The implied threat to these freedoms from thestatement "I need the car tonight," is not necessarilydirect, as would be the case if you needed the car inorder to join your friends; rather, it can be indirect andwould presumably i ^ I y to all freedoms of equal orless importance. If your spouse can say who uses thecar at night, then your spouse may be able to saywhat program will be on the TV and whether or notyou can spend the evening out with your friends. Andif your spouse can decide who uses the car, then it isplausible that your spouse can decide about freedomsof lesser importance, such as who sees the editorialpage Hrst. Con versely, determining who g ets the carma y no t imply a threat to a more important freedom,such as deciding to buy a new car or sell the house orget a divorce.

So the first type of implied threat is to thesame freedom on future occasions, and the second typeof implied threat is to freedoms of similar or lessimportance. And let us now ask why it should makeany difference if there are implied tiureats to a fewfreedom s. W ell, the answer to that question is first,that implied threats are likely to apply not to just afew freedoms but rather to a large number of freedoms.No serious research that I know of has been done onthe notion of implication either within the framew orkof reactance theory or within the framework of anothertheory. I cannot say whether or not there may belimits on perceived implication. It is possible, forexample, diat you believe your spouse would gladlytake away your freedoms to be with your same sexfriends, but would never interfere with your time withthe children. That is, there may be content areas thatwould tend to limit the freedoms affected by impliedthreat. In the absence of such a limit, or even if therewere such a limit, the number of freedoms that couldbe threatened by arbitrarily reserving the car for theevening cou ld be very large indeed. And then thereare all the freedoms represented by possible future useof the carone freedom each night for the comingyear, some 365 freedoms threatened by implication!And if that is not staggering enough, just rememberthat the different kinds of freedoms that are of equal orless importance also may be threatened over futureoccas ions. All in all, there could be some hugenumber of freedoms threatened by implication.

It is this implicational aspect ihat may givereactance theory some power to say something aboutthe real world. It seems to be captured in the phrase,'If he does this to me, what can't he do?" That is.

when one freedom is threatened or taken away, manymany freedoms logically could be in danger, and theypresumably will be perceived as threatened unlessthere is an ejqtlicit and convincingly stated limit.What happens when a number of freedoms arethreatened? Theoretically, there is a lot of reactance,or in other words, the individual's response is likelyto be very strong. He or she will raise hell in orderto restore freedom, and the threatened altemative willlook very attractive indeed. My g uess, and it is just aguess, is that all the reactance is focused on theexplicitly threatened freedom. It is not spread outover all the freedoms that are threatened byimplication. In fact, I doubt that peop le could easilyarticulate freedoms that are threatened by implication.It is more likely that they simply feel the threat isgeneral rather than specific, and hence it could applyto any number of (unspecified) freedoms.If it is true that people are generally unaware offreedoms that are threatened by implication, but theynevertheless respond as though those freedoms arereally threatened, then their response will appear to betoo strong for what has happened to them. They w illbe throwing tantrums as though it is the end ofcivilization if their specific freedom is not restored.Both the recipient of their response, and anyuninvolved observer, will judge that they are "over-reacting." This discrepancy between the importanceof the speciHc freedom that has been threatened andthe magnitude of reactance could lead a person eitherto moderate his or her response, or it could lead aperson to articulate the implied threats, which wouldmaintain the strength of the original response. IpTesume it is the latter that is more likely to happen,though I have no good justification for tliispresumption.Examples from the world about us come readilyto mind. Tw o or three years ago when serv ices at theLibrary of Congress were reduced because of the budgetsqueeze, users of the library screamed bloody murder.My guess is that while some users may have beeninconvenienced, the real strength of their responsecame from the implied threat to all their uses of thelibrary. After all, if certain services cou ld be reduced,then what was to prevent those services from beingeliminated altogether or other services from beingreduced or eliminated?Similarly, when the Coca-Cola companyabandoned their standard recipe for Coke, ihe responseof users was, of course, outrage. The threat was topresent and future freedoms to obtain the familiarCoke. These two examples, plus the hypotheticalexample of your spouse claiming the car for the night,illustrate one other important point about howfreedom s are threatened by implication. Theindividual whose freedom is tlveatened must beembedded in a complex relationship with theperpetrator of the threat, and in order to have futurefreedoms threatened, the relationship must beenduring. People who live together, especially underthe rules of marriage, are wonderful candidates forimplied threats. But membership in organizations ofmost any kind supplies a ready source of implied

8/3/2019 BREHM 1989

3/5

74 / Psychological Reactance: Theory and Applicationsthreats. For example, an individual will tend to havemany freedoms where she or he works, and onefrequently expects to have a long term relationshipwith one's employer. A final, classic, example ofpotential implied threats to freedoms lies in one'srelationship to local, state, and federal governments.Without going into the gory details, let me justremind you that a stop sign can be installed at anintersection where you don't have time to stop in themoming, your land can be seized to be part of a newstate highway, and you can lose federal tax deductionsfor some business expenses. I'm sure you are allfamiliar with these problems.The point I have been trying to make is thatthe magnitude of psychological reactance is greatlyenhanced by implied threats to freedoms, and reactancetheory may therefore be useful in understandingpractical matters mainly where implied threats areinvolved. Otherwise, reactance ej ec ts frequently maybe too miniscule to be of any consequence.But I presume that for the purposes of thisgroup it is not enough to gain new ideas about whyyou are so bothered by the cap's being left off thetube of toothpaste. Presumably, you would like toknow what all this has to do with imderstandingconsumer behavior. So let us consider how reactancetheory ajjplies to consumer behavior and let's startwith what freedoms the consumer has.Awareness that certain products or servicesexist creates freedoms, though in some cases thesefreedoms will be very weak. For example, eventhough I live in Lawrence, Kansas, I am aware that outthere somewhere in the world there are French, Thais,and Nigerian restaurants. Do I believe I have thefreed om to eat at such restaurants? No t really, not aslong as I stay in Lawrence. But I know that I couldventure forth, spending $100 or $200 for airfare, toobtain an interesting mea l. That's a freedom, but notone that I wish to exercise very often.From the consumer's point of view, there aregreat numbers of products and services available,usually for a price. Any factor such as price orunavailability that makes it difficult for the consumerto have the product or service reduces the extent towhich that product or service is a freedom to theconsumer. Neverth eless, a large price tag, such as forthe purchase of a new car, makes the associatedfreedom s highly important to the consumer. If onecannot buy a different new car each month, then thesingle choice one makes must be the best possible.Because this kind of decision is infrequently made,there carmot be many future freedoms threatened byimplication. But because of the importance of thesefreedoms, any implied threat would presumably arouseconsiderable reactance.Again from the consumer's point of view, twodifferent kinds of decisions can be involved inconsidering the available goods and services. Thefirst is the decision that a particular type of product orservice is needed. For example, this would be thedecision to buy a new car, which may be made more orless independently from the decision about which carto buy. Where only one product or service of thedesired kind is available, the consumer will have only

two freedoms: (1) to have the service or product, or(2) not to have it.The second decision, which of several similarproducts or services to select, involves the freedomsto have each product or service, and the freedoms toreject each. It will be ob vious that the greater thenumber of similar products or services available, thegreater will be the number of freedoms lost when aselection is made. The greater the number of freedomslost, the greater should be the magnitude of reactanceand consequent resistance to any particular selection.From this we can draw a couple of lessons aboutconsum er behavior. First, the greater the number ofproducts or services from which to choose, the morereluctant the consumer should be to select any givenone. Second, the greater the number of products orservices from which to choose, the greater will be theconsumer's resistance to high pressure tactics to makea particular selection. Now let us see how im pliedthreats, too, can play a role.Given that the consumer starts out with thefreedom to have each available altemative, almost any

attempt to infiuence the consumer's decision is likelyto create reactance and a counter-tendenc y. Theamount of reactance and the strength of the coimter-tendency, however, should be relatively small formost decisions that a consumer makes. If I amcontemplating the soft drink section at my usualsupermarket and someone approaches me to say "Weare trying to get people to try Sujjercola, so the priceof a sixpack is 50% off," I may well try Supercola.While some reactance is created by the infiuenceattempt, it is not so much that it cancels out theattractiveness of a good buy.Contrast that case with one in which I find thatmy usual supermarket has devoted 90% of its shelfspace for soft drinks to its own house brand. Eventhough I can find the other brands that I am looking

for, I carmot help noticing the attempt to infiuencemy choice. Not only do I experience reactance, I feela lo t of it. Why do I feel so much? The reason that Ifeel so much reactance is because I choose not onlysoft drinks at this store, I also choose canned goods,pasta, frozen foods, and so forth. For each one ofthese choices that I make, there is the possibility thatthe supermarket is trying to influence me to selecttheir house brand. Furthermore, because I sho p at thisstore each week and expect to continue to do so, allmy future choices as well may be subjected toinfiuence attempts. You may be sure that I will notbuy a house brand soft drink from this store. This isthe obvious lesson about consumer behavior that weleam from reactance theory and its assertion about theeffect of implied threats to freedoms.In addition to the freedoms to have or rejectparticular products or services, consumers, I believe,think they have at least two other freedoms. Where aproduct or service is consumed regularly, the consumerexp ects it to be constant in character. I think theconsumer believes it to be one of his freedoms thatthe character remain constant. The ob vious exam pleis that of the Coca-Cola recipe. It seems to me thatmuch of the hue and cry occurred before anyone had achance to try the new recipe. The problem was not

8/3/2019 BREHM 1989

4/5

Advances in C onsumer Research (Volume 16) I ISthe new taste but the arbitrary switch from the oldtaste. And if they do it once, they surely will do itagain. Second, and not too surprisingly, consumerscome to believe they have the freedom to obtain theproduct or service, even if they don't regularly obtainit. Indeed, one of the most distressing things in mylife is when I find that a product that I bought 10years ago, and now want again, is no longer on themarket. It could be seen as a form of censorshipimposed by the {nivate sector on the public, and nomatter if the product was not profitable, if that itemcan be eliminated, will Wheaties be the next to go?

The more general picture is that consumershave a complex relationship with innumerableorganizations or agencies, and any of theserelationships is easily enable of threatening aconsumer freedom and simultaneously implying threatsto a number of additional freedoms. If your localnewspaper stops carrying Doonesbury, your localpublic radio station stops carrying All ThingsConsidered, or the TV network stops producing HillStreet Blues, not only is the speciHc freedomthreatened or lost, there is the dim awareness that anumber of other favorite items could just as easily betaken away. It is, I beli eve, the imp lied threats thatmake specific losses so motivating. Whether theattempt is to induce the consumer to take a particularproduct or service, to change or even improve an oldproduct or service, or to eliminate an unproHtableproduct, to the extent that freedoms to have otherproducts or services may be threatened by implication,consumer responses are likely to be negative.

8/3/2019 BREHM 1989

5/5