Theories in Social Psychology. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ this argument to reactance theory, a removal of a freedom can create both fear (flight) and anger (fight), depending on the circumstances. One emotion may overpower the other determining the intensity of arousal and degree of psychological reactance.

      Harmon-Jones and Allen (1998) found that anger was associated with more left anterior cortical activity than right. This brain activity was explained more by approach motivation associated with dispositional anger. Generally, negative emotions and avoidance motivation are associated with the right anterior cortical area of the brain, while positive emotions and approach motivation are associated with the left anterior cortical area (Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998). The authors suggest that dispositional anger is associated with approach motivation and less with withdrawal or avoidance motivation. Later, Harmon-Jones and Sigelman (2001) research findings confirmed that state-induced anger was also associated with left prefrontal cortical activity. Further, left frontal activity created by anger does not restrain amygdala action but is “co-varying with it” (Harmon-Jones, 2004). The relationship between left frontal cortical activity and resolution of inconsistency via approach motivation is also supported by Harmon-Jones (2004). Also see Harmon-Jones et al. (2013) for distinction between approach and avoidance motivation.

Steindl et al. (2015) also argue for a research focus on reactance and other negative (and positive) affect rather than mainly on the current emphasis of anger. They note that Chadee (2011) advocated that approach motivation was an important prerequisite for the occurrence of psychological reactance. Consistent with Chadee (2011) theorization and testing the approach motivation hypothesis, Mühlberger et al. (2020) with the use of electroencephalography (EEG) found an association between reactance and increase activity in the left frontal alpha asymmetry, an area of the brain associated with approach motivation. This relationship was found for personal experience of freedom threats and not indirect experiences of observing the freedom of others threatened. Reactance evokes particular kinds of emotion, and the emotions evoked will determine whether there is left or right frontal brain activity. This fact has implications for the reduction of reactance, especially in volatile and high-risk situations.

      Mention of physiological arousal and emotions are scattered across the many works indirectly related to reactance theory. A few reactance studies have used the emotion/affect dimension to assist in explanations of behavior. For example, earlier research had indicated that reactance was associated with somatic tension and increased activation of the sympathetic nervous system, as reflected in increases in both epinephrine and norepinephrine (Price et al., 1985). Brehm and Wortman (1975) model implies emotional intensity as a factor that increases striving to overcome failure and decreases in motivation as a function of being unable to control and determine outcome. However, the concept of affect intensity was never integrated or elaborated in the theory.

      The literature is practically void of systematic research on reactance and emotions. Neither is there an integration of findings on affect into the theory or any kind of theory modification. Brehm (2004) notes, with respect to cognitive dissonance, that more consideration is needed of the role of affect state, to which little emphasis has been given. Miron and Brehm (2006, p. 8) acknowledge the importance of understanding the processes in arousal when they stated:

      Obviously, more work is needed to chart the physiology of reactance. An investigation of this sort would help explore important questions such as what happens to reactance arousal when one cannot restore an eliminated freedom or whether observers experience reactance arousal when they witness threats to other people’s freedoms.

      Assumptions and Propositions of an Affect Arousal Reactance Theory (AART)

      The following assumptions and propositions toward an Affect Arousal Reactance Theory (AART) build on and add to Professor Jack Brehm’s (1966) theory and offer another dimension to the understanding and development of psychological reactance.

      Assumptions

      1 There is a dynamic relationship between cognitive and affect processes.

      2 Affect states and their concomitant arousal levels influence the intensity of reactions toward source(s) that threaten the removal of a free behavior.

      3 Cognitive and affect processes, singularly or jointly, operate to accentuate or attenuate the intensity of reactance toward the source(s) that directly or indirectly threaten the removal of a free behavior.

      Propositions

      1 Negative affect associated with an approach motivation is more likely to increase psychological reactance than negative affect associated with avoidance motivation. The greater the perceived threat to a free behavior or the more valued a free behavior, the more intense the affect toward the source of the threat to the free behavior.

      2 There is a direct relationship between the intensity of the affect arousal and the level of psychological reactance experienced. The higher the level of affect arousal the higher the magnitude of psychological reactance. Both the valence and intensity of affect state influence the degree of psychological reactance experienced.

      3 Combination of state and trait reactance association with negative affect and approach motivation is more likely to increase the intensity of psychological reactance than the presence of only state or trait reactance.

      4 The higher the affect arousal level associated with a threat to a free behavior, the greater the motivation to reduce the associated level of psychological reactance. Specifically, the higher the affect arousal level, and especially if it is a motivational approach arousal, associated with the threatened free behavior the greater the magnitude of psychological reactance and the greater the motivation for its reduction.

      5 Among the reduction of psychological reactance strategies is the reduction of affect intensity/arousal. Reduction of affect arousal, ceteris paribus, will reduce the intensity of psychological reactance. High affect arousal could inhibit cognitive strategies which may otherwise have facilitated approaches in reduction of psychological reactance.

The first three propositions address the issue of intensity, and the last two propositions address the reduction of psychological reactance.

      Figure 2.1 describes the process involved in the emergence of psychological reactance but considers the affect state. A threat to a free behavior is evaluated, provoking a negative affect state, the more important the threat, the greater the intensity of the affect state.

Figure 2.1 Affect arousal reactance model.

      Cognitive appraisal, together with the concomitant affect, leads to approach motivation or an avoidance motivation. The cognitive evaluation with the affect state either accentuates or attenuate reactance. As evaluation is undertaken and, should the threat persist, reactance striving and/or reactance behavior continue. However, as discussed, reactance is moderated by a number of factors. The subjective experiences of emotions influence: the processing of information, decision-making processes, our attention, reaction time, and the way we intend to behave or actually behave (e.g., Clore et al., 2001; Derryberry & Tucker, 1994). Research undertaken by Kostic et al. (2011) has shown that the subjective experiences and intesity of emotions vary across cultures. For example, an unpleasant situation of uncertainty with threat toward the removal of a free behavior and the potential to create frustration and anger, emotion with the high intensity, has high reactance potential.

      Threat to free behavior that provokes affect states associated with approach motivation will create a higher magnitude of reactance, ceteris paribus, than affect states associated with avoidance motivation. However, the magnitude of psychological reactance may СКАЧАТЬ