The factorial structure of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale in two Finnish samples

Figures & data

Figure 1 Previously reported factor-structures for the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Numbers 1–14 represent the scale items.

A = Hong and Page (1989). Principal component analysis on 14-item scale, n = 257.

B = Hong (1992). Principal component analysis on 14-item scale, n = 462.

C = Hong and Faedda (1996). Principal component analysis on 11-item scale, n = 3085.

D = Thomas et al. (2001 A). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on 14-item scale, n = 905.

E = Thomas et al. (2001 B). CFA on 11-item scale, n = 539.

F = Shen and Dillard (2005). CFA on 11-item scale, n = 621.

G = Jonason and Knowles (2006 A). CFA on Tucker and Byers (1987) 18-item scale (only 14 items included here), n = 288.

H = Jonason and Knowles (2006 B). CFA on Tucker & Byers’ (1987) 18-item scale (reduced scale, only 14 items included here), n = 288.

I = Jonason et al. (2010). Principal component analysis and CFA on 18-item scale (Tucker & Byers, 1987) (reduced scale, only 14 items included here), n = 240.

J = Brown et al. (2011). CFA on 14-item scale, n = 1286.

K = De las Cuevas et al. (2014). Principal component analysis and CFA on 14-item scale, n = 354.

L = Moreira et al. (2019). CFA on 14-item scale, n = 1301 & 327 (adolescents).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the subsamples in Study 1.

	Finnish speaking respondents	Swedish speaking respondents
	(n = 624)	(n = 115)
Age	M = 36.39, SD = 5.01, Range 25–61	M = 36.66, SD = 4.04, Range 22–45
Gender	67.3% female, 32.7% male	49.6% female, 50.4% male
Education^a	22.4% Mid & low, 29.3% High/voc, 35.3% High, 13.0% Missing	27.0% Mid & low, 20.0% High/voc, 48.7% High, 4.3% Missing

Note: Even though a respondent completed the survey in a given language, it did not necessarily entail that the person was inept in the other language.

a Mid & low = primary school (or part of), vocational training/apprenticeship, vocational school, high school; High/voc = vocational university; High = undergraduate degree (university), graduate degree (Master’s), licentiate/doctorate.

Figure 2 Factor loadings in the best-fitting confirmatory model H of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.

Table 2 Fit statistics of previous Hong Psychological Reactance Scale models.

Model	df	χ^2	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
A – Hong and Page (1989)	65	3435.65	.21	.06	.29	.30
B – Hong (1992)	65	3471.33	.21	.05	.29	.30
C – Hong and Faedda (1996)	Model not empirically identified
D – Thomas et al. (2001)	Model not empirically identified
E – Thomas et al. (2001)	Model not empirically identified
F – Shen and Dillard (2005)	Model not empirically identified
G – Jonason and Knowles (2006)	65	564.07	.88	.86	.11	.08
H – Jonason and Knowles (2006)	27	202.23	.92	.90	.10	.07
I – Jonason et al. (2010)	27	241.60	.91	.88	.11	.07
J – Brown et al. (2011)	Model not empirically identified
K – De las Cuevas et al. (2014)	64	535.57	.89	.87	.11	.08
L – Moreira et al. (2019)	Model not empirically identified

Note: See Figure 1 for detailed depictions of the models. df = degrees of freedom, χ² = chi square, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. N = 624.

Table 3 Factor loadings and communalities in the one-factor Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.

	Factor loading	Communality
Item 1	.63	.61
Item 2	.52	.54
Item 3	.74	.82
Item 4	.37	.36
Item 5	.59	.63
Item 6	.73	.73
Item 7	.55	.57
Item 8	.62	.48
Item 9	.74	.78
Item 10	.58	.53
Item 12	.57	.60
Item 13	.63	.61
Item 14	.66	.71

Note: N = 624.

Table 4 The polychoric (below diagonal) and Pearson (above diagonal) correlation matrices of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.

	Item 1	Item 2	Item 3	Item 4	Item 5	Item 6	Item 7	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10	Item 12	Item 13	Item 14
Item 1	–	.345	.462	.175	.272	.314	.233	.256	.414	.223	.184	.347	.391
Item 2	.407	–	.402	.138	.174	.253	.247	.243	.286	.163	.225	.301	.219
Item 3	.600	.524	–	.084	.224	.276	.210	.283	.559	.252	.213	.357	.378
Item 4	.187	.162	.128	–	.312	.374	.252	.205	.071	.168	.226	.130	.108
Item 5	.307	.198	.316	.348	–	.477	.389	.311	.253	.307	.289	.271	.167
Item 6	.369	.296	.377	.441	.555	–	.394	.421	.337	.409	.355	.336	.271
Item 7	.264	.292	.301	.306	.475	.481	–	.334	.236	.245	.265	.163	.177
Item 8	.298	.270	.376	.241	.367	.492	.394	–	.332	.360	.374	.291	.289
Item 9	.516	.361	.685	.106	.334	.438	.316	.426	–	.302	.238	.401	.420
Item 10	.266	.205	.333	.214	.377	.491	.316	.425	.389	–	.302	.269	.333
Item 12	.212	.251	.277	.267	.329	.418	.311	.413	.307	.351	–	.373	.325
Item 13	.400	.344	.455	.163	.314	.403	.201	.349	.513	.325	.434	–	.344
Item 14	.483	.291	.506	.141	.228	.352	.230	.370	.546	.414	.413	.439	–

Note: The polychoric correlation matrix was calculated with the FACTOR program, and the Pearson correlation matrix with SPSS version 25. Item 11 of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale was not included for this sample. N = 624.

Figure 3 Model depicting the associations between latent variables for trait reactance (Hong Psychological Reactance Scale, reduced ancillary model), Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Ten Item Personality Inventory). N = 624. Missing data – Sympathetic, Warm: 0.80%; Dependable, Self-disciplined: 0.32%; Disorganized, Careless: 0.64%; Number of missing patterns: 6.

Table 5 Descriptive information of the sample recruited via Facebook.

Age	M = 33.8, SD = 9.3, Range 18–77
Gender	50.4% female, 48.1% male, 1.5% other
Education^a	62.6% Mid & low, 21.2% High/voc, 16.2% High

Note: ^aMid & low = primary school, vocational training/apprenticeship, vocational school, high school; High/voc = vocational university; High = undergraduate degree (university), graduate degree (Master’s), doctorate. Participant age calculated from year of birth. N = 518.

Figure 4 Factor loadings in the best-fitting confirmatory model H of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.

Table 6 Fit statistics of eleven previous Hong Psychological Reactance Scale models.

Model	df	χ^2	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
A – Hong and Page (1989)	77	3926.31	.19	.04	.31	.32
B – Hong (1992)	77	3748.92	.23	.08	.30	.31
C – Hong and Faedda (1996)	Model not empirically identified
D – Thomas et al. (2001)	Model not empirically identified
E – Thomas et al. (2001)	Model not empirically identified
F – Shen and Dillard (2005)	Model not empirically identified
G – Jonason and Knowles (2006)	77	497.74	.91	.90	.10	.07
H – Jonason and Knowles (2006)	35	147.22	.96	.94	.08	.05
I – Jonason et al.(2010)	27	185.71	.93	.91	.11	.06
J – Brown et al. (2011)	Model not empirically identified
K – De las Cuevas et al. (2014)	76	469.96	.92	.90	.10	.06
L – Moreira et al. (2019)	68	378.862	.93	.91	.09	.06

Note: See Figure 1 for detailed depictions of the models.

Table 7 Exploratory factor analysis loadings and communalities of the one-factor Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.

	Factor loading	Communality
Item 1	.58	.51
Item 2	.48	.50
Item 3	.74	.92
Item 4	.43	.42
Item 5	.68	.68
Item 6	.68	.72
Item 7	.59	.52
Item 8	.64	.62
Item 9	.75	.73
Item 10	.67	.62
Item 11	.70	.66
Item 12	.60	.58
Item 13	.66	.50
Item 14	.59	.53

Note: N = 518.

Table 8 The polychoric (below diagonal) and Pearson (above diagonal) correlation matrices of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale.

	Item 1	Item 2	Item 3	Item 4	Item 5	Item 6	Item 7	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10	Item 11	Item 12	Item 13	Item 14
Item 1	–	.292	.519	.139	.263	.288	.162	.208	.412	.304	.284	.313	.311	.384
Item 2	.352	–	.442	.139	.259	.149	.186	.211	.330	.247	.239	.244	.263	.231
Item 3	.585	.516	–	.176	.307	.315	.256	.291	.609	.369	.364	.290	.439	.423
Item 4	.170	.166	.211	–	.253	.351	.253	.242	.157	.268	.246	.206	.208	.223
Item 5	.322	.297	.370	.312	–	.448	.445	.398	.426	.332	.407	.337	.347	.255
Item 6	.337	.173	.374	.398	.524	–	.435	.439	.328	.414	.414	.348	.330	.270
Item 7	.233	.224	.311	.326	.533	.506	–	.412	.292	.247	.315	.280	.296	.194
Item 8	.265	.261	.350	.284	.468	.513	.496	–	.356	.360	.353	.323	.355	.289
Item 9	.478	.383	.674	.200	.497	.394	.363	.424	–	.432	.432	.323	.467	.414
Item 10	.360	.288	.429	.305	.395	.477	.306	.420	.500	–	.491	.321	.337	.351
Item 11	.322	.274	.409	.295	.474	.492	.384	.439	.484	.565	–	.437	.399	.346
Item 12	.352	.275	.339	.234	.385	.394	.339	.369	.377	.365	.493	–	.375	.347
Item 13	.366	.314	.508	.261	.415	.405	.378	.422	.538	.410	.450	.433	–	.339
Item 14	.428	.275	.477	.250	.296	.315	.257	.336	.470	.402	.385	.394	.402	–

Note: The polychoric correlation matrix was calculated with the FACTOR program, and the Pearson correlation matrix with SPSS version 25. N = 518.

Hong, S.-M., & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64(3_suppl), 1323–1326. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3c.1323

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hong, S.-M. (1992). Hong’s psychological reactance scale: A further factor analytic validation. Psychological Reports, 70(2), 512–514. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1992.70.2.512

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hong, S.-M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001014

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_07

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jonason, P. K., & Knowles, H. (2006). A unidimensional measure of Hong's psychological reactance scale. Psychological Reports, 98(2), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.98.2.569-579

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tucker, R. K., & Byers, P. Y. (1987). Factorial validity of Merz's psychological reactance scale. Psychological Reports, 61(3), 811–815. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.61.3.811

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jonason, P. K., Bryan, A., & Herrera, J. (2010). Trimming the fat reveals a one-factor construct of Hong’s psychological reactance scale. Individual Differences Research, 8, 220–228.

 Google Scholar

Brown, A. R., Finney, S. J., & France, M. K. (2011). Using the bifactor model to assess the dimensionality of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410387378

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De las Cuevas, C., Peñate, W., Betancort, M., & de Rivera, L. (2014). Psychological reactance in psychiatric patients: Examining the dimensionality and correlates of the Hong psychological reactance scale in a large clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.027

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moreira, P., Cunha, D., & Inman, R. A. (2019). Addressing a need for valid measures of trait reactance in adolescents: A further test of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1585360

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar