Paradoxes of Reactance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Social-psychological Perspective

Abstract

This study aims to explain the dynamics of compliance towards the measures to contain the coronavirus in 2020 by drawing on the theory of psychological reactance. We discuss our findings in a model that distinguishes between catalysts and buffers of reactance arousal on an individual level and hypothesises how these may lead to compliant or resistant behaviour as acts of resilience in the public sphere. In an online survey (N = 766, May 2020, Germany), we found that reactance arousal towards the restrictions to contain the coronavirus depended on the individual assessment of the limitations of freedom. Data suggest that health related fear buffers reactance arousal, whereas surprisingly, sorrow and cognitive dissonance amplify it. Anger and a critical political attitude towards the government correlate positively with the mobilising power of reactance. We argue that these are essential elements that push individual reactance arousal over the threshold into the public sphere, where it serves to shove resilience towards resistance. Our study expands this essential social-psychological theory to be a driver not only in the individual but also in public behaviour, opening a new perspective on the tipping point between resilience and resistance in the public sphere during this crisis and beyond.

KEYWORDS:

• Reactance
• corona pandemic
• freedom
• political psychology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is part of a dissertation project examining political motivation towards populist movements via mechanisms of reactance.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2021.1969619

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All our data and further analysis can be found on our Open Science profile: https://osf.io/p9tmh/

Notes

1 With our specific operationalisation of public sphere engagement, we focus on mobilisation as a visible interface to the individual reactance process. Wider forms of public sphere engagement, like collective discussion and opinion formation, are implicitly part of the process preceding mobilisation but are not captured by this study.

2 Unless otherwise stated, we have used this scale measure in all following measures. The complete questionnaire can be found in our Open Science profile.

3 Because there is a lack of an adequate translation, we use the concept of anxiety as a mixture of concern, anxiety and sorrow, using all three words synonymously.

4 In a small pre-test (N = 12), we measured length and phrasing of the instrument. The SSR was critiqued for complicated wording. Apart from the two items changed, we decided not to interfere with core formulations such as double-negative phrasing.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katharina V. Hajek

Katharina Veronika Hajek (corresponding author) is currently working on her PhD at the Department of Communication Psychology at Berlin University of Arts. Email: [email protected]

Michael Häfner

Michael Häfner is Professor of Communication Psychology at Berlin University of the Arts.