Promotional Games: Trick or Treat?

Some marketers use game settings to offer deals. Though research has studied the conditions under which consumers engage in such games, we know little about how they respond to deal offers won through the gaming process. We hypothesize that when faced with deal offers from games, such as scratch cards or trivia quizzes, consumers who are high (vs. low) in choice freedom needs often feel reactance and reject the offer. We find converging evidence for this prediction in both controlled experiments (studies 1 and 3) and in a field study (study 2), when using ethnic backgrounds as a proxy for participants’ choice freedom needs (study 1), when directly measuring these needs (study 2), and when manipulating beliefs about the importance of free choice (study 3).     

Yes,we have no bananas: Consumer responses to restoration of freedom

When stockouts restrict consumers' freedoms, two independent responses can occur: product desirability, or a reactance-based increase in the desire for the unavailable option, and source negativity, or general frustration with the source of the restriction. In four studies, we provide a novel investigation of consumer responses to stockout-restoration and examine how these two forces combine to affect consumer responses after freedoms are restored. To do so, we investigate two moderators that influence the activation and strength of product desirability and source negativity, respectively: trait reactance and attributions. While all consumers experience source negativity in response to stockouts, only consumers high in reactance experience product desirability, leading to differential responses to stockout-restoration. Compared to an in-stock condition, high reactance consumers respond positively to stockout-restoration, while low reactance consumers respond negatively to stockout-restoration, in terms of store and product evaluations and store choice. However, when high reactants attribute a stockout to the store, thereby increasing source negativity relative to product desirability, they respond negatively to stockout-restoration.     

Dynamic valuation: Preference changes in the context of face-to-face negotiation

This experiment examines the dynamics of preference change in the context of face-to-face negotiation. Participants playing the role of “student” or “financial aid officer” exchanged proposals regarding the terms of a student loan. Consistent with dissonance theory, participants increased their liking for proposals they offered and/or ultimately accepted. The reactance theory prediction that participants would devalue proposals received from their opponents was confirmed for loan officers, but not for students. A pair of experimental manipulations involving the pre-rating of proposals and/or the opportunity for participants to engage in a brief discussion period prior to the initial exchange of offers mediated these effects, and influenced subsequent rates of agreement. Underlying attributional mechanisms and the implications of these findings for facilitating agreements are discussed.     

Criterion Shaped Behaviour: Pitfalls of Performance Appraisal

Behavioural consequences of performance appraisal, of students, teachers, and schools, or of workers, managers, and offices, are analyzed in terms of a newly proposed theory of Criterion Shaped Behaviour (CSB). Unstated assumptions of advocates for the extensive use of performance appraisal, using performance-based rewards and punishments, are scrutinized, and many are found to be insupportable. CSB Theory predicts that numerous behavioural effects, not all of which are desirable, will be shaped by the use of rewards and punishments made contingent upon criterion measure scores. Using cognitive expectancy theories of learning and performance, in conjunction with traditional measurement theory, it anticipates the types of behaviour change likely to result from imposition of different performance appraisal systems, and suggests alternatives less likely to result in undesirable effects.     

Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a “universal” freedom?

In this article we suggest that independent vs. interdependent aspects of the self yield different manifestations of psychological reactance and that this is especially relevant in a cross-cultural context. In Studies 1, 2, and 4 we showed that people from collectivistic cultural backgrounds (individuals holding more interdependent attitudes and values) were less sensitive to a threat to their individual freedom than people from individualistic cultural backgrounds (individuals holding more independent attitudes and values), but more sensitive if their collective freedom was threatened. In Study 3 we activated independent vs. interdependent attitudes and values utilizing a cognitive priming method and yielded similar results as the other studies hinting at the important causal role of self-related aspects in understanding reactance in a cross-cultural context.     

Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments

Since argument frames precede most other arguing processes, argument editing among them, one’s frames may well predict one’s preferred editorial standards. This experiment assesses people’s arguing frames, gives them arguments to edit, and tests whether the frames actually do predict editorial preferences. Modest relationships between argument frames and argument editing appear. Other connections among frames, editing, and additional individual differences variables are more substantial. Particularly notable are the informative influences of psychological reactance. A new theoretical contribution is offered, connecting argument frame research to Erving Goffman’s frame analysis.     

Reactions toward an unexpected or counternormative favor-giver: Does it matter if we think we can reciprocate?

People may experience two opposing motivations after receiving unexpected or counternormative favors: an obligation to reciprocate and psychological reactance. We investigated whether awareness of a future opportunity to reciprocate might affect which reaction would ultimately guide reciprocity behavior. Participants received a generous payment from a “supervisor.” This favor was either expected or unexpected and either normative or counternormative. Recipients were either aware or unaware of a future chance to reciprocate. As predicted, unaware participants demonstrated reactance by reciprocating less when the favor was unexpected or counternormative, whereas aware participants demonstrated obligation by reciprocating more under those circumstances. Participants’ evaluations of the supervisor suggested that people have mixed impressions of someone whose favors violate expectancies or norms.