„If I were you, I’d read this article!“*

Have you ever been in a situation where it seemed like someone was trying to influence your decisions, even though they weren’t telling you what to do? Maybe it was a friend suggesting a new trend you just have to like, or a radio host hinting that its the only right thing to do to support a certain policy – even though you might be in favor of the idea, these moments, which might seem minor, can make you feel like you kind of ‚have to‘ join in, pressured to want something, you don’t ‚really‘ want, even if only a little.

This feeling of limited freedom is known as reactance. It’s a powerful psychological response to protect us from threats to our autonomy. Following up the article on the role of normative pressure during the elections of Thuringia and Saxony (Klick to read it), I want to take a closer look at this power of social pressure as one of those subtler but all-pervasive mechanisms that can put psychological reactance into action without us even realizing.

Ok, remember Monday morning after the elections. You’re with colleagues, and the conversation turns to a controversial topic — say, prohibiting the right-wing party AfD. Everyone at the table seems to be on the same page, nodding along as the most vocal guest speaks passionately about the need for immediate action. You might feel a bit of pressure to agree, even if you’re not totally convinced. After all, who wants to be the odd one out?

This kind of social pressure, where a group subtly nudges you toward a certain viewpoint, is common. Research shows that our social relationships have a big impact on what we think is right or wrong (Goldman, Pulcher, & Mendez, 1983). This isn’t always a bad thing, though. Group consensus can help maintain social harmony. But it can also feel a bit manipulative, especially when we sense that our freedom to form our own opinions is being compromised – even if we agree on the overall opinions discussed.

A more hidden theme of pressure can manifest when we do someone a favor. For example, someone pays for your coffee in the cafeteria, or takes on some load of your work. Somehow it feels like the next time, it’s on you, right? Did you feel like you had to return the favor? This is called the reciprocity norm, and it’s another type of social pressure that can make people to experience psychological reactance. In 1976, Worchel could show that when people feel indebted, they can feel pressured to reciprocate, even if they didn’t ask for the favor in the first place. This pressure can be enough to spark a rebellious desire to break free from the obligation, showing how even seemingly generous acts can come with strings attached (Worchel, 1976).

When was the last time you bought that thing your friend was endorsing, shared a thought as a fact from a colleague you know is ‚usually really good at this‘, believed a solution because it came from group you feel a part of? This bandwagon effect, where we’re drawn to do something simply because others are doing it, is a powerful form of social pressure, too. Often, this kind of pressure can lead us to make choices we’re happy with.

But what if it pushes us toward something we’re not so sure about? That’s where reactance comes in. If we feel like we’re being manipulated into following the crowd, our natural instinct might be to push back, even if we’re intrigued by what everyone else seems to love (Li & Sundar, 2022).

As soon as we think about ‚everyone else‘, we changed from thinking as an individual and shift towards group actions. It’s still somewhat blurry, how groups actually work beyond LeBons idea about the masses that blindly run after a strong voice (JAHR), or specific roles that contribute to groups in specific ways, and younger studies a colleague of mine initiated about discussing freedom restrictions face to face (Krug, Hajek & Kobilke, submitted). However, just the fact of identifying as a group can change the way, social pressure works, too. I worked at the HELIOS clinics in 2013. One of my tasks was to implement stickers that reminded everyone to shut off their light, switch off the radiator and close the window to conserve energy. And even though, we did our best effort to present it as an honest measure to protect the environment, the mere fact that it limited their autonomy – and them talking about it with colleagues feeling like they ‚always have to follow every stupid rule from ‚up there“ caused a collective pushback—a kind of group reactance.

This is especially strong when the group’s identity and norms are at stake. If the group feels like their freedom on a certain believe or normative construct is being threatened, they’ll probably resist even more than an individual would. This is why policies or reforms that are communicated through social pressure can sometimes have the opposite effect, leading to a boomerang where the intended outcome is met with resistance rather than compliance (Traut-Mattausch et al., 2011).

Sometimes, reactance isn’t just about what happens to us directly—it can also be about what we see happening to others. It happened to me, when thinking about my colleagues in Thuringia valuing the freedom and independence of science potentially facing impacts on their work by the new government, I get frustrated – and (you guessed it), it’s also a thing that’s know in reactance research: if you see another member of your community being treated unfairly, you might feel angry and want to stand up for them, even if you’re not personally affected. This is what psychologists call „vicarious reactance.“

Studies have shown that this kind of secondhand reactance is particularly strong when we identify closely with the group being targeted. Leaders can use this to get people on their side, like we see it in right-wing and populist communication. But it’s a double-edged sword. If you don’t handle it right, it can also lead to more division and conflict within the group (Sittenthaler et al., 2015).

Well, if al this social pressure thing is ‚just happening‘ to us, what’s there to do? Research suggests empathy—a powerful tool that can either prevent or provoke reactance, depending on how it’s used. Think about a time when someone really took the time to understand your point of view. They didn’t try to force their views on you or pass judgment. They just listened. Chances are, you felt more open to their perspective. Studies show that empathy can make people feel less threatened and less likely to react in an oppositional way (Shen, 2010).

So, what does that mean talking from a position of empathy in day-to-day life? I will write another blogpost about language and reactance, soon. But for now: Don’t worry, you don’t have to pour out your whole heart in every conversation. Actually, practicing empathy is not about you at all. It’s about repeating what the other one is saying to show them they are heard, to acknowledge what they say (even though you might not like it). Use inclusive language, seek the „we“ whenever possible, avoid using pressuring words, and remember what you are taking about (don’t change from an argument to a relationship layer or vice versa).

There is a catch, though. If the empathy feels forced or insincere, it can have the opposite effect and increase reactance instead of calming it (Bartsch & Kloß, 2019).

So, you followed my initial advice and read the article. Thank you! But I am wondering: Did you uncover my cheap shot on pressuring you to do so and thought ‚ha! You didn’t get me! I’m NOT resistant, since I am about to read this article!‘ – or was exactly that the trap? To make you feel smarter than me, belonging to ‚the smart ones‘ that got the headline right? I am actively reducing reactance now by saying: you decide 😉

Maybe it was just a trick to make the point that we’re all subject to social pressure in one way or another. It can come in the form of subtle suggestions, social proof, or collective expectations. It’s a powerful force that can bring us together or drive us apart, depending on how it’s used. The key is to recognize when social pressure is leading us toward a decision that feels more like an imposition than a choice. By understanding the dynamics of social pressure and reactance, we can navigate these situations more mindfully, ensuring that our actions reflect our true intentions, not just the influence of those around us.

*Psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981)
People have an inherent need for autonomy. If this need is restricted – through a perceived loss of control, normative pressure, the feeling of being manipulated or instructed, prohibitions, regulations or restrictions of choice – then people react with resistance. This ranges from avoidance (which can also be defiant), to (seemingly) rational argumentation, venting anger in rage, acting in defiance, or trying to avoid the restriction through alternative behavior. In addition, the sender and/or the message itself is criticized, lectured or corrected, the message is criticized, distracted from the topic or the topic is relativized.

For more information: https://reaktanz.ifkw.lmu.de/

*Psychologische Reaktanz (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981)
Menschen haben ein inhärentes Autonomiebedürfnis. Wenn dieses Bedürfnis eingeschränkt wird – durch gefühlten Verlust von Kontrolle, normativen Druck, das Gefühl Manipuliert oder Belehrt zu werden, Verbote, Regulierungen oder Einschränkung von Auswahlmöglichkeiten –, dann reagieren Menschen mit Widerstand. Dieser Reicht von Vermeidung (die durchaus auch trotzig sein kann), über (schein)rationales Argumentieren, den Ärger rauslassen in Wut, zuwiderhandeln, oder dem Versuch, die Einschränkung durch alternatives Verhalten zu vermeiden. Zusätzlich wird der:die Sender:in und/oder die Botschaft selbst kritisiert, belehrt oder korrigiert, die Botschaft kritisiert, vom Thema abgelenkt oder das Thema relativiert.