The Role of Perceived Consensus in Reactance Amyn Abduk-Khaliq and David S. Wallace Fayetteville State University Problem Previous reactance research has questioned whether reactance is a state or trait issue (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991; Hong & Page 1989). We attempted to determine if perceived consensus affected reactance as well as measures of trait reactance. College students (N = 91) were forced to work counter to their stated opinion, and foot-dragging during an opinion related task was used as the main dependent variable. Results included an interaction between perceived consensus and trait-based reactance, thus demonstrating that reactance was dependent on both state and trait factors. RESULTS (CONTINUED) INTRODUCTION For over 40 years reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) has continued to be one of psychology’s most important theories of resistance to social influence (Silvia, 2005). Social Psychologists in early reactance research studied situational factors that affected reactance. Brehm and Brehm (1981) noted that researchers in early reactance research came from a tradition that manipulated variables (state reactance) and ignored individual-differences (trait-reactance). Researchers from clinical and personality psychology, ultimately considered whether state reactance had a trait analog (Dowd, Milne, & Wise, 1991; Merz, 1983; Shoham, Trost, & Rohrbaugh, 2004). Reactance experiments that create a boomerang effect demonstrate that attempts to restrict a persons’ freedom frequently produces anti-conformist (foot-dragging) behavior (Linder & Worchel, 1970; Wortman & Brehm, 1975). Perceived consensus is one situation where reactance might take place. Those that perceived they shared the majority position on a social issue have been shown to be more likely to try and persuade others toward their position on the issue (Wallace et al., 2001). These same people that perceive they share the majority view may, in turn, show more reactance when forced to work counter to their attitudinal position. The situation of perceiving oneself to be in the majority may also be influenced by trait reactance. It may be that reactance due to something as common as attitudinal status may be demonstrable if the predisposition to reactance is taken into account. RESULTS (continued) Measures Attitudinal/Perceived Consensus Questionnaire (Wallace et al., 2001) Are you in favor of legalization of marijuana?   -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5  Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree What percentage of the population do you think agree with your opinion about legalization of marijuana? Percentage that Agree with you ________% Percentage that Disagree with you ________% Must total to 100% HYPOTHESIS Those that perceive themselves to share a majority position on the issue of legalization of marijuana were predicted to feel more threatened and have more reactance than those that perceived they shared the majority position for the same issue if they already had a predisposition to reactance due to an inherent trait. Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (Hong & Page, 1989)   1. Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in me. 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree neither agree agree completely nor disagree completely 2. I find contradicting others stimulating. 3. When something is prohibited, I usually think “that’s exactly what I am going to do.” 4. The thought of being dependent on others aggravates me. METHOD Participants completed a questionnaire to assess their attitudes about a range of social issues. Attitudes were evaluated by asking participants to rate each social issue on a scale from -5 (strongly disagree) to +5 (strongly agree). Below each attitude scale participants were asked what percentage of the general population they perceive would agree or disagree with their stated opinion for each social issue. Participants then completed The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS). Participants were told that the remainder of the experiment was about social communication, and that they would be randomly assigned to one side of the issue on legalization of marijuana. They were then asked to persuade members of the public (via telephone) to the opposite side of the issue than they held. The number of calls participants agreed to make when forced to work counter to their stated opinion was used as the main dependent variable. High/low reactance scores from the Hong Psychological Reactance (HPRS) and majority/minority consensus groups were used as independent variables. DISCUSSION The current study provides data demonstrating that reactance is impacted by perceived consensus. Those with a perceived majority status showed more reactance by “foot dragging” when forced to work counter to their stated position. This effect was only observed, however, for those that already possessed a reactance trait. The interaction between perceived consensus and trait reactance supports the idea that reactance may not be a simply due to state or trait reactance alone. Instead, trait reactance may impact when situational reactance takes place. It may be that reactance is even more common that previously thought. Even though reactance has been shown to occur in many situations, it may be that taking trait reactance into account will reveal even more situations where these individuals demonstrate reactance. Participants RESULTS Data were analyzed using a 2 (Perceived Consensus: low, high) X 2 (Trait Reactance: low, high) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). There was a significant interaction, F(1,66) = 4.3, p <.05, such that those that perceived their opinion was a majority position who also had a high level of trait reactance demonstrated more reactance compared to those with a low trait reactance scores or those that perceived their opinion attitude was a minority position. 91 Fayetteville State University students participated for course credit Gender 81.1% female 18.9% Male Ethnicity 16.7% Caucasian 70%African American 2.2%Hispanic 11.1%Other College Rank 4% Freshman 27% Sophomores 40% Juniors 29%Seniors Trait Reactance Perceived Consensus Low High Majority 5.71 2.95 (4.1) (3.1) Minority 4.86 5.93 (3.0) (3.7) __________________________________________________ Note. Lower numbers mean more reactance. Standard deviations are in parentheses Contact Information: Amyn Abduk-Khaliq Email: aabduk-khalif01@uncfsu.edu, dwallace@uncfsu.edu