No, this
blog is not really about sweet potatoes. It just begins with a sweet potato
story.
I attended
a Philadelphia Catholic elementary school, and like many students there, had
lunch in the cafeteria. In approximately second grade, I remember queuing up to
be served. A nun stood behind the line, monitoring what went on the trays. When
I passed without getting sweet potatoes, she stopped the line and told the
server to plop a blob of canned cold sweet potatoes on my tray. I did not eat
them, and stood to go to the school playground for recess. However, the nun
pushed me back down in my seat and told me to finish eating. I replied,
"But sister, I don't like sweet potatoes". Undeterred, she stood
there behind me until the school bell signaled that it was time to return to
class. I never did eat the sweet potatoes, and she was not happy about that.
So, what does that have to do with anybody? It’s all about reactance
motivation.
Psychological
reactance theory was first introduced by Jack Brehm (1966) to explain why
individuals resist when they perceive their freedom of choice is being
threatened. Reactance is defined as an unpleasant motivational arousal that
occurs when people feel their autonomy is restricted (Rosenberg & Siegel,
2025). In the cafeteria story, the nun’s insistence that I eat the sweet
potatoes represented a direct threat to my freedom to choose what I consumed.
The stronger the pressure, the stronger the reactance response became. Rather
than complying, I resisted—even though the cost was missing recess.
Reactance
is not simply stubbornness; it is a psychological mechanism designed to protect
perceived freedoms. When individuals feel coerced, they often respond by
asserting their autonomy, sometimes by doing the opposite of what is demanded
(Steindl et al., 2015). In this case, the nun’s authority amplified the sense
of restriction, which intensified my motivation to resist. The sweet potatoes
became symbolic of lost freedom rather than just food.
This
phenomenon has broader implications. Reactance motivation explains
why people resist persuasion in family settings, health campaigns, political
messaging, or even everyday interpersonal interactions. For example, when
individuals are told they “must” adopt a certain behavior, they may reject the
message outright, even if the behavior is beneficial (Rosenberg & Siegel,
2025). The cafeteria incident illustrates how coercion can backfire, producing
resistance rather than compliance.
Understanding
reactance is crucial for families, educators, leaders, and advocates.
Strategies that emphasize choice, autonomy, and collaboration are more
effective than those that rely on force or pressure. In the family and in the
classroom, offering individuals options rather than mandates can reduce
resistance. In public health, framing recommendations as empowering rather than
restrictive can increase acceptance.
The sweet
potato story is thus more than a childhood memory; it is a vivid example of how
psychological reactance operates in everyday life. When freedom is threatened,
even in small ways, people are motivated to restore it. The lesson is clear:
persuasion works best when it respects autonomy.
Some might
legitimately assert that elementary school-aged Peter merely was being disobedient.
After all, sweet potatoes are nutritious, and children should be taught respect
for authority. So, I feel compelled to end by briefly addressing how families
can maintain authority while supporting healthy identity development.
Excessive coercion fosters not only psychological reactance
but also, in the extreme, negative identity formation. The latter is an
identity formed in opposition to unfair societal expectations. For example,
when continually forced to try to achieve standards that they truly cannot
attain, they might seek success in antisocial behavior. Less extreme—but more common—than negative
identity formation is the adoption of negative ideation and negative
communication. There, it’s not so much
negative behavior, but obstreperous and negative talk. Families can mitigate these
risks by enforcing rules through clarity, collaboration, and respect. Such
strategies not only reduce resistance but also empower people to internalize
positive identities rooted in autonomy and responsibility. Ultimately,
effective rule enforcement requires balancing authority with empathy, ensuring
that boundaries guide rather than suffocate identity development.
References
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance.
Academic Press.
Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2025). Psychological
reactance theory: An introduction and overview. Motivation Science, 11(2),
133–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000376
Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(4), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000223
No comments:
Post a Comment