Guided by psychological reactance theory, we examined the effects of language features on arousing reactance and communication outcomes. Results of a 2 (controllingness; high/low) × 2 (concreteness; concrete/abstract) × 2 (restoration postscript; present/absent) × 3 (accent; Standard American English [SAE]/Indian [non-SAE]/text-based message) between-subjects design (N = 1,099, studies 1 and 2), revealed high-controlling language increased freedom threat, was perceived as more explicit than low-controlling language. Concrete language was perceived as more demanding of attention, fair, and producing lesser freedom threat than abstract language. Furthermore, restoration postscripts reduced freedom threat and message explicitness, including differences in restoration postscripts for the non-SAE relative to the SAE accent. Compared to the non-SAE accent, the SAE accent was perceived as more fluent and less difficult to understand, yet elicited more anger, more negative cognitions, and was perceived as less competent (Study 2). The implications are discussed vis-à-vis social influence and intergroup communication.
AchemeD. E.CioneaI. A. (2022). “Oh, I like your accent”: Perceptions and evaluations of standard and non-standard accented English speakers. Communication Reports, 35(2), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2022.2037679
3.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
4.
BallH.GoodboyA. K. (2014). An experimental investigation of the antecedents and consequences of psychological reactance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 63(3), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.918634
5.
BadrinathanS.KapurD.KayJ.VaishnavM. (2020, June). Social realities of Indian Americans: Results from the 2020 Indian American attitudes survey. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/09/social-realities-of-indian-americans-results-from-2020-indian-american-attitudes-survey-pub-84667
6.
BessarabovaE.FinkE. L.TurnerM. (2013). Reactance, restoration, and cognitive structure: Comparative statics. Human Communication Research, 39(3), 339–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12007
7.
BessarabovaE.MillerC. H.RussellJ. (2017). A further exploration of the effects of restoration postscripts on reactance. Western Journal of Communication, 81(3), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2016.1254815
8.
BinerP. M. (1988). Effects of cover appeal and monetary incentives on survey response: A reactance theory application. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0902_3
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
11.
DillardJ. P.KinneyT. A.CruzM. G. (1996). Influence, appraisals, and emotions in close relationships. Communication Monographs, 63, 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376382
12.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815
13.
DragojevicM. (2018). Language attitudes. In H. Giles & J. Harwood (Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of communication (pp. 179–192). Oxford University Press.
14.
DragojevicM. (2020). Extending the fluency principle: Factors that increase listeners’ processing fluency positively bias their language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 158–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1663543
15.
DragojevicM.FasoliF.CramerJ.RakićT. (2021). Toward a century of language attitudes research: Looking back and moving forward. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x20966714
16.
DragojevicM.GilesH.BeckA. C.TatumN. T. (2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1322213
17.
DragojevicM.Goatley-SoanS. (2022). Americans’ attitudes toward foreign accents: Evaluative hierarchies and underlying processes. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1735402
18.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878
19.
FreyT. K.MooreK.DragojevicM. (2021). Syllabus sanctions: Controlling language and fairness as antecedents to students’ psychological reactance and intent to comply. Communication Studies, 72(3), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2021.1876130
20.
FuertesJ. N.GottdienerW. H.MartinH.GilbertT. C.GilesH. (2012). A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers' accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.862
21.
GilesH.BillingsA. (2004). Language attitudes. In DaviesA.ElderE. (Eds.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 187–209). Blackwell.
22.
GluszekA.DovidioJ. F. (2010). The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the stigma of nonnative accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309359288
23.
GrandpreJ.AlvaroE. M.BurgoonM.MillerC. H.HallJ. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15, 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1503_6
24.
KimH. K.NiederdeppeJ. (2016). Effects of self-affirmation, narratives, and informational messages in reducing unrealistic optimism about alcohol-related problems among college students. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12073
25.
LambertW. E.HodgsonR. C.GardnerR. C.FillenbaumS. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044430
26.
LeeK.-Y.JooS.-H. (2005). The portrayal of Asian Americans in mainstream magazine ads: An update. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 654–671.
MillerC. H.LaneL. T.DeatrickL. M.YoungA. M.PottsK. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x
31.
MontgomeryG.AchemeD. (2022). Processing fluency and inferred motive: L1 English users’ evaluations of non-standard accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(5), 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x221081010
32.
MontgomeryG.ZhangY. B.ImamuraM. (2021). The effects of Latino immigrants’ acculturation strategy and US Americans' assimilation attitudes on perceptions of accommodation satisfaction and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 82, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.03.008
33.
QuickB. L.KamJ. A.MorganS. E.Montero LiberonaC. A.SmithR. A. (2015). Prospect theory, discrete emotions, and freedom threats: An extension of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Communication, 65, 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12134
34.
RichardsA. S.BessarabovaE.BanasJ. A.BernardD. R. (2022). Reducing psychological reactance to health promotion messages: Comparing preemptive and postscript mitigation strategies. Health Communication, 37(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1839203
35.
RosenbergB. D.SiegelJ. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091
36.
SheehanK. B.PittmanM. (2016). Amazon’s mechanical turk for academics: The HIT handbook for social science research. Melvin & Leigh, Publishers.
37.
SilviaP. J. (2005). Deflecting reactance: The role of similarity in increasing compliance and reducing resistance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2703_9
38.
StauntonT. V.AlvaroE. M.RosenbergB. D.CranoW. D. (2020). Controlling language and irony: Reducing threat and increasing positive message evaluations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(5), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1789464
39.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An intergroup theory of conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
