Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Responses to Position-Disconfirming Meta-Advice in the Context of Conflicting Vs. Consistent Co-Presenting Messages: The Role of Reactance and Perceived Norms
Advice is a vital form of interpersonal influence, and some advice concerns advising others (i.e., meta-advice). In today’s competitive information environment, individuals often encounter both recommendations that support their stance and those that challenge it. Drawing on psychological reactance and normative influence theories, this study examines how people respond to position-disconfirming meta-advice when it is presented in different message contexts—either paired with another position-disconfirming message (consistent) or with a position-confirming message (conflicting). In an experiment, U.S. participants who were either pro- or anti-advising others to get vaccinated received position-disconfirming meta-advice under consistent or conflicting conditions. Results revealed two countervailing effects: pairing position-disconfirming with position-confirming meta-advice mitigated reactance, leading to more favorable responses to the position-disconfirming message, but it also lowered perceived norms, which in turn undermined favorable responses. These findings illuminate how context shapes responses to position-disconfirming meta-advice, with theoretical and practical implications for interpersonal influence in multi-message environments.
BallH.WeberK.GoodboyA. K.KunkleC. E.LillyC. L.MyersS. A. (2023). A mixed methodological examination of older adults’ psychological reactance toward caregiving messages from their adult children. Communication Monographs, 90(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2022.2128197
3.
BernthalM. J.RoseR. L.KaufmanP. (2006). When norms collide: Normative conflict in the processing of public service announcements. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 16(1–2), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v16n01_02
4.
BoerH.WesthoffY. (2006). The role of positive and negative signaling communication by strong and weak ties in the shaping of safe sex subjective norms of adolescents in South Africa. Communication Theory, 16(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00006.x
5.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
6.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change?Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217737855
7.
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
8.
BrehmJ. W.SensenigJ. (1966). Social influence as a function of attempted and implied usurpation of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(6), 703–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023992
9.
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control (1st ed.). Elsevier Science & Technology.
10.
ChaikenS.Giner-SorollaR.ChenS. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In GollwitzerP. M.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553–578). Guilford.
11.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000493
12.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
13.
CouttsJ. J.HayesA. F. (2023). Questions of value, questions of magnitude: An exploration and application of methods for comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 55(7), 3772–3785. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01988-0
14.
DillardJ.WilsonS. (2014). Interpersonal influence. In BergerC. (Ed.), Interpersonal communication (pp. 155–176). De Gruyter Mouton.
15.
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
16.
DillardJ. P.CruzS. M.ShenL. (2023). Spillover effects of anti-sugar-sweetened beverage messages: From consumption decisions to policy preferences. Social Science & Medicine, 320, 115693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115693
17.
DillardJ. P.LiR.MeczkowskiE.YangC.ShenL. (2017). Fear responses to threat appeals: Functional form, methodological considerations, and correspondence between static and dynamic data. Communication Research, 44(7), 997–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216631097
18.
Dorrance-HallE.WilcoxS.HolmstromA.McGrawJ.SchmälzleR. (2023). Reactance to healthy eating and physical activity messages: Face threat and face management strategies in memorable daily conversations among couples. Health Communication, 38(7), 1404–1415. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.2010354
19.
EpleyN.KeysarB.Van BovenL.GilovichT. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327
FengB.MacGeorgeE. L. (2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37(4), 553–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210368258
22.
GeberS.BaumannE.KlimmtC. (2019). Where do norms come from? Peer communication as a factor in normative social influences on risk behavior. Communication Research, 46(5), 708–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217718656
23.
HardinC. D.HigginsE. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In SorrentinoR. M.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 28–84). The Guilford Press.
24.
KangS.KimJ. W. (2022). The fragility of experts: A moderated-mediation model of expertise, expert identity threat, and overprecision. Academy of Management Journal, 65(2), 577–605. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0899
25.
KimH.SeoY.YoonH. J.HanJ. Y.KoY. (2021). The effects of user comment valence of Facebook health messages on intention to receive the flu vaccine: The role of pre-existing attitude towards the flu vaccine and psychological reactance. International Journal of Advertising, 40(7), 1187–1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1863065
26.
KohH. (2022). Pursuing a uniform effect: Pathways linking exposure to normatively-focused scientific consensus messages (NFSCMs) to behavioral intention to adopt science. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 22(3), 928–960. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12318
LeeS.HershbergerS. (1990). A simple rule for generating equivalent models in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2503_4
29.
LuS.LiangH. (2024). Reactance to uncivil disagreement?: The integral effects of disagreement, incivility, and social endorsement. Journal of Media Psychology, 36(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000378
30.
MaY.DixonG.HmielowskiJ. D. (2018). Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: The role of prior views and political identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1548369
31.
MacGeorgeE. L.ZhouY. (2021). Social support, supportive communication, and health. In ThompsonT. L.HarringtonN. G. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of health communication (pp. 136–148). Routledge.
32.
MacGeorgeE. L.FengB.ThompsonE. R. (2008). “Good” and “bad” advice. In MotleyM. T. (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 145–164). Sage.
33.
MacGeorgeE. L.FengB.ButlerG. L.BudarzS. K. (2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00724.x
34.
MacGeorgeE. L.GuntzvillerL. M.HanasonoL. K.FengB. (2016). Testing advice response theory in interactions with friends. Communication Research, 43(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510938
35.
MillerG. R. (1980). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In RoloffM. E.MillerG. R. (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (pp. 11–28). Sage.
36.
MossC. E.WaddellT. F.ThomasS. (2022). Hesitancy in the home: The relationship between family communication patterns and willingness to converse about COVID-19 vaccination. American Behavioral Scientist, 69(12), 1502–1515. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642221146118
37.
NaglerR. H.YzerM. C.RothmanA. J. (2019). Effects of media exposure to conflicting information about mammography: Results from a population-based survey experiment. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(10), 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay098
38.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ.RicheyS.FreedG. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics (Evanston), 133(4), e835–e842. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365
39.
PaikJ. E. (2020). The contextual effects of advice solicitation on advice outcomes: The role of perceived face threats and psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 87(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1641729
40.
PinkS. L.ChuJ.DruckmanJ. N.RandD. G.WillerR. (2021). Elite party cues increase vaccination intentions among Republicans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(32), e2106559118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106559118
41.
PurvisR. S.MooreR.WillisD. E.KraletiS. S.Gurel-HeadleyM. P.CarlLeeS.McElfishP. A. (2023). Key conversations and trusted information among hesitant adopters of the COVID-19 vaccine. Journal of Health Communication, 28(9), 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2244458
42.
RainsS. A.TurnerM. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x
43.
RenoR. R.CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.104
44.
RhodesN.ShulmanH. C.McClaranN. (2020). Changing norms: A meta-analytic integration of research on social norms appeals. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 161–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz023
45.
RimalR. N.RealK. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13(2), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/13.2.184
46.
RimalR. N.RealK. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275385
47.
RimalR. N.SripadP.SpeizerI. S.CalhounL. M. (2015). Interpersonal communication as an agent of normative influence: A mixed method study among the urban poor in India. Reproductive Health, 12(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0061-4
48.
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
49.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
50.
SearsD. O.FreedmanJ. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1086/267513
51.
ShenL. (2015). Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health Communication, 30(10), 975–985. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.910882
52.
StanleyM. L.HenneP.YangB. W.De BrigardF. (2020). Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Political Behavior, 42(3), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09526-z
53.
SunY.LuF. (2023). How misinformation and rebuttals in online comments affect people’s intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines: The roles of psychological reactance and misperceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(1), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221084606
54.
ThøgersenJ. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
55.
Van SwolL. M.PrahlA. (2018). Giving and receiving advice in groups, networks, and organizations. In MacGeorgeE. L.Van SwolL. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of advice (pp. 111–131). Oxford University Press.
56.
VriensE.TummoliniL.AndrighettoG. (2023). Vaccine-hesitant people misperceive the social norm of vaccination. PNAS Nexus, 2(5), pgad132. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad132
57.
WilsonS. R.MorganW. M. (2004). Persuasion and families. In VangelistiA. L. (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 447–471). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58.
WilsonS. R.WorwoodJ. V.MarshallS.VidalA. C.ScaccoJ. M.DeBeckD. P. (2025). Difficult health conversations: Dilemmas that vaccinated people in the United States experienced when discussing COVID-19 vaccination with hesitant family members. Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2469106
59.
WorchelS.BrehmJ. W. (1970). Effect of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028620
60.
YanivI.Choshen-HillelS.MilyavskyM. (2009). Spurious consensus and opinion revision: Why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments?Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(2), 558–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014589
61.
YanivI.KleinbergerE. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2909
62.
YanivI.MilyavskyM. (2007). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.006
63.
ZhaoX.FinkE. L. (2021). Proattitudinal versus counterattitudinal messages: Message discrepancy, reactance, and the boomerang effect. Communication Monographs, 88(3), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1813317
ZhouY.FarrellE. L. (2025). On the interdependence of conflicting advice messages: An extension of advice response theory. Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2025.2519264
66.
ZhouY.ShenL. (2022). Confirmation bias and the persistence of misinformation on climate change. Communication Research, 49(4), 500–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211028049
Supplementary Material
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.
