P - Psychological reactance

Recognizable Questions Why do I sometimes want something even more once someone says I’m not allowed to have it? Why can a lot of control provoke resistance? Why, after I left, did I suddenly want to decide for myself what I did? Why can the thought arise: ‘Fuck everybody, now I’m living my own life’? Does rebellion mean I truly wanted those things myself? Why do some people react strongly to pressure and others barely at all? And how do I find out whether a choice is really mine, or mainly a reaction to what was once decided for me? What is psychological reactance? Psychological reactance is the tendency to want to restore freedom when someone experiences their freedom of choice as being restricted or threatened. The inner response can be: ‘You don’t get to decide for me.’ Sometimes it only leads to irritation. Sometimes to argument. Sometimes to doing the exact opposite of what was asked or forbidden. Reactance is not a mental disorder. It is a normal human psychological mechanism. A simple example Suppose someone has little interest in something until they are emphatically told: ‘You absolutely may not do that.’ Suddenly it can become more attractive. Or a parent says to a teenager: ‘You must never hang out with that boy.’ That can make the relationship feel more exciting or more important. Not every prohibition triggers rebellion. But when someone strongly feels: ‘My freedom is being taken away from me’ the need may arise to get that freedom back. Why do people react like this? People have a need for autonomy: the sense that they have some say over their own behavior and life. When a possibility is restricted, that can be experienced as a loss. Reactance is, in a sense, the psychological system’s attempt to restore that freedom: ‘This was my choice. Why are you deciding for me now?’ That can lead someone to find the forbidden option more appealing, feel more resistance toward the person setting the rule, or do exactly what was not allowed. Not everyone reacts the same way One person thinks: ‘Fine, then I won’t do it.’ Another immediately thinks: ‘I’ll decide that for myself.’ Age, personality, previous experiences, the relationship with the person setting the boundary, and the way the rule is explained can all play a role. It also makes a difference whether someone sees a rule as reasonable. Rules are not automatically wrong Psychological reactance does not mean rules are bad. Children need boundaries and structure. Adults also live with laws, agreements, and responsibilities. A rule such as: ‘Don’t drive if you’ve had too much to drink’ protects people. The difference often lies not only in whether there is a boundary, but in how it is experienced: do I understand why this boundary exists? can I ask questions? am I being taken seriously as a person? do I have any choice of my own? ‘Strict parents create wild kids’ The popular saying ‘strict parents create wild kids’ is too absolute. Strict parents do not automatically get rebellious or boundaryless children. Research also distinguishes between clear structure and psychological control . Structure, warmth, and predictable boundaries can actually be supportive. Psychological control is more about steering thoughts, feelings, and choices through, for example, guilt, shame, emotional pressure, or little room for autonomy. That can trigger more resistance and other developmental problems. The contrast is therefore not: rules versus freedom. Rather: learning to obey without your own judgment versus gradually learning to understand, choose, and self-regulate. Puberty and autonomy During adolescence, the need for independence increases. A young person increasingly starts to explore: Who am I? Who do I choose as friends? Who do I want a relationship with? What do I believe? How do I want to look? What do I think is right and wrong? That is why rules that were easily accepted as a child can later provoke much more resistance. That is not automatically ingratitude or badness. It can be part of developing one’s own identity. What if many choices have already been decided for you? Within a strongly normative belief system, many questions may already have clear answers: who you form a relationship with, which sexual boundaries apply, which holidays you celebrate, how you view smoking and drugs, what kind of associations are appropriate, and which spiritual goals matter. For someone who fully shares those beliefs, that can actually bring peace and direction: ‘I know what Jehovah expects of me.’ But when someone later starts thinking differently, that same structure can feel more and more like: ‘Others have always decided how I should live.’ Within Jehovah’s Witnesses Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves emphasize that a person should serve Jehovah voluntarily. At the same time, there are clear religious norms around many areas of life. For an active Jehovah’s Witness, those norms can feel completely their own: ‘I don’t do this because someone forces me. I want to live this way.’ That deserves to be taken seriously. However, for someone who begins to doubt or leaves, the experience can change: ‘For years I measured my decisions against these rules. Now I finally want to decide for myself.’ Psychological reactance can start to play a role there. ‘Now I decide for myself’ After years of taking into account what God, parents, elders, family, or the congregation expect, there can suddenly be a powerful shift. Someone may think: ‘Everyone has always decided for me how I had to live. What I was allowed to believe. Who I was allowed to associate with. Who I was allowed to fall in love with. What I could and couldn’t do. Now I’m done suffering and I’m going to live my own life. Fuck everybody.’ That thought can feel enormously liberating. For the first time, the focus is no longer: ‘What does Jehovah expect?’ ‘What do the elders think?’ ‘What does my family think?’ but rather: ‘What do I want?’ That can be an important stage in regaining autonomy. From ‘everyone decides’ to ‘no one decides’ But there can also be a move from one extreme to the other. First: ‘Others determine my boundaries.’ Then: ‘No one will ever decide anything for me again.’ That second extreme can feel temporarily necessary to create psychological distance. Someone may want to experience for the first time: ‘My life is mine.’ But in the end, autonomy can go one step further: ‘I don’t have to automatically obey anyone, but I also don’t have to automatically oppose everyone.’ ‘Fuck everybody’ can be a phase The thought: ‘Fuck everybody, I’m finally doing what I want’ does not have to be the endpoint. It can be an in-between phase between dependence and independence. First, other people’s judgment was central. Then it may become important to reject that judgment entirely. Later, more peace may emerge: ‘I listen to others when their advice is valuable. But ultimately I take responsibility for my own choice.’ That is different from obedience and also different from rebellion. Stopping suffering and starting to live your own life Those words contain a meaningful contrast: stopping suffering and: starting to live your own life. After a heavily directed life, it can feel like a turning point: ‘I no longer want to organize my entire life around the question of whom I will disappoint.’ But living your own life does not ultimately mean: no boundaries, no responsibility, and no one needed. It can mean: deciding for yourself which people you allow close to you, which advice you take seriously, which values you keep, and where your boundaries lie. After leaving, suddenly doing the opposite A former Jehovah’s Witness may think after leaving: ‘I finally want to go out.’ ‘I’m going to date whoever I want.’ ‘I want to experience a festival.’ ‘I’m going to celebrate a birthday.’ ‘I’m going to wear what I like.’ That can be healthy exploration. But sometimes there is also: ‘This wasn’t allowed before, so now I want it just because.’ Then the old rule is still having an influence. No longer as a command, but as something someone is pushing back against. Doing the opposite is not yet complete freedom Suppose someone used to hear: ‘Smoking is absolutely not allowed.’ After leaving, he thinks: ‘Now no one can stop me, so I’m going to smoke.’ That can feel like freedom. But if the main motive is: ‘I want to prove that they don’t decide about me anymore’ then the old rule still has power over the choice. A next step can be: ‘Regardless of what was or wasn’t allowed before: do I actually want to smoke?’ Maybe the answer is yes. Maybe no. But then the answer becomes increasingly personal. Freedom is more than rebellion Autonomy can mean: doing something because you genuinely want to. But also: not doing something, even though it is now allowed. After leaving, someone may decide: ‘I hardly drink alcohol.’ ‘I don’t use drugs.’ ‘I only want sex within a committed relationship.’ Not because a religious rule requires it, but because it aligns with their own values. That is no less free. Freedom is not found in one particular outcome. ‘If it used to be forbidden, I want to experience it’ Forbidden things can take on extra meaning. A tattoo is then not just a tattoo. A festival not just music. A worldly partner not just someone you’re in love with. It can simultaneously stand for: freedom, independence, and saying goodbye to the old life. As a result, the attraction can be much greater than if the same thing had never been forbidden. A useful question That is why this question can reveal a lot: ‘Would I still want this if it had never been forbidden before?’ Not to stop yourself from doing it. But to discover what truly belongs to you. Maybe you think: ‘Yes, absolutely. This suits me.’ Then you know more. Or: ‘Actually, I’m not that interested in it. I mainly wanted to prove that I was free.’ That is useful information too. Reactance can exist even before leaving The resistance does not have to arise only after leaving. Someone may, for years, outwardly do what is expected within the community and inwardly think more and more strongly: ‘I don’t want this anymore.’ Outwardly: obedience. Inwardly: resistance. Sometimes that resistance builds up for a long time and then suddenly comes out strongly after leaving. That can help explain why changes sometimes seem to happen so quickly. ‘I’ve adjusted long enough’ Then someone may think: ‘I’ve considered everyone else my whole life. Now it’s my turn.’ That can be healthy when someone is finally learning to set boundaries. But it can also tip into: ‘I don’t have to consider anyone anymore.’ That is an important difference. Autonomy means: I am responsible for my life. Not: other people no longer matter. Reactance and identity Within a close-knit community, group identity can be strong: ‘We are Jehovah’s Witnesses.’ After leaving, a counter-identity may temporarily emerge: ‘Then now I’m mainly no longer a Jehovah’s Witness.’ That can be necessary to create distance. But when identity becomes only: ‘I am the opposite of what I used to be’ the former group is still central. The next step can be: ‘Who am I when I no longer have to live for or against my past?’ A second adolescence Some former Jehovah’s Witnesses speak of a second adolescence . That is not an official psychological diagnosis. But the image can be familiar when someone only starts extensively experimenting at a later age with: relationships, sexuality, clothing, going out, holidays, beliefs, and personal boundaries. Reactance can be part of that. But curiosity, missed experiences, identity development, and the need to finally choose for yourself can also play a role. That is why not everything someone tries after leaving should automatically be seen as rebellion. First ‘we’, then maybe ‘me against them’ During a strong group identity, it can be: ‘We don’t do that.’ After leaving: ‘I do exactly what they don’t want.’ Both positions are still strongly shaped by the group. Eventually, a third position can emerge: ‘What they think matters less and less. I want to know what I think.’ That is an important shift. No one tells you anymore what is not allowed That can be both liberating and difficult. No elder says: ‘This can’t be done.’ No religious publication automatically determines the answer anymore. If belief in divine rules has also disappeared, someone has to weigh much more for themselves: Is this safe? Do I really want this? Does this fit my values? What are the consequences? How do I treat myself and others? Freedom therefore requires not less thinking, but sometimes more. Self-chosen boundaries can initially feel like old control Someone may think: ‘I’ve had rules my whole life. I never want rules again.’ But: ‘I’ll have at most two drinks because I want to be fit tomorrow’ is not the same as: ‘I’m not allowed to drink because it’s forbidden.’ A self-chosen boundary comes from responsibility. That can actually be a sign that someone is no longer being driven by reactance. Reactance can work against your own interests The paradox of reactance is that you can be so eager to prove that no one is controlling you that the other person still ends up determining your behavior. Someone says: ‘No one tells me how much I’m allowed to drink.’ and then drinks more than he actually wanted to. Or: ‘No one decides who I sleep with.’ only to realize afterward that the situation didn’t suit him at all. Then the choice was free from the old rule, but not yet fully free for yourself . From ‘I have to’ to ‘I want to’ — and then to ‘I choose’ Perhaps autonomy sometimes develops in three steps: ‘I have to do what others say.’ Then: ‘I especially don’t want to do what others say.’ And ultimately: ‘I choose based on what I value myself.’ That final stage doesn’t have to be dramatic. Sometimes it even leads to the same choice as before. The difference is that the person now endorses the reason themselves. A useful pause When you notice strong resistance, it can help not to act right away. First: ‘I notice I’m getting angry because someone is trying to steer me.’ Then: ‘Apart from that person, what do I actually want?’ And then: ‘Which choice fits my values and my interests?’ That pause helps prevent someone from automatically complying and from automatically rebelling. Four questions about reactance 1. Which freedom feels threatened? Someone is trying to decide who I spend time with. 2. What is my automatic reaction? Then I spend time with that person on purpose. 3. What would I choose if no one were pressuring me? Maybe I’d first want to calmly explore whether this relationship is good for me. 4. Which choice fits my values? That answer is ultimately more important than beating the person who tried to steer you. Reactance and self-censorship Sometimes someone wants to break a rule but fears the social consequences. That can lead to hidden behavior: ‘I decide for myself what I do, but no one is allowed to know.’ That can provide temporary freedom. At the same time, the group still has influence: ‘My freedom is only safe as long as they don’t see it.’ Here reactance and self-censorship overlap. Reactance and forbidden information The same can happen with information. When someone hears: ‘You’re not allowed to look at that’ curiosity may arise instead: ‘Why not, exactly?’ For some, the prohibition increases the urge to investigate. For others, it has the opposite effect and is off-putting. So reactance is not an automatic response for everyone. Autonomy support In psychology, people also look at autonomy support . That does not mean: ‘Everyone may always do anything.’ It means rather: giving explanations, listening to objections, acknowledging emotions, offering choice where possible, and making boundaries understandable. For example: ‘This is why we think this is important. What’s your own view on it?’ That can help someone truly understand a rule and possibly internalize it, instead of following it only because resistance has consequences. Reactance in adults Reactance is not just something that happens to teenagers. A partner who says: ‘You may not see that person anymore’ can trigger resistance. An employer who monitors every detail can reduce motivation. A doctor who gives only orders can sometimes provoke more resistance than someone who explains things and involves the patient. The need for some control over one’s own life remains into adulthood too. For former Jehovah’s Witnesses After leaving, it can help to ask about every former boundary: ‘Do I really want this?’ ‘Am I just curious?’ ‘Does this fit my values?’ ‘Do I want to experience something I missed out on before?’ ‘Or am I mainly trying to prove that no one can tell me what to do anymore?’ There is no answer that is correct in advance. The most important thing is that the answer becomes more and more your own. For active Jehovah’s Witnesses Someone who is an active Jehovah’s Witness can also use this idea. He may, for example, discover: ‘I’m mostly angry about the way someone says this to me, but maybe I still consider the value itself important.’ Then he can ask: ‘Why do I believe this?’ ‘Would I make the same choice if no one were monitoring me?’ The answer may also be: ‘Yes. This really is what I believe.’ Psychological reactance is therefore not an argument for or against a faith. For parents For parents, understanding this can be important because more pressure does not automatically lead to more conviction. A child may obey perfectly and yet develop increasing resistance inside. That is why, alongside: ‘This is our boundary’ there may also be room for: ‘Tell me how you experience this.’ A parent does not have to let go of their values in order to take a child’s development of autonomy seriously. Living your own life In the end, development may sound something like this: First: ‘I live according to what others expect of me.’ Then: ‘Fuck everybody. No one gets to decide anything for me anymore.’ Later: ‘I don’t have to obey anyone, and I don’t have to prove anything to anyone. I want to find out what I actually want, and take responsibility for that myself.’ That last stage may be less spectacular than rebellion. But it can be much freer. Questions to think about Which forbidden things made me even more curious? When do I think: ‘You don’t get to decide for me’? Which things did I mainly do because they used to be forbidden? Which of those actually turned out to suit me? Which did not? Would I still make this choice if it had never been forbidden before? Am I trying to live my own life, or mainly the opposite of how it used to be? Can I choose not to do something even though it is allowed now, without that feeling like obeying again? Can I take advice without feeling like someone is controlling me? Which boundaries do I now choose for myself? Who am I when I no longer have to think in terms of ‘them’ versus ‘me’? Which choice would I make if I didn’t have to please anyone and didn’t have to prove anything to anyone? Summary Psychological reactance is the tendency to want to restore threatened freedom. When someone experiences: ‘You are not allowed to do that’ it can trigger the desire: ‘Then I want to do it.’ That is a universal human mechanism. After leaving a highly regulated belief system, that reaction can become especially visible. After years of taking God, family, elders, and the congregation into account, someone may suddenly think: ‘Now I decide for myself. Fuck everybody.’ That reaction can be a understandable intermediate step in regaining autonomy. But rebellion is not necessarily the same as full freedom. When you always do the opposite of what was expected before, the former system is still partly determining what you do. Autonomy can go a step further: I do not have to obey. I also do not have to rebel. I am allowed to explore. I am allowed to take advice. I am allowed to say no. I am allowed to change my mind. And I am allowed to choose my own boundaries. Perhaps, in the end, freedom changes from: ‘No one tells me what to do anymore.’ to: ‘I am increasingly understanding why I do what I do.’ ‘If no one forbade me anything and I didn’t have to prove anything to anyone, what would I really choose for myself?’ Sources Jack W. Brehm - A Theory of Psychological Reactance Sharon S. Brehm & Jack W. Brehm - Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control Miron & Brehm - research on psychological reactance Steindl, Jonas, Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch & Greenberg - review of research on psychological reactance Edward L. Deci & Richard M. Ryan - Self-Determination Theory; autonomy and motivation Van Petegem, Soenens, Vansteenkiste & Beyers - research on autonomy, reactance, and resistance in adolescents American Psychological Association - information on autonomy, motivation, and behavior change Also see in the A-Z Psychology Glossary G - Conscience - How does your inner sense of right and wrong develop? G - Group identity - How can a group become part of who you are? I - Internalization - How do outside norms become part of your own inner voice? S - Social influence - How do others influence our choices without direct coercion? S - Socialization - How do we learn which norms and behaviors are considered normal in our environment? Z - Self-censorship - What happens when you restrict yourself because being visible can have consequences? Read also on ExJW.World G - Faith-based upbringing - How are faith and values passed on from a young age? V - Free will - How free is a choice when conviction, expectations, and consequences all play a role? W - Worldly - What meaning does the contrast between “the truth” and “the world” take on? Recovery - Suddenly boundaryless after leaving? - Why do some former Jehovah’s Witnesses, after leaving, have to rediscover their identity, values, and boundaries?