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 make me feel resistant or oppositional?

- 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 actually wanted something for myself?

- Why do some people react strongly to pressure and others hardly at all?

- How do I figure out whether a choice is really mine or mainly a reaction to what used to be 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 limited or threatened. The inner reaction can be:
‘You don’t get to decide for me.’
Sometimes it stays at irritation. Sometimes it turns into an argument. And sometimes the very opposite of what someone is trying to impose or forbid becomes attractive.

My freedom of choice
feels threatened
      ↓
resistance
      ↓
‘I decide this myself’
      ↓
need to restore
freedom

Reactance is not a mental disorder. It is a general human psychological mechanism.

A simple example

Suppose you have little interest in something until someone emphatically says:
‘You are absolutely not allowed to do that.’
Suddenly it can become more interesting.
Or a parent says to a teenager:
‘You can never see that boy.’
That relationship may then start to feel more exciting or more important.
Not every prohibition triggers rebellion. But when someone strongly experiences:
‘My freedom is being taken away from me,’
the need can arise to get that freedom back. Pasted markdown

Why do people react this way?

People have a need for some autonomy: the sense that they have a say over their own behavior and life.
When a possibility is restricted, it can be experienced as a loss.

‘This was my choice’
      ↓
someone restricts that choice
      ↓
‘Why are you deciding
this for me?’
      ↓
reactance

That can lead someone to find the forbidden option more attractive, feel more resistance toward the person setting the rule, or deliberately do something different from what was asked.

Not everyone reacts the same

One person thinks:
‘Fine, then I won’t do it.’
Another:
‘I’ll decide that for myself.’
How strongly reactance shows up can differ depending on factors such as age, personality, previous experiences, the relationship with the person setting the boundary, and the way a rule is explained.
It also makes a difference whether someone considers the rule reasonable themselves.

Rules are not automatically wrong

Psychological reactance does not mean that rules are bad.
Children need structure and boundaries. 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 relevant questions are rather:

Do I understand why
the boundary exists?

Can I ask questions?

Am I being taken seriously?

Do I have some
choice of my own?

Research also distinguishes between structure and psychological control. Warmth, predictability, and understandable boundaries can be supportive. Psychological control is more about steering thoughts, feelings, or choices through, for example, guilt, shame, or emotional pressure.

‘Strict parents create wild kids’ is too simplistic

The popular saying ‘strict parents create wild kids’ is too absolute.
Strict parents do not automatically get rebellious children.
The contrast is also not simply:

RULES

versus

FREEDOM

More interesting is:

‘You do this
because I said so’

        versus

‘You learn why
a boundary exists
and gradually develop
your own judgment’

A child may appear very obedient on the outside while inwardly developing more and more resistance.

Puberty and autonomy

During adolescence, the need for independence increases.
A young person increasingly begins to explore:
Who am I? Who do I want to spend time with? What do I believe? How do I want to look? What do I myself think is right and wrong?
Rules that were easily accepted as a child can therefore later provoke much more resistance.
That is not automatically ingratitude or badness. It can be part of developing a sense of identity.

What if many choices have already been filled in?

Within a strongly normative belief system, many life questions can have clear answers, for example about relationships, sexuality, parties, smoking and drugs, dealing with others, and religious goals.
For someone who shares those beliefs themselves, that can bring peace and direction:
‘I know what Jehovah expects of me.’
But when someone later starts thinking differently, the same structure can be experienced differently:
‘For years I based all my decisions on these rules. Now I finally want to decide for myself.’

Within Jehovah’s Witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves emphasize that a person should serve Jehovah voluntarily. At the same time, there are clear religious standards in different areas of life.
For an active Jehovah’s Witness, those standards can feel completely like their own:
‘I’m not doing this because someone is forcing me. I want to live this way.’
That deserves to be taken seriously.
For someone who starts to doubt or leaves, the experience can change:

FIRST

‘This is how
I want to live’


LATER POSSIBLY

‘Why have I
always lived by
these rules?’

Psychological reactance can then start to play a role.

‘Now I decide for myself’

After long taking into account God, parents, elders, family, or congregation, some people may experience a powerful shift:
‘Everyone has always decided for me how I had to live. What I was allowed to believe. Who I was allowed to associate with. What I was and wasn’t allowed to do. Now I’m done suffering and I’m going to live my own life. Fuck everybody.’
For the first time, maybe these are no longer central:
‘What does Jehovah expect?’
‘What do the elders think?’
‘What does my family think?’
but rather:
‘What do I want?’
That can feel hugely liberating and be an important step in regaining autonomy.

From ‘everyone decides’ to ‘nobody decides’

There can also be a movement from one extreme to the other:

FIRST

‘Others determine
my boundaries’


THEN

‘Nobody will ever
decide anything for me again’

That second extreme may feel temporarily necessary to create psychological distance.
But autonomy can ultimately go one step further:

‘I don’t have to
automatically obey anyone

but I also don’t have to
automatically go against
everyone’

That is something different from obedience and something different from rebellion.

‘Fuck everybody’ can be a phase

The thought ‘Fuck everybody, I’m finally doing what I want’ does not therefore have to be the endpoint.
At first, the judgment of others may have been central. Then it becomes important to reject that judgment entirely.
Later, more peace can emerge:
‘I listen to others when their advice is valuable. But in the end, I take responsibility for my own choice.’

DEPENDENCE

‘What do they think?’
      ↓
REACTANCE

‘Fuck everybody’
      ↓
AUTONOMY

‘What do I think,
and why?’

Living your own life

Living your own life ultimately does not mean:
no boundaries, no responsibility, and not needing anyone.
It can mean examining for yourself which people you let close, which advice you take seriously, which values you keep, and where your boundaries lie.
Autonomy means:
‘I am responsible for my life.’
Not:
‘Other people no longer matter.’

After leaving, suddenly wanting the opposite

After leaving, someone may think:
‘I finally want to go out.’
‘I’m going to date whoever I want.’
‘I want to go to a festival.’
‘I’m going to celebrate a birthday.’
‘I’m going to wear what I think looks good.’
That can be healthy exploration.
But sometimes there is also:
‘I wasn’t allowed to do this before, so now I want to.’
Then the old rule is still influencing things — no longer as a command, but as something you are defining yourself against. Plaked markdown

Doing the opposite is not yet complete freedom

Suppose someone used to hear:
‘Smoking is absolutely not allowed.’
After leaving, that person thinks:
‘Now nobody can stop me anymore, so I’m going to smoke.’
That can feel like freedom.
But when the main motive is:
‘I want to prove that they no longer decide over me,’
the old rule is still partly determining what you do.
A next question can be:

Regardless of what
used to be allowed
or not allowed:

do I actually want this?

The answer may be yes. Or no.
Both can be free answers.

Freedom is more than rebellion

Autonomy can mean doing something because you truly want to.
But also:
not doing something even though it is allowed now.
After leaving, for example, someone may hardly drink alcohol, avoid drugs, or only want sex within a committed relationship.
Not because a religious rule requires it, but because it fits their personal values.
So freedom is not found in one particular outcome.

‘Would I want this too if it had never been forbidden before?’

Things that were forbidden can take on extra symbolic meaning.
A tattoo is then not just a tattoo. A festival is not just music. A partner outside the former faith is not just someone you’re in love with.
At the same time, it can stand for:
freedom, independence, and saying goodbye to the old life.
That is why this question is especially useful:

‘Would I want this too
if it had never
been forbidden
before?’

Maybe the answer is:
‘Yes. Absolutely. This suits me.’
Then you know more.
But maybe:
‘Honestly, I’m not all that interested in it. I mainly wanted to prove that I was free.’
That is valuable information too.

Reactance can arise before leaving

Resistance does not have to start only after leaving.
Someone may outwardly do what is expected for years and inwardly think more and more strongly:
‘I don’t want this anymore.’

OUTWARDLY

obedience


INWARDLY

resistance

When that resistance has built up for a long time, it can suddenly become clearly visible after leaving. That can help explain why changes sometimes seem to happen very quickly.

Reactance and identity

Within a close-knit community, there can be a strong group identity:
‘We are Jehovah’s Witnesses.’
After leaving, a counter-identity can temporarily arise:
‘Then now I am especially no longer a Jehovah’s Witness.’
That can help create distance.
But if identity becomes only:
‘I am the opposite of what I used to be,’
the former group is still central.
A next step can be:

‘Who am I when
I no longer have to live
either for or against
my past?’

A ‘second puberty’

Some former Jehovah’s Witnesses speak of a second puberty.
That is not an official psychological diagnosis.
The image can still feel familiar when someone only starts experimenting extensively at a later age with relationships, sexuality, clothing, going out, holidays, beliefs, and personal boundaries.
Reactance can play a role in that, but also:
curiosity, missed experiences, identity development, and the need to finally choose for yourself.
That is why not everything someone tries after leaving should automatically be interpreted as rebellion.

First ‘we’, then ‘me against them’

A development can sometimes unfold like this:

‘We don’t do this’
      ↓
‘Then I’ll do exactly what
they don’t want’
      ↓
‘It matters less and less
what they think.
What do I think?’

In the first two positions, the group is still central.
In the third, one’s own judgment becomes more important.

No one tells you anymore what is not allowed

When a fixed normative framework falls away, that can be liberating and difficult at the same time.
There may no longer be anyone who automatically gives the answer.
Then other questions arise:

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 does not necessarily require less thinking. Sometimes it requires more.

Self-chosen boundaries are not old control

After many rules, someone may think:
‘I never want rules again.’
But:
‘I drink a maximum of two glasses because I want to feel fit tomorrow’
is psychologically something different from:
‘I’m not allowed to drink because it’s forbidden.’

IMPOSED BOUNDARY

‘This is not allowed’


SELF-CHOSEN BOUNDARY

‘This fits with what
I value’

Self-chosen boundaries can actually be a sign that someone is acting less and less from reactance.

Reactance can work against your own interests

The paradox is that you so badly want to prove that no one controls you that the other person still partly determines your behavior.
Someone thinks:
‘No one tells me how much I can drink.’
and then drinks more than they actually wanted to.
Or:
‘No one decides who I go to bed with.’
while later realizing that the situation did not suit them at all.
Then the choice may have been free from the old rule, but not yet fully free for yourself.

Perhaps autonomy can sometimes be represented in three steps:

‘I have to do
what others say’
      ↓
‘I actually do NOT want to do
what others say’
      ↓
‘I choose based on
what I myself find important’

That final stage doesn’t have to be dramatic.
Sometimes you even end up making exactly the same choice as before.
The difference is that now you endorse the reason yourself.

A useful pause

When you notice strong resistance, you don’t have to act right away.
You can first think:
‘I notice I’m getting angry because someone is trying to control me.’
Then:
‘Apart from that person, what do I actually want?’
And then:
‘Which choice fits my values and interests?’
That pause prevents both automatic obedience and automatic rebellion.

Four questions about reactance

1. Which freedom
feels threatened?

2. What is my
automatic reaction?

3. What would I choose
if no one were
pressuring me?

4. Which choice fits
my own values?

That last answer is ultimately more important than winning against the person trying to control you.

Reactance and self-censorship

Sometimes someone wants to do something but fears the social consequences.
Then hidden behavior can emerge:
‘I decide for myself what I do, but no one may know.’
That can give temporary freedom.
At the same time, the environment still has influence:
‘My freedom is only safe as long as they don’t see it.’
Here reactance and self-censorship intersect.

Reactance and forbidden information

The same can happen with information.
When someone hears:
‘You’re not allowed to look at that,’
curiosity can arise instead:
‘Why not?’
For some people, a prohibition increases the desire to investigate. For others, the same warning has the opposite effect and acts as a deterrent.
So reactance is not an automatic response in everyone.

Autonomy support

In psychology, people also talk about autonomy support.
That does not mean:
‘Everyone may always do anything.’
It means more like:

• giving explanations;

• listening to objections;

• acknowledging feelings;

• offering choice where possible;

• making boundaries understandable.
  For example:
  ‘This is why we think this is important. What’s your view on it?’
  As a result, a rule can be truly understood and internalized rather than just followed because resistance has consequences.

Reactance is not just a teenage thing

Adults too can react strongly when their autonomy is under pressure.
A partner says:
‘You’re not allowed to see that person anymore.’
An employer controls every detail.
A doctor gives only orders without involving the patient in decisions.
In all these situations, resistance can arise.
The need for some control over one’s own life does not disappear when someone becomes an adult.

For former Jehovah’s Witnesses

After leaving, it can help to ask of old boundaries:

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 do I mainly want to prove
that no one can tell me anymore
what I have to do?

There is no predetermined right answer.
The most important thing is that the answer increasingly becomes your own.

For active Jehovah’s Witnesses

Someone who is actively one of Jehovah’s Witnesses can also use this insight.
For example, someone may discover:
‘I’m mainly angry about the way someone is saying this to me, but maybe I still find the principle itself important.’
Then that person can explore:
‘Why do I believe this?’
‘Would I make the same choice if no one were monitoring me?’
The answer can also be:
‘Yes. This really is my conviction.’
Psychological reactance is therefore not an argument for or against a belief.

For parents

For parents, the concept can be relevant because more pressure does not automatically produce more conviction.
A child may outwardly comply while inwardly developing more and more resistance.
So in addition to:
‘This is our boundary,’
there can also be room for:
‘Tell me how you experience this.’
A parent does not have to give up their own values in order to take a child’s developing autonomy seriously.

Questions to reflect on

- When do I notice the reaction in myself: ‘You don’t get to decide for me’?

- What things have I mainly wanted to do because they used to be forbidden?

- Would I make the same choice if this had never been forbidden before?

- Am I living my own life, or mainly the opposite of what I used to?

- Can I avoid doing something that is now allowed, without that feeling like obeying all over again?

- Which boundaries do I now choose for myself because they truly align with my values?

- 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 of choice.
When someone experiences:
‘You are not allowed to do that,’
the response can be:
‘Then I want to do it.’
After leaving a highly normative environment, that can become especially visible. Someone who long took into account family, religious expectations, or the community may think:
‘Now I decide for myself. Fuck everybody.’
That can be a understandable transitional phase in regaining autonomy.
But rebellion is not necessarily the same as complete freedom.

OBEYING

‘What others
say, I do’
      ↓
REBELLING

‘I do the exact
opposite’
      ↓
AUTONOMY

‘I examine
what I value myself
and take responsibility
for my choice’

When you always do the opposite of what was once expected, the old system is still shaping part of your choices.
Autonomy can go further:
I do not have to obey automatically.
I also do not have to rebel automatically.
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 freedom ultimately changes from:
‘No one tells me what to do anymore.’
to:
‘I am increasingly understanding why I do what I do.’
And perhaps the most important question is:
‘If nobody forbade me anything and I didn’t have to prove anything to anyone, what would I truly choose for myself?’

Sources and further reading

Jack W. Brehm – A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Foundational work on the tendency to restore threatened freedom of behavior.
Sharon S. Brehm & Jack W. Brehm – Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. Further elaboration of reactance, freedom, and control.
Miron & Brehm – research on psychological reactance. On the conditions under which threats to freedom can trigger resistance.
Steindl, Jonas, Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch & Greenberg – overview of research on psychological reactance. On contemporary findings regarding reactance and threatened freedom of choice.
Edward L. Deci & Richard M. Ryan – Self-Determination Theory. On autonomy, motivation, and the difference between self-endorsed behavior and behavior driven by pressure.
Van Petegem, Soenens, Vansteenkiste & Beyers – research on autonomy, reactance, and resistance in adolescents. On the relationship between perceived pressure, autonomy, and oppositional reactions.

Read also

Conscience – How does your inner sense of right and wrong come about?
Group identity – How can a group become part of who you are?
Internalization – How do norms from outside become part of your own inner voice?
Social influence – How do others influence our choices without direct coercion?
Autonomous thinking – How do you form your own judgment while always being influenced?
Self-censorship – What happens when you limit yourself because being visible can have consequences?
Free will – Being allowed to choose for yourself, but what does that choice mean within the faith?