Psychological reactance and related defensive processes have been long cited as an explanation for failure of fear appeal messages. The overwhelming majority of studies on fear and reactance have only examined the intensity of fear from a between-individuals perspective, in which individuals who have higher peak fear are predicted to experience stronger levels of psychological reactance. Recent development in the fear appeal research suggests an alternative perspective: Psychological reactance is activated when fear is aroused but not reduced within each individual; on the other hand, psychological reactance is mitigated or inhibited when fear is aroused and then reduced. Empirical data from a quasi-experimental study using graphic tobacco warning labels are used to test and compare the two approaches to studying the relationship between fear and psychological reactance. Implications for psychological reactance and fear appeal are discussed.

Resistance to social influence was Jack Brehm’s original research interest that eventually resulted in the formulation of the psychological reactance theory (J. W. Brehm, 1966; Miron & Brehm, 2006). Persuasion and attitude change (Brehm, 1966, Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974) have always been an area that is relevant and applicable to psychological reactance. Reactance theory has consistently been proposed as an explanation for failed persuasion attempts and/or the boomerang effect (see reviews of research on reactance and persuasion in Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voulodakis, 2002; Quick, Shen, & Dillard, 2013). Psychological reactance has played a central role in our understanding of the process of persuasive communication.

Available communication studies on psychological reactance have mainly focused on message features that tend to induce psychological reactance, such as language intensity (e.g., Buller et al., 2000; Dillard & Shen, 2005), explicitness (e.g., Burgoon, Alvaro, Broneck, et al., 2002; Karno & Longabaugh,...