Reactance
September 24, 2013 11:05 PM Subscribe
Psychological reactance is an aversive affective reaction in response to regulations or impositions that impinge on freedom an autonomy. It is experienced whenever a free behavior is restricted.
(note: I think all the paper links work outside of an institution, but I'm not quite sure. If they don't, do tell.)
The first intuition:
When you put your quarters in a softdrink machine, you would not like the machine to start flashing a large Coca Cola sign at you, complete with a flashing arrow that keeps moving to the button for Coke(Classical, of course). Or at least I don't think you would like that, even if you intended to obtain a Coke when you started to put your quarters in the machine.
What does that mean? A lost choice alternative tends to become more attractive, forced attitudinal position tends to become less attractive, and a social influence attempt can easily boomerang.
A remarkable series of experiments, some of them quite seminal and blindingly obvious to any student of human nature. Yet their effects are quite significant.
Should I ask you not to think of a white bear? I bet that you thought of one anyways. Early and often. Lots and lots of times, that bear strides into your mind.
Reasonableness and fairness, according to this doctor, is the secret to minimizing reactance. Apparently, it annoys a lot of health practitioners. Somebody did a thesis on how it might create the Hostile Media Effect, where people with strong views always claim media opposition to their views.
According to Robert Cialdini, reactance has lots and lots to do with scarcity pressure, and he has another idea about it:
The joy[of getting a scarce thing] is not in experiencing a scarce commodity but in possessing it. It is important that we not confuse the two.
A summary of his review in his seminal book, Influence.
There's a spiffy little test thing you can take to figure out your reactance measure (the higher, the more reactance). There's a half-dozen of these tests, each a fair bit different, each of them with pretty OK consistency for a psychological test.
(note: I think all the paper links work outside of an institution, but I'm not quite sure. If they don't, do tell.)
The first intuition:
When you put your quarters in a softdrink machine, you would not like the machine to start flashing a large Coca Cola sign at you, complete with a flashing arrow that keeps moving to the button for Coke(Classical, of course). Or at least I don't think you would like that, even if you intended to obtain a Coke when you started to put your quarters in the machine.
What does that mean? A lost choice alternative tends to become more attractive, forced attitudinal position tends to become less attractive, and a social influence attempt can easily boomerang.
A remarkable series of experiments, some of them quite seminal and blindingly obvious to any student of human nature. Yet their effects are quite significant.
Should I ask you not to think of a white bear? I bet that you thought of one anyways. Early and often. Lots and lots of times, that bear strides into your mind.
Reasonableness and fairness, according to this doctor, is the secret to minimizing reactance. Apparently, it annoys a lot of health practitioners. Somebody did a thesis on how it might create the Hostile Media Effect, where people with strong views always claim media opposition to their views.
According to Robert Cialdini, reactance has lots and lots to do with scarcity pressure, and he has another idea about it:
The joy[of getting a scarce thing] is not in experiencing a scarce commodity but in possessing it. It is important that we not confuse the two.
A summary of his review in his seminal book, Influence.
There's a spiffy little test thing you can take to figure out your reactance measure (the higher, the more reactance). There's a half-dozen of these tests, each a fair bit different, each of them with pretty OK consistency for a psychological test.
I got 75 on the test. Now can someone tell me what that means.
posted by zoo at 11:24 PM on September 24, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by zoo at 11:24 PM on September 24, 2013 [8 favorites]
C+
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:25 PM on September 24, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 11:25 PM on September 24, 2013 [5 favorites]
Do you think of a white bear because someone told you not to, or because someone said "white bear" and we don't process words as text, but as concepts?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:30 PM on September 24, 2013 [10 favorites]
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:30 PM on September 24, 2013 [10 favorites]
I just lost the game.
posted by empath at 11:44 PM on September 24, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by empath at 11:44 PM on September 24, 2013 [7 favorites]
I got 75 on the test. Now can someone tell me what that means.
No, no, you're doing it wrong. With a score that high, you should be telling everyone else what it means.
posted by kithrater at 11:45 PM on September 24, 2013 [6 favorites]
No, no, you're doing it wrong. With a score that high, you should be telling everyone else what it means.
posted by kithrater at 11:45 PM on September 24, 2013 [6 favorites]
You guys are crazy, it is clearly a picture of two bears high fiving.
posted by Ad hominem at 11:47 PM on September 24, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Ad hominem at 11:47 PM on September 24, 2013 [4 favorites]
OK, so the scale:
Mean is 68.9 in a college psych first-year population, median is 69.0, standard deviation is 7.2. Scores for that first-year pop ranged from 50 to 87, so if you're at 87 you're a reactant mofo and if you're at 50 you're really a non-reactive person.
For those of you interested in an easy scale, one standard deviation means you're more reactant than about 70% of the population, two means you're more reactant than like 95%, three means you're more reactant than 99.7% of the population. That is:
47.4 - 54.6 : really really REALLY non-reactant
54.6 - 61.7 : really non-reactant
61.8 - 76.2 : pretty normal-ish
76.2 - 83.4 : really reactant
83.4 - 90.6 : really really REALLY reactant
Note that the dataset that was in the paper for the reactance measure was indeed normally distributed, and they did use it as a measure for how reactant an individual was. Of course, you must take it with a grain of salt, as this measure has pretty bad explanation of the variance in reactance behaviors. That is, reactance doesn't seem to be really entirely a trait, but also largely a feature of a situation.
posted by curuinor at 11:55 PM on September 24, 2013 [7 favorites]
Mean is 68.9 in a college psych first-year population, median is 69.0, standard deviation is 7.2. Scores for that first-year pop ranged from 50 to 87, so if you're at 87 you're a reactant mofo and if you're at 50 you're really a non-reactive person.
For those of you interested in an easy scale, one standard deviation means you're more reactant than about 70% of the population, two means you're more reactant than like 95%, three means you're more reactant than 99.7% of the population. That is:
47.4 - 54.6 : really really REALLY non-reactant
54.6 - 61.7 : really non-reactant
61.8 - 76.2 : pretty normal-ish
76.2 - 83.4 : really reactant
83.4 - 90.6 : really really REALLY reactant
Note that the dataset that was in the paper for the reactance measure was indeed normally distributed, and they did use it as a measure for how reactant an individual was. Of course, you must take it with a grain of salt, as this measure has pretty bad explanation of the variance in reactance behaviors. That is, reactance doesn't seem to be really entirely a trait, but also largely a feature of a situation.
posted by curuinor at 11:55 PM on September 24, 2013 [7 favorites]
Huh, I got an 85. But there were several questions where I really wanted to asnwer "well, dunno, depends; are the police trying to save people's lives, or just being assholes?". So a lot of those ended up in the middle. I wonder if I'd come out more or less reactive if they actually measured it situationally?
anyhow thanks for the explanation curuinor, otherwise I was thinking 85 was a sign of my peaceful easygoing nature.
posted by nat at 12:06 AM on September 25, 2013 [14 favorites]
anyhow thanks for the explanation curuinor, otherwise I was thinking 85 was a sign of my peaceful easygoing nature.
posted by nat at 12:06 AM on September 25, 2013 [14 favorites]
I also got an 85. I think curuinor (2 comments up) summed the exercise/concept up nicely.
posted by mafted jacksie at 12:26 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by mafted jacksie at 12:26 AM on September 25, 2013
nat, I had the same problem. Some were very situational, I could and have gone either way depending on the circumstances. I'm not sure what that means.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:30 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by [insert clever name here] at 12:30 AM on September 25, 2013
I got a 68. My new slogan is: neither a doormat nor a jerkface be!
posted by sldownard at 12:31 AM on September 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by sldownard at 12:31 AM on September 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
This is terribly interesting. You could link to this post from each MetaTalk post that says "My post was deleted! No fair!", for example.
posted by alasdair at 12:58 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by alasdair at 12:58 AM on September 25, 2013
I lied. I can't juggle, am not very strong, don't understand suduko and still sneaking cigs.
I'm probably not lawful good either.
I've been holding on to this.
posted by qinn at 1:02 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm probably not lawful good either.
I've been holding on to this.
posted by qinn at 1:02 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
57. It didn't tell me whether I'm a capacitor or an inductor though...
posted by pipeski at 1:19 AM on September 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 1:19 AM on September 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
Psychological reactance is an aversive affective reaction in response to regulations or impositions that impinge on freedom an autonomy. It is experienced whenever a free behavior is restricted.Great, now we have a name for it. This will help them to diagnose and treat it.
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 1:28 AM on September 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
My problem with these sorts of tests is the questions are so often situational that I want to answer with an 'it depends' rather than a 'strongly agree/disagree'.
Which I'm sure says something about me, just not about my levels of reactance (66).
posted by gadge emeritus at 1:57 AM on September 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Which I'm sure says something about me, just not about my levels of reactance (66).
posted by gadge emeritus at 1:57 AM on September 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
You may be an economist?
(81)
posted by But tomorrow is another day... at 2:07 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
(81)
posted by But tomorrow is another day... at 2:07 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I got a 75, which I think makes me what is clinically referred to as an obstinate jackass. I'm okay with that.
A lot of my answers were middling, because I had the same problem as nat, above -- if the cop is guiding people away from a fire I am totally okay with that, but if the cop is bullying people there's a big problem.
posted by cmyk at 2:11 AM on September 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
A lot of my answers were middling, because I had the same problem as nat, above -- if the cop is guiding people away from a fire I am totally okay with that, but if the cop is bullying people there's a big problem.
posted by cmyk at 2:11 AM on September 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
Why is deference to authority never psychologized/medicalized, historically it's probably got a lot more people killed
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 2:25 AM on September 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 2:25 AM on September 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
How does one score on the test if you got two questions in, thought "Ugh. Not another one of those bullshit agree/disagree tests." and bailed?
posted by Thorzdad at 2:40 AM on September 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 2:40 AM on September 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
Why is deference to authority never psychologized/medicalized, historically it's probably got a lot more people killed
Ultimately, deference to authority evolved as an essential survival strategy among social animals. Provided that the authority figure is acting in the best interests of the group, the individual usually benefits from it. Deference to authority can be an informed choice; it's not necessarily a mental failing. It's also one of those things you don't really notice until it goes wrong.
posted by pipeski at 2:41 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Ultimately, deference to authority evolved as an essential survival strategy among social animals. Provided that the authority figure is acting in the best interests of the group, the individual usually benefits from it. Deference to authority can be an informed choice; it's not necessarily a mental failing. It's also one of those things you don't really notice until it goes wrong.
posted by pipeski at 2:41 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I got an 80. I'm surprised it's so low, but but it's probably because I believe very strongly that people should obey authorities who are me.
posted by winna at 3:20 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by winna at 3:20 AM on September 25, 2013
I got a "you don't like futile arguments that much" score of 68.
posted by oceanjesse at 3:20 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by oceanjesse at 3:20 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I hate tests like this, because I'm certainly reactant enough to not like being pigeonholed into a binary when there's a much broader continuum. As has been mentioned, the answer is most often "it depends" and I don't want to choose "agree" or "disagree".
It is important to me to be in a powerful position relative to others.
strongly disagree
disagree
agree
strongly agree
I do kind of strongly disagree with this, but would the inference be that I enjoy having others in power in relation to me? Because I strongly disagree with that shit, too. While hierarchies can have a functionality I think most people's unconscious search for and adherence to hierarchies is often really destructive. I don't want to control others, and I don't want to be controlled. I want to take good advice or direction, but I don't want to do whatever someone says just because they said it. Is that weird for some reason?
I enjoy "showing up" people who think they are right.
strongly disagree
disagree
agree
strongly agree
I enjoy "showing up" assholes who think they are right, but no one else at all.
Now, this one is just hilarious because of the qualifier "relatively" put in there along with the subsequent choices:
I am relatively opinionated.
strongly disagree
disagree
agree
strongly agree
posted by Red Loop at 3:31 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
It is important to me to be in a powerful position relative to others.
strongly disagree
disagree
agree
strongly agree
I do kind of strongly disagree with this, but would the inference be that I enjoy having others in power in relation to me? Because I strongly disagree with that shit, too. While hierarchies can have a functionality I think most people's unconscious search for and adherence to hierarchies is often really destructive. I don't want to control others, and I don't want to be controlled. I want to take good advice or direction, but I don't want to do whatever someone says just because they said it. Is that weird for some reason?
I enjoy "showing up" people who think they are right.
strongly disagree
disagree
agree
strongly agree
I enjoy "showing up" assholes who think they are right, but no one else at all.
Now, this one is just hilarious because of the qualifier "relatively" put in there along with the subsequent choices:
I am relatively opinionated.
strongly disagree
disagree
agree
strongly agree
posted by Red Loop at 3:31 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Does anyone in addition to me think this FPP could also qualify as a metatalk?
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:44 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:44 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I scored a 54, but that's not right. I am reactive. The word "enjoy" kept repeating. I do not think that's a good way to phrase the questions. I do not enjoy reacting at all. Leave that word out and I strongly believe my score would increase.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:59 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:59 AM on September 25, 2013
I scored 28 when I was really trying hard to score zero, but I will calmly accept this unjust result as further evidence of its incorrectness.
posted by three blind mice at 4:15 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by three blind mice at 4:15 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Gee, what, was it Ted Cruz that got you thinking about all this?
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 4:19 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by Rich Smorgasbord at 4:19 AM on September 25, 2013
It is important to me to be in a powerful position relative to others.
I do kind of strongly disagree with this, but would the inference be that I enjoy having others in power in relation to me? Because I strongly disagree with that shit, too.
Cool Hand Loop?
posted by mr. digits at 4:26 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I do kind of strongly disagree with this, but would the inference be that I enjoy having others in power in relation to me? Because I strongly disagree with that shit, too.
Cool Hand Loop?
posted by mr. digits at 4:26 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I got a 79. But I agree that this could also work as a MetaTalk - there's a lot here that could be applicable to how Mefites engage with each other, why people double down, etc. The interesting pull quotes here are that the messages perceived as dogmatic or threatening were:
posted by corb at 4:40 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Imperatives, such as "must" or "need"You're taught to avoid these a lot in classes on facilitation, but not why - this is really fascinating. The other thing that was really interesting was the talk about "the licensing effect" - that after someone has done something moral, they are less likely to be moral next time.
Absolute allegations, such as "cannot deny that..." or "This issue is extremely serious"
Derision towards other perspectives, such as "Any reasonable person would agree that..."
posted by corb at 4:40 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
The funny part is some people believe this is science and not a parlor game.
posted by spitbull at 4:43 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by spitbull at 4:43 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
The other funny part is that they study reactance to figure out better ways of making people do things.
posted by Obscure Reference at 4:56 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by Obscure Reference at 4:56 AM on September 25, 2013
68'ers unite!
You know...if you want to. Not saying we have to or anything. What do you want to do?
posted by jquinby at 5:09 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
You know...if you want to. Not saying we have to or anything. What do you want to do?
posted by jquinby at 5:09 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Turns out the MOST reactant people score the lowest on this test because they're like FUCK YOU TEST, THESE QUESTIONS ARE BULL SHIT
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:09 AM on September 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:09 AM on September 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
I got a -5
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:09 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:09 AM on September 25, 2013
Ultimately, deference to authority evolved as an essential survival strategy among social animals. Provided that the authority figure is acting in the best interests of the group, the individual usually benefits from it. Deference to authority can be an informed choice; it's not necessarily a mental failing. It's also one of those things you don't really notice until it goes wrong.
From a genetic perspective, I think that if there are genes (or memes) for 'follower' then they are likely to do well even if the authority figure isn't acting in the groups' best interest but rather in their own. IANAG.
Take a tribe of followers and free-thinkers. Assume that they can continue to work together to survive for as many generations as you like. Once per generation, pick an authority figure from the free thinkers. That authority figure has advantages, to the detriment of the followers but not the free-thinkers, including a greater chance of a follower agreeing to mate with them and slightly greater survivability of their children in comparison to another free-thinker's child and to the detriment of a follower child. I do not consider any of this to be historically unlikely.
Assuming that attractiveness is not related to free thinking, the authority figure is more likely, on average, to mate with a follower (i.e. assuming both pools are of an equal size to start with, and both have an equal distribution of attractive tribemembers, then there will be more attractive followers willing to mate with the authority figure than free thinkers).
As the authority figure's children are more likely to be successful than a free thinker's child, they are more likely to survive during times of hardship. The followers get screwed but as their children will have a greater chance of survival, their genes will still propogate over the generations.
Does that sound right?
posted by YAMWAK at 5:15 AM on September 25, 2013
From a genetic perspective, I think that if there are genes (or memes) for 'follower' then they are likely to do well even if the authority figure isn't acting in the groups' best interest but rather in their own. IANAG.
Take a tribe of followers and free-thinkers. Assume that they can continue to work together to survive for as many generations as you like. Once per generation, pick an authority figure from the free thinkers. That authority figure has advantages, to the detriment of the followers but not the free-thinkers, including a greater chance of a follower agreeing to mate with them and slightly greater survivability of their children in comparison to another free-thinker's child and to the detriment of a follower child. I do not consider any of this to be historically unlikely.
Assuming that attractiveness is not related to free thinking, the authority figure is more likely, on average, to mate with a follower (i.e. assuming both pools are of an equal size to start with, and both have an equal distribution of attractive tribemembers, then there will be more attractive followers willing to mate with the authority figure than free thinkers).
As the authority figure's children are more likely to be successful than a free thinker's child, they are more likely to survive during times of hardship. The followers get screwed but as their children will have a greater chance of survival, their genes will still propogate over the generations.
Does that sound right?
posted by YAMWAK at 5:15 AM on September 25, 2013
I find the lack of nuance in the test questions to be coercive.
a. strongly disagree
b. disagree
c. agree
d. strongly agree
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:34 AM on September 25, 2013 [13 favorites]
a. strongly disagree
b. disagree
c. agree
d. strongly agree
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:34 AM on September 25, 2013 [13 favorites]
Mean is 68.9 in a college psych first-year population
I wonder at what point we will stop saying "People do thing because reasons" when what we mean is "College-age people, mostly white, often male, do thing because reasons."
/so reactive not even gonna take the test.
posted by rtha at 5:56 AM on September 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
I wonder at what point we will stop saying "People do thing because reasons" when what we mean is "College-age people, mostly white, often male, do thing because reasons."
/so reactive not even gonna take the test.
posted by rtha at 5:56 AM on September 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the link between reactance and the relative success or failure of attempts to persuade people to abandon problematic behavior patterns.
posted by grumpybear69 at 5:57 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 5:57 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
81 here, which makes sense because other people are usually wrong.
On a more serious note, this seems like such an obvious thing after reading it, but I'd never seen it actually articulated before. I do notice that I can't read "you have a chance to..." in anything other than a oily advertisement voice though. The same with stuff like "for adults only", like those ridiculous MMO ads.
posted by lucidium at 6:31 AM on September 25, 2013
On a more serious note, this seems like such an obvious thing after reading it, but I'd never seen it actually articulated before. I do notice that I can't read "you have a chance to..." in anything other than a oily advertisement voice though. The same with stuff like "for adults only", like those ridiculous MMO ads.
posted by lucidium at 6:31 AM on September 25, 2013
61. So THAT'S why I have all these footprints all over me!
goddammit i need to change my life
posted by argonauta at 6:33 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
goddammit i need to change my life
posted by argonauta at 6:33 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I got a 62. I think it would have been much higher if there weren't questions along the lines of "I enjoy debates" or "If I receive a lukewarm dish at a restaurant, I make an attempt to let that be known" because I am very conflict-averse.
posted by Metroid Baby at 6:43 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Metroid Baby at 6:43 AM on September 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
It's funny how all the reactant people are arguing that their scores are inaccurate.
63. Shut up and eat your reactance score!
posted by drlith at 6:47 AM on September 25, 2013
63. Shut up and eat your reactance score!
posted by drlith at 6:47 AM on September 25, 2013
68, but I'm with rtha on not having much faith that it means anything. I mean, yes, I will do a favor for SOME people without knowing why, but not any random person on the street. I enjoy arguments with SOME people, but with others I'd rather cut off my arm. Etc.
I don't know if that means I'm reactive, or that I simply think the test is poorly structured and an attempt to pigeonhole people in an inaccurate way. It's not so much that I'm fighty as that I dislike sloppy generalizations.
(the thread a while ago discussing how Myers-Briggs is bollocks was a favorite of mine).
I'm definitely bookmarking the "annoys a lot of health practitioners" link for later reading. Thanks for the post, curuinor!
posted by emjaybee at 7:01 AM on September 25, 2013
I don't know if that means I'm reactive, or that I simply think the test is poorly structured and an attempt to pigeonhole people in an inaccurate way. It's not so much that I'm fighty as that I dislike sloppy generalizations.
(the thread a while ago discussing how Myers-Briggs is bollocks was a favorite of mine).
I'm definitely bookmarking the "annoys a lot of health practitioners" link for later reading. Thanks for the post, curuinor!
posted by emjaybee at 7:01 AM on September 25, 2013
I took the quiz, and my spirit animal's zodiac sign is "Dragonball Z", apparently.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:16 AM on September 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:16 AM on September 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
I just went through TSA security so my answers may be biased.
posted by gingerbeer at 7:51 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by gingerbeer at 7:51 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm a 78, which makes sense. I even rebel against the rules I make for myself.
posted by rmless at 8:25 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by rmless at 8:25 AM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I scored 28 when I was really trying hard to score zero, but I will calmly accept this unjust result as further evidence of its incorrectness.
I tried to game it the other way and ended up with a 112. That can't be right! I should call and make a complaint immediately! No, I'm going to organize a protest in front of their offices!!
(actual score:69. Apparently I'm hella average.)
posted by solotoro at 8:52 AM on September 25, 2013
I tried to game it the other way and ended up with a 112. That can't be right! I should call and make a complaint immediately! No, I'm going to organize a protest in front of their offices!!
(actual score:69. Apparently I'm hella average.)
posted by solotoro at 8:52 AM on September 25, 2013
I'm surprised nobody has commented on the link between reactance and the relative success or failure of attempts to persuade people to abandon problematic behavior patterns.Life is problematic because only living people have problems. Discuss.
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 8:53 AM on September 25, 2013
73 - which is weird for me, but I guess pretty average.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:13 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by Sophie1 at 9:13 AM on September 25, 2013
This is an interesting thing. I got a 60, which feels pretty right. One of my friends who works in medicine used to say that I was the most compliant patient ever. When I was in the hospital after surgery, she came to visit me and while she was there, I did my breathing exercise--the one where you make the ball float. She said, "Why are you doing that?" I said, "They told me to!" She said, "Yeah, but almost nobody actually does."
My therapist once remarked that I was an unusual client because, when she suggested I try something, I would come back the next visit and report that I had, indeed, tried it.
My oldest son does not like being told what to do. When he was 11, I suggested he do something, and he said, "I was just about to do that! But now I can't, because you told me to. Now I have to wait until it can be my idea again."
posted by not that girl at 10:54 AM on September 25, 2013
My therapist once remarked that I was an unusual client because, when she suggested I try something, I would come back the next visit and report that I had, indeed, tried it.
My oldest son does not like being told what to do. When he was 11, I suggested he do something, and he said, "I was just about to do that! But now I can't, because you told me to. Now I have to wait until it can be my idea again."
posted by not that girl at 10:54 AM on September 25, 2013
I think I react to reactant people?
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:05 AM on September 25, 2013
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:05 AM on September 25, 2013
Ohm I! I am reluctant to admit how much this story resonated with me. I once conducted a similar study at the institute. After following up on several leads, during which things were very much in flux, a schematic of my ideas began to gain acceptance around the lecture circuit. But I had to overcome significant resistance from some members of the faculty. Indeed Dr. Farad reacted very badly and seemed to have an infinite capacity for impedance, and of course Dr. Henry resists any change. But I had tapped Dr. Henry as advisor, and we took a few turns around the department. Eventually, through inductive reasoning, he came to agree with me. Well, Dr. Henry can be pretty magnetic and he met with Dr. Farad with increasing frequency. After a while his words began to resonate with Dr. Farad. Reluctance in the department had no permeance, and my ideas were found to be thoroughly grounded. And that's how I gained admittance to the graduate psychoelectronics program.
posted by Herodios at 11:32 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Herodios at 11:32 AM on September 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
82 but... there are problems with the questions "someone" can be "a friend", "a stranger", "an enemy", "a boss", etc... The answer to questions like that requires the status of the individual in relation to me to be known to get a fully honest answer.
Sometimes there are subtleties that this doesn't allow for.
I tried my best to be as honest as possible. Sometimes I'm WAY more reactive than 82, IMO, in others I'm much less. For example, yes I like help from people trying to solve a problem, no I don't like being told what to do. To some people, telling people what to do is "helping".
I do, however, love showing up know-it-alls. For one, I used to be a know it all, and for two, if you think you can one-up me, you got another thing coming. Though I honestly don't harp on it too much, because I don't particularly like to be a know-it-all (especially knowing that I can be wrong, if you don't know that, you're not really a know-it-all, are you?) But man, when people act like they are so smart and know something and they don't or they're just making it up or it's anecdotal, well, ok. Honestly it's not even "know-it-all-ism" that bothers me so much as a refusal, when presented with evidence, to look at the counter-arguments, instead, digging in your heels. It's ok to question facts as they present themselves, it's ok to be skeptical. But to, when presented with other information, not question the information honestly, but rather, dig in heels saying "I'm right, la-di-da!!!" well. Ugh.
posted by symbioid at 12:03 PM on September 25, 2013
Sometimes there are subtleties that this doesn't allow for.
I tried my best to be as honest as possible. Sometimes I'm WAY more reactive than 82, IMO, in others I'm much less. For example, yes I like help from people trying to solve a problem, no I don't like being told what to do. To some people, telling people what to do is "helping".
I do, however, love showing up know-it-alls. For one, I used to be a know it all, and for two, if you think you can one-up me, you got another thing coming. Though I honestly don't harp on it too much, because I don't particularly like to be a know-it-all (especially knowing that I can be wrong, if you don't know that, you're not really a know-it-all, are you?) But man, when people act like they are so smart and know something and they don't or they're just making it up or it's anecdotal, well, ok. Honestly it's not even "know-it-all-ism" that bothers me so much as a refusal, when presented with evidence, to look at the counter-arguments, instead, digging in your heels. It's ok to question facts as they present themselves, it's ok to be skeptical. But to, when presented with other information, not question the information honestly, but rather, dig in heels saying "I'm right, la-di-da!!!" well. Ugh.
posted by symbioid at 12:03 PM on September 25, 2013
72 but it feels like it should be much higher.
posted by elizardbits at 12:11 PM on September 25, 2013
posted by elizardbits at 12:11 PM on September 25, 2013
You have to try harder! I ORDER YOU TO TRY HARDER!!!
posted by Mister_A at 12:12 PM on September 25, 2013
posted by Mister_A at 12:12 PM on September 25, 2013
you are not the boss of me!
posted by elizardbits at 12:16 PM on September 25, 2013
posted by elizardbits at 12:16 PM on September 25, 2013
This just gave me an epiphany about someone I know, almost as important as the Ask Culture/Guess Culture thing. Thanks, curuinor!
Also, I got a 73, which seems low.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:25 PM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, I got a 73, which seems low.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:25 PM on September 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I also got a 73, and can't help but feel like had I taken this test ten years ago it would have been somewhere in the 100s.
posted by Mooseli at 1:37 PM on September 25, 2013
posted by Mooseli at 1:37 PM on September 25, 2013
A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example, show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, "plate," or "shrimp," or "plate o' shrimp" out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.posted by mikelieman at 1:46 PM on September 25, 2013
So many of my reasons for not being reactive have to do with being introverted and ignoring other people whenever possible.
I don't particularly bristle when "someone" tells me what to do because I'm probably going to ignore them. If someone gives me helpful advice, I'll use the social energy I saved by ignoring blowhards to thank the helpful someone.
Also, why not think of a white bear? I don't think about white bears (and leopard seals and tamarinds) nearly enough.
60-something
posted by Lesser Shrew at 4:22 PM on September 25, 2013
I don't particularly bristle when "someone" tells me what to do because I'm probably going to ignore them. If someone gives me helpful advice, I'll use the social energy I saved by ignoring blowhards to thank the helpful someone.
Also, why not think of a white bear? I don't think about white bears (and leopard seals and tamarinds) nearly enough.
60-something
posted by Lesser Shrew at 4:22 PM on September 25, 2013
I got an 87, which is totally accurate in theory, but in practice should be a little lower since most of the time I try to notice when I'm being a totally pugnacious assbag and dial it down a little.
It's the remaining times where I do things like indulging in my (admittedly totally stupid) habit of walking defiantly out in front of cars that are turning right on red without intention of stopping when I have the walk signal so that their own idiocy is presented to them (I know that's not the actual effect, but it feels like it in the moment, damnit), or acting like I don't know what someone is talking about even when I do know what they're talking about simply because I think their expectation that I make the cognitive leap they seem to be demanding of me is out of line.
...we all have our vices.
posted by invitapriore at 4:42 PM on September 25, 2013
It's the remaining times where I do things like indulging in my (admittedly totally stupid) habit of walking defiantly out in front of cars that are turning right on red without intention of stopping when I have the walk signal so that their own idiocy is presented to them (I know that's not the actual effect, but it feels like it in the moment, damnit), or acting like I don't know what someone is talking about even when I do know what they're talking about simply because I think their expectation that I make the cognitive leap they seem to be demanding of me is out of line.
...we all have our vices.
posted by invitapriore at 4:42 PM on September 25, 2013
85. There is a family story of how when I was six I told a teacher, "Just because you're older doesn't make you right."
I'm honestly confused (and in lesser moments, irritated) by non-reactant people. The notion of not-bristling when some assface tells you what to do — I cannot imagine what my life would be like if I had that power.
posted by dame at 7:46 PM on September 25, 2013
I'm honestly confused (and in lesser moments, irritated) by non-reactant people. The notion of not-bristling when some assface tells you what to do — I cannot imagine what my life would be like if I had that power.
posted by dame at 7:46 PM on September 25, 2013
Hm. I had an 89. I'm not surprised by this. The eleven-year-old mentioned above could be me. (Thing is that I'm also completely non-dominant. I don't like being in power and I don't like having other people obey me. I really really want to do my own thing, but I hate to see anyone else not doing their own thing.)
Hell, I used to react to *myself*. When I was taking a test in school, if I got stuck on a question and glanced at another kid's paper out of desperation and recognized that they had the right answer, I then couldn't write it down because it wasn't my knowledge. I had to train myself to stare strictly at my own paper lest I inadvertently block myself from answering any questions.
The weird part for me is when I psych myself out. Once I've convinced myself that something (like exercising, say) is good for me and I ought to do it more, I suddenly gain an instinctive reluctance to do it because now everyone else is right when they tell me to do things that are good for me and FUCK THAT NOISE IMMA SHOW THEM.
In summary, it is very inconvenient to be a stubborn asshole. Please don't show me any sympathy or else I will start to believe that it is awesome.
posted by Scattercat at 10:05 PM on September 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Hell, I used to react to *myself*. When I was taking a test in school, if I got stuck on a question and glanced at another kid's paper out of desperation and recognized that they had the right answer, I then couldn't write it down because it wasn't my knowledge. I had to train myself to stare strictly at my own paper lest I inadvertently block myself from answering any questions.
The weird part for me is when I psych myself out. Once I've convinced myself that something (like exercising, say) is good for me and I ought to do it more, I suddenly gain an instinctive reluctance to do it because now everyone else is right when they tell me to do things that are good for me and FUCK THAT NOISE IMMA SHOW THEM.
In summary, it is very inconvenient to be a stubborn asshole. Please don't show me any sympathy or else I will start to believe that it is awesome.
posted by Scattercat at 10:05 PM on September 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
70. I'm surprised it's so low. I thought it would be higher, considering how I react to some things. Must be mellowing as I age, ha ha ha!
posted by annsunny at 7:50 PM on September 26, 2013
posted by annsunny at 7:50 PM on September 26, 2013
OK. This is mostly for posterity.
In our MeFi sample, the median was 73, the mean 73.4. Standard deviation was 9.3. These are for the people who gave specific scores, not, say, "C+." So MeFi has more reactance in this nonrandom sample than the student population by which this measure was calibrated, but not by more than a standard deviation.
posted by curuinor at 5:04 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
In our MeFi sample, the median was 73, the mean 73.4. Standard deviation was 9.3. These are for the people who gave specific scores, not, say, "C+." So MeFi has more reactance in this nonrandom sample than the student population by which this measure was calibrated, but not by more than a standard deviation.
posted by curuinor at 5:04 PM on September 27, 2013 [2 favorites]
"I wonder at what point we will stop saying "People do thing because reasons" when what we mean is "College-age people, mostly white, often male, do thing because reasons.""
Often male, but mostly female anymore, if we're talking undergrads.
posted by klangklangston at 8:32 AM on October 22, 2013
Often male, but mostly female anymore, if we're talking undergrads.
posted by klangklangston at 8:32 AM on October 22, 2013
« Older NY77: | Earthquake in Balochistan Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by thebrokedown at 11:19 PM on September 24, 2013 [10 favorites]