Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ufmh20

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

ISSN: 1499-9013 (Print) 1932-9903 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufmh20

Overcoming Resistance in Clinical and ForensicInterviews

Codie J. Place & J. Reid Meloy

To cite this article: Codie J. Place & J. Reid Meloy (2018): Overcoming Resistance inClinical and Forensic Interviews, International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, DOI:10.1080/14999013.2018.1485189

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1485189

Published online: 05 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Overcoming Resistance in Clinical and Forensic Interviews

Codie J. Placea, and J. Reid Meloyb

aFederal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, District of Columbia, USA; bDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, SanDiego, La Jolla, California, USA

ABSTRACTReactance is one of the most common underlying causes of resistance. Reactance, a termcoined by Brehm, is the reaction that occurs when a person feels their freedom of choice isthreatened. Reactance can be especially troublesome for those attempting to gather infor-mation through interviews, such as mental health or law enforcement personnel. Weexplore resistance and reactance, and methods identified to ameliorate these phenomenawhen they arise during both clinical and forensic interviewing, such as the use of particularlanguage construction, optimal eye contact, acknowledgment of resistance, providing lim-ited and double-bind choices, and advancing the interview through affirmative comments.

KEYWORDSResistance; reactance;interviewing; interrogation;linguistics

Introduction

On June 4, 1937, Sigmund Freud boarded the OrientExpress and slowly made his way across Germany andinto France with several members of his family, his doc-tor, and his chow. He left behind Vienna, several sisterstoo old to travel, and his life’s work, but he was free.Before he boarded the train, however, the Gestapo toldhim he must sign a document. It read: “I, ProfessorFreud, hereby confirm that after the Anschluss ofAustria to the German Reich I have been treated by theGerman authorities and particularly by the Gestapo withall the respect and consideration due to my scientificreputation, that I could live and work in full freedom,that I could continue to pursue my activities in everyway I desired, and that I found full support from allconcerned in this respect, and that I have not the slight-est reason for any complaint.” Freud signed, but thenadded a simple sentence, “I can most highly recommendthe Gestapo to everyone” (Edmundson, 2010, p. 76).

At some point in everyone’s life, they have been toldthey cannot do something, or inversely, that they mustdo something. Although these are conflicting demands,they frequently evoke the same response, the often-involuntary response of resistance. Resistance fundamen-tally possesses the same qualities regardless of what theresistance is in response to. There are underlying simi-larities in areas from marketing to therapy to lawenforcement interviews. Many researchers have asked,what is at the core of resistance? Historically, throughout

varying contexts, it has been referred to as noncompli-ance with a directive (Newman, 2002), a desire to coun-teract someone else’s attempt to limit one’s choices(Brehm, 1966), unwillingness to achieve insight aboutthe real nature of one’s thoughts or feelings (Messer,2002), avoidance of unpleasant or dangerous feelings(Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman, 1951), or the feeling ofambivalence about change (Arkowitz, 2002).

Sources of resistance

Freud’s (1955) work with Elisabeth von R. led to theconceptualization of resistance in a clinical setting.The problems with this patient led Freud (1955) tonote, "In the course of this difficult work I began toattach a deeper significance to the resistance offeredby the patient in the reproduction of her memoriesand to make a careful collection of the occasions onwhich it was particularly marked" (p. 154). Freud’slater work mirrors the traditional, and commonlyheld, view of resistance being a defense against aware-ness that requires overcoming (Rowe, 1996). Beutler,Moleiro, and Talebi (2002) note that early cognitiveand behavioral therapists viewed resistance as a bar-rier to achieving therapeutic goals, but not as a note-worthy topic in and of itself. Eventually, researchersbegan to recognize the significance of resistance, anda large body of research specifically studying resist-ance currently exists.

CONTACT Codie J. Place cdavis6@fbi.gov Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC.� 2018 International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTHhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1485189

According to Knowles and Riner (2007), the sourceof resistance can be broken into three categories (a)reactance, (b) skepticism, and (c) inertia. The first cat-egory, reactance, is activated when a person feels asthough they are losing their freedom of choice. It is aterm that was coined by Brehm (1966) to explain anadverse emotional reaction when freedoms are threat-ened. There are varying degrees of reactance inaccordance with the types and levels of freedomsbeing threatened. This type of resistance is not“content” related, meaning that it is not activated bythe change that is proposed, but by the fact, the per-son feels their freedom to choose is reduced or elimi-nated. Knowles and Riner (2007) explain that thesource of this type of resistance “lies in the actions ofthe agent promoting the change” and that it “has littleto do with the specific change proposed” (p. 85).Fransen, Smit, and Verlegh (2015) further explain that“even when a message is not contrary to existingbeliefs or behavior or when the message is in thereceiver’s best interest, persuasive attempts are oftenperceived as an external threat to freedom” (p. 5).Reactance can be described as the affective attitude of“I don’t like it”.

The second category, skepticism, is rooted in thecontent. The receiver of the message is reacting to thechange that is being proposed. Research has shownthat some personality types are naturally more proneto experience skepticism (Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992), acognitive reaction that occurs through direct, indirect,and metacognitive analysis of the proposal (Knowles& Riner, 2007). Resistance is not a foregone outcomewith skepticism as it is with reactance and inertia.Skepticism can be described as the cognitive attitudeof “I don’t believe it”.

The final source of resistance is inertia, which isthe desire not to change. This type of resistance isparticularly challenging to address because it has littleto do with the proposal. People experiencing inertiaseek to maintain the status quo; they focus on thepast, not the future. Knowles and Riner (2007) notethat inertia can lead to the “seemingly paradoxicaloutcome where the influence target generally agreeswith the premises and propositions of an influenceattempt but still has no interest in making the change”(p. 89). Often a person experiencing inertia does noteven consider the proposal or its contents becausethey have no interest in change. Inertia can bedescribed as the behavioral attitude of “I won’t do it”.

We will mostly focus on reactance—“I don’t likeit”–because this type of resistance is produced by theagent promoting the change (Knowles & Riner, 2007).

This makes reactance of particular interest to thosedesiring to gather information from another person,such as clinicians. This also includes law enforcementconducting interviews. Although these two occupa-tions are quite different from each other, they sharethe common goal of obtaining information fromothers who are often reluctant to reveal. Both profes-sionals are attempting to obtain a “confession” ofsorts, containing honest information that the inter-viewee would just as soon not disclose. Gaining a bet-ter understanding of reactance has numerous benefits,including avoiding reactance in the first place andovercoming reactance when it does occur.

Overcoming resistance – alpha vs.omega strategies

There are two categories, so-called alpha and omegastrategies, to overcome resistance. The aptly namedalpha strategies are most commonly used first. Thesestrategies have been studied for some time and havebeen extensively researched. Knowles and Riner(2007) explain that alpha strategies, “add to the rea-sons to desire an alternative, [they] are effective onlybecause they overwhelm resistance” (p. 106). On theother hand, omega strategies are used less often andhave been recently defined and researched. Knowlesand Linn (2004) discuss how omega strategies,“attempt to persuade by decreasing avoidance forces.Thus, omega change strategies work by removing ordisengaging someone’s reluctance to change” (p. 118).Alpha strategies intend to move people toward thegoal by making the request more appealing. Inversely,omega strategies attempt to reduce resistance (avoid-ance forces), thereby moving a person toward the goalor request. They attempt to accomplish the same goalof compliance through opposite means. When itcomes to solutions for resistance, omega strategies arerelatively new but have great potential. Knowles andRiner (2007) elucidate that because omega strategiesreduce resistance, they make decisions “less conflictedand more satisfying” (p. 106). In psychodynamicterms, the psychotherapeutic interpretation of resist-ance as a defense against an impulse would be consid-ered an omega strategy.

Knowles and Linn (2004) and Knowles and Riner(2007) pulled literature together from clinical psych-ology, social psychology, communications, and mar-keting to develop a collection of omega strategies:avoid raising reactance, sidestep resistance, addressresistance directly, address resistance indirectly, dis-tract resistance, disrupt resistance, consume resistance,

2 C. J. PLACE AND J. R. MELOY

Table 1. Omega strategies summarized.Type of Resistance Risk Level Omega Strategy Explanation Example Research /Support

ReactanceLow Avoid raising reactance Do not take the freedom

of choice away"Of course it is upto you"

Brehm (1966)

Low Minimize the request Step by step, get themto agree to small requestthen increase request

"Even one detail" Freedman & Fraser (1966)

Cialdini andSchroeder (1976)Greene (2002)Brockner, Guzzi, Kane,Levine & Shaplen (1984)

Low Depersonalizethe request

Disavow personal author-ship, deny any ad homi-nem, use story

"It is policy" Wolf andMontgomery (1977)

Green, Strange &Brock (2002)

Moderate Redefine the relationship Minimize the influence ofthe relationship, makerelationship appear tobe continuing

“Let’s do this together” Jolson (1997)

Clark, Mills &Corcoran (1989)

Low The power of "Yes" The word no causesreactance, don't use no,use yes when-ever possible

"Yes and" or "Yes but" Erickson, Rossi, andRossi (1976)

Winter, Sagarin, Rhodes,Barrett & Cialdini (2000)Gollwitzer et al. (2004)

Low Acknowledge resistance Acknowledging the per-son might feel resistance

"I know you may notwant to but" or "I knowyou may not agree but"

Werner, Stoll, Birch, andWhite (2002)

High Jujitsu resistance Refocus the resistance ina different direction

Say the opposite of whatyou want

Erickson and Rossi (1975)

Wegner (1989)Low (if appropriatechoices are provided)

Providing choices Providing a choicebetween alternatives,avoid only one alterna-tive and take it or leaveit mentality

"Do you want to speakabout your mother oryour father"

Cline and Fay (1990)

Davis andO'Donohue (2004)Cialdini (2000)Higgins (1999)

High (depending on thepersonality ofthe person)

Resistance is futile Accept resistance butframe it as powerless

Should be communicatednonverbally by beingcalm, confident,and patient

Davis andO'Donohue (2004)

SkepticismHigh Counterargue resistance Strong counterarguments

that are communicatedgently (this is the key)

Counterarguments mustbe strong and not force-ful or there willbe boomerang

Allen (1991)

Williams andDolnik (2001)

High (delicate balancebetween too much andjust enough distraction)

Distract resistance Moderate distraction caninterfere with elaborationof a message, too muchdistraction is bad

Use environmental dis-tractions in the room tointerfere with mes-sage encoding

Petty, Wells, andBrock (1976)

Petty andWegener (1999)Sagarin, Britt, Heider,Wood, and Lynch (2003)

High (depending on thepersonality ofthe person)

Consume resistance Self-regulation is finiteand limited so it canbe depleted

Wear people down bylengthening interview;this is less effective withskeptical people

Muraven andBaumeister (2000)

Moderate Guarantees Most effective when con-cern about offer, providea guarantee about con-cern area

Pinpoint the resistanceand find a way to assureperson this will not bea problem

Walton (1992)

(Continued)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH 3

and use resistance to promote change. Knowles andRiner (2007) have organized the omega strategies intocategories based on the source of resistance (reactance,skepticism, and inertia) one is attempting to over-come. They have used available supporting research,but there is no empirical evidence to indicate that dif-ferent strategies are more effective with differentforms of resistance. Knowles and Riner (2007) assert,“logic suggests to us that the same strategies will bemore effective with one type of resistance than anoth-er” (p. 107). Further research would be advantageous.See Table 1 for a complete list of all omega strategiesdiscussed by Knowles and Riner (2007), includingtheir supporting research references.

A closer look at reactance

State vs. trait reactance

Although the concept of reactance has beenresearched for decades, it is still not fully understood.While it was initially viewed as a valuable

psychological concept, it has shown versatility whenapplied to other disciplines. Numerous studies havebeen conducted on reactance since its emergence, cre-ating a large body of existing research. But there is adistinction between trait reactance and state reactance.Trait reactance is how prone a person is to experiencereactance. It has been compared to and can bethought of as a personality trait (Hong & Faedda,1996). On the other hand, state reactance is a psycho-logical state that is situation-specific. This appears tobe in line with Brehm’s (1966) original theory ofreactance being a state. Shoham, Trost, andRohrbaugh (2004) suggest that what is currentlyreferred to as trait reactance does not represent theactual construct of state reactance as theorized byBrehm. Reactance in this article, unless otherwisespecified, refers to state reactance.

Trait reactance

People differ in the level of autonomy they desire andare comfortable with (Wicklund, 1974). Therefore,

Table 1. Continued.Type of Resistance Risk Level Omega Strategy Explanation Example Research /Support

Low Looking ahead Distance request fromcurrent time, make itseem in the dis-tant future

Create an abstract, psy-chologically dis-tant request

Trope andLiberman (2000)

Sherman, Crawford, andMcConnell (2004)Sagristano, Trope, andLiberman (2002)

Low (if you understandthe motivation ofthe person)

Change the comparison Judgment is based on animplicit comparison,make sure you under-stand person's motivationwith this strategy

75% lean vs. 25% fat Levin and Gaeth (1988)

Mussweiler (2002)Burger (1986)Cialdini et al. (1975)

Low Reframe the proposal Casting new meanings toan alternative, changefocal awareness

Can I smoke while I prayvs. can I pray whileI smoke

Armstrong (2004)

Catrambone, Beike, andNiedenthal (1996)Rothman andSalovey (1997)

InertiaModerate Disrupt inertia Use something unusual

or confusing to dis-rupt inertia

Agree or show noresponse when oppositeis expected

Santos, Leve, andPratkanis (1994)

Fennis, Das, andPruyn (2004)Davis and Knowles (1999)

Moderate (this couldboomerang infuture decisions)

Increase self-efficacy boost self-esteem/self-confidence to make per-son feel confident inmaking a decision

Have person write anunrelated affirmationthree times (have themuse a value they areproud of)

Jacks and O'Brien (2004)

Shimel, Arndt,Pyszczynski, andGreenberg (2001)

Source of information: Knowles and Riner (2007).

4 C. J. PLACE AND J. R. MELOY

people vary in their proneness to experience react-ance. Researchers have shown a positive associationwith trait reactance and autonomy, denial, dominance,independence, interpersonal mistrust, self-sufficiency,lack of conformity, and a lack of tolerance (Dowd,Wallbrown, Sanders & Yesenosky, 1994; Seibel &Dowd, 2001). Trait reactance can have an impact onstate reactance. Dillard and Shen (2005) found thatpeople with high trait reactance experienced greaterstate reactance than those people with lowtrait reactance.

Dowd (2002) explains that “some people are justnaturally more reactant than others” (p. 187). Overthe years he has conducted several studies and founddifferent personality disorders associated with differ-ent levels of reactance. Dowd (2002) notes that thosepersonality disorders who show high reactance includeborderline, obsessive-compulsive, sadistic and para-noid, while personality disorders with low reactanceinclude dependent, histrionic and avoidant. While thisis likely no surprise to clinicians, it does provide anadditional lens through which to view clients.

State reactance

Psychological Reactance Theory (PRT) explains thatstate reactance is a reaction that occurs when free-doms are threatened. Brehm (1966) initially postulatedthat reactance could not be empirically measured.However, Dillard and Shen (2005) introduced theintertwined model, which empirically supports thatreactance is a combination of a cognitive component(negative thoughts) and an emotional component(anger). This conclusion was supported by Kim,Levine, and Allen (2013), who found that reactance isindeed a mixture of anger and negative thoughts.

It is understandable that people would experiencereactance when they are faced with a direct threat totheir freedom. Research also supports that reactancecan be subtly aroused and can occur outside of con-scious awareness. Sittenthaler, Jonas, and Traut-Mattausch (2016) found that when people observe thefreedom of someone else being restricted, they experi-ence what was labeled vicarious reactance. The emerg-ing concept of vicarious reactance is believed to bedriven by cognitive processes instead of emotionalprocesses as in personal reactance (Sittenthaler et al.,2016), but could also be supported by the neurobiol-ogy of empathy.

Wellman and Geers (2009) found that participantsperformed the worst when they were primed withreactance and told they should be good at a task.

Chartrand, Dalton, and Fitzsimons (2007) demon-strated that subliminal priming could evoke reactance.In this study the participants were primed with thename of a controlling significant other; these partici-pants completed fewer of the anagrams correctly thanthose participants that were primed with the name ofa noncontrolling person (Chartrand et al. 2007).These studies could be particularly relevant to gather-ing information from interviewees, both in clinicalwork and law enforcement, because the people partici-pating in these interviews could have no choice but toattend the interview. This fact could significantlyreduce the freedom they are feeling and could act in away that subliminally primes them and makes themmore prone to experience reactance.

Measuring state reactance

Although many studies involving the concept of react-ance have been conducted throughout the years, fewtools exist to measure state reactance. Brehm (1966)believed that reactance was not something that couldbe measured. However, research in recent years hasyielded a handful of instruments to measure statereactance. Miron and Brehm (2006) suggested thatreactance could be directly assessed through measure-ment of the subjective experience that accompaniesthe urge to restore freedom. With the agreement thatstate reactance can be measured, the development of areliable, valid, and user-friendly instrument to meas-ure state reactance is imperative.

One of the most recently studied measures of react-ance is the Salzburger State Reactance Scale (SSR).This scale was used initially by Jonas et al. (2009) andmeasures the experience of reactance, aggressivebehavioral intentions and negative attitudes with 19items that are rated via a 5-point Likert-type scale.Empirical data support the validity of the SSR, withboth divergent and convergent measures, whileCronbach’s alpha and the inter-item correlations indi-cate an internally consistent scale (Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch, Steindl & Jonas, 2015). The validity of theSSR is further supported by its positive correlationwith the Dillard and Shen (2005) scale which hasbeen more thoroughly researched.

Dillard and Shen’s (2005) research suggests thatreactance can be measured using self-report assess-ments of cognition and emotion. Specifically, react-ance is a combination of negative cognition andanger, and when these two are measured a generalindex of reactance can be determined (Dillard &Shen, 2005). Statistics strongly support the intertwined

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH 5

model in Dillard and Shen’s (2005) research. Theintertwined model was compared to the dual-processmodel and was superior as evidenced by statisticalanalysis. The Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)was .94 for the intertwined model and .87 for the dualprocess model– a value of .90 indicates a good fit.The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation(RMSEA) was quite impressive for the intertwinedmodel at .006; the dual process model was .110. Avalue of .08 or lower indicates a good fit, but a valueof .06 or lower is preferred. This study builds a robustfoundation for the intertwined model, and otherresearchers continue to add to the body of empiricalsupport that exists for this model.

Quick (2012) conducted a comparison of theDillard and Shen (2005) measure and the Lindsey(2005) measure. The Lindsey (2005) measure was notcreated to measure psychological reactance; however,it is widely used to assess reactance and in literaturepertaining to reactance. Quick (2012) found that boththe Dillard and Shen (2005) measure and the Lindseymeasure were reliable with acceptable a of .90 and.93, respectively.

The Lindsey (2005) measure does not separate theconstructs of reactance (i.e., negative cognitions andanger). When assessing the validity of these twoscales, the convergent validity is superior in theDillard and Shen (2005) measure as it accounts formore variance and is a better fit for the data (Quick,2012). Quick’s (2012) comparison found that theLindsey (2005) model treats and measures reactanceas a unidimensional construct, while Dillard and Shen(2005) treat it as an algorithmic function of two con-structs: negative cognition and anger.

Another older measure is the Merz (1983)Questionnaire for the Measurement of PsychologicalReactance (QMPR). Further research on this scale hasfound it to be psychometrically unstable (Donnell,Thomas & Buboltz, 2001; Hong & Ostini, 1989;Tucker & Byers, 1987). The QMPR was originallywritten in German and later translated to English.Tucker and Byers (1987) discuss the possibility oftranslation loss being responsible for the lack ofinternal consistency. Regardless of the reason, thisscale does not have strong empirical support.

The intertwined model (Dillard & Shen, 2005) isthe most empirically supported state reactance instru-ment. This instrument measures perceived threat tofreedom, anger (emotional component) and negativecognitions (cognitive component). However, the nega-tive cognitions were measuring by coding responsesand analyzing them. This process is time and resource

intensive and causes researchers to give pause whenconsidering this instrument. Cho et al. (2016) utilizedthe emotional component measure in their study, butthe “cognitive state reactance dimension was notassessed because of the difficulty of using standardmeasurement approaches, which would require col-lecting and coding open-responses in a reliable wayfor thousands of observations in an online surveyadministered in multiple languages” (p. 11).

The absence of a more research-friendly method ofmeasuring the cognitive component is a gap thatneeds to be filled. The SSR utilized a self-reportmethod to measure negative attitudes, which is a stepin the right direction. However, it is unknown at thistime if the concepts of negative attitudes and negativecognitions can be used interchangeably when discus-sing the components of state reactance. Another draw-back of the SSR is its minimal amount ofempirical support.

There is far too much research that supports statereactance as a multidimensional construct to lend cre-dence to Lindsay’s (2005) model. It does not measurethe separate constructs of state reactance, which is acritical factor. Research (Quick, 2012) supports thatthis is an inferior model for measuring state reactance.The QMPR is also not recommended for use. There isempirical evidence supporting this measure as beingstatistically unstable.

Research (Rains, 2013) supports that the inter-twined model proposed by Dillard and Shen (2005)best fits the data, and as such is a strong model forthe experience of reactance. In accordance with thisinformation, it will be most useful to study the com-bination of negative cognition along with anger whendeveloping a new measure. Research (Dillard andShen, 2005; Rains, 2013) suggests that reactance is amultidimensional construct, and as such, it should bestudied in this manner to ensure the best chances ofcreating a reliable and valid measure.

Nesterkin (2013) discourages researchers fromusing structured questionnaires to investigate react-ance until “psychometrically sound measures of react-ance are developed or until existing measures areimproved satisfactorily” (p. 591). This is a clear indi-cation that empirically sound reactance measures arein short supply. While trait reactance measures doexist, we do not address them since the principlesupon which they are based are too far removed fromthe concept of state reactance. Although the develop-ment of a state reactance measure is a daunting task,it is the most accurate instrument to meas-ure reactance.

6 C. J. PLACE AND J. R. MELOY

Avoiding and overcoming reactance

“The most effective strategy to reduce reactance is notto raise it in the first place” (Knowles & Riner, 2007,p. 89). Achieving this goal can present a sizable chal-lenge, especially when dealing with those who aremore likely to experience state reactance. There arespecific groups of people who are more prone to statereactance based on their level of trait reactance. Thegood news is that communications research has con-tributed a wealth of information concerning theavoidance of reactance. Inevitably situations will occurwhere reactance is raised and will need to be over-come. In these situations, the omega strategies dis-cussed by Knowles and Riner (2007) can be utilized inan attempt to reduce reactance and obtain compli-ance. The most promising strategies are discussedbelow. The strategies discussed below fall within arapport-based interview model. Vrij et al. (2017) statethere is a growing body of evidence supporting thatrapport-based interviewing “encourage[es] a product-ive exchange and minimiz[es] reactance while offeringempathy and autonomy to the interviewee” (p. 934).

Language

One of the most, if not the most, effective strategiesto avoid triggering reactance revolves around lan-guage; word choice is paramount. Many clinicians andother interviewers may focus on the language they usefor other purposes, including relationship building,demonstrating empathy and demonstrating active lis-tening; however, it is unlikely many view languagethrough the lens of avoiding reactance. Coppola andGirandola (2017) discuss how several studies concern-ing reactance support that the way a message is“linguistically featured” is critically important (p. 2).

Dogmatic language triggers reactance. Quick andStephenson (2008) describe dogmatic language asbeing “characterized by forceful language that expli-citly pressures audiences to conform to a message” (p.450). While this specific linguistic feature has beenreferred to as assertive (Baek, Yoon, & Kim, 2015;Kronrod, Grinstein, & Wathieu, 2012), controlling(Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007),deductive appeals (Buller, Borland & Burgoon, 1998),dogmatic (Quick & Stephenson, 2008; Shen, 2014),domineering (Dillard, 2014; Quick, Shen & Dillard,2013), explicit (Grandpre, Alvaro, Burgoon, Miller &Hall, 2003; Quick & Stephenson, 2007; Wagner,Howland, & Mann, 2015), forceful (Dillard & Shen,2005; Quick & Considine, 2008) and threat-to-choice(Quick & Stephenson, 2007) language, the underlying

premise is the same: it is language that builds the illu-sion of limiting choice. As such, it should be avoidedif at all possible. Inversely, language “favoring a feel-ing of increased freedom” such as “it is up to you” or“but you are free to” can reduce reactance by nearly40% (Gueguen & Pascual, 2000, p. 266). The inter-viewer should consider adding these simple phraseswhen reactance is possible.

Vivid language also evokes more emotion and isoften perceived as posing a threat, making it highlylikely to cause reactance (Zillmann & Brosius, 2000).Vivid language includes using descriptive and graphicwords designed to help people gain a visual image(Quick & Stephenson, 2008). Instead, practitionersshould use pallid language, which is more general andbland. For example, a message using vivid languagewould state, “sun exposure causes skin blisters thatooze,” while pallid language would state “sun exposurecauses skin injuries” (Quick & Stephenson, 2008).LaVoie, Quick, Riles, and Lambert (2015) report thatgraphic imagery on cigarette warning labels increasesthreat to freedom, reactance, and is perceived as asource of domination. These studies provide strongsupport for not using language that is construed asvivid or graphic when attempting to avoid reactance.

Katz, Byrne and Kent (2016) argue that if the“situation is occurring at a closer distance and you arethinking about it very specifically, you are likely toperceive a greater threat to freedom than if the situ-ation is occurring in the future or you are thinkingabout it abstractly” (p. 2). This demonstrates theimportance of increasing the psychological distance ofthe request. If possible, the receiver should view themessage more abstractly. This is in line withWicklund (1974) who noted that increasing distanceimplies that the implications of one’s actions arediminished. The message is less likely to arouse react-ance. For the same reasons it is often wise to begininterviews with “there and then” questions, and latermove to questions of “here and now.”

Avoiding what researchers have termed scalaradverbs can also prevent reactance. Although no for-mal definition of scalar adverbs exists, Fraser (1990)explained them well: “[they do] not create mean-ing… but only orient the hearer… [and] areextremely useful guides for clarifying the speaker’scommunicative intention” (p. 390). These scalaradverbs include almost (Jarvella & Lundquist, 1994;Van Gerrevink & De Hoop, 2007; Winterstein &Schaden, 2011), already (Apotheloz & Nowakowska,2011; Michaelis, 1996), even (Kay, 1990; Snoeck-Henkemans, 2010), more than (Fahnestock, 1998;

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH 7

Jarvella & Mathieu, 2000), and only. Van Gerrevinkand de Hoop (2007) argue that given a situation“where reality does not support a certain point hewants to make, the speaker can use a formulationwith almost to make a statement that twists reality insuch a way that it does support the conclusion” (p.233). Coppola and Girandola (2017) explain that sca-lar adverbs are classified as argumentative markersbecause they attempt to be used when trying to forceothers to draw specific conclusions over others. Assuch, scalar adverbs could be interpreted as an appar-ent attempt to influence decision making which inturn could trigger reactance (Coppola & Girandola,2017). Attempts to persuade often cause the person toexperience reactance, as such it is best to avoid usingthem. Bigi (2016) reports that reactance is strength-ened by “the extent to which a message reveals thatthe sender [interviewer] believes s/he can control thereceiver [interviewee]” (p.3). The key here is the per-ception of the message, not the intention of the mes-sage. As such word choice by the interviewer isfundamental in preventing perceived control by theinterviewee. Once reactance is triggered, the quality ofthe argument is irrelevant, and the opportunity topersuade is diminished.

Argumentative markers (scalar adverbs), as dis-cussed above, have empirical data supporting theirimpact on reactance. There are additional linguisticmarkers that are thought to be relevant to reactance,specifically coherence markers and pragmatic markers.Although no research studying their relationship toreactance was located, these linguistic markers areworth discussing. Shen and Bigsby (2013) definecoherence markers as “grammatical tools that allowthe author to make an explicit connection betweenthe cause and result or evidence and conclusion”(p. 30). In other words, they simply help readersclearly understand when two thoughts are connected.There are two types of coherence markers, objectiveand subjective. Objective markers simply report acausal relation while subjective report an argumenta-tive causal relation (Kamalski, Lentz, Sanders &Zwaan, 2008). Consider the example posed byKamalski et al. (2008, p. 549).

1. In the TV series “Lost”, 48 people are stranded onan unknown island, because their plane crashed.

2. “Lost” is the best TV series of the last decade,because almost every episode contains a cliffhanger.

Sentence one uses because as an objective markerwhile sentence two uses because as a subjective marker

by positing that “Lost” is the best. Kamalski et al.(2008) theorize that coherence markers warn readersor listeners that an attempt to persuade them is goingto occur. Their studies have demonstrated that sub-jective coherence markers seem to cause the forewarn-ing effect and result in more resistance (Kamalskiet al., 2008). However, objective coherence markers donot cause the forewarning effect. The takeaway mes-sage for coherence markers is merely stating a causalrelationship using a coherence marker likely will notresult in reactance, while using a subjective coherencemarker overtly demonstrates the intent to persuadeand should be avoided.

Another relevant and interesting linguistic markeris the pragmatic marker. Furko (2017) explains thatalthough pragmatic markers don’t typically change thepropositional meaning of a statement, they do “markthe speaker’s attitude” about the proposition and“facilitate processes of pragmatic inferences” (p. 1).So, for all intents and purposes, pragmatic markerssimply convey the attitudes and inferences of thespeaker or writer. In the example, “Of course I wantto help”, the phrase “of course” serves as a pragmaticmarker. It does not change the meaning of the sen-tence, but it infers that the speaker’s attitude is likelysomething along the lines of “what is wrong with youor you should know I want to help”. Often people areunaware that they are using pragmatic markers andthe reaction these pragmatic markers can cause inothers. It is particularly important that interviewers beaware of and limit their use of pragmatic markersbecause they are often perceived as manipulative. Thiscan be particularly true when “look” is used as a prag-matic marker. Brinton (2001) studied the historicaltransition of “look” into a pragmatic marker. Forexample, “Look, the chocolate is superior to thevanilla” or “Look, that doesn’t change anything”.Preceding the thought with the pragmatic marker“look” can be interpreted as an attempt to control theconversation, draw attention, or disregard the opinionof another. The authors have noted the increasing useof the verb “look” to begin a response by TV pundits,and also the personal reactance—an irritating feelingof being controlled—by the second author.

A small amount of promising research exploringthe relationship between coherence markers andresistance exists. While this research does not expli-citly study reactance, it does provide insight into therelevance of coherence markers. Despite the fact thatno research was located examining the relationshipbetween pragmatic markers and reactance, applyingthe known information regarding reactance theory

8 C. J. PLACE AND J. R. MELOY

demonstrates how these linguistic markers relate toreactance. According to reactance theory, using “look”would elicit reactance because it removes freedom ofchoice by demanding control, attention, or agreement.

Table 2 summarizes the findings of languageresearch concerning reactance.

Eye contact

Eye contact has been historically discussed as a for-midable tool when it comes to combating resistance.Kleinke (1986) and Segrin (1993) both reported thatspeakers who made more eye contact with their audi-ence were rated as more persuasive, likable and com-petent. However, these studies focused on the speakerrather than the listener. Recently, Chen, Minson,Schone, & Heinrichs (2013) conducted a pioneeringstudy and found that eye contact decreases the successof attempts at persuasion. Their results also demon-strated that participants were less receptive to themessage being given and less receptive to futureexposure to the view presented when they maintainedeye contact with the speaker (Chen et al., 2013).These results could have occurred for a myriad of rea-sons. Direct eye contact has been shown to be

associated with potential threats (Adams, Gordon,Baird, Ambady & Kleck, 2003) and also with domin-ance in mammals (Bradshaw & Nott, 1995). As such,it is reasonable that too much direct eye contactincites reactance through a feeling of attempted dom-inance and/or a perceived threat. Yet too little eyecontact by the interviewer may arouse feelings of anx-iety, suspicion, or curiosity in the interviewee. Thenature and duration of eye contact (eye blocking, eye-lid flutter, eye gaze) are also influenced by culturaldifferences (Navarro, 2008). Although this is new andemerging research, caution should be taken when put-ting this into practice. Individual calibration of theeffect of length of eye contact with a particular inter-viewee is recommended.

Acknowledging resistance

Of the various omega strategies, one of the simplest ismerely acknowledging resistance. While the generalterm resistance is used throughout this section, thisstrategy is most effective at reducing reactance, asopposed to skepticism and inertia. This is likely thecase because acknowledging that the person has achoice keeps the person’s feeling of freedom intact. It

Table 2. Language strategies which avoid or trigger reactance.Avoiding Reactance

Strategy Example(s) Source(s)1. Make allusions to choice You have a chance to… Miller (2015)

We leave the choice to you… Quick and Stephenson (2008)Rains (2013)

2. Use qualified propositions There is some evidence… Miller (2015)This is fairly serious… Quick and Stephenson (2008)

Rains (2013)3. Use impartial, objective, fact-driven information Say “this movie contains violence" instead of

“viewer discretion is advised because this moviecontains violence”.

Bushman (1998)

Bushman (2006)4. Use pallid language Say “skin injury” instead of “blisters that ooze”. Quick and Stephenson (2008)

“Of course it is up to you…” Zillmann and Brosius (2000)5. Emphasize freedom “But you are free to…” Gueguen and Pascual (2000)6. Increase the psychological distance Move the request to the past or the future and

induce abstract thought about itKatz et al. (2016)

Triggering Reactance

Strategy Example(s) Source(s)1. Use imperatives You must… Miller (2015)

You need… Quick and Stephenson (2008)You will… .. Rains (2013)

2. Use absolute allegations You cannot deny… Miller (2015)This issue is extremely serious… Quick and Stephenson (2008)

Rains (2013)3. Use threats You will be sorry if… Bushman (1998)

Bushman (2006)4. Use vivid language “Blisters that ooze.” Quick and Stephenson (2008)

Zillmann and Brosius (2000)5. Use scalar adverbs Almost, already, even, more than and only Coppola and Girandola (2017)6. Decrease psychological distance Move the situation to the present and induce very

specific thoughts about it.Katz et al. (2016)

7. Derision towards other perspectives Any reasonable person would agree… Quick and Stephenson (2008)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH 9

may seem counterintuitive to some, however acknowl-edging resistance does not create resistance.“Acknowledging the resistance, labeling it and makingits role overt may have the paradoxical effect of defus-ing its power and rendering that resistance less influ-ential” (Knowles & Linn, 2004, p. 138). Knowles andRiner (2007) declare that “an acknowledgment ofresistance often has a dramatic effect on compliancerates” (p. 92). The mechanism for its effectivenessmay lie in empathy. An acknowledgment of resistancecommunicates empathy and allows the requester tojoin the person’s emotional experience (Knowles &Riner, 2007).

Linn and Knowles (2002) conducted two studiesthat found when resistance was acknowledged theacceptance rate of the statements was higher. Theresults were only statistically significant when thestatement was met with resistance (in this case tuition,which students care about). These results suggest thatacknowledging resistance diffuses it instead of empow-ering it. They also support the fact that acknowledgingresistance is best used when the person is likely goingto resist the request. Werner et al. (2002) found thatclinically validating resistance by acknowledging ithad a dramatic effect on compliance with recycling.They found that adding the statement “it may beinconvenient” (p. 200) to the recycling sign causedmore students to recycle even when the recycling binwas in an inconvenient location. HimmatPatil (2006)studied the impact of acknowledging resistance oncharitable giving and found that guilt- and empathy-induced giving increased with acknowledgment. Theincrease in guilt was statistically significant whileempathy was not (HimmatPatil 2006).

Knowles and Riner (2007) asked strangers to mail aletter. The first group was simply asked, “Would youmail this letter for me?” 71% agreed. The secondgroup was asked, “I know you might not want to, butwill you mail this letter for me?” 100% agreed(Knowles & Riner, 2007). The second study was setup similarly, but it involved giving change for theparking meter; 91% of people gave money whenresistance was acknowledged compared to only 58%when it was not. These studies show strong supportfor acknowledging resistance; however, the samplesize was small, and the results were not publishedindependently of the book chapter in a peer-reviewedjournal. Finally, a study conducted by Kemp andCreyer (2007) on attending the symphony orchestrafound that acknowledging the resistance people wereexperiencing was more effective than just emphasizingthe benefits of attending the orchestra.

Hours of combing through research studies pro-duced a disappointing number of research resultsdone involving omega strategies to reduce resistance.Knowles seems to be the researcher that predomin-ately uses the term “omega strategies”. The researchspecifically on acknowledging resistance is quitesparse. Initial findings are encouraging. However,these results need to be conducted on a larger scaleand replicated to be considered empirically valid. Ifvalidated, these findings could be very useful formany disciplines.

Provide choices

Another promising option when reactance is encoun-tered is to provide choices. As discussed throughoutthis article, reactance occurs when freedom is limited;providing choices can be an effective means to restorefreedom. The power of choice has been documentedby researchers (Cialdini, 2000; Dillard, 1991) for anumber of years. Knowles and Riner (2007) describehow providing choices allows competing desireswithin a person to be met. “The motivation to resistis satisfied in the rejected alternative at the same timethe approach motivation is satisfied in the acceptedalternative” (Knowles & Linn, 2004, p. 139). Higgins(1999) further explains that choosing one alternativewhile rejecting the other is self-satisfying because theperson is both promoting and protecting.

But the choices should be double-bind choices asdescribed by Erickson and Rossi (1975). These dou-ble-bind choices are still seen as choices, but theyboth “bind” the person to the same outcome. Forexample, asking a person, “do you prefer to discussyour mother or your father?” Knowles and Riner(2007) provide the example of moving a negotiationalong by asking, “Which is the more important issueto you, wages or job security?” (p. 94); regardless ofthe answer the negotiations are advanced. Knowlesand Riner (2007) note that the “double-bind worksbest when the choices are distinct and meaningfulbecause the control implied by the choice restoresdecisional freedom, which reduced reactance and pro-vides the chooser with a sense of efficacy” (p. 94).This is a promising option, but these choices shouldbe carefully planned and crafted to increase the oddsof success.

Just say yes

Winter, Sagarin, Rhodes, Barrett, and Cialdini (2000)report that advocating action yields higher compliance

10 C. J. PLACE AND J. R. MELOY

rates than prohibiting action. In essence, people showless reactance when they are told they should do some-thing than when they are told they cannot do some-thing. As such, simply implementing the word yes intoresponses can be powerful. These would include state-ments such as “Yes and…” or “Yes but…” (Knowles& Riner, 2007). The premise here is that the word notriggers reactance, so if possible, it is beneficial to beginthe question with yes and add a caveat. Considerationshould be given to whether “and” or “but” is used. AsMacLeod and Haworth (2016) point out, “and” givesthe response a routine characteristic while “but” canindicate incongruence or a problem.

When conducting studies involving deception,researchers often request that participants not discloseinformation by saying, “Please don’t tell other potentialparticipants that feedback from the other person wasfalse;” however, this forbids them from disclosing infor-mation and raises reactance (Gollwitzer, 1999;Gollwitzer, Fujita & Oettingen, 2004). Knowles andRiner (2007) suggest instead saying, “To help makesure that other people provide answers as useful asyours have been, please tell them that you and anotherperson answered some questions about each other” (p.92). Another example is explained by Knowles andRiner (2007): instead of a “Do not touch sign” on afragile piece of artwork, include a sign that says “Pleasetouch with your eyes.” This approach may not beappropriate with all people, especially those who areparticularly prone to reactance. However, situations willlikely occur where a carefully crafted response begin-ning with yes can assist in overcoming reactance.

Applying the strategies

As previously mentioned, avoiding reactance is opti-mal. This can be accomplished through several of thelinguistic strategies discussed above. For example, ifthere is a specific person or event that the intervieweehas skirted around and appears resistant to discuss,the interviewer could say, “There are some reasons todiscuss person X in due time, how about just onedetail, but it is up to you of course.” This employs acombination of the strategies mentioned above. Firstof all, the interviewer uses a qualified proposition bysaying “some” reasons while increasing the psycho-logical distance of the request by adding in due time.This will likely reduce or eliminate the intervieweefrom feeling forced into the discussion because thediscussion is not presented as being imminent. Therequest for just one detail minimizes the request (seeTable 1) by asking for just one piece of information.

Finally, the request ends with the phrase “it is up toyou of course” to emphasize freedom of choice andremind the interviewee they are not being forced intothe discussion.

Alternatively, the interviewer may make the samerequest by saying “We need to discuss person X now,we only have limited time together”. The interviewermight be attempting to convey urgency and motivatethe interviewee to discuss, in this case, this specificperson; but according to psychological reactance the-ory this request will cause reactance and have aboomerang effect. Breaking this down from a linguis-tic perspective gives insight into why this requestwould result in not obtaining the requested informa-tion. First of all, this request begins with the impera-tive “need,” which gives the illusion of limiting choice.The word “need” can be perceived as controlling andtrigger the threat to freedom that causes reactance.Next, the psychological distance and abstractness ofthis concept are reduced by using the word now. Thisplaces the conversation directly in front of the inter-viewee, which make them feel trapped, triggeringreactance. Finally, what was probably meant as amotivator contains the scalar adverb only. Scalaradverbs are theorized to be reactance-inducingbecause they attempt to manipulate interviewees bydistorting reality to serve the purpose of the inter-viewer. In this scenario, the interviewer could be per-ceived as attempting to manipulate the interviewee bydrawing attention to the limited amount oftime available.

If you have an interviewee whom you know orexpect to be averse to discussing any negative/trau-matic experiences, you could try using “You have thechance to discuss any unfavorable experiences” insteadof “Explain any traumatic experiences.” The firstrequest uses an allusion to choice by stating “youhave the chance;” this allows the person to feel asthough they are making the choice. This makes theperson feel the freedom to choose and as such react-ance will not be experienced. Having the freedom tochoose and not having the freedom to choose are, intheory, mutually exclusive, so if the interviewee feelsfree to choose reactance cannot exist. The secondstrategy employed here is the use of pallid languageversus vivid language. The term unfavorable is amuch blander way of asking about negative experien-ces than the word traumatic. As, Quick andStephenson (2008) and Zillmann and Brosius (2000)report, vivid language causes reactance, so pallid lan-guage is preferred to avoid reactance. The argumentcan be made that the words unfavorable and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH 11

traumatic are too far apart to be used interchangeablyin this context. However, if the interviewer begins atthe shallow end of the pool so to speak, the inter-viewee is much less likely to experience reactance andthus resist discussion of negative experiences of anysort. The goal of the interviewer in this example is tolinguistically craft a dialogue that will successfully leadthe interviewee to the deep end of the pool withoutexperiencing reactance.

While these examples might appear elementary, theyare intended to provoke thoughtful analysis of howquestions are worded in an interview. Practitioners, beit clinical or law enforcement, should approach thesestrategies as additions to their interview toolbox.Words have enormous power, which is often over-looked. MacLeod and Haworth (2016) point out thatlanguage is the means through which daily activitiesare accomplished; and as such, it is clear that the bestpractice of interviewing should be informed by socio-linguistic research. Try these strategies out in everydaylife, get comfortable using certain words over others,and watch reactance melt away.

Conclusion

We hope the information here has been presented ina way that is useful to many professional disciplines,including mental health, legal, intelligence, security,and law enforcement practitioners. These strategiescan be applied in a multitude of settings in order toprevent and overcome resistance and reactance. Wehave found them helpful when attempting to gatherinformation from difficult individuals who are proneto resist such requests. The relationship of the inter-viewer to the interviewee will vary—a patient, client,defendant, interviewee, suspect, person of interest,prisoner, or victim—but resistance often seemsimmutable when it appears.

Disclaimer

The opinions of the authors in this article are theirown and do not in any way reflect official policy orpositions of the FBI.

References

Adams, R. B., Gordon, H. L., Baird, A. A., Ambady, N., &Kleck, R. E. (2003). Effects of gaze on amygdala sensitiv-ity to anger and fear faces. Science, 300, 1536.

Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasive-ness of one-sided and two-sided messages. WesternJournal of Speech Communication, 55, 390–404.

Apotheloz, D., & Nowakowska, M. (2011). Deja en emploijustificatif. In G. Corminboeuf & M. J. Beguelin (Eds.),Du syst�eme linguistique aux actions langagi�eres (pp.249–261). Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck-Duculot.

Arkowitz, H. (2002). Toward an integrative perspective onresistance to change. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58,219–227.

Armstrong, J. S. (2004). Advertising and the science of per-suasion. Unpublished manuscript, Wharton School ofBusiness, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Baek, T. H., Yoon, S., & Kim, S. (2015). When environmen-tal messages should be assertive: Examining the moderat-ing role of effort investment. International Journal ofAdvertising, 34, 135–157.

Beutler, L. E., Moleiro, C., & Talebi, H. (2002). Resistancein psychotherapy: What conclusions are supported byresearch? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(2), 207–217.

Bigi, S. (2016). Communication skills for patient engage-ment: Argumentation competencies as means to preventor limit reactance arousal, with an example from theItalian healthcare system. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 10.

Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Nott, H. M. R. (1995). Social andcommunication behaviour of companion dogs. In Serpell,J. (Ed.), The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour, andinteractions with people (pp. 115–130). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance.New York: Academic Press.

Brinton, L. J. (2001). From matrix clause to pragmaticmarker: The history of look-forms. Journal of HistoricalPragmatics, 2(2), 177–199.

Brockner, J., Guzzi, B., Kane, J., Levine, E., & Shaplen, K.(1984). Organizational fundraising: Further evidence onthe effect of legitimizing small donations. Journal ofConsumer Research, 11, 611–614

Buller, D. B., Borland, R., & Burgoon, M. (1998). Impact ofbehavioral intention on effectiveness of message features:Evidence from the family sun safety project. HumanCommunication Research, 24, 433–453.

Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improvingthe deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 277–283.

Bushman, B. J. (1998). Effects of warning and informationlabels on consumption of full-fat, reduced-fat, and no-fatproducts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 97–101.

Bushman, B. (2006). Effects of warning and information labelson attraction to television violence in viewers of differentages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2073–2078.

Catrambone, R., Beike, D., & Niedenthal, P. (1996). Is theself-concept a habitual referent in judgments of similar-ity? Psychological Science, 7(3), 158–163.

Chartrand, T. L., Dalton, A. N., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007).Nonconscious relationship reactance: When significantothers prime opposing goals. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 43, 719–726.

Chen, F. S., Minson, J. A., Schone, M., & Heinrichs, M. (2013).In the eye of the beholder: Eye contact increases resistanceto persuasion. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2254–2261.

Cho, Y. J., Thrasher, J. F., Swayampakala, K., Yong, H.-H.,McKeever, R., Hammond, D., … Borland, R. (2016).Does reactance against cigarette warning labels matter?Warning label responses and downstream smoking

12 C. J. PLACE AND J. R. MELOY

cessation amongst adult smokers in Australia, Canada,Mexico and the United States. PLoS One, 11(7).

Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence: Science and practice. NewYork: Allyn & Bacon.

Cialdini, R. B., & Schroeder, D. (1976). Increasing compliance bylegitimizing paltry contributions: When even a penny helps.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 599–604.

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J.,Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal conces-sions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 31(2), 206–215.

Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Corcoran, D. M. (1989). Keepingtrack of needs and inputs of friends and strangers.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 533–542.

Cline, F. W., & Fay, J. (1990). Parenting with love and logic:Teaching children responsibility. Colorado Springs, CO:NavPress.

Coppola, V., & Girandola, F. (2017). When increasing thestrength of the argument becomes counterproductive:The role of argumentative markers in the arousal of thepsychological reactance. Journal of Language and SocialPsychology, 1, 22.

Davis, B. P., & Knowles, E. S. (1999). A disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 192–199.

Davis, D., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2004). The road to perdi-tion: “Extreme influence” tactics in the interrogationroom. In W. T. O’Donohue & E. Levensky (Eds.)Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 897–996). NewYork: Elsevier Academic Press.

Dillard, J. P. (1991). The current status of research onsequential-request compliance techniques. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 283–288.

Dillard, J. P. (2014). Language, style, and persuasion. InT. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of languageand social psychology (pp. 177–187). Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactanceand its role in persuasive health communication.Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168.

Donnell, A. J., Thomas, A., & Buboltz, W. C. Jr. (2001).Psychological reactance: Factor structure and internalconsistency of the questionnaire for the measurement ofpsychological reactance. The Journal of Social Psychology,141(5), 679–687.

Dowd, T. (2002). Resistance in cognitive therapy. InT. Scrimali, & L. Grimaldi (Eds.), Cognitive psychotherapytoward a new millennium: Scientific foundations and clin-ical practice (pp. 187–189). New York, NY: SpringerScienceþBusiness Media, LLC.

Dowd, E. T., Wallbrown, F., Sanders, D., & Yesenosky,J. M. (1994). Psychological reactance and its relationshipto normal personality variables. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 18, 601–612.

Edmundson, M. (2010). The death of Sigmund Freud: Thelegacy of his last days. New York: Bloomsbury.

Erickson, M. H., & Rossi, E. L. (1975). Varieties of doublebind. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 17(3), 143–157.

Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L., & Rossi, S. (1976). Hypnoticrealities: The induction of clinical hypnosis and forums ofindirect suggestion. New York: Irvington.

Fahnestock, J. (1998). Accommodating science: The rhet-orical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 15,330–350.

Fennis, B. M., Das, E. H. H. J., & Pruyn, A. T.H. (2004). Ifyou can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them withnonsense: Extending the impact of the disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 14(3), 280–290.

Fransen, M. L., Smit, E. G., & Verlegh, P. W. (2015).Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: Anintegrative framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 12.

Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers.Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383–395.

Freedman, J. L. & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance withoutpressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.

Freud, S. (1955). Studies on hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed.),The standard edition of the complete psychological worksof Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2, pp. 1893–1895, 135–181).London: Hogarth Press.

Furko, P. (2017). Manipulative uses of pragmatic markers inpolitical discourse. Palgrave Communications, 3, 1–8.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strongeffects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54,493–503.

Gollwitzer, P. M., Fujita, K., & Oettingen, G. (2004).Planning and the implementation of goals. In R. F.Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regula-tion: Research, theory and application (pp. 211–228). NewYork: Guilford Press.

Grandpre, J. R., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., &Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smokingcampaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication,15, 349–366.

Greene, B. (2002). Get with the program: Getting real aboutyour weight, health, and emotional well-being. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Green, M. C., Strange, J. J., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). (2002).Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.

Gueguen, N., & Pascual, A. (2000). Evocation of freedomand compliance: The but you are free of … technique.Current Research in Social Psychology, 5(18), 264–269.

Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and per-suasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistenceand resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 63(2), 308–319.

Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention as a motiv-ational duality: Implications for evaluative processes. In S.Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in socialpsychology (pp. 503–525). New York: Guilford Press.

HimmatPatil, V. (2006). Appeals with negative emotions andstrategies to reduce resistance to persuasion: An applicationin the context of charitable solicitations (Ph.D.). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Global. (305319480).

Hong, S.-M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hongpsychological reactance scale. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 56(1), 173–182.

Hong, S.-M., & Ostini, R. (1989). Further evaluation ofMerz’s psychological reactance scale. PsychologicalReports, 64, 707–710.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH 13

Jacks, J. Z., & O’Brien, M. E. (2004). Decreasing resistanceby affirming the self. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn(Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 235–257). Mahwah,NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Jarvella, R. J., & Lundquist, R. (1994). Scales in the interpret-ation of words, sentences, and texts. Journal of Semantics,11, 171–198.

Jarvella, R. J., & Mathieu, S. (2000). On judging quantitiesin text without expert knowledge. In R. Lundquist & R. J.Jarvella (Eds.), Language, text and knowledge (pp.261–284). New York, NY: Mouton De Gruyter.

Jolson, M. A. (1997). Broadening the scope of relationshipselling. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,17, 75–88

Jonas, E., Graupmann, V. N., Kayser, D., Zanna, M., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Frey, D. (2009). Culture, self, and theemergence of reactance: Is there a “universal” freedom?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5),1068–1080.

Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R., A. (2008).The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persua-sive discourse: Evidence from persuasion and processing.Discourse Processes, 45(6), 545–579.

Katz, S. J., Byrne, S., & Kent, A. I. (2016). Mitigating theperception of threat to freedom through abstraction anddistance. Communications Research, 1, 24.

Kay, J. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 59–111.Kemp, E., & Creyer, E. H. (2007). Increasing persuasion,

reducing resistance: Maximizing the efficacy of persuasiveappeals for aesthetic product consumption. Advances inConsumer Research, 34, 337–339.

Kim, S., Levine, T., & Allen, M. (2013). Comparing separateprocess and intertwined models for reactance.Communication Studies, 64(3), 273.

Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A researchreview. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 78–100.

Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Approach-avoidancemodel of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies forchange. In E. S. Knowles, & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistanceand Persuasion (pp. 117–148). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Knowles, E. S., & Riner, D. D. (2007). Omega approaches topersuasion: Overcoming resistance. In A. R. Pratkanis(Ed.), The science of social influence (pp. 83–114). NewYork, NY: Psychology Press.

Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green!Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journalof Marketing, 76, 95–102.

LaVoie, N. R., Quick, B. L., Riles, J. M., & Lambert, N. J.(2015). Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effectivemessage strategy? A test of psychological reactance theoryand source appraisal. Communication Research, 1, 21.

Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers areaffected by the framing of attribute information beforeand after consuming the product. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15(3), 374–378.

Lindsey, L. L. M. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behavioralmotivation: An examination of appeals to help unknownothers through bone marrow donation. HumanCommunication Research, 31, 453–481.

Linn, J. A., & Knowles, E. S. (2002, May). Acknowledging tar-get resistance in persuasive messages. Paper presented at

the Midwestern Psychological Association Convention,Chicago.

MacLeod, N., & Haworth, K. (2016). Developing a linguisticallyinformed approach to police interviewing. In R. Lawson, &D. Sayers (Eds.), Sociolinguistic research: Application andimpact (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Routledge.

Merz, J. (1983). Fragebogen zur Messung derPsychologischen Reaktanz [Questionnaire for MeasuringPsychological Reactance. ]. Diagonistica, 29, 75–82.

Messer, S. B. (2002). A psychodynamic perspective onresistance in psychotherapy: Viva la resistance. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 58, 157–163.

Michaelis, L. A. (1996). On the use and meaning of already.Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 477–502.

Miller, C. H. (2015). Persuasion and psychological reactance:The effects of explicit, high-controlling language. In: SchulzeR., Pishwa H. (eds). The exercise of power in communication(p. 269–286). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., &Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promo-tional health messages: The effects of controlling lan-guage, lexical concreteness, and the restoration offreedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219–240.

Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory –40 years later. Zeitschrift F€ur Sozialpsychologie, 37, 9–18.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation anddepletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemblea muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259.

Mussweiler, T. (2002). The malleability of anchoring effects.Experimental Psychology, 49(1), 67–72.

Navarro, J. (2008). What every body is saying. New York:HarperCollins.

Newman, C. A. (2002). A cognitive perspective on resist-ance in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58,165–174.

Nesterkin, D. A. (2013). Organizational change and psycho-logical reactance. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, 26(3), 573–594.

Perls, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt ther-apy: Excitement and growth in the human personality.New York: Julian.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likeli-hood model: Current status and controversies. In S.Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in socialpsychology (pp. 37-72). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distractioncan enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thoughtdisruption versus effort justification. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 34, 874–884.

Quick, B. L. (2012). What is the best measure of psycho-logical reactance? An empirical test of two measures.Health Communication, 27, 1–9.

Quick, B. L., & Considine, J. R. (2008). Examining the use offorceful language when designing exercise persuasive mes-sages for adults: A test of conceptualizing reactance arousalas a two-step process. Health Communication, 23, 483–491.

Quick, B. L., Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2013). Reactance theoryand persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sagehandbook of persuasion: Advances in theory and research(2nd ed., pp. 167–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2007). Further evidencethat psychological reactance can be modeled as a

14 C. J. PLACE AND J. R. MELOY

combination of anger and negative cognitions.Communication Research, 34, 255–276.

Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examining therole of trait reactance and sensation seeking on perceivedthreat, state reactance, and reactance restoration. HumanCommunication Research, 34, 448–476.

Rains, S. (2013). The nature of psychological reactancerevisited: A meta-analytic review. Human CommunicationResearch, 39, 47–73.

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptionsto motivate healthy behavior: The role of message fram-ing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.

Rowe, C. E. (1996). The concept of resistance in self psych-ology. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 50(1), 66–74.

Sagarin, B. J., Britt, M. A., Heider, J. D., Wood, S. E., &Lynch, J. E. (2003). Bartering Our Attention: TheDistraction and Persuasion Effects of On-LineAdvertisements. Cognitive Technology, 8(2), 4–17.

Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2002). Time-dependent gambling: Odds now, money later. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 364–376.

Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Heybuddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful persua-sion and the pique technique. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 24(9), 755–764.

Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001).Being accepted for who we are: Evidence that social valid-ation of the intrinsic self reduces general defensiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 35–52.

Segrin, C. (1993). The effects of nonverbal behavior on out-comes of compliance gaining attempts. CommunicationStudies, 44, 169–187.

Shen, L. (2014). Antecedents to psychological reactance:The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. HealthCommunication, 30, 975–985.

Shen, L., & Bigsby, E. (2013). The effects of message fea-tures: Content, structure and style. In J. P. Dillard, & L.Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion:Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 20–35).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Sherman, S. J., Crawford, M. T., & McConnell, A. R.(2004). Looking ahead as a technique to reduce resistanceto persuasive attempts. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn(Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 149–174). Mahwah,NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Shoham, V., Trost, S. E., & Rohrbaugh, M. J. (2004). Fromstate to trait and back again: Reactance theory goes clin-ical. In R. A. Wright, J. Greenberg, and S. S. Brehm (Eds.),Motivational analyses of social behavior: Building on JackBrehm’s contributions to psychology (pp. 167–185). NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Seibel, C. A., & Dowd, E. T. (2001). Personality characteris-tics associated with psychological reactance. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 57, 963–969.

Sittenthaler, S., Jonas, E., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2016).Explaining self and vicarious reactance: A process modelapproach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,42(4), 458–470.

Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., Steindl, C., & Jonas, E.(2015). Salzburger State Reactance Scale (SSR Scale):

Validation of a scale measuring state reactance. ZeitschriftFur Psychologie, 223(4), 257–266.

Snoeck-Henkemans, F. (2010). “Anyway”. And “Even” asindicators of complex argumentation. Cogency: Journal ofReasoning and Argumentation, 2, 81–94.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal andtime-dependent changes in preference. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876–889.

Tucker, R. K., & Byers, P. Y. (1987). Factorial validity ofMerz’s psychological reactance scale. PsychologicalReports, 61, 811–815.

Van Gerrevink, R., & de Hoop, H. (2007). On the optimaluse of almost and barely in argumentation. In M. Aloni,P. Dekker, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16thAmsterdam Colloquium (pp. 229–235). Amsterdam,Netherlands: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.

Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., Fisher, R. P., Kassin, S. M.,Morgan, C. A. III, & Kleinman, S. M. (2017).Psychological perspectives on interrogation. Perspectiveson Psychological Science, 12(6), 927–955.

Walton, S. (1992). Sam Walton: Made in America. NewYork: Bantam Books.

Wagner, H. S., Howland, M., & Mann, T. (2015). Effects ofsubtle and explicit health messages on food choice.Health Psychology, 34, 79–82.

Wegner, D. M. (1989). White bears and other unwantedthoughts: Suppression, obsession and the psychology ofmental control. New York: Penguin Books.

Wellman, J. A., & Geers, A. L. (2009). Rebel without a (con-scious) cause: Priming a nonconscious goal for psycho-logical reactance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,31(1), 9.

Werner, C. M., Stoll, R., Birch, P., & White, P. H. (2002).Clinical validation and cognitive elaboration: Signs thatencourage sustained recycling. Basic and Applied SocialPsychology, 24(3), 185–203.

Wicklund, R. A. (1974). Freedom and reactance. Potomac,MD: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, K. D., & Dolnik, L. (2001). Revealing the worst first:Stealing thunder as a social influence strategy. In J. P. Forgas& K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirectprocesses (pp. 213–231). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Winter, P. L., Sagarin, B. J., Rhoads, K., Barrett, D. W., &Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Choosing to encourage or dis-courage: Perceived effectiveness of prescriptive versusproscriptive messages. Environmental Management,26(6), 589–594.

Winterstein, G., & Schaden, G. (2011). Relevance and utilityin an argumentative framework: An application to theaccommodation of discourse topics. In A. Lecomte & S.Troncon (Eds.), Ludics, dialogue and interactions (pp.134–146). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmis-sible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to dis-regard on the judgments of mock juries. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 7, 205–219.

Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H. (2000). Exemplification in com-munication: The influence of case reports on the percep-tions of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.