Why We Don't Like to Be Told What to Do

Source: A3pfamily/Shutterstock

“Would you like an apple or a banana?”

“No, I want an orange!”

Ever since my now 12-year-old son was a toddler, this has been our typical exchange. He just cannot help but want to do the opposite of what we ask him, or choose whatever option is not in the set.

This tendency to go against the grain is called psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Reactance is usually activated when we feel that our freedom is threatened. When we perceive that someone or something is trying to influence us to do something against our will, reactance arises. Reactance motivates us to protect our own beliefs and views, and sometimes, to do the opposite of what we’re being asked to do.

Some individuals (like my son) are predisposed to resist and oppose any influence perceived as a restriction on their autonomy. They have naturally high trait reactance, a personality characteristic of those who resist any and all attempts at influencing them. Highly reactant individuals do not like to be told what to do, and they do not like anyone influencing them (Hong, 1992).

Not liking to be told what to do also varies by culture. I would call this cultural reactance. For instance, the well-known American spirit of independence marks a cultural tendency to protect one’s freedom, alongside a strong drive to be autonomous. The issue of getting Americans to wear masks in the pandemic is a more recent, though certainly not singular, example of how many individuals in the U.S. want to choose what to do—not be told what to do.

In contrast, in more collectivistic cultures that tend to value the group over the individual, people tend to follow the rules without questioning their motives. For instance, mask-wearing appears to be much more accepted in collectivistic cultures like India, where people tended to comply with the government-mandated mask-wearing, resulting in significant drops in contamination.

These cultural differences are visible in how parents teach their kids: parents in collectivistic cultures are more likely to teach their children obedience and respect for authority; whereas parents in more individualistic cultures, like the U.S., encourage their children to be more independent, to grow up to be autonomous, and to think and act for themselves (Park and Lau 2016).

But regardless of our natural or cultural inclinations, sometimes following orders is in our best interest. We should wear a seat belt when we drive, we should stop at red lights, and we should not text and drive. And, during a pandemic, we should follow the guidance of public health officials.

In this particular instance, the natural and cultural inclination of some people to resist any and all forms of "influence" is posing a serious challenge to public health campaigns. Those who still refuse to wear masks during this pandemic may feel that if they did, their freedom of choice would be taken away. Their reactance is activated because they feel that the mask mandate impedes their freedom.

Many studies have shown that reactance explains why many health campaigns fail. Whether those campaigns try to motivate people to floss more or to drink less alcohol, if their messages trigger reactance, their impact weakens or dies altogether.

Lessons From Advertising

Public health experts who want people to follow the rules and parents who struggle to get their reactant kids to do what they should do can learn a thing or two from advertisers’ playbooks. Advertisers have long used the power of subtle persuasion to influence what we do without triggering our reactance. They know how to seamlessly make their message resonate with us in ways that give us the illusion that it was our idea all along.

How do advertisers do it? By bypassing our cognitive defenses. Rarely will you see advertisements using forceful messages like "you must buy this or else…" Instead, they prefer indirect influence strategies: "Everyone is buying this" makes people want it because of the implicit influence of social norms. "Short supply—get yours before they’re all gone!" creates an urgency to buy something before it’s gone. "Check out what this social media influencer is wearing!" works through aspirational influences.

Even highly reactant individuals can get "tricked" into these subtle influences because it is difficult to perceive indirect advertising messages as an order, and therefore, they are not a threat to freedom. We suddenly have the illusion of choice when in fact, we are being heavily persuaded using tried-and-true psychology tactics that play into our need to belong—without threatening our identity as independent thinkers.

Health Essential Reads

The Patient Safety Risk Model

Is Vitamin D Supplementation an Evidence-Based Practice?

The best advertising slogans are those that evoke an emotional response, and that prompt consumers to act without seeming forceful. Nike does not tell us to "Just Buy It," because that would be too direct. Instead, slogans motivate us to make our own "choices," while implying what the correct choice is (theirs). McDonald's asks us if we’ve had a break today—then, we can choose to take that break by getting their hamburger. Advertisers know that they will sell more stuff if they make people want to buy something without directly telling them to.

Don’t get me wrong: Sometimes reactance can be adaptive. In fact, I have found evidence of the potential benefits of reactance in my own research. Being aware and resisting someone trying to unduly influence us can keep kids (and adults!) from succumbing to peer pressure and not following blindly what advertisers signal to us. And yes, questioning authority can generate positive social change.

But, when the influence attempt is for our own good—whether parents trying to parent or public health experts trying to get us to do the "right" thing—the gut reaction to fight and say no isn’t as useful. By understanding the triggers that cause us to impulsively make choices that may not actually be in our best interest, we can make choices that not only tap into our desire to remain autonomous, but that also lead to optimal outcomes.