People resent attempts
to interfere with their
behavior

Paul had a reputation in the company for holding strong opinions and for being quick to share them with others.

At the selection meeting, committee members reviewed the applications of three candidates for a newly created managerial position that dealt with Web-based marketing. Paul argued strongly for his preferred candidate. He used a loud and forceful tone of voice, was very intense with his body language, and he rose from his seat several times to write down the reasons for his preference on a chalkboard.

Paul took so much time defending his candidate that other selection committee members had few opportunities to speak. When one other member used the little time she had to discuss another candidate, Paul seemed disinterested and looked at his watch several times.

At the end of the meeting, the committee members wrote down their preferences on secret ballots and placed them in a box. Later, when the results of the vote were announced, Paul was displeased to learn that his preferred candidate received only two votes.

Paul has encountered an example of reactance. When people have freedoms taken away from them, they react in a negative manner. The people then seek out attempts to reassert their freedoms and behave in ways of their own choosing.

Parents are familiar with this phenomenon. They present their preferences to their teenage children: Obey curfews, don't drink alcohol, don't drive above the speed limit, make sure your homework is done before talking to friends on cell phones. But teenagers often react in a negative manner. They feel that some of their cherished freedoms are being taken away by their unreasonable parents. So they make attempts to reassert their freedoms through behaviors that they freely choose. They make choices to be careless about curfews, alcohol use, freeway driving, and homework.

Reactance can be especially problematic with adolescents whose ability to think about the consequences of behaviors is not fully developed.

In the case of the selection committee considering candidates for promotion, Paul is interfering with people's freedoms. These freedoms include speaking up in favor of one's preferred candidate, engaging in mature and professional discussion of issues and listening to the opinions of all selection committee members.

Paul took up so much time during the meeting that he did not give others opportunities to speak and to communicate with one another. The others then made attempts to reassert themselves.

When members of the selection committee filled out their secret ballots, they voted for the candidates they felt were the best qualified, and their preferences were different from Paul's.

In democratic elections, reactance is common when there is bombastic rhetoric concerning a referendum or political candidate. People can be quiet and passive when listening to the rhetoric. But their silence should not be taken as agreement with the positions being argued or the candidates being touted.

People can very quietly go to the privacy of voting booths and voice opinions opposite to those that have been voiced by loud and vociferous activists.

At times, they will assert their freedom by making a point of voting against the positions and candidates favored by the most strident and most boisterous activists.

In next week's column, I'll discuss how people can communicate their opinions and at the same time not become the victims of reactance.