I’m Not Privileged! Language, Reactance, and Resistance.

Disclaimer: If the word privilege makes your palms sweaty and your heart race, you should absolutely read this article, though let’s be real, you probably won’t (and that’s kind of the point). But for those ready to lean in, let’s ask the real questions: Why is it so hard for some white folks to hear the word privilege without spiraling into a defensive meltdown? Is it the fear of accountability? A misunderstanding of what privilege actually means? Or is it just plain old reactance, as in, “You can’t tell me I’ve had it easier!” Let’s chat: How can we move past the knee-jerk reactions and open the door to meaningful conversations about equity? Let me know your thoughts unless, of course, you’re too busy clutching your pearls. Then clutch on baby!

Reactance and Resistance: Why is it so Hard to talk to White people about Privilege? Why do some people resist change, even when it benefits everyone?

One answer lies in psychological reactance, a concept that explains why people push back when they feel their freedom is under threat. From teenage rebellion to protests against face masks, reactance theory reveals how the fear of losing autonomy can lead to defiance. But what happens when this theory intersects with the deeply rooted biases of white resistance?

Psychological reactance, first proposed by Jack W. Brehm in 1966, is a motivational state triggered when individuals perceive their freedoms as being threatened or restricted. This theory has since become a cornerstone of psychological research, offering insights into resistance behaviors across various domains, including health, marketing, education, and politics. This summary provides a detailed overview of reactance theory, its underlying mechanisms, and its implications based on the comprehensive review by Steindl et al. (2006). Additionally, it explores how reactance disproportionately impacts marginalized groups, particularly in the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

In this blog, we’ll explore how psychological reactance fuels opposition to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, particularly among those who see such initiatives as threats to their status or privilege. Spoiler alert: DEI isn’t the problem. It’s the perceived loss of dominance that sparks resistance. Let’s dive into the history, the science, and the societal implications of this clash.

Reactance Theory 101: The Forbidden Fruit Effect

Jack W. Brehm’s psychological reactance theory, developed in 1966, is simple yet powerful: when people feel their freedom is restricted, they react by trying to reclaim it — often by doing the exact opposite of what they’re told. This “forbidden fruit” effect makes the restricted option more desirable, whether it’s a teenager sneaking out past curfew or someone refusing to wear a mask during a pandemic.

Four key elements drive reactance:

1. Perceived Freedom: People must believe they have autonomy over their choices.
2. Threat to Freedom: Any rule, suggestion, or policy that feels restrictive can trigger reactance.
3. Reactance Response: Emotional reactions like anger or frustration arise.
4. Restoration of Freedom: Individuals push back to reclaim their autonomy, often in irrational or oppositional ways.

While reactance is universal, its intensity depends on the perceived importance of the threatened freedom.

At its core, reactance theory posits that individuals value their freedoms and will strive to reclaim them when they perceive them to be under threat. Reactance is characterized by unpleasant motivational arousal, leading to emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses aimed at restoring the threatened freedom. The magnitude of reactance depends on two primary factors:

1. Importance of the Threatened Freedom: The more significant the perceived freedom, the stronger the reactance.
2. Magnitude of the Threat: Greater restrictions result in heightened reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981).

Threats to freedom can arise internally (self-imposed constraints) or externally (social or situational influences). These threats elicit various responses, including anger, frustration, and efforts to restore autonomy. Behavioral responses may involve direct restoration (engaging in the restricted behavior), indirect restoration (observing others perform the behavior), or aggression aimed at removing the source of the threat.

Reactance and Marginalized Groups

Reactance theory takes on a new dimension when applied to marginalized groups and DEI initiatives. Efforts to create equity and inclusion often challenge systemic privileges, leading to heightened reactance among those who perceive these changes as threats to their dominance or autonomy. For example:

• Resistance to DEI Policies: Research shows that individuals in privileged groups may experience reactance when DEI initiatives are framed as mandates, perceiving these policies as restrictions on their freedom to maintain the status quo (Steindl et al., 2006).
• White Fragility and Reactance: Robin DiAngelo’s concept of white fragility aligns with reactance theory, as privileged individuals often react defensively to discussions of race and systemic inequities. This defensive behavior stems from the perceived threat to their social standing.
• Impact on Marginalized Groups: While privileged individuals may exhibit reactance to DEI efforts, marginalized groups often face the fallout. Resistance to equity measures can stall progress, reinforce systemic barriers, and perpetuate exclusion, creating a cycle of inequity that is difficult to break (Steindl et al., 2015).

The Historical Roots of Reactance and Resistance

Reactance and white resistance aren’t new. They’ve been part of every major push for social change:

• Civil Rights Movement: Desegregation was met with fierce opposition, with white communities framing integration as a threat to their way of life.
• Affirmative Action (1970s): Policies aimed at correcting systemic inequities were labeled as unfair and discriminatory against white people, despite evidence to the contrary.
• Black Lives Matter (2020): Protests calling for racial justice were met with backlash, with critics claiming the movement was divisive or anti-police.

In each case, the perceived loss of privilege sparked reactance, overshadowing the broader goals of equity and justice.

Cultural and Contextual Influences on Reactance

Reactance is influenced by cultural and individual differences. Research highlights the role of self-construal — individualistic cultures prioritize personal freedoms, leading to heightened reactance when individual autonomy is threatened. Conversely, collectivistic cultures exhibit stronger reactions to threats against group freedoms (Jonas et al., 2009). These cultural nuances underscore the importance of context in understanding reactance processes.

Vicarious reactance, another key aspect, occurs when individuals experience reactance on behalf of others. This phenomenon is more pronounced in collectivistic cultures, where group identity is central. Vicarious reactance involves cognitive and emotional processes, often leading to delayed physiological arousal compared to self-experienced reactance (Sittenthaler et al., 2015).

Why White Fragility Amplifies Reactance

White fragility, a term coined by Robin DiAngelo, describes the defensive reactions white individuals often display when their racial biases are called out. These reactions, such as denial, anger, or withdrawal, are classic signs of psychological reactance.

When DEI initiatives challenge deeply ingrained systems of privilege, they provoke discomfort and fear among those who benefit from the status quo. Instead of engaging in self-reflection, some individuals double down on their resistance, using reactance as a shield to avoid confronting their biases.

Applications and Implications

Understanding reactance has practical implications across various domains:

1. Health Communication: Reactance explains resistance to health interventions, such as anti-smoking campaigns or vaccination drives. Strategies to mitigate reactance include using empathic messaging and providing autonomy-supportive options (Shen, 2010).
2. Marketing: Overly aggressive advertising often triggers reactance, leading to reduced consumer engagement. Subtle and empowering messaging is more effective.
3. DEI and Marginalized Groups: Addressing reactance in DEI efforts requires reframing initiatives to emphasize shared benefits and collaborative goals. Providing opportunities for dialogue and emphasizing autonomy can reduce resistance and foster inclusivity (Steindl et al., 2006).
4. Education and Politics: Reactance can hinder efforts to implement reforms or promote behavioral change. Framing messages to align with individuals’ values and providing choices can reduce resistance.

Breaking the Cycle: How to Overcome Reactance in DEI

To make DEI efforts more effective, it’s crucial to address the psychological barriers that fuel resistance:

1. Frame DEI as Collaborative: Emphasize that equity benefits everyone, not just marginalized groups. Highlight the shared goals of fairness and inclusion.
2. Provide Choices: Instead of mandating participation, offer multiple ways for individuals to engage with DEI initiatives. Autonomy reduces reactance.
3. Use Relatable Messengers: Peer-to-peer communication can be more persuasive than directives from authority figures.
4. Encourage Perspective-Taking: Foster empathy by sharing stories and experiences that humanize the impact of inequities.

Conclusion: From Resistance to Reconciliation

Psychological reactance offers valuable insights into why some individuals resist DEI efforts. By understanding the root causes of white resistance, we can create strategies to reduce opposition and foster meaningful dialogue.

Psychological reactance is a multifaceted phenomenon with far-reaching implications. By recognizing its triggers and mechanisms, we can design interventions that minimize resistance and foster collaboration. Reactance theory offers a powerful lens for understanding resistance to DEI initiatives, particularly among privileged groups, and highlights the challenges faced by marginalized communities. As research continues to evolve, the potential to harness reactance for positive outcomes remains an exciting frontier in psychology.

The fight for equity isn’t about taking away freedom, it’s about expanding it for everyone. But to move forward, we must address the fears and misconceptions that fuel resistance. Only then can we turn reactance into reconciliation and build a truly inclusive society.