One immediate effect of reactance is
that the lost or threatened behavior becomes more attractive. If the
behavior is merely threatened, we can reassert our freedom by
engaging in it more often. If engaging in the behavior is no longer
possible, we may try to restore our freedom indirectly by carrying
out similar actions that have the same effect, or that imply that we
could exercise the lost freedom if we really wanted to.
A classic example of reactance is our
reaction to censorship attempts. Censorship obviously threatens
freedom of speech and of the press, and may be seen as an attempt to
control our thoughts. Steve Worchel and his colleagues have done
studies—this one, for example—showing that telling experimental
participants that an article has been censored increases their
interest in reading it (compared to other participants for whom the
article was not censored). In addition, the participants change
their attitudes in favor of the position taken by the author of
the censored article, even though they haven't read it. The
participants seem to infer that if someone has tried to censor a
message, it must be persuasive.
Censorship was in the news this past
week when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was accused of
accepting bribes and other corrupt behaviors in a series of Twitter
messages. Erdogan faces possible loss of power after local elections
tomorrow (March 30). It's not clear how true the charges are, but
Erdogan's response to them was not very smart. Saying that social
media are a menace to society, he announced that the government was shutting down Twitter throughout Turkey.
However, Turkish Twitter users could
work around the ban by altering domain name settings. The word
spread quickly that, by going to a little extra trouble, they could
continue tweeting. As reactance theory predicts, the ban backfired.
This chart from the social media analysis firm Brandwatch shows that
there was a 38% increase in the hourly numbers of tweets from March
19, the day before the ban, to March 21, the first full day after it.
By March 22, the government was able to
close down these workarounds. But it's hard to censor the internet,
since there are so many alternative paths a message can take.
Another solution was to send tweets through a portal called Tor. The
chart below shows an increase in Tor usage as well, from roughly
25,000 connects on March 20 to 40,000 on March 23.
Erdogan has become an object of
ridicule in political cartoons such as the one below. (See this article for some other examples.) More importantly, reactance theory predicts the failed censorship attempt will lead more Turks to
believe he is guilty of corruption. Unfortunately, I have no data on
that.
The Turkish courts have overturned
the Twitter ban, but service is still blocked since the
government has 30 days to comply. But Erdogan has
not learned his lesson. The other day a video appeared on You Tube containing a wiretapped conversation between members of the
Turkish government and military discussing the possibility of going
to war with Syria. They appear to be planning a “false flag” operation in which they would bomb a Turkish shrine and blame it on
Syria, as a pretext for war. (Erdogan claims the tape was “immorally
edited.”) On Thursday, the Turkish government banned You Tube as
well. I presume this ban will also be thrown out by the courts, but
not until after the election.
Consider how many political debates in
this country are about real or imagined threats to our freedom. For
example, Edward Snowden's disclosures have increased public awareness
of the threat to privacy posed by mass surveillance. Loss of privacy
could be considered an implied threat to a variety of free
behaviors—anything from carrying on an extramarital affair to
engaging in political dissent. The time may be right for a revival of
interest in reactance theory, with expanded emphasis on implied threats to freedom.
You may also be interested in reading:
