Reactance theory and persuasion

141 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage outweighs the disadvantages (2016, methodology): “37; Quick et al., 2013; p. 171). There is a good case for believing that respondents in survey situations are more skeptical than in everyday situations. With regard to this study, this might explain the high average score of the variable “Perceived Persuasion Intent”. We thus recommend that future ”
Psychological Reactance and Persuasive Health Communication: A Review of the Literature (2019, background): “For many years, researchers lacked a validated measurement of reactance (Quick et al., 2013).”
A 50-Year Review of Psychological Reactance Theory: Do Not Read This Article (2017, methodology): “Complementing recent, discipline-specific comprehensive reviews (Quick et al., 2013; Steindl et al., 2015), in the current analysis, we amalgamate PRT research across the multiple fields in which it has flourished.”
The panic buying behavior of consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining the influences of uncertainty, perceptions of severity, perceptions of scarcity, and anxiety (2021, result): “Although previous scholars found the support of reactance theory in different contexts (Quick et al., 2013), but it is contrary in the case of consumers’ panic purchase behavior.”