Reactance theory states that if a person’s sense of freedom, or control, is threatened, she is likely to engage in behaviors or omissions whose intent is to restore it. We have all experienced this. An ad suddenly pops up on a website, and you immediately click on the “X” button to close it. Of course, reactance is not always the explanation of such a behavior; when it is, pushing the “X” button constitutes a response to an attempt to influence behavior. But reactance could be behind more substantive behaviors than mere ad avoidance. Here is an ad of the 1980’s anti-drug campaign “Just Say No”:
The campaign backfired, as teenage drug usage, somewhat paradoxically, actually increased after it. According to the theory, one of the reasons is that the threat to adolescents’ freedom to actually make a choice by themselves created the opposite effect: a “yes” instead of a “no” (it can also trigger a “no” when you are after a “yes”. Think about relationships. Women find annoying pushy guys. Texting a woman every single day is the perfect recipe for scaring her away (as it is the opposite extreme). Women usually reject these guys because, in their eyes, they seem desperate. However, the explanation, according to reactance theory, could be subtler: they reject them because these guys threaten their sense of freedom or women’s possibility of making up their minds by themselves).
But let’s go to what the research has established. Jonathan Freedman and David Sears carried out a classical experiment where two groups of teenagers listened to a talk arguing against teenage driving. One group of teenagers was forewarned: “You are going to listen to a talk entitled: “Why Teenagers Should Not Be Allowed to Drive”, while the other wasn’t. The ones that weren’t forewarned were more receptive to the communication or showed more agreement with it. The reason is that forewarning is like saying to the participants: “we are going to persuade you about this”, and, as reluctance predicts, individuals’ response is then just the opposite. In line with this, the social psychologist Elliot Aronson recommends against the use of phrases like the infamous: “And now, a message from our sponsor”.
Consider YouTube. When you are watching a video on YouTube, there is a yellow bar at the bottom of the screen that lets you know when the next ad will start playing. Apart from being really annoying, the bar is a warning that something intended to persuade you is coming. Reactance theory suggests that this piece of advertising should be less effective compared to another version of the same thing that starts without any warning. Should the bars be removed, leaving the user without a clue about when the next ad will come? It depends on many factors, like the point of view, or the purpose of the communication.
From YouTube’s perspective, it is clear that an unexpected ad disrupts the experience of the users more than an expected ad. After all, YouTube, in contrast to TV, is all about control: you decide what you want to see and when. The ads are unavoidable without an adblocker or a subscription. However, predicting when the ad will come and having the possibility of skipping it after a few seconds preserve, up to a point, the user’s experience. On the other hand, if research is right, people are more receptive to the content of the ad when it appears without any warning. From a marketing perspective, this might be a better alternative.