Reactance theory does not address how harmful or innocuous control can be and may seem to be too circumscribed to explain the nature of general harmful behavior. However, the limitations of its scope to specific and reactive control motivation do not detract from its power to explain battles for control dynamics. It is formulated to anticipate these specific incidents and, in doing so, addresses harm in general. With this purpose and the applicability of reactance theory in mind, the terms control and specific control are used interchangeably and, because reactance is control motivation, the terms reactance and control motivation are also used interchangeably. A control model, subsuming these concepts and general control, is introduced next, in which control (unless identified by a general control descriptor) is the belief in the freedom to engage in a specific nonharmful or harmful behavior to reach a specific nonharmful or harmful goal that can be exercised for a variety of reasons, most particularly when threatened or taken away, arousing reactance in proportion to its distinctiveness and importance.
|
I think we've gotten way too lackadaisical. Our society is very reactive rather than proactive, and it bothers me that the huge changes right after September 11, like the National Guard at the airport, have been cut back.
|
The reactance formulation, because of its articulation in terms of specific freedoms. . . provides insights into control motivation. . . Reactance theory conceives a modest form of control motivation. Reactance is directed toward the restoration of threatened or lost freedoms, and it is therefore (a) specific rather than general, and (b) reactive rather than proactive.
|
Rational behavior requires theory. Reactive behavior requires only reflex action.
|