Words that trigger: a meta-analysis of threatening language, reactance, and persuasion in health

Abstract Psychological reactance theory is an important theoretical framework that explains resistance to persuasive messages. However, research has shown inconsistencies regarding the effects of reactance on persuasion, the operational treatment of reactance, and the manipulation of threatening language. This meta-analysis (k = 35, combined N = 10,658) consolidates findings from research on psychological reactance in health communication regarding the associations between freedom-threatening language, perceived freedom threat, state reactance, and persuasion outcomes, as well as the potential moderating impact of different reactance measures and other outcome- and recipient-related variables. Findings generally align with prior theorizing, with significant heterogeneity across studies. Sample type, age, and participant gender were identified as significant moderators. Moreover, our analysis presents a typology of threatening language features and examines their roles in inducing freedom threat perceptions. The analysis highlights the need for additional work to unravel underlying mechanisms and define the scope of boundary conditions.