In addition to quantitative analyses for scale validation and the development of a multistep codebook, we further explored the data qualitatively.
A team of four researchers used Grounded Theory to develop conceptual frameworks from diverse data types. This approach enabled us to uncover and build upon recurring themes without the constraints of preconceived notions.
Additionally, we employed Thematic Analysis to detect and interpret patterns within the data, gaining deeper insights into behaviors expressed in written postings. This method aided us in constructing a detailed typology of these interactions.
Our findings indicate that the environment where reactance takes place, which we refer to as the ‚reactance discourse space,‘ is organized along multiple axes within a coordinate system. Each axis signifies a distinct classification criterion that helps categorize different types of reactance. By analyzing how reactance types align along these axes, we are able to dissect and understand the underlying motivations and behaviors associated with reactance in a structured manner.
Our findings indicate that the environment where reactance takes place, which we refer to as the ‚reactance discourse space,‘ is organized along multiple axes in a coordinate system.
The Experiment
To systematically understand how reactance unfolds in online communication, we conducted an experiment with participants responding to one of four fictional Instagram posts about climate change.
Participants were exposed to an informational posting either about CO2 emissions from air travel or from smartphone use. Additionally, the tone of the postings varied: some included normative pressure and strong language to induce high reactance, while others presented facts only.
After viewing the postings, participants were invited to leave a comment and then complete the newly developed state reactance questionnaire.
Reactance is a powerful motivator when it comes to defending one’s freedom, especially in online debates surrounding urgent and polarizing environmental issues like climate change, where opinions diverge sharply and stakes are high.
In our study, we aimed to explore the reactions people display when they perceive their freedoms are under threat, especially in online comment sections. We refer to this as the ‚discourse space of reactance,‘ which allows us to examine how different types of reactance are expressed.
Our classification and analysis of reactance broaden our understanding of this behavior, showing that it’s more than just resistance or anger.
It includes behaviors such as avoidance, justification, and varying levels of engagement. These insights are relevant for moderators and communicators as they provide an understanding of comment motivations and enable them to adjust their strategies effectively.
By recognizing the diversity of comment types, we can promote more productive and respectful public dialogue on contentious and polarized issues like climate change.
The ‚reactance discourse space‘ is a multidimensional framework designed to capture the diverse reactions people have to freedoom restrictions, organized along four distinct axes:
Aggression of resistance
The first diagonal axis ranges from passive-aggressive resistance in the top right to expressive aggression in the bottom left.
Directions of coping
This dimension is the y-axis that ranges from actively attacking the freedom fimitation (bottom) to blocking or ignoring it (top).
Depth of topic engagement
Comments can range from those that divert from the topic (left side of the x-axis) to those that deeply engage with the topic (right side).
Taking on responsibility
The second diagonal axis spans from deflecting responsibility at the top left to accepting responsibility at the bottom right.
The layers discussed in the comments are grouped as several circles around the coordinate system. These circles represent various levels of reference addressed by the comments. They range from a thematic focus (the core message or topic of the post), to the media context (such as the specific post or platform), and extend to the actors behind the posting, including the authors of the post and political entities, to power groups (e.g., ‚the economy‘), and society as a whole. The size of each circle symbolizes the extent of the reference frame that the comment encompasses, with larger circles indicating a broader scope of discussion or reference.
The ‚reactance discourse space‘ is a multidimensional framework designed to capture the diverse reactions people have to freedoom restrictions. It is structured along the axes above. These dimensions allow us to understand why people write comments in a particular way and what motivates them. It helps visualize the range of reactance-related behaviors and the emotional and cognitive factors driving them.
Through our classification of reactance, we’ve identified eight distinct types of responses that users exhibit in comment sections to climate change-related infopostings, revealing a diverse spectrum of resistance behaviors.
Within this discourse space, we identified eight different types of reactance, each representing a unique style of resistance to perceived freedom restrictions:
Deflection Strategist or ‚Whataboutist‘
Deflects by relativizing or redirecting responsibility. Example: “Why should I change when big corporations are the real problem?”
Helpless Delegator
Blocks out of helplessness and / or uncertainty. Example: “I can’t do anything about this anyway, so why bother?”
Avoidant Justifier
Uses supposed knowledge or „correct behavior“ to deflect responsibility. Example: “I already recycle, so I don’t need to do more.”
Aggressive Deflector
Attacks the restriction using unrelated outrage. Example: “You talk about flying less, but what about all the waste industries produce?”
Most comments are mixed types of anger, defensiveness, constructive suggestions, or avoidance, depending on the context and the commenter’s emotions.
Reflective Justifier
Like the Avoidant Justifier, but discusses alternative strategies. Example: “I don’t agree with A, but maybe others could try B.”
Destructive Aggressor
Expresses pure anger with no intention to be constructive. Example: “This is the stupidest idea ever. Get lost!”
Constructive Aggressor
Argues with anger but sticks to facts. Example: “This is outrageous! But here’s what should be done instead.”
Constructive Critic
Points out issues while sticking close to the topic. Example: “This idea could work, but it needs better alternatives to be more effective.”
These results are still evolving and have been submitted for publication. The full paper will be provided after publication.