Psychological Reactance Theory

Conversely, Psychological Reactance Theory (PRT) suggests if an individual’s free behaviour in the present or future is eliminated or threatened, the motivational state of psychological reactance will be activated (Brehm, 1988). Reactance is an unpleasant motivational arousal that occurs when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviours. It serves as a motivator to restore one’s freedom and these reactions can be in the form of behavioural responses, avoidance, or aggression towards the source. Since Brehm’s (1966) first publication on reactance the phenomenon has attracted attention in basic as well as applied research, covering subject areas such as health, marketing, politics, and education. As this research is concerned with brand placement, and thus persuasion, the focus of the following discussion will relate to that specific area.

82 messages. In a study on convincing members of a fitness club to participate in special exercises, people who had been given a forceful message such as “you have to do it” compared to a non-forceful message such as “consider it” experienced more threat, which, in turn, elicited more reactance (i.e. negative cognitions and anger) (Quick and Considine, 2008). Put otherwise, when attempts are made to persuade people using a forceful message, it motivates people to present arguments against the persuasive attempt (counter arguing). This is a cognitive- reflective process leading to negative attitudes toward the message and results in lower behavioural intention to follow the aim of the message. Additionally, how threatening controlling messages are perceived to be, depends on the level of social agency.

As PRT suggests, if individuals frequently act to counter the restrictions put on them by marketers, it has particular relevance to brand placement as the placements are forced on the audience as in the case of gamers when they play a videogame. This is unlike traditional television adverts, which can be more easily avoided. Thus, in the context of videogames the player or watcher is in a situation where they cannot avoid the brand placements that are embedded in the videogame or turn them off. Reactance effects may be more apparent for watchers who are more passive, such as in eSports, than for active players who may not notice the brand placements.

Many brand placements are subtle and remain in the background of a film, videogame or television programme. The audience is exposed to these placements, which can provide realism and enhance the entertainment experience. When a placement is more prominent, and therefore noticed and recognised, the audience can become annoyed and reject it. This phenomenon is referred to as the ‘boomerang effect’ (Clee and Wicklund, 1980). These negative attitudes caused by a feeling of losing a freedom can result in the complete opposite effect of what the placement was intended to accomplish. A negative reaction to the film, television programme and videogame as well as the brand featured in the placement may be the result.

83 4.16 Summary

This chapter provided an overview of some of the key theoretical models developed to explain the persuasion process and impact on brand choice. The hierarchy of effects, Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty et al. (1981), Integrative Attitude Formation Model MacInnis and Jaworski (1989), Knowledge Persuasion Model (PKM) Friestad and Wright (1994), and implicit and explicit processing were all discussed in the context of brand placement. The key findings are that due to the immersive nature of videogames, it may be far more difficult for gamers to remember brands, and therefore the ability to elaborate brand placement is considered low. Moreover, the ELM model does not explicitly acknowledge the potential of non- conscious processing. The Integrative Attitude Formation model provides a useful framework for considering brand placement in videogames, but again does not acknowledge non-conscious processing. Prominent brand placements activate persuasion knowledge and as the audience realise that the brand is placed for commercial reasons they become more cynical. This can lead to negative attitudes and beliefs about the brand and the placement (Balasubramanian et al., 2006).

The amount of attention an individual devotes to a brand placement is important for its processing. Balasubramanian et al (2006) referred to processing depth (high/low) as a continuum between implicit and explicit memory. This chapter has outlined the effects of implicit memory effects and explicit memory effects on brand placement. The effects of both types of memory on brand placement were explained and the implications for this study.

The dissociation between cognition and affect for brand placements found in the existing literature may be attributed to variations in cognitive processing among individuals. It may also be explained by the mere exposure effect theory (Zajonc, 1968), which argues cognition and affect are independent; an assertion robustly supported in the literature. In his meta-analysis (Bornstein, 1989) reported that a number of key factors - such as repetition, size of effect, type of stimulus, exposure time and order result in maximum MEE, and these were explained. The research into MEE and advertising explained there was support for the MEE in an advertising context and consumer behaviour in terms of brand choice. Finally, the four studies

84

so far conducted into MEE and brand placement indicate support for MEE in television, film and music videos when the viewer is highly involved.

Conversely, psychological reactance theory could explain placement processing (Brehm, 1988). Psychological reactance is whereby an individual’s free behaviour is eliminated or threatened. For example, if a brand placement appearing in a videogame, which the gamer thinks is intrusive, incongruent or an obvious marketing attempt may motivate psychological reactance. Thus, the gamer will choose to not process the brand placement and consequently the persuasion intent of the brand placement will be avoided. Therefore, psychological reactance theory could explain why, in some instances, brand placements are ineffective.