Philosophy

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hhth20

Health Communication

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhth20

Freedom as Right or Privilege? Comparing the Effect of Power Distance on Psychological Reactance Between China and the United States

Jian Raymond Rui, Juan Chen, Lingning Wang & Peng Xu

To cite this article: Jian Raymond Rui, Juan Chen, Lingning Wang & Peng Xu (2023): Freedom as Right or Privilege? Comparing the Effect of Power Distance on Psychological Reactance Between China and the United States, Health Communication, DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2023.2212138

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2212138

Published online: 15 May 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 146

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Freedom as Right or Privilege? Comparing the Effect of Power Distance on Psychological Reactance Between China and the United States Jian Raymond Ruia,b, Juan Chena,b, Lingning Wangc, and Peng Xua

aCollege of Journalism and Communication, South China University of Technology; bCenter for Public Health Risk Surveillance and Information Communication in Guangdong Province; cCollege of Journalism and Communication, Guangzhou University

ABSTRACT Previous research on cultural differences in psychological reactance focuses almost exclusively on individualism. The present study investigated how power distance might affect psychological reactance by comparing Chinese’s (N = 400) and Americans’ reactions (N = 441) to a quitting smoking message which included versus did not include controlling language. Results show that individuals reacted to the controlling language with more negative cognitive thoughts, more anger, and a higher level of state reactance, compared to the noncontrolling language. In addition, compared to Chinese, Americans reported more anger. Moreover, the country difference in state reactance was mediated through trait reactance and through power distance and subsequently trait reactance. Furthermore, controlling language caused more state reactance among Americans reporting a low level of power distance but among Chinese reporting a high level of power distance. Our findings extended prior research on cultural effects on psychological reactance to power distance and provided insights on the complex nature of this cultural factor.

Conceptualized as one’s reaction when they perceive their freedom is threatened (J. W. Brehm, 1966), psychological reactance provides a valuable approach to understanding why health messages fail to change attitude and behavior. Volumes of research show that psychological reactance pre- dicts the attitude toward smoking cigarettes positively and the intention to quit smoking negatively because smokers feel their freedom to choose smoking or not is limited (Clayton et al., 2019; LaVoie et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2006).

One important perspective that explains what factors affect trait and state reactance is culture. These studies focus almost exclusively on individualism versus collectivism or indepen- dent versus interdependent self-construal (Graupmann et al., 2011; Jonas et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2021; Sittenthaler et al., 2015; Steindl & Jonas, 2012). Research reveals that individualism cultivates one’s desire for freedom, which triggers psychologi- cal reactance, thereby suggesting a positive and linear relation- ship between individualism and trait/state reactance (Graupmann et al., 2011; Jonas et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2021; Sittenthaler et al., 2015; Steindl & Jonas, 2012).

However, other cultural dimensions may also influence psychological reactance, for example, power distance. Hofstede (1980) conceptualized power distance as the extent to which people accept the unequal distribution of power within a cultural group. Therefore, individuals reporting a high level of power distance should be more used to receiving orders from authorities (De Meulenaer et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2005; Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2000), which might reduce their level of psychological reactance. In contrast, as individuals reporting a low level of power distance may be

more inclined to freedom restoration, this cultural tendency may prompt them to react more strongly at the presence of freedom-threatening cues.

These predictions, however, have yet to receive empirical testing, which the present research aims to bridge. Specifically, through a comparison of psychological reactance between Chinese and American smokers, this study seeks to explicate how power distance may predict state reactance via trait reac- tance and how this cultural orientation may moderate the effect of freedom threat on state reactance. Although power distance is closely related to individualism (Hofstede, 1985), these two cultural factors may affect psychological reactance through different routes. While individualism predicts reac- tance because those embracing individualism tend to value personal freedom (Graupmann et al., 2011; Jonas et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2021; Sittenthaler et al., 2015; Steindl & Jonas, 2012), power distance may predict psychological reactance because people who identify with low power distance tend to advocate for equality and value independent thinking (Huang et al., 2005). Thus, investigating the effect of power distance on psychological reactance can provide new knowledge of the mechanism by which psychological reactance is triggered.

Furthermore, in low power distance countries, freedom of expression and independent thinking are recognized as a right for every citizen. By contrast, in high power distance countries, these rights are often suppressed (Huang et al., 2005) and may be perceived as a privilege. Therefore, although people from both the U.S. and China may defend their autonomy of deci- sion making, their motivations may differ: to protect personal right versus privilege. These different motivations may affect

CONTACT Lingning Wang [email protected] College of Journalism and Communication, Guangzhou University, 230 Waihuan West Rd, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China

HEALTH COMMUNICATION https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2212138

© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

who respond more strongly to freedom-threatening cues in these two countries. This finding can shed light on the effect of power distance on psychological reactance and provide prac- tical implications on how to minimize reactance in different cultures.

The nature of psychological reactance

People value their right to make autonomous decisions. J. W. Brehm (1966) termed their reaction when they think their right of freedom choice is violated as psychological reactance. This concept has been leveraged to explain peo- ple’s reactions to a wide range of issues such as movie rating restrictions (Varava & Quick, 2015), public polices (Laurin et al., 2012) and health campaigns (Reynolds-Tylus, 2019). As health campaigns are essentially an effort to persuade individuals to change their attitude and behavior in line with what the campaign recommends, recipients may think these messages violate their right to make autonomous decisions about their life (Reynolds-Tylus, 2019). Thus, psy- chological reactance provides a theoretical approach to explaining why some health messages fail to persuade (Clayton et al., 2019; Grandpre et al., 2003; Quick & Bates, 2010).

Although the original work of J. W. Brehm (1966) defined psychological reactance as a situational reaction to perceived freedom threat, his later work recognized that individuals may differ in their needs for autonomy (S. S. Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Therefore, research distinguished trait- and state-level reactance. Trait reactance was conceptualized as a personality which demonstrates one’s inclination to perceiving their free- dom choice is threatened (Hong & Faedda, 1996). Individuals exhibiting high levels of trait reactance value their freedom of choice more, thereby more likely to report high levels of state reactance (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick et al., 2011; Shen & Dillard, 2005).

Furthermore, as Dillard and Shen (2005) reviewed, prior research has proposed four ways of operationalizing state reactance: negative cognition, negative affect, a combination of negative cognition and negative affect which influence mes- sage acceptance separately, a composite of negative cognition and negative affect which are intertwined to influence message acceptance. Research offered extensive evidence supporting the intertwined model (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick & Stephenson, 2007; Rains, 2013; Rains & Turner, 2007). However, a recent review by Ratcliff (2021) suggested that the intertwined model might have boundary limitations because the relative effect of negative cognition and anger on message acceptance depends on the context, the message, and recipients. For example, some narrative persuasion research defined state reactance as a cognitive response (Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010), whereas other research defined state reactance as a purely affective reaction (Moon et al., 2015). Additionally, rather than using the thought-listing technique to measure negative cognition as Dillard and Shen (2005) recommended, some research used counterarguing (Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010) and evaluations of the message or the source (Grandpre et al., 2003) as the proxy for negative cognition. Nevertheless, Ratcliff (2021) still recommended the

intertwined model for its high level of validity across indivi- duals and contexts.

In addition, prior research explored what factors may affect state reactance from two major perspectives: personality traits and message characteristics (Reynolds-Tylus, 2019). On the one hand, research revealed that certain personality traits could enhance the level of state reactance such as dispositional anger (Richards & Larsen, 2017), trait reactance (Quick et al., 2011), and sensation seeking (Clayton et al., 2019). On the other hand, certain message characteristics can heighten the level of state reactance including controlling language (Clayton et al., 2020; Clayton, 2022; Dillard & Shen, 2005; Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2013; Miller et al., 2007; Quick & Kim, 2009; Quick & Stephenson, 2008), vivid language (Quick & Stephenson, 2008), graphic warnings (LaVoie et al., 2017), as well as mes- sages low in novelty (Quick, 2013) and sensation value (Xu, 2015). As controlling language could heighten one’s percep- tion of freedom threat and trigger state reactance (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2013; Miller et al., 2007; Quick & Kim, 2009), we propose the first hypothesis.

H1: The message with controlling language causes a higher level of state reactance, indicated by higher levels of (a) nega- tive cognitive thoughts and (b) anger, compared to that without.

Linking psychological reactance and culture

Individualism and psychological reactance Psychological reactance is built on the assumption that humans value the right of freedom choice (J. W. Brehm, 1966). This value is deeply rooted in the western culture which recognizes individualism. Therefore, whether psycholo- gical reactance applies to the nonwestern culture is question- able. As a response, Quick and Kim (2009) tested psychological reactance in South Korea, a culture that values collectivism. Their findings show that individuals from a collectivistic cul- ture could also demonstrate psychological reactance when they perceived freedom threat (Quick & Kim, 2009).

Subsequent research found that the levels of trait and state reactance can vary in different cultures (Graupmann et al., 2011; Jonas et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2021; Sittenthaler et al., 2015; Steindl & Jonas, 2012). For example, Ng et al. (2021) found that compared to European Canadians, East Asian Canadians and Iranian Canadians exhibited a higher level of interdependent self-construal, which lowered their trait reac- tance. Therefore, independent self-construal or individualism predicts trait reactance positively. Given that trait reactance is positively related to state reactance (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick et al., 2011; Shen & Dillard, 2005), individuals from individualistic cultural background should report a higher level of state reactance.

Additionally, Jonas et al. (2009) found that individuals from collectivistic cultural background were less responsive to a threat to individual freedom but demonstrated more state reactance when their collective freedom was threatened. This might be because their collectivistic cultural background made

2 J. R. RUI ET AL.

them value group interest more than personal interest (Jonas et al., 2009). This finding was replicated in other studies (Graupmann et al., 2011; Steindl & Jonas, 2012). Further, Sittenthaler et al. (2015) compared self-reactance and vicarious reactance in different cultural groups, conceptualized as reac- tions to a threat to personal freedom or others’ freedom. They found that independent self-construal was related to self- reactance, whereas interdependent self-construal was related to vicarious reactance only when freedom threat happened to in-group members (Sittenthaler et al., 2015).

While these results provide insights into how cultural orientation affects both trait and state reactance, they focus exclusively on individualism versus collectivism or indepen- dent versus interdependent self-construal. However, other cul- tural characteristics are also worth investigations, specifically power distance.

Power distance and psychological reactance Hofstede (1980) conceptualized power distance as the extent to which individuals take it for granted that power is unequally distributed among different members of a society. His later work demonstrated that power distance is closely related to individualism/collectivism (Hofstede, 1985). As individualistic culture encourages personal accomplishments and values independence, equality often characterizes the culture of those societies (Kirkman et al., 2009; Richardson & Smith, 2007). In contrast, it is common to sacrifice personal achieve- ments for group success in collectivistic cultures. Hence, power distance is inversely related to individualism (Kirkman et al., 2009; Richardson & Smith, 2007). However, to the best of our knowledge, no research has examined the relationship between power distance and psychological reactance.

Research found that individuals of low power distance cultures were more likely to voice their opinion whereas the same behavior was less encouraged in a culture of high power distance (Huang et al., 2005). This may affect their way of message processing (De Meulenaer et al., 2018; Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2000). For example, Pornpitakpan and Francis (2000) found that source expertise exhibited a stronger impact on persuasion among Thais (high power distance), whereas argument strength exhibited a stronger impact on persuasion among Canadians (low power distance). This might be because individuals from high power distance culture are not encour- aged to voice their opinion but are used to receiving orders from authorities (Huang et al., 2005). Thus, they may be more inclined to following recommendations from authoritative sources (Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2000). Similarly, De Meulenaer et al. (2018) found that perceived efficacy mediated the effect of source credibility on message compliance, and this mediation was stronger for individuals identifying themselves with low power distance. Again, low power distance may motivate individuals to challenge the authority (Hofstede, 1985). Therefore, individuals identified with low power dis- tance might be driven to evaluate the message source. If they perceived the message source credible, they recognized its efficacy value and thereby were more likely to follow the message (De Meulenaer et al., 2018).

The present research compares China and the U.S., which differ in their level of power distance (Hofstede, 1980). As high

power distance characterizes Chinese culture, Chinese indivi- duals should be more acceptable of receiving orders from high authorities. This could make them more prone to being told what to do, thereby lowering their level of trait reactance and consequently state reactance. Hence, we propose following hypotheses.

H2: Compared to Chinese, Americans report a higher level of state reactance, indicated by higher levels of (a) negative cognitive thoughts and (b) anger.

H3: The differences in the level of state reactance between China and the U.S. are mediated through individual identifica- tion with power distance and subsequently trait reactance.

Moreover, as volumes of research demonstrated, state reac- tance should cause a boomerang effect on health attitude and behavior (Reynolds-Tylus, 2019). Empirical research also shows that state reactance predicts a negative attitude toward the recommended action and a lower intention to perform the action (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick & Kim, 2009; Richards & Larsen, 2017). Thus,

H4: State reactance is negatively related to (a) the attitude toward the recommended health behavior and (b) the inten- tion to perform the health behavior.

In addition to the linear relationship between culture and reactance, culture may moderate the relationship between free- dom threat and state reactance. As explained above, culture may influence one’s need for autonomy. As power distance is negatively related to trait reactance, individuals exhibiting a low level of power distance may be more inclined to make autonomous decisions. Subsequently, they should respond more strongly to freedom threatening messages, demonstrat- ing a higher level of state reactance. On the contrary, those reporting a high level of power distance may be more used to deprivation of freedom choice. Thus, at the presence of free- dom threatening messages, they may respond with a lower level of state reactance.

However, this moderation effect of power distance on the relationship between controlling language and state reactance may differ in the U.S. versus China. In the U.S., where most individuals endorse equality, freedom in decision making and opinion expression is widely accepted as human rights. Thus, Americans demonstrate signs of state reactance when they think their right is violated. Consequently, those Americans that believe everyone should be treated equally should be more motivated to defend their freedom and react more strongly to freedom-threatening cues.

On the contrary, in China, high levels of power distance discourage people to make autonomous decisions and voice their true opinion (Huang et al., 2005). Thus, freedom is not a right in China but a privilege. Additionally, the hierarchical system in high power distance countries may cultivate people’s desire for privileges (Husted, 1999; Seleim & Bontis, 2009). Therefore, at the presence of freedom-threatening cues, Chinese react with heightened levels of psychological reactance to defend their own privilege rather than the right everyone

HEALTH COMMUNICATION 3

should have. Thus, Chinese that exhibit a higher level of state reactance may be those who endorse high power distance.

H5: The moderation effect of power distance on the relation- ship between controlling language and state reactance differs in the U.S. versus China. (a) In the U.S., this relationship is stronger among those reporting a low level of identification with power distance. (b) In China, this relationship is stronger among those reporting a high level of identification with power distance.

Method

The context of the present study

This study functions as part of a larger project examining the effects of culture and psychological reactance on quitting smoking. Smoking cigarettes is an important public health concern in both China and the U.S. According to the World Health Organization (2022), China has over 300 million smo- kers, which accounts for 26.6% of the adults in this country and one third of the smokers in the world. In the U.S., 12.5% of the adults currently smoked cigarettes, causing about one fifth of the deaths in this country (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022a).

In addition, smoking poses severe threats to not only smo- kers but nonsmokers. Secondhand smoking has caused 2,500,000 deaths since 1964 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022b). The prosocial nature of quitting smoking not only aligns with the value of collectivism but also adds to the moral pressure of smokers, which can enhance one’s level of psychological reactance (Reinhart et al., 2007). Thus, we selected smoking as the focal issue in this study.

Study overview and procedure

We tested our hypotheses with a 2 (controlling language: with vs. without) * 2 (country: China vs. U.S.) between-subject experiment. Two messages were designed, one with control- ling language and the other without (Table 1). We adapted the messages about responsible drinking by Dillard and Shen (2005) to quitting smoking. As a cross-cultural comparison between China and U.S. was conducted, we collected data of the Chinese sample in June 2022 through credamo.com, the Chinese equivalent of MTurk. We then collected data of the

American sample in August 2022 through Qualtrics. Both samples were limited to smokers at the time of data collection.

Participants were randomly assigned to a condition with or without controlling language. After exposure to the message, they proceeded to the survey that measured their cognition and anger toward the message, followed by questions about their attitude and intention of quitting smoking, trait reac- tance, identification with power distance and individualism, and demographic variables. The research ethics committee at the first author’s university approved the procedure.

Pilot test

Pilot test was conducted to make sure the freedom threat manipulation worked. We collected 100 Chinese responses through credamo.com, equally assigned to each condition of freedom threat. We then collected 94 American responses through Prolific, also equally assigned to each condition. Participants were asked to read the same message that would be used in the formal analysis. They were then asked to rate their perceived freedom threat on the 4-item scale by Dillard and Shen (2005) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis- agree, 5 = strongly agree).

This measure received good reliability scores in both sam- ples (China: Cronbach’s α = .93, M = 3.41, SD = 1.25; U.S.: Cronbach’s α = .83, M = 2.97, SD = 1.07). In both samples, participants in the condition with controlling language reported a higher level of perceived freedom threat (China: M = 4.10, SD = .78, t(81.45) = 6.64, p < .001; U.S.: M = 3.32, SD = .92, t(92) = 3.38, p = .001), compared to those without (China: M = 2.71, SD = 1.26; US: M = 2.62, SD = 3.32).

The samples of the formal study

The Chinese sample included 400 responses, and 201 were assigned to the condition without controlling language. Over two thirds of the sample was male (67.8%), and the rest identified themselves as female (32.3%). Their average age was about 32 years old (M = 32.21, SD = 8.07, min = 19, max = 60). Most of Chinese participants held a bachelor’s degree (75%), followed by graduate degree (11.3%), associate degree (10.3%), high school (2.8%), and middle school (.8%). Over half of Chinese participants reported their monthly income between 5000 RMB and 9999 RMB ($706.5–$1412.86, 51.5%), followed by 15,000 RMB and 19,999 RMB ($2119.5-$2825.86, 21.5%), 20000 RMB and 29,999 RMB ($2826-$4238.86, 13.8%),

Table 1. Quitting smoking messages with and without controlling language.

The message with controlling language The message without controlling language

Quit smoking. You have to do it! The previous research makes it crystal clear. There is unequivocal evidence that smoking is implicated serious harm to lung function, the pollution of the air, exposure to secondhand smoke, fire and the imitation of juveniles. In fact, any reasonable person has to agree that smoking is a serious public problem that demands immediate attention. No other conclusion makes any sense. Stop the denial. There is a problem and you have to be part of the solution. So if you smoke, you are endangering the health of others. Quitting smoking is a safe, reasonable, and responsible limit and it’s the limit that you need to stick to. Do it!

Consider quitting smoking As the previous research tried to show, there is pretty compelling evidence that smoking is implicated serious harm to lung function, the pollution of the air, exposure to secondhand smoke, fire and the imitation of juveniles. In fact, most people agree that is a serious public problem that needs to be addressed right away. It’s a sensible conclusion and one that is hard to deny. There is a problem and you have a chance to be part of the solution. So if you smoke, think about the harm of smoking to others. Perhaps quitting smoking is a safe, reasonable, and responsible limit and it’s a limit you can live with. Why not give quitting smoking a try?

4 J. R. RUI ET AL.

30000 RMB and above ($4239, 11.3%), and less than 5000 RMB ($706.5, 2.0%). On average, they had smoked about seven years (M = 7.43, SD = 6.23). They reported that it took an average of 4–5 days to finish smoking one package of cigarettes (M = 4.38, SD = 6.11). As there are 20 cigarettes in one package in China, they smoked five cigarettes on average every day.

The American sample included 441 responses, and 218 were assigned to the condition without controlling language. Most American participants identified themselves as female (69.2%), with one not disclosing his/her biological sex (.2%). Their average age was about 49 years old (M = 49.23, SD = 14.18, min = 18, max = 80). Over half of American participants finished high school (53.1%), followed by associate degree (22.7%), bachelor’s degree (16.3%), master’s degree (5.2%), middle school (2.0%), and doctoral degree (.5%). One partici- pant reported to have received no formal school education (.2%). Over half of the American participants reported their annual household income between $10,000 and $49,999 (54.6%), followed by $50,000–$99,999 (24.7%), less than $10,000 (10.2%), $100,000-$150,000 (6.8%), and more than $150,000 (3.6%). Most of American participants identified themselves as White (80.5%), followed by African American (10.4%), Hispanics/Latinos (5.0%), mixed race (1.8%), Asian or Pacific Islander (1.1%), Native American (.9%), and other (.2%). On average, they had smoked about 25 years (M = 25.32, SD = 14.50). They reported that it took an average of 1–2 days to finish smoking one package of cigarettes (M = 1.24, SD = 1.64).

Measures

Most survey questions used established scales from English language publications. Thus, a Chinese version of the survey was translated by one of the coauthors, who is fluent in Chinese and English. The first author then checked the Chinese survey to make sure all the questions were correctly translated.

We measured negative cognitive thoughts and anger, follow- ing the procedure recommended by Dillard and Shen (2005). Specifically, anger was measured with four items which asked participants the extent to which they felt anger, irritated, annoyed, and aggravated after reading the message on a 5-point scale (0 = none of this feeling, 4 = a great deal of this feeling). This measure received good reliability in both samples (China: Cronbach’s α = .93, M = 1.02, SD = 1.01; U.S.: Cronbach’s α = .93, M = 1.29, SD = 1.19).

Negative cognitive thoughts were assessed by asking partici- pants to write down their thoughts about the message. Two independent coders first divided the data into thought units (China: Krippendorf’s α = .81; U.S.: Krippendorf’s α = .825). Second, coders removed affective expressions (China: Krippendorf’s α = 1.00; U.S.: Krippendorf’s α = 1.00). Next, irre- levant thoughts were removed (China: Krippendorf’s α = 1.00; U.S.: Krippendorf’s α = .88). Finally, the rest of the responses were coded as supportive, neutral, and negative thoughts (China: Krippendorf’s α = 1.00; U.S.: Krippendorf’s α = .82). We then counted the number of negative thoughts, which

were defined as expressions showing disagreement with the message, counterarguments, noncompliance with what the mes- sage recommends, and derogations of the source (China: M = .067, SD = .36; US: M = .17, SD = .51).

State reactance was indicated by adding negative cognitive thoughts and anger. These two variables were first standar- dized to make sure they are on the same metrics and then added together. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) via the Lavaan package through R demonstrated the measurement model was good, χ2(4) = 10.97, p = .027, CFI = .998, TLI = .994, RMSEA = .046, SRMR = .01.

Trait reactance was assessed by the Hong psychological reactance scale (Hong & Faedda, 1996). The original scale included 14 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly dis- agree, 5 = strongly agree), but results of CFA did not reveal a good fit of the measurement model. Thus, we adjusted the scale and reserved eight items with the highest loading, χ2(18) = 114.97, p < .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04; China: Cronbach’s α = .81, M = 2.49, SD = .72; U.S.: Cronbach’s α = .79, M = 3.24, SD = .73; combined: Cronbach’s α = .84, M = 2.89, SD = .82.

Individual identification with power distance was measured through the scale assessing power distance by Dorfman and Howell (1988). This 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) included six items such as “managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates” and “it is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates.” The measure- ment model exhibited a good fit, χ2(9) = 46.37, p < .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .03; China: Cronbach’s α = .81, M = 2.17, SD = .74; U.S.: Cronbach’s α = .72, M = 2.65, SD = .76; combined: Cronbach’s α = .78, M = 2.42, SD = .79.

Given the close connection between power distance and individualism, it is necessary to demonstrate the unique contribution of power distance to reactance controlling for individualism. Therefore, we also measured individual identification with individualism, through the 13-item Likert scale by Kim and Cho (2011; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We adjusted the scale and reserved nine items with the highest loading, χ2(25) = 142.08, p < .001, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .03; China: Cronbach’s α = .90, M = 2.75, SD = 1.08; U.S.: Cronbach’s α = .78, M = 4.11, SD = .88; combined: Cronbach’s α = .89, M = 3.46, SD = 1.19. Table 2 presents the revised items of trait reactance and individualism that we used for the analysis.

We adapted the attitude scale of Dillard and Shen (2005) to measure attitude toward quitting smoking. The original scale included seven items, but the final scale based on the results of CFA included only four items. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with the statement describing that quitting smoking is wise, favorable, positive, and beneficial (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), χ2(2) = .57, p = .75, CFI = 1, TLI = 1, RMSEA = 0, SRMR = .003; China: Cronbach’s α = .81, M = 6.25, SD = .80; U.S.: Cronbach’s α = .93, M = 6.07, SD = 1.19; combined: Cronbach’s α = .89, M = 6.15, SD = 1.03. Finally, following Dillard and Shen (2005), participants were asked to indicate their likelihood to consider quitting smoking in the next week on a 100-point, single-item

HEALTH COMMUNICATION 5

measure, used as the indicator of intention to quit smoking (China: M = 66.83, SD = 26.01; U.S.: M = 38.90, SD = 31.25; combined: M = 36.17, SD = 29.01).

Data analysis strategy

We conducted multivariate analysis of covariances (MANCOVA) to test H1 and H2. Unstandardized values of negative cognitive thoughts and anger as well as state reactance were entered as the dependent variables, with country (1 = China, 2 = U.S.) and freedom threat condition (1 = without controlling language, 2 = with controlling language) as the independent variables. We also included sex, age, and the quantity of cigarettes smoked as covariates.

Next, H3 and H4 were tested by conducting path analysis. In addition to the serial mediation path (country→ power distance→ trait reactance→ state reactance→ attitude→ beha- vior intention), given the close relationship between power distance and individualism (Kirkman et al., 2009; Richardson & Smith, 2007), we added individualism to the model and controlled for its effect on trait reactance. Their errors were also covaried to control for their close relationship. In addi- tion, we added a path from country to state reactance as hypothesized in H2, from state reactance to behavior intention as hypothesized in H4, and from the experiment condition (1 = without controlling language, 2 = with controlling language) to state reactance as hypothesized in H1. We also controlled

for quantity of smoking by connecting it with state reactance because heavy smokers may exhibit a higher level of state reactance. Figure 1 presents the proposed model.

Finally, H5 was tested through Macro Process via SPSS 24. Power distance was standardized prior to entering the regres- sion model. We conducted data analysis with both samples separate. We controlled for sex, age, education, quantity of smoking, income, and individualism for all analyses. Ethnicity (0 = nonwhite, 1 = white) was only controlled for in the American sample because China is homogeneous in ethnicity.

Results

MANOVA (H1 and H2)

The combined sample Results of MANCOVA demonstrate a significant main effect of controlling language (F(3, 830) = 12.12, Wilks’ λ = .96, p < .001, partial η2 = .04) and country (F(3, 830) = 210.03, Wilks’ λ = .57, p < .001, partial η2 = .43) on the dependent variables. Although MANOVA suggested a significant interaction effect (F(3, 830) = 7.44, Wilks’ λ = .97, p < .001, partial η2 = .03), it was not sig- nificant on any of the dependent variables (negative cognitive thoughts: p = .78; anger: p = .96, state reactance: p = .69).

Specifically, a significant main effect of controlling language was found on negative cognitive thoughts (F(1, 832) = 7.50, p = .006, partial η2 = .01), anger (F(1, 832) = 31.81, p < .001, par- tial η2 = .04), and state reactance (F(1, 832) = 31.00, p < .001,

Table 2. Revised scales measuring trait reactance and individualism.

Trait reactance

(1) I become angry when my freedom of choice is restricted. (2) I become frustrated when I am unable to make free and independent decisions. (3) I am contented only when I am acting of my own free will. (4) The thought of being dependent on others aggravates me. (5) When something is prohibited, I usually think “that’s exactly what I am going to do.” (6) I find contradicting others stimulating. (7) I consider advice from others to be an intrusion. (8) Advice and recommendations usually induce me to do just the opposite.

Individualism

(1) People are independent of social groups, not defined by social groups. (2) Individuals and groups can be separated. (3) Individual goals are more important than group goals. (4) Individuals’ behaviors should follow individual goals rather than group goals. (5) To achieve group goals, individual interests cannot be sacrificed. (6) At work or at play, it is important to win versus harmonize. (7) The source of group success is competition, not cooperation. (8) Groups are better with competition versus harmony. (9) People should follow free will rather than group norms and practices.

Table 3. Regressions on state reactance in the combined sample and in the two separate samples; unstandardized coefficient (Standard error).

Combined Chinese American

Sex .09 (.11) −.02 (.16) .22 (.16) Age .001 (.004) .01 (.01) −.002 (.01) Education .14* (.06) .07 (.12) .12 (.08) Income - .08 (.05) .01 (.09) Ethnicity - - .37 (.19) Quantity of smoking .005 (.01) .01 (.01) −.01 (.04) Individualism .14* (.05) .27*** (.08) .03 (.09) Controlling language .55*** (.10) .57*** (.14) .53*** (.15) Power distance .15 (.22) −.35 (.32) .62* (.31) Controlling language * power distance −.05 (.13) .42* (.20) −.47* (.19) R2, F, p .05***, F(8, 830) = 5.99 .14***, F(9, 389) = 7.03 .06***, F(10, 430) = 2.93

Note. Sex: 1 = male, 2 = female; ethnicity: 1 = white, 0 = nonwhite; controlling language: 1 = without, 2 = with. ***p < .001, *p < .01, *p < .05.

6 J. R. RUI ET AL.

partial η2 = .04). Compared to participants exposed to control- ling language (negative cognitive thoughts: M = .08, SE = .02; anger: M = .94, SE = .05; state reactance: M = −.29, SE = .07), participants exposed to controlling language consistently demonstrated higher levels of negative cognitive thoughts (M = .16, SE = .02), anger (M = 1.36, SE = .05), and state reac- tance (M = .29, SE = .07). Thus, H1 received full support.

A significant main effect of country was found on anger (F(1, 832) = 9.37, p = .002, partial η2 = .01), but not on negative cognitive thoughts (p = .24) and state reactance (p = .67). Specifically, Chinese participants reported a lower level of anger (M = .99, SE = .07) than American participants (M = 1.31, SE = .06). Thus, H2 received partial support. The main effect of all covariates was nonsignificant.

Additional analysis We also repeated the same data analysis with two samples separate. In the Chinese sample, the main effect of controlling language on the dependent variables was significant (F(2, 393) = 10.06, Wilks’ λ = .95, p < .001, partial η2 = .05), specifically on negative cognitive thoughts (F(1, 394) = 4.42, p = .036, partial η2 = .011), anger (F(1, 394) = 17.92, p < .001, partial η2 = .04), and state reactance (F(1, 394) = 17.40, p < .001, partial η2

= .04). Compared to the participants exposed to noncontrol- ling language (negative cognitive thoughts: M = .030, SE = .03; anger: M = .81, SE = .07; state reactance: M = −.31, SE = .11), participants exposed to controlling language reported higher levels of negative cognitive thoughts (M = .11, SE = .03), anger (M = 1.23, SE = .07), and state reactance (M = .31, SE = .11).

In the American sample, the main effect of controlling lan- guage on the dependent variables was still significant (F(2, 435) = 7.91, Wilks’ λ = .97, p < .001, partial η2 = .04), specifically on anger (F(1, 436) = 14.37, p < .001, partial η2 = .03), and state reactance (F(1, 436) = 13.70, p < .001, partial η2 = .03). Compared to the participants exposed to noncontrolling lan- guage (anger: M = 1.08, SE = .08; state reactance: M = −.27, SE = .10), participants exposed to controlling language con- sistently demonstrated higher levels of anger (M = 1.50, SE = .08) and state reactance (M = .27, SE = .10). The difference in negative cognitive thoughts between conditions was

marginally significant (F(1, 436) = 3.78, p = .053, partial η2

= .01; without: M = .12, SE = .03; with: M = .22, SE = .03).

Serial mediation (H3, H4)

Results of the path analysis show that the original model needed to be improved, χ2(33) = 1460.03, p < .001, CFI = .83, TLI = .73, RMSEA = .12, SRMR = .11. The modification index suggested following adjustments to the model. First, we fol- lowed the suggestion by adding a link from country to trait reactance because previous research demonstrated significant variances in the level of trait reactance between different cul- tural groups (Ng et al., 2021). Second, we connected trait reactance and attitude toward quitting smoking. In addition, the modification index suggested linking individualism with the attitude. Lopez et al. (2012) found that collectivists per- ceived smoking more damaging and reported lower intentions to smoke cigarettes because they were more aware of the damage of secondhand smoking. Therefore, this suggestion was taken. Next, the link between country and intention was added. Finally, we followed the modification index by remov- ing two links: from state reactance to behavior intention and from the quantity of cigarettes smoked to state reactance.

The revised model exhibited a good model fit, χ2(12) = 17.12, p = .145, CFI =.996, TLI =.99, RMSEA =.023, SRMR = .022. Controlling for the covariance between individualism and power distance (β = .43, p < .001), American participants reported a higher level of power distance than Chinese parti- cipants (β = .31, p < .001). This was surprising because high individualism usually means low power distance (Kirkman et al., 2009; Richardson & Smith, 2007). Next, again, control- ling for individualism (β = .407, p < .001), power distance predicted trait reactance positively (β = .191, p < .001). This also did not align with previous research showing that power distance usually predicted trait reactance negatively (Huang et al., 2005). Trait reactance predicted state reactance posi- tively (β = .289, p < .001). This serial mediation path was significant (β = .017, p < .001), supporting H3. Therefore, based on this serial mediation, Americans reported a higher level of state reactance than Chinese.

Figure 1. The proposed model on the relationship between culture, freedom threat, reactance, attitude, and intention.

HEALTH COMMUNICATION 7

In addition, our findings revealed another mediation path. Country (1 = China, 2 = U.S.) predicted trait reactance signifi- cantly (β = .17, p < .001), particularly with Americans reporting a higher level of trait reactance than Chinese. Trait reactance then predicted state reactance positively (β = .289, p < .001). This simple mediation was also significant (β = .05, p < .001) and suggests that Americans reported a higher level of state reactance than Chinese.

It is important to note that the direct effect of country on state reactance was significant (β = −.134, p < .001). In other words, controlling for freedom threat (β = .174, p < .001) and trait reactance (β = .289, p < .001), Americans reported a lower level of state reactance than Chinese, opposite to the two indirect effects mentioned above.

Individualism predicted trait reactance (β = .407, p < .001). Trait reactance (β = −.107, p = .012), individualism (β = −.10, p = .02), and state reactance (β = −.172, p < .001) predicted the attitude toward quitting smoking. Thus, H4a was supported. Moreover, as we removed the nonsignificant link from state reactance to the behavioral intention, H4b was rejected. However, the indirect relationship between state reactance and the intention to quit smoking through attitude was significant (β = −.037, p < .001). Trait reactance (β = −.13, p < .001), attitude (β = .21, p < .001), and country (β = −.36, p < .001) predicted the intention to quit smoking. Figure 2 presents the revised model and all the findings.

Moderation: Power distance at the individual level (H5)

The Chinese sample Power distance significantly moderated the relationship between freedom threat and state reactance (B = .42, p = .031, Table 3) and explained an additional 1.03% of the total var- iances in state reactance (ΔR2 = .01, F(1, 389) = 4.67). While controlling language did not predict state reactance among Chinese participants reporting a low level of power distance (p = .21), this relationship was significant and positive among those identifying a high level of power distance (B = .89, p < .001, Figure 3).

The American sample Power distance significantly moderated the relationship between freedom threat and state reactance (B = −.47, p = .016, Table 3) and explained an additional 1.3% of the total variances in state reactance (ΔR2 = .013, F(1, 430) = 5.91). Contrary to the Chinese sample, controlling language (1 = without, 2 = with) predicted a significant and positive relationship with state reac- tance among American participants reporting a low level of power distance (B = .89, p < .001, Figure 4). Yet this relationship was nonsignificant among Americans identifying a high level of power distance (p = .40). Taken together, H5 received full support.

Discussion

The extant scholarship provided volumes of evidence showing the connection between individualism and psychological reac- tance (Graupmann et al., 2011; Jonas et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2021; Sittenthaler et al., 2015; Steindl & Jonas, 2012). The present investigation extended these studies by examining the role that power distance in shaping trait and state reactance of Americans and Chinese. While our findings confirmed the effect of controlling language on state reactance, results of the cultural effect on psychological reactance are more complex. Our findings develop the current scholarship on culture and psychological reactance, particularly by showing how psycho- logical reactance functions in an East Asian culture, and pro- vide implications on health message design in different cultures.

First, our findings consistently showed that the message with controlling language caused more negative cognitive thoughts, more anger, and thereby a higher level of state reactance, no matter whether two samples were combined or separated. These results added to the research that found controlling language could trigger state reactance (Clayton, 2022; Clayton et al., 2020; Dillard & Shen, 2005; Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2013; Miller et al., 2007; Quick & Kim, 2009; Quick & Stephenson, 2008). It is important to note that these findings held after sex, age, and the quantity of smoking were controlled1.

Figure 2. The revised model on the relationship between culture, reactance, attitude, and intention. Note. Country: 1 = China, 2 = U.S.; controlling language: 1 = without, 2 = with; ***p < .001, *p < .05.

8 J. R. RUI ET AL.

Figure 3. Power distance moderated the relationship between controlling language and state reactance in the Chinese sample.

Figure 4. Power distance moderated the relationship between controlling language and state reactance in the American sample.

HEALTH COMMUNICATION 9

Several interesting results merit discussions. First, control- ling language only caused marginally significant differences in the number of negative cognitive thoughts of American parti- cipants. In the open-ended question about participants’ thoughts of the message, many respondents mentioned that they had seen similar messages (e.g., “typical anti-smoking ad,” “It’s a message I’ve heard before”). Therefore, even if American participants exposed to the quitting message without control- ling language, they might still perceive its persuasive intent based on their previous experience. This attribution might make them feel their freedom was limited, causing negative cognitions of the message without controlling language.

Moreover, the effect size of the difference between two con- ditions was consistently larger in the Chinese sample (negative cognitive thoughts: d = .21; anger: d = .42; state reactance: d = .42) than that in the American sample (negative cognitive thoughts: d = .185; anger: d = .36; state reactance: d = .35). As explained above, American’s familiarity with the smoking cam- paign might cause similar reactions to the message with and without controlling language. In contrast, characterized by a state-owned monopoly, the cigarette industry in China has close connections with the government (He et al., 2013). Consequently, large-scale campaigns of quitting smoking are limited in China, which might have lowered the exposure level of similar messages among Chinese participants. Thus, the Chinese participants might perceive less persuasive intent of the noncontrolling language, making the difference between two conditions more evident than in the American sample.

In addition to the message characteristic, another important goal is to explicate how power distance predicts trait and state reactance, to which several findings offered different answers. First, according to MANCOVA, Americans reported more anger than Chinese, but the differences in their state reactance and negative cognitive thoughts were minimal. Ratcliff (2021) argued that individuals may react more emotionally or cogni- tively to freedom-threatening cues, depending on the context, the message, and their personality traits. One possible reason for the contrast we found can be high versus low context culture between China and the U.S. (Hofstede, 1980). The American culture is categorized as low context and character- ized by direct expressions, whereas direct expressions are dis- couraged in the Chinese culture characterized by high context (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, Americans might rate their level of anger higher than Chinese. Although Americans might also express their criticism of the message more intensely than Chinese, we operationalized negative cognition as the count of these thoughts, instead of their intensity level. Therefore, the count measure may not be able to capture the nuances of negative cognitive thoughts.

Second, according to the direct effect of the path model, Americans demonstrated a lower level of state reactance than Chinese. Notably, this finding held adjusting for trait reactance and freedom threat.

Moreover, the two indirect effects of country on state reac- tance suggested that Americans reported a higher level of state reactance than Chinese. Specifically, this difference held because of trait reactance, which has received wide empirical support (Graupmann et al., 2011; Jonas et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2021; Sittenthaler et al., 2015; Steindl & Jonas, 2012). However, our

investigation added to the extant literature with another path. Specifically, Americans reported a higher level of power distance than Chinese, which predicted trait reactance positively and subsequently heightened the level of state reactance. Given that high power distance is usually associated with collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 1985) and trait reactance is usually related to individualism (Ng et al., 2021), this mediation is surprising. The result that Americans exhibited a higher level of power distance than Chinese might be related to the age structure of the sample. Chinese participants (M = 32.21, SD = 8.07) were significantly younger (t(710.45) = 21.63, p < .001) than Americans (M = 49.23, SD = 14.18). Moreover, research suggests that Chinese seem to become more accepting of low power distance and horizontal collectivism especially among the young generation (Zhu & Gu, 2022). This might have lowered the score of power distance in the Chinese sample. Nevertheless, more research is needed to understand the cultural differences in power distance as well as its relationship with trait reactance22.

In addition to the linear relationship, this study reveals different patterns about how power distance moderated the effect of controlling language on state reactance in China and the U.S. Specifically, controlling language caused more state reactance among those reporting a low level of power dis- tance in the U.S., whereas this relationship held among those reporting a high level of power distance in China. As explained earlier, freedom is recognized as a right in the U.S. but a privilege in China. Therefore, Americans defend their freedom as a right that everyone should have, so the equality value motivates state reactance. By contrast, Chinese defend their freedom as a privilege that only certain people have, so it is the inequality value that motivates state reactance.

Research often found high levels of corruption in high power distance countries (Husted, 1999; Seleim & Bontis, 2009). This suggests that the unequal distribution of power may cultivate people’s desire for privilege. Therefore, although Chinese may be aware of the damage that power can cause to average individuals and disapprove the unequal distribution of power, they may find it hard to resist the temptation of privi- leges that power inequality can bring to themselves. When they sense threats to their freedom, which is considered a privilege because of its scarcity, those that endorse high power distance are more motivated to defend it.

This finding reveals the complex nature of psychological reactance in different cultures of power distance and calls for more research on the Chinese culture. On the one hand, collectivism in China has different meanings than Hofstede (1980). Research found that the collectivism value held by Chinese only applies to their family instead of the entire society (Yeh, 1988) because the privileged group in China often uses collectivism to persuade the low-power class to sacrifice personal interest for their own benefits (Zhu & Gu, 2022). On the other hand, Chinese youths increasingly recog- nize low power distance and horizontal collectivism (Zhu & Gu, 2022). These cultural characteristics might affect Chinese individuals’ perception of freedom and subsequently their reaction to freedom threats.

Our findings not only extended prior research on the impact of culture on psychological reactance to power distance

10 J. R. RUI ET AL.

but also provided new insights about this cultural dimension. The classic work by Hofstede (1980, 1985) suggests that indi- viduals from a high-power distance culture may be more submissive, which this study challenged. We found that low versus high power distance enhanced the effect of controlling language on state reactance among Americans versus Chinese. We speculate this difference may be derived from the different meanings of freedom in the Chinese versus American culture. Therefore, Hofstede’s explanation on culture may need to be reexamined in the local culture, and research should note the impact of the political and cultural environment on one’s motivation for freedom restoration.

In addition, our finding reveals that Americans demon- strated more anger than Chinese at the presence of freedom- threatening cues. As explained above, this suggests that adding negative cognitive thoughts and anger and operationalizing negative cognitive thoughts as the count may be insufficient to capture the nuances in state reactance. Triangulation measures may not be able to address this limitation. Future research may need to examine the relative effect of cognition and anger on message acceptance and explore its boundary effect.

The present research also provided practical implications on message design for international audience. First, we found additional evidence showing that even individuals from a culture characterized by collectivism and low power dis- tance can react to freedom threatening messages with reac- tance (Quick & Kim, 2009). Therefore, health campaigns targeted at similar cultures should be cautious of their expres- sions to minimize the potential influence of freedom threat. Furthermore, our results provided additional evidence show- ing that controlling language could heighten state reactance. Therefore, practitioners should minimize controlling lan- guage and use suggestive language instead. Additionally, our result calls attention to different message design strate- gies for individuals living in different cultures of power dis- tance. For Chinese audiences, practitioners should be more cautious to minimize potential influence of freedom threat when messages are targeted at individuals identifying with high power distance. Conversely, for American audiences, practitioners should be more cautious of the potential reac- tance from people identifying with low power distance. Our analysis on the demographics and power distance revealed that Chinese women (β = .09, p = .072) and American youths (β = −.24, p < .001) were more identified with power distance. These investigations provided preliminary evidence on which population practitioners should be cautious of to minimize potential reactance.

This study has several caveats which require attention. First, we did not measure perceived freedom threat in the main analysis. However, this manipulation of freedom threat through controlling language was established and replicated in many studies (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Richards & Larsen, 2017). The pilot test also confirmed its validity, which may minimize its influence on the validity of our results. Nevertheless, as freedom threat perception is an important component of the process of triggering psychological reac- tance, future research should include this variable.

Second, our samples are convenience in nature, which can threaten the internal and external validity of our

findings. Next, the issue we selected, quitting smoking, has been applied to many studies and practices. This may introduce additional variances due to participants’ repeated exposure to the topic. As Chinese’ and Americans’ expo- sures to the quitting campaign might be different, this might have contributed to their different reactions. Hence, future research should replicate this study with different health topics and investigate how audience famil- iarity with the issue may shape their subsequent responses.

Additionally, our research only replicated previous result that controlling language could heighten state reactance, but we did not examine how to minimize reactance. Previous research has offered two strategies, inoculation and post restoration (Richards et al., 2020). As individuals from differ- ent cultures may have different levels of need for autonomy, their reaction to these restoration strategies may also differ, which future research should examine.

Furthermore, the path analysis reveals that compared to power distance, individualism might exhibit a greater effect on psychological reactance and subsequent message accep- tance. This contrast needs replication in future research. It is also important to note the correlation between power distance and individualism could affect the current results. Given the scarcity of the scholarship on power distance and psychologi- cal reactance, future research should seek to provide further evidence on the complex nature of this cultural factor.

By comparing the relationship between power distance and psychological reactance in China and U.S., the present study provided insights on the psychological functioning of power distance in the process of triggering reactance. Our results suggest that individuals in different cultures may interpret freedom differently, which may affect their reac- tions to the controlling language. Thus, even in a society where its members are used to the unequal distribution of power, reactance is still possible but perhaps among a different group.

Notes

1. Results of MANOVA can change as different covariates were added to the model. When no variables were controlled, sig- nificant differences emerged in both negative cognitive thoughts and anger between countries, with Chinese consis- tently demonstrating lower levels of negative cognitive thoughts and anger than Americans. When sex, age, and the quantity of smoking were controlled, the only significant dif- ference between countries was anger. If individualism and power distance were considered as additional covariates, Chinese exhibited a higher level of state reactance than Americans, which aligns with the direct effect in the path model. However, the last finding can be spurious, given that the correlations between individualism, power distance, and country caused multicollinearity.

2. We tested the mediation between power distance and state reac- tance via trait reactance controlling for individualism and freedom threat in separate samples. However, the relationship between power distance and trait reactance was positive in both samples.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

HEALTH COMMUNICATION 11

Funding

This study was supported by the National Social Science Fund in China under Grant 21BXW060

Data availability statement

The data of the present study is available via https://figshare.com/s/ 960b3328a6195dde9b73

References

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of

freedom and control. Academic. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022a, March 17). Current

cigarette smoking among adults in the United States. https://www.cdc. gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/ index.htm#:~:text=Cigarette%20smoking%20remains%20the%20lead ing,about%201%20in%205%20deaths.&text=In%202020%2C% 20nearly%2013%20of,12.5%25)%20currently*%20smoked% 20cigarettes

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022b, November 1). Health problems caused by secondhand smoke. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ secondhand-smoke/health.html#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20safe% 20level,exposure%20can%20cause%20immediate%20harm.&text= Health%20problems%20caused%20by%20secondhand%20smoke% 20in%20adults%20who%20do,women%2C%20including%20low% 20birth%20weight

Clayton, R. B. (2022). On the psychophysiological and defensive nature of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Communication, 72(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac016

Clayton, R. B., Lang, A., Leshner, G., & Quick, B. L. (2019). Who fights, who flees? An integration of the LC4MP and psychological reactance theory. Media Psychology, 22(4), 545–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15213269.2018.1476157

Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Hendrickse, J. (2020). When counterarguing becomes the primary task: Examination of dog- matic anti-vaping messages on psychological reactance, available cog- nitive resources, and memory. Journal of Communication, 70(4), 522–547. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa010

De Meulenaer, S., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2018). Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and the effects of source credibility on health risk message compliance. Health Communication, 33(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1266573

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815

Dorfman, P., & Howell, J. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. JAI Press.

Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1503_6

Graupmann, V., Jonas, E., Meier, E., Hawelka, S., & Aichhorn, M. (2011). Reactance, the self, and its group: When threats to freedom come from the ingroup versus the outgroup. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.857

He, P., Takeuchi, T., & Yano, E. (2013). An overview of the China national tobacco corporation and state tobacco monopoly administration. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 18(1), 85–90. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12199-012-0288-4

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1985). The interaction between national and organizational value systems. Journal of Management Studies, 22(4), 347–357. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00001.x

Hong, S. M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001014

Huang, X., Van de Vliert, E., & Van der Vegt, G. (2005). Breaking the silence culture: Stimulation of participation and employee opinion withholding cross-nationally. Management and Organization Review, 1(3), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00023.x

Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2), 339–359. https://doi.org/10. 1057/palgrave.jibs.8490073

Jenkins, M., & Dragojevic, M. (2013). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach. Communication Research, 40(4), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420136

Jonas, E., Graupmann, V., Niesta Kayser, D., Zanna, M., Traut- Mattausch, E., & Frey, D. (2009). Culture, self, and the emergence of reactance: Is there a “universal” freedom? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1068–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp. 2009.06.005

Kim, K., & Cho, B. (2011). Development of an individualism-collectivism scale revisited: A Korean sample. Psychological Reports, 108(2), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.17.21.pr0.108.2.393-401

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to trans- formational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744–764. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amj.2009.43669971

Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2012). Reactance versus rationalization: Divergent responses to policies that constrain freedom. Psychological Science, 23(2), 205–209. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0956797611429468

LaVoie, N. R., Quick, B. L., Riles, J. M., & Lambert, N. J. (2017). Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy? A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Communication Research, 44(3), 416–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215609669

Lopez, S. G., Garza, R. T., & Gonzalez-Blanks, A. G. (2012). Preventing smoking among Hispanic preadolescents: Program orientation, parti- cipant individualism-collectivism, and acculturation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 34(2), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0739986311435901

Miller, C. H., Burgoon, M., Grandpre, J. R., & Alvaro, E. M. (2006). Identifying principal risk factors for the initiation of adolescent smok- ing behaviors: The significance of psychological reactance. Health Communication , 19(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327027hc1903_6

Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219–240. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x

Moon, S., Kim, K., Feeley, T. H., & Shin, D. (2015). A normative approach to reducing illegal music downloading: The persuasive effects of nor- mative message framing. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.06.003

Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 26–52. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x

Ng, A. H., Kermani, M. S., & Lalonde, R. N. (2021). Cultural differences in psychological reactance: Responding to social media censorship. Current Psychology, 40(6), 2804–2813. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-019-00213-0

Pornpitakpan, C., & Francis, J. N. (2000). The effect of cultural differ- ences, source expertise, and argument strength on persuasion: An experiment with Canadians and Thais. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 13(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1300/ j046v13n01_06

Quick, B. L. (2013). Perceived message sensation value and psychological reactance: A test of the dominant thought disruption hypothesis. Journal of Health Communication, 18(9), 1024–1038. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10810730.2013.768728

12 J. R. RUI ET AL.

Quick, B. L., & Bates, B. R. (2010). The use of gain- or loss-frame messages and efficacy appeals to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students: A test of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 15(6), 603–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10810730.2010.499593

Quick, B. L., & Kim, D. K. (2009). Examining reactance and reactance restoration with South Korean adolescents: A test of psychological reactance within a collectivist culture. Communication Research, 36 (6), 765–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650290346797

Quick, B. L., Scott, A. M., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2011). A close examination of trait reactance and issue involvement as moderators of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 16(6), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.551989

Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2007). Further evidence that psycho- logical reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207300427

Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examining the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance restoration. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 448–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00328.x

Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x

Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and per- suasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 241–269. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x

Ratcliff, C. L. (2021). Characterizing reactance in communication research: A review of conceptual and operational approaches. Communication Research, 48(7), 1033–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093650219872126

Reinhart, A. M., Marshall, H. M., Feeley, T. H., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediat- ing role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74 (2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701397098

Reynolds-Tylus, T. (2019). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Communication, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00056

Richards, A. S., Bessarabova, E., Banas, J. A., & Bernard, D. R. (2020). Reducing psychological reactance to health promotion messages:

Comparing preemptive and postscript mitigation strategies. Health Communication, 37(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236. 2020.1839203

Richards, A. S., & Larsen, M. (2017). Anger expression moderates the effects of psychological reactance to sexual health messages. Health Communication, 32(12), 1491–1500. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10410236.2016.1230811

Richardson, R. M., & Smith, S. W. (2007). The influence of high/low- context culture and power distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with professors in Japan and America. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(4), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.01.002

Seleim, A., & Bontis, N. (2009). The relationship between culture and corruption: A cross‐national study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10 (1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930910922978

Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_07

Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Jonas, E. (2015). Observing the restriction of another person: Vicarious reactance and the role of self-construal and culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01052

Steindl, C., & Jonas, E. (2012). What reasons might the other one have? Perspective taking to reduce psychological reactance in individualists and collectivists. Psychology, 3(12), 1153–1160. https://doi.org/10. 4236/psych.2012.312a170

Varava, K. A., & Quick, B. L. (2015). Adolescents and movie ratings: Is psychological reactance a theoretical explanation for the forbidden fruit effect? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(1), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.998224

World Health Organization. (2022). Tobacco in China. https://www.who. int/china/health-topics/tobacco

Xu, J. (2015). Designing messages with high sensation value: When activation meets reactance. Psychology & Health, 30(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.977280

Yeh, R. S. (1988). On Hofstede’s treatment of Chinese and Japanese values. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 6(1), 149–160. https:// doi.org/10.1007/bf01732256

Zhu, J., & Gu, Y. (2022). From pandemic control to explore collectivism in China. Education Journal, 5(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.31058/j.edu. 2022.51003

HEALTH COMMUNICATION 13