Adaptation of the Mertz-Hong Reactance Scale in a Russian-speaking Sample

Objective. The article presents the results of adaptation of the Mertz–Hong reactance scale on a Russian-speaking sample.
Background. The world will no longer be the same, and we will not remain as we were before. The pandemic and the consequences of the economic crisis have provided a powerful impetus for changes in Russian society, organization functioning, and people's habitual way of life. The theory of reactive resistance helps to explain these changes and reactions, seeing them as a response to the threat to personal freedom from external influences. The study of the theory contributes to the development of effective strategies for communicating and managing behavior in new realities. The use of an adapted version of the Mertz–Hong Reactive Resistance Scale will help fill the deficit of Russian-language psychometric instruments designed for the theoretical and empirical study of reactive behavior, helping to better understand the processes of psychological influence and resistance.
Study Design. The study was conducted using the Online Test Pad service in 2024.
Participants. The pilot sample included 32 respondents, the final sample included 218 respondents: 61 men (28%), 157 women (72%) from different regions of the Russian Federation. Age from 18 to 75 years, M = 35,2; SD = 13,3; more than half (66,5%) have higher education.
Measurements. The reactive resistance model of S.-M. Hong was used as the basis of the scale. The correlations with socio-demographic indicators, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were checked. Factor validity was verified by the method of principal components with varimax rotation and confirmatory factor analysis. SPSS 26.0 and Jamovi 2.6.2 were used for data processing.
Results. A four-factor scale structure was obtained, Cronbach's alpha = 0,812; McDonald's ω = 0,823; Retest reliability after 4-5 weeks (48 people), Pearson's r = 0,746 (p = 0,01). Using confirmatory factor analysis, a model with the following indicators was obtained: CFI 0,931; TLI 0,906; SRMR 0,053; RMSEA 0,059; lower 0,040 upper 0,078.
Conclusions. Despite the multiple criticisms of the original Merz and Hong’s scales, we have obtained a good intermediate model that can be used as a tool, however, further refinement and verification of a number of indicators are necessary.

1. Bayramova Y.V., Rahimova A.G. Individual'nye ustanovki vzroslogo naseleniya k protektivnomu povedeniyu v situatsii pandemii COVID-2019 [Individual Attitude towards Protective Behavior during COVID-2019 Pandemic in Adult Population]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2021. Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 78–93. DOI:10.17759/sps.2021120205 (In Russ.).
2. Kulinkovich T.O., Kosobutskaya A.Yu. Reaktivnoe soprotivlenie v sluzhebnykh otnosheniyakh [Reactive resistance in official relations]. Filosofiya i sotsial'nye nauki = Philosophy and Social Sciences, 2013, no. 3/4, pp. 68–77. (In Russ.).
3. Sarieva I.R., Bogatyreva N.I. Opravdanie sistemy i podderzhka ogranichenii, svyazannykh s koronavirusom: rol' doveriya gosudarstvu i very v teorii zagovora [System Justification and Coronavirus Restrictions Support: the Role of Government Trust and Conspiracy Belief]. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2021. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 59–73. DOI:10.17759/sps.2021120305 (In Russ.).
4. Aguirre-Camacho A. et al. Revisiting psychological reactance theory: relationship between psychological reactance and health-related attitudes/behaviors in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Psychology. 2024. Vol. 43, pp. 35697– DOI:10.1007/s12144-024-06810-y
5. Coskun Benlidayi I., Gupta L. Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation: A Critical Step in Multi-National Survey Studies. J Korean Med Sci., 2024. 39(49): e336. DOI:10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e336
6. De las Cuevas C. et al. Psychological reactance in psychiatric patients: Examining the dimensionality and correlates of the Hong psychological reactance scale in a large clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 2014. Vol. 70, pp. 85–91. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.027
7. Díaz R., Cova F. Reactance, morality, and disgust: The relationship between affective dispositions and compliance with official health recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cognition & Emotion, Vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 120–136. DOI:10.1080/02699931.2021.1941783
8. Dillard J.P. et al. Persuasive messages, social norms, and reactance: A study of masking behavior during a COVID-19 campus health campaign. Health Communication, 2023. Vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1338–1348. DOI:10.1080/10410236.2021.2007579
9. Dowd E.T. et al. Psychological reactance and its relationship to normal personality variables. Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 601–612. DOI:10.1007/BF02355671
10. Dowd E.T., Milne C.R., Wise S.L. The therapeutic reactance scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 69, pp. 541–545. DOI:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb02638.x
11. Haidong L. Psychological Reactance. In: The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology. Springer, Singapore. 2024. DOI:1007/978-981-99-6000-2_228-1
12. Hong S.-M., Page S. A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure and reliability. Psychological Reports. 1989. Vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 323–1326. DOI:10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3c.1323
13. Ko Y. et al. The persuasive effects of social media narrative PSAs on COVID-19 vaccination intention among unvaccinated young adults: the mediating role of empathy and psychological reactance. Journal of Social Marketing. Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 490–509. DOI:10.1108/JSOCM-09-2022-0185
14. Merz J. Fragebogen zur Messung der psychologischen Reaktanz. Diagnostica, 1983. Vol. 29(1), pp. 75–82.
15. Moreira P., Cunha D., Inman R.A. Addressing a Need for Valid Measures of Trait Reactance in Adolescents: A Further Test of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2019. Vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 357–369. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2019.1585360
16. Moyer-Gusé E., Nabi R.L. Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human communication research, 2010. Vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 26– DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x
17. Plohl N., Musil B. Trust in science moderates the effects of high/low threat communication on psychological reactance to COVID-19-related public health messages. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 2023. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 401–411. DOI:10.1080/17538068.2023.2279395
18. Sittenthaler S. et al. Salzburger state reactance scale (SSR Scale): Validation of a Scale Measuring State Reactance. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 2015. Vol. 223, no. 4, pp. 257–266. DOI:10.1027/2151-2604/a000227
19. Sprengholz P., Tannert S., Betsch C. Explaining Boomerang Effects in Persuasive Health Communication: How Psychological Reactance to Healthy Eating Messages Elevates Attention to Unhealthy Food. Journal of Health Communication, 2023. Vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 384–390. DOI:10.1080/10810730.2023.2217098
20. Stehlíková J. et al. Hong Psychological Reactance Scale: Factorial structure and measurement invariance of the Czech version. Československá psychologie, 2020. Vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 656–667.
21. Tucker R.K., Byers P.Y. Factorial validity of Merz's psychological reactance scale. Psychological Reports, 1987. Vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 811–
22. Verpaalen I.A.M. et al. Psychological reactance and vaccine uptake: a longitudinal study. Psychology & Health, 2023, pp. 1–21. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2023.2190761
23. Waris O. et al. The factorial structure of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale in two Finnish samples. Nordic Psychology, 2020. Vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 68–90. DOI:10.1080/19012276.2020.1800508
24. Yost A.B., Finney S.J. Assessing the unidimensionality of trait reactance using a multifaceted model assessment approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2018. Vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 186–196. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2017.1280044