[ reactance ]

[ reactance ] A Psychological Study of Reactance Theory through a Designed Installation.

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

-Isaac Newton

In the first section of this paper I explored the physiological topic of reactance theory and persuasion. Reactance theory is created a simple experiment to test it, I found that under the right conditions reactance is a strong motivational tool for persuasion. The Reactance Theory is activated when a person’s ‘Freedom of Behavior’ is threatened and they are motivated to act (Breham, 1966). It can be used as a tool for persuasion when used to elicit a motivated action to the contrary of a given instruction.

In the second section I developed an ideal persona that had a

form of Obsessive Compulsive disorder (OCD) in that he must push an button like object he sees and he must also follow all written instructions. I wanted my persona to be directly faced with Reactance in its purest sense and for the interaction to guide his justification and legitimacy reasoning in order to persuade him to fulfil his desire over his disgust. I am dealing with attitude as his main concern type and thus the appraisal pattern that I am using is the Applealingness of the object (Desmet, 2002). By eliciting two conflicting emotions simultaneously I believed it will elevate both experiences to be many times more powerful.

I combined this persona and appraisal theory research with

the experimental values and style of Art+Com to meet a design brief to begin to develop this interaction.

In the 3rd section of this project I began concepting ideas by expanding my initial definition of tactile feedback and adding the idea of prolonged feedback over a period of time. I chose a concept based on a large scale Pin Point Impression toy and have since found this installation: Clerkenwell Design Week: Lulu Guinness – Be a Pin Up! (24/05/2011). My installation began to progress far beyond the being a simple Pin Point Impression object, and was iteratively refined to meet the elements driving this interaction: Reactance, my persona and the style of Art+Com.

source: http://fashionistabarbieuk.com/?p=16275

In the 1st phase of testing I used In-situ designing, video observation, talking allowed and post-trial interview to test the interaction’s ability to elicit the two conflicting emotions desire to touch and submissive behavior. I learnt a lot through this process and discovered the following main points:

•

The straws created a very interesting visual effect I had not

expected.

•

The desire to touch the object was very strong.

•

People would begin to softly touch the object then gener-

ally proceed to tapping it harder and harder until straws began to fall out.

•

Most did not press their entire bodies into it as I had origi-

nally predicted.

•

Two people on either side of the object created a playful

‘conversation.’

•

People were generally not deterred by the “do not touch”

aspect.

“I like how chaotic it looks”

“I just wana pull them all out”

“Am I allowed to touch it?”

“It’s amazing to look through”

The observation of people not being deterred by the “do not touch” aspect is perhaps the most important of my observations, as it means that the conflict of emotion that I was trying to create was not coming through. The intended conflict is derived from reactance and a clash in my persona’s personality traits. It is important to note that generally the participants scored higher on the tactile felling questions than the submissive behavior questions, which means that they relate to my persona’s tactile trait much more than the submissive trait, perhaps providing a reason for the low deterrent levels in the tests. To create this sense of a conflict I had to really focus on the submissive behavioral trait in the next stage of testing.

In the second stage of iterative testing I tested different ways to make the user not want to touch the object while at the same time making him/her want to touch it. This is a very fine line to achieve and thus iterative testing with real people was essential in finding it.

My initial ideas on how to achieve this were to make the object; wet and slimy, fragile, dangerous, have a sign stating “do not touch,” use geometric patterns, use flashing red and green lights, to have a sound recording saying “do not touch” on a loop or to have camera surveillance on the object to make the user feel watched. The user experience testing method I used was observation in an artificial environment focusing on the initial introduction of the participant to the interaction, as this is where the main point of conflict would arise.

Participant 1.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 29 Test situation(s): Predefined Geometric Circle, Camera Surveillance.

“so can I play with it then?”

“I would defiantly be aware of a security camera”

Result: little conflict which was focused at Circle

Participant 2.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 25 Test situation(s): Predefined Geometric Circle, Camera Surveillance, Audio Recording.

“See what I did” “I just touched the outside” “don’t touch the object but I want to haha” “I didn’t figure it was guna hurt anybody if I touched it” “If it was in an art gallery I wouldn’t touch it because someone might tell me off” Result: Very little conflict

Participant 3.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 32 Test situation(s): Audio Recording, Do Not touch Text Imprint

“So what do I do?” “can I touch it though?” “am I allowed to touch it?”

Result: Large amount of conflict

Participant 4.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 32 Test situation(s): Fragility.

“So what am I doing?”

“It felt fragile cause it was moving” “It’s really cool.”

Result: Little conflict

Participant 5.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 32 Test situation(s): Fragility and Audio Recording “But I have to touch it” “what a mind @#$%!”

“I wana just fix it” I didn’t really give a @#$% about the recording”

Result: Small amount of conflict

Participant 6.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 24 Test situation(s): (Paper frame Removed), Flat Surface “It’s funny how some of them are more ridged than others” Experimenter: “Alright that’s it, all done.”

Participant: “You serious? ... I’m not finished yet” “that’s so trippy”

Result: No conflict

Participant 7.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 38 Test situation(s): Audio Recording

“Don’t really wana touch it ay” “Whoa keep doing that bro, that’s sick!”

“Looks like shattered glass”

Result: Small amount of conflict

Participant 8.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 34 Test situation(s): Alternate Perforations (Visual Test)

“doesn’t look as cool as your other one” “how do I fix it?”

Result: Alternate perforations not as effective.

Participant 9.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 36 Test situation(s): Barrier, Audio Recording.

“So what, just do whatever?” (referring to barrier) “feels like it’s on display” “haha I like it!”

Result: Good level of conflict

I tested different combinations of discouraging

environment where the user is not allowed to touch things

elements and found that the fragility of the object and

and is a much more poetic method than the straightforward

predefined impressions had a low deterrent level while

audio recording.

the barrier and audio recording had the most effect.

I also looked at creating the object from perforated sheet

Thus though these tests I assumed that the presentation

metal from AE Tilley’s but after a simulation test of the hole

of the object to the user through these techniques will

spacing found that the visual element was not nearly as pow-

be the most effective way to elicit the conflict I am af-

erful as it is in the current mesh wire prototype. The next step

ter. I continued to test the barrier element to determine

from here was to test and develop an aesthetically pleasing

what type, size and height barrier will deliver the right

solid ‘frame’ that will really bring out the Art+Com charac-

amount of discouragement. I justified this barrier ele-

teristic.

ment to be the most elegant solution as it reference an

Participant 10.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 32 Test situation(s):

Wall Vs. Frame Result: Frame more visually appealing, also noticed objects could be suspended in place.

From this stage of testing I then developed and

built a frame that better suited the aesthetics of the interaction and helped to emphasise the visual quality of the straws. I began the final series of testing to find the most effective method of presenting the barrier element to the user. I used retractable ribbon stands with black and yellow diagonal lines, this style of barrier suggests to the user that something is in the process of being set up or is possibly even dangerous and thus aroused the curiosity of the user even if only at a subconscious level.

This style I believe to bring about stronger level of reactance than in a barrier such as velvet rope which lacks the curiosity element.

I tested 3 different distances of the barrier to the object , the results are shown on the next few slides.

Participant 11.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 34 Test situation(s):

Barrier - close proximity Result: participant reaches over barrier

Participant 12.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 22 Test situation(s):

Barrier - intermediate distance Result: participant leans into barrier

Participant 13.

Score of Pre-trial Questionnaire: 33 Test situation(s):

Barrier - large distance Result: participant passes under barrier

In all cases the participants were only slightly de-

faced with negative stimuli, i.e. they knew because it was a

terred by the barrier, in saying this though the level of

test they would not get in trouble for touching the object.

conflicting emotions was still higher than in any of the

I predict that when the object is situated in exhibition and

other methods I tested earlier. I would like to note here

presented to the public it will elicit the desired conflict much

that a characteristic of the testing system could be af-

more powerfully. The following images show my final instal-

fecting the results. As each participant knew they were

lation ready for exhibition.

being tested they reacted with more confidence when

When asked what this object actually is I reply, “It’s

fact that the interaction is an installation is true to the style of

an interaction defined and refined by several elements

Art+Com’s work and the scale of my object suits this format

relating to psychology.” I feel that this object meets the

perfectly.

needs of these elements and has at long last become an

aesthetically beautiful object in its own right. The final

user experience testing shows I am beginning to elicit a

over this process have come to realize that the users initial

good level of conflict that would really push my persona

inspection of the object and the thoughts running through

emotionally. Through this conflict I am also displaying

his/her head are perhaps as much of an interaction as the

reactance theory through persuasion, my original psy-

actual object itself.

I am exceptionally pleased with this installation and

chology topic, in that the conflict is driven from this. The

Bibliography Breham, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psycological Reactance. In D. G. W. Warner Burke, Organization Change: A Comprehensive Reader (pp. 377-391). San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Desmet, P. (2002, June 25). Designing emotions . TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.