When people feel their freedom is being threatened, they often react with rejection—a phenomenon known in psychology as “reactance.” This poses a significant challenge for climate communication, which must convince the public of the necessity for massive changes. But how exactly does this psychological resistance arise, and what can we do to mitigate or even avoid these defensive reactions?
This post was originally published in Germon on klimafakten.de
Which questions do the studies address?
To better understand the phenomenon of reactance within the climate crisis, we look at two different publications:
Laura Bilfinger et al. (2026) experimentally investigate the interplay between message content and its source. They ask: Does it make a difference whether we call for individual behavioral changes (e.g., taking the bus instead of driving) or for the support of political measures (e.g., speed limits, subsidies for sustainable mobility)? Furthermore, what differences arise when the message comes from scientists versus activists?
Chelsea Ratcliff (2021) provides the necessary theoretical framework. In a systematic review of communication science research, she clarifies how reactance is conceptually defined and measured.
Additionally, we draw on findings from Léo Toussard and Thierry Meyer (2024), who examine how “autonomy-supportive” communication can help bypass reactance.
What methodology was used, and why is it reliable?
The study by Bilfinger et al. (2026) is based on a controlled experiment with participants randomly assigned to different messages (stimuli). This method is particularly strong at isolating causal relationships and quantifying effects statistically. Because the participants were from Germany and the study was conducted in German, the results are especially meaningful for the German population.
Ratcliff (2021) offers a robust theoretical synthesis that ensures conceptual clarity based on an extensive literature search. Both works were published in renowned academic journals and underwent a rigorous peer-review process, ensuring the quality of the argumentation and methodology.
Key Findings
First, a clear definition of the phenomenon and its psychological mechanism is helpful. According to Ratcliff (2021), reactance is a “psychological state triggered by a perceived threat to one’s freedom of thought or action […] The person is then motivated to restore their own agency by resisting the message” (p. 1033).
Reactance is a psychological process that unfolds in three steps:
Perception of a Threat: The message is experienced as an interference with one’s personal autonomy. Bilfinger et al. (2026) show that this happens particularly with appeals to change individual behavior. These are perceived more strongly as a threat to autonomy than messages emphasizing political measures, leading to emotional and cognitive reactions in the form of anger and counter-arguments (p. 6).
Anger and Irritation: In this phase, “counter-arguing” occurs frequently alongside negative emotional responses — recipients actively look for reasons why the message is wrong or irrelevant. This can also involve questioning the credibility of the messenger.
Restoring Freedom: Resistance to peruasion is broad and includes a “spectrum of outcomes, including rejection and message avoidance” (p. 1044). To regain a sense of self-determination, the message is ignored, or a “boomerang effect” happens: the person does the opposite out of spite or strengthens their original stance. Sometimes, compensatory actions occur—for instance, one might vote for a different party than the one perceived to be sending the climate-friendly messages.
A critical point is that reactance can backfire on the sender. Bilfinger’s study shows that “assessments of expertise, integrity, and benevolence of both sources [scientists and activists] were negatively influenced by individual appeals” (p. 6). A type of backlash occurs, undermining trust in the messengers.
Concrete Applications for Practice
Climate communication faces a dilemma, as even political measures can be interpreted as restrictions. As Dr. Anne Reif (University of Hamburg) emphasizes: “The individual level cannot be entirely avoided in climate protection; eventually, we are personally affected”. Therefore, it is crucial to design communication that triggers as little reactance as possible.
- Focus on the System, not the Individual: Individual appeals should be used sparingly. Instead, societal and political changes should be emphasized.
An effective tool, according to Dr. Mike Farjam (University of Hamburg), is to flip the narrative and “portray climate change as the threat to freedom that it actually is—then climate protection measures preserve our freedom”. The goal is to mark climate change as the actual “thief of freedom”—for example, by highlighting future costs for climate adaptation. - Emphasize Gains and Question Values: “Gain-Framing” focuses on the positive rather than the loss. Louisa Pröschel (University of Hamburg) explains: “The threat of climate change is not yet tangible for many, but the positive side effects of climate-friendly behavior and policies can still be emphasized now“. Highlighting quality of life or health gains as the outcome of climate-friendly policies instead of restrictions on behaviour lowers reactance.
Dr. Anne Reif also suggests: “Alternatively, the value of the threatened freedom can be questioned”—for example, by discussing how much “freedom” fossil fuel dependencies or speeding on the highway actually offer. - Support Autonomy: Instead of appearing controlling, the autonomy of the recipient should be strengthened. Based on recommendations by Toussard & Meyer (2024) “Autonomy Support” means:
- Providing a meaningful, pro-social rationale for the desired behavior.
- Openly acknowledging the difficulties of implementation.
- Offering choices instead of prescribing only one path.
- Using inviting, non-controlling language (e.g., “could” instead of “must”).
How easily these strategies can be implemented depends on the messenger. While both activists and researchers must deal with reactance, the latter may be better positioned to point out the positive side effects of climate protection. Activists, on the other hand, may find it easier to focus on political changes to avoid being labeled as “moral apostles”.