Reverse Psychology

Reverse psychology, or strategic self-anticonformity, is a manipulation technique. You argue for the opposite of what you want, so the other person pushes back and does what you wanted.

This strategic tactic relies on the psychological phenomenon of reactance. Reactance refers to the negative emotions or uncomfortable feelings a person experiences when being persuaded or when feeling like their autonomy is threatened.

The goal is to create that feeling of reactance. If you demand what you do not want, they will likely push back and do what you actually want.

The Cambridge English Dictionary gives the official definition:

“a method of trying to make someone do what you want by asking them to do the opposite and expecting them to disagree with you.”

The subject of this manipulation tactic is generally unaware of what is really going on and what the other person’s true motives are. 

Examples of reverse psychology 

Nearly everyone has used reverse psychology on someone, or had it used on them, without necessarily recognizing it by name. The examples below show how it works in everyday situations, so you can start to recognize it when it happens again.

In marketing

Marketing strategies often utilize the techniques of reverse psychology to encourage people to buy goods and services. Sinha and Foscht (2007) describe one example: a Prada store in Manhattan, New York City, that used reverse psychology tactics deliberately.

The store has no outdoor signage or advertising, and there are no indicators that the store even exists. This created mystery and exclusivity.

Only people who already know the store is there will visit it. Shoppers who do not want to feel excluded become more motivated to seek it out and prove they belong.

This is a deliberate case of a broader pattern. Clee and Wicklund (1980) found that scarcity and restricted availability can act as freedom threats that make a product more desirable.

Advertisers who imply that a product is “not for everyone,” or in short supply, are engineering the same reactance that reverse psychology relies on.

In sales

Sales strategies use similar techniques. One common tactic is the “door in the face” technique. It works in three steps.

1. Open high: The salesperson makes an outrageously high pitch. They are not actually trying to make that sale.
2. Expect pushback: The customer refuses and counters with something smaller, while still buying.
3. Land the real goal: The smaller deal now looks like the reasonable choice.

A car dealership, for instance, might pitch the priciest, highest-tech model first, one the customer clearly cannot afford. Once the customer turns it down, the dealer pitches the more affordable car that was the real target all along.

In parenting 

Parents often use reverse psychology to influence a child’s behavior. They prompt the child to choose what is best for them, so the child feels like the decision is their own.

In reality, the child is under the spell of reverse psychology.

For example, a parent who wants their child to eat vegetables might say, “Can mom have your broccoli? You don’t want it.” The child is then likely to eat the broccoli, just to prove them wrong.

In relationships 

People use reverse psychology in relationships to get their partners to act a certain way. It can misfire, though. For example, one partner might suggest that they do not think their partner can handle the task of making the bed each morning since they do not have time.

The partner might respond by making the bed to prove their partner wrong. Using reverse psychology in relationships can be destructive, though, because your partner might lose faith in your words and become hurt if they realize you are trying to manipulate them.

Does reverse psychology work?

Reverse psychology can work because people who feel pressured to act a certain way tend to prefer doing the opposite instead. This response has a name: psychological reactance.

The Reactance Mechanism

Brehm (1966) proposed that people hold perceived behavioral freedoms: beliefs about what they are free to think, feel, or do. A rule or a demand can threaten one of these freedoms. The theory calls the reaction reactance, an uncomfortable drive to restore what was threatened.

Restoring the freedom rarely requires acting on it. Often, simply wanting the opposite of what was demanded is proof enough that the freedom still exists. A soft suggestion produces little reactance. A blunt, repeated demand produces a great deal.

The first experimental support came from Brehm and Sensenig (1966). An option placed off-limits became more attractive than before.

This held whether the restriction came from a direct instruction or a more impersonal removal of choice. The effect was strongest after the most direct, explicit pressure.

Reverse psychology runs this mechanism in reverse. Ordinarily, a persuader wants reactance low, because it makes people resist the very outcome they want.

Reverse psychology inverts the goal: the stated demand is the opposite of the real one, so resisting it delivers the real goal by accident.

How Reactance Theory Has Developed

Reactance theory has stayed active for six decades. Steindl et al. (2015) reviewed how later work refined it. The importance of the threatened freedom, for instance, shapes how much reactance a threat produces.

They also catalogued three ways people restore a threatened freedom.

• Reassert it directly: This is the route reverse psychology exploits.
• Lash out: People may turn aggression on the source of the threat.
• Like the blocked option more: They may do this without acting on it.

Rosenberg and Siegel’s (2018) fifty-year review traced reactance into health communication, marketing, politics, and close relationships. Reverse psychology is used in the same areas.

Fransen, Smit, and Verlegh (2015) placed reactance within a wider framework of resistance to persuasion. They identified four ways people resist a persuasive attempt.

• Avoidance: Evading the message before it is even processed.
• Contesting: Actively challenging its content or its source.
• Biased processing: Interpreting it in a way that favors an existing attitude.
• Empowerment: Reinforcing one’s own confidence or beliefs instead of engaging with it.

Which route people take depends on their motive: a threat to freedom, a reluctance to change, or a concern about the communicator’s honesty.

Reactance matches the threat-to-freedom motive. That is why the tactic needs a felt loss of choice. Making someone doubt a message, or distrust its sender, does not reliably trigger the same pushback.

Evidence From Real-World Use

MacDonald, Nail, and Harper (2011) tested whether people actually use reverse psychology, and how often. In the first study, participants described a real example from their own life in which they had advocated for the opposite of what they wanted. The results were striking:

• Prevalence: 105 of 159 people (66%) reported a genuine example that two independent raters judged valid.
• Frequency: On average, they said they used the tactic more than once a month.
• Two forms: Some used it to change someone’s behavior. Others used it to seek reassurance, such as understating their feelings so a partner affirms them more strongly.

The researchers concluded that reverse psychology is a relevant, prevalent, real-world influence tactic that deserves closer study by social influence researchers.

A second study compared how often people reported using the tactic with three well-established influence techniques: door-in-the-face, foot-in-the-door, and disrupt-then-reframe. It confirmed that reverse psychology is a real-world tactic that sits alongside them, not a rare curiosity.

The evidence rests mainly on self-report, though, so it shows what people believe they did rather than proof the tactic caused the change.

Applied in Education

Reverse psychology has a place in the classroom too. Researchers Deborah Andrews, Ben Lishman, and Elizabeth Newton describe a case study embedding Life Cycle Thinking and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into design and engineering education.

First-year engineering and design students were asked to develop the most unsustainable concept they could, and to negate as many SDGs as possible.

The results were notable. The exercise, the researchers found, “can be used to create enjoyable and educationally memorable experiences that highlight the need for good practice.” Students’ later assignments proposing genuinely sustainable designs were of a higher standard than in previous years.

Applied in Therapy and Negotiation

Therapy has its own version of this logic. It is called paradoxical intention, a technique from Frankl’s logotherapy.

Frankl (1960) described asking clients to wish for, or humorously exaggerate, the very symptom they are anxiously trying to suppress.

Take insomnia. A client whose sleeplessness is fuelled by anxious effort to force sleep is told to stay awake as long as possible, with humor. A person cannot simultaneously fear a symptom and playfully invite it, so the instruction loosens the anxiety sustaining the problem.

Unlike reverse psychology, paradoxical intention is disclosed: the client knows what the therapist is doing and why. That makes it ethically distinct from covert manipulation.

Reactance also shapes negotiation. Kray, Thompson, and Galinsky (2001) activated a gender stereotype implying that women negotiate less effectively than men. In some conditions, female negotiators then performed better, not worse, than an unprimed comparison group.

The researchers read this as reactance. An explicit, identity-threatening expectation can provoke resistance that pushes behavior the opposite way. It also shows that reactance-based reversals are not fully controllable by the person who triggers them.

When reverse psychology does not work

Reverse psychology does not work on everyone, and using it carries real risks. Two things decide whether it succeeds: who the target is, and how the tactic is used.

Who Is More Susceptible

Susceptibility depends largely on how readily a person feels reactance:

• Most susceptible: Teenagers, children, narcissists, sociopaths, and people with type-A personalities. Irritable, stubborn, and emotional people also tend to be considerably more prone to reactance.
• Least susceptible: Grounded, compliant, easygoing people, who are less likely to feel reactance in the first place.

Reverse psychology tends to work particularly well on people with narcissistic traits. These individuals place a high premium on control and on making their own decisions. That makes them prone to resisting suggestions that seem to come from someone else’s agenda.

Age matters too. Children between roughly ages two and four are especially susceptible, because they are more emotional and rebellious. They are also less cognitively developed, and may not even realize a parent is using the tactic on them.

From around age four, children become more aware and cognitively mature, and correspondingly less susceptible. Teens are different, though.

Rebellious teenagers remain highly susceptible for a different reason: even though they can usually recognize the signs, their drive to assert independence can override that awareness.

Risks and How It Can Backfire

Reverse psychology carries real consequences worth weighing before you use it:

• Lost trust: If someone feels you are intentionally trying to manipulate them, they tend to lose trust in you and question your honesty more broadly.
• Damaged relationships: This can undermine a relationship, since neither person can be fully confident about the other’s true motives.
• Outright backfire: Used on someone naturally low-maintenance or agreeable, the target may simply go along with the suggestion, leaving the influencer with the opposite outcome.
• No genuine voice: It denies the other person a say in a decision that may matter to them. Even when it succeeds, that can cost you a more honest relationship.

Is reverse psychology a type of manipulation?

Yes, reverse psychology is a type of manipulation. Similar to passive-aggressive behavior, reverse psychology is an indirect approach to getting what you want.

Damage to Trust and Honesty

While reverse psychology can be useful in many situations, it can also be harmful and devious, especially when used on close friends or family.

If a person feels like you are always using this technique to get them to do what you want, it can leave them feeling taken advantage of. It can destroy the trust in the relationship.

If this is a tool you consistently use in your relationship, then your relationship can become based on dishonesty and lies. It is better to be honest and direct with your loved ones than manipulative and sneaky.

Relying heavily on reverse psychology also has a cost. You risk losing the chance to communicate directly, and to share your life authentically.

Low Self-Esteem, Children, and Teens

Reverse psychology can be especially unfavorable when used on someone with low self-esteem. These individuals often do not trust their own judgments, so they are more likely to put greater weight on your opinions. 

If you try to use reverse psychology tactics on someone with little self-confidence, your strategy is likely to backfire. Trust breaks fast. If the person catches on to your manipulation, they will feel particularly troubled and hurt.

Children and teens also might be able to pick up on the manipulation tactics of their parents and use them to their own advantage. Kids notice everything.

You should be wary when using reverse psychology on your children. You do not want to make a habit of rewarding your child for doing the opposite of what you say.

When Reverse Psychology Can Help

While reverse psychology is a manipulation technique, there are still many scenarios where this tactic can help lead another person in a positive direction! Context matters. It only becomes problematic when the influencer is using reverse psychology for their own benefit.

But, you should always consider honest communication before settling for reverse psychology when trying to get someone to make a certain choice.

Frequently asked questions

Critical Evaluation

Reverse psychology’s evidence base is stronger in some places than others. Two questions matter most: what recent research says about the mechanism behind it, and how much weight the existing findings can carry.

Contemporary Research

Most of the strongest recent evidence does not come from further study of reverse psychology itself, which remains thinly researched under that name. It comes from a much larger, more rigorous literature on the reactance process the tactic exploits.

What Triggers Message-Induced Reactance

Li and Shi’s (2026) meta-analysis pooled 28 articles, 33 studies, and 146 effect sizes published between 2005 and 2024. A meta-analysis combines the results of many separate studies into one overall estimate. What makes a message provoke reactance?

Its main findings are below (r is a correlation: values nearer 1 or −1 mean a stronger link):

• Freedom-threatening language: Controlling or insistent wording increased anger (r = .21), negative thoughts about the message (r = .17), and reactance itself (r = .20).
• Moderators: These effects varied with how repetitive the target behavior was and with the communication medium.
• Message framing: Presenting the same content as a gain or a loss made no significant difference to reactance.
• Persuasion: Anger (r = −.23) and negative thoughts (r = −.18) were linked to less persuasive success, so provoking reactance is usually counterproductive when persuading directly.

Sprengholz, Tannert, and Betsch’s (2023) health-messaging study shows what this looks like in practice. The setup was simple. Participants who read an aggressive appeal to stop eating meat reported more reactance than participants who read a neutral message about the same change.

Among omnivorous participants, those who felt more reactance later noticed significantly more meat-related words in an unrelated word-search task.

Attention had shifted.

That is evidence a reactance-inducing message can pull attention toward the very behavior it was trying to discourage. It is a documented mechanism behind the boomerang effect, where a persuasive message pushes people further from the view it intended.

Does Reactance Vary Across Cultures?

Culture matters here. Ng, Kermani, and Lalonde (2021) tested this directly, comparing East Asian Canadian, Iranian Canadian, and European Canadian participants’ reactance to a threat of social media censorship.

Cultural background shaped how strongly people reacted, and the source of the threat mattered. The source mattered most. Iranian Canadian participants showed markedly greater reactance than the other groups when a government was the source, plausibly reflecting family experience of state censorship.

That difference disappeared when the same restriction was attributed to a fellow student instead. One study is not a settled finding. It is still a genuine caution against assuming the largely Western reactance literature generalizes to every culture.

Rival Explanations

Reactance is not the only account of why pressure can backfire. Cognitive dissonance theory offers a partly overlapping explanation.

Reactance is about a threat to choice. Dissonance theory says people resist or reinterpret information that clashes with their existing beliefs and self-image, because the inconsistency is uncomfortable. The two describe different situations.

Some messages trigger both. Consider a health warning aimed at a smoker who already knows smoking is unhealthy.

It threatens their freedom and highlights an inconsistency. That is why separating the two in persuasion research remains genuinely difficult.

The double diamond model is different. It is a broader taxonomy, not a rival mechanism. Nail, Di Domenico, and MacDonald (2013) split conformity and its opposite, anticonformity, into several sub-types with different motives.

Strategic self-anticonformity is one of them. It is distinct from simple contrarianism, because it deliberately uses the target’s anticonformity motive for the influencer’s own goal.

Strengths and Limitations of the Evidence

Four points are worth weighing when judging how much confidence this evidence deserves:

• Mechanism vs. tactic evidence: Reactance itself has strong backing (Brehm & Sensenig, 1966; Li & Shi, 2026), but reverse psychology specifically rests on one primary study (MacDonald et al., 2011).
• Self-report limits: MacDonald et al. (2011) shows people believe they used, and succeeded with, the tactic, not that a target’s behavior changed because of it.
• Concealment ethics: The tactic depends on the target not recognizing what is happening, unlike most persuasion methods, which raises real questions about consent.
• Cultural bias: The founding research was mostly Western; Ng et al.’s (2021) cross-cultural findings above suggest that should not be taken for granted.

Two gaps stand out. First, no published study has directly tested reverse psychology as MacDonald et al. (2011) define it. A true test would randomly assign people to a demand framed as its opposite or a direct request, then measure what the target actually does.

The second gap is cultural. Ng et al.’s (2021) findings suggest the tactic’s prevalence needs testing outside North American samples. A cross-cultural replication of MacDonald et al.’s design could also vary who does the influencing, such as a parent, a partner, or an institution.

Sources

BetterHelp Editorial Team. (2022, October 5). Reverse Psychology: What Is It, And Does It Work? BetterHelp. Retrieved 2023, March 14, from: https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/psychologists/reverse-psychology-what-is-it-and-does-it-work/

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Brehm, J. W., & Sensenig, J. (1966). Social influence as a function of attempted and implied usurpation of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(6), 703-707. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023992

Cherry, K. (2023, February 28). What Is Reverse Psychology? VeryWellMind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-reverse-psychology-5115635

Clee, M. A., & Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Consumer behavior and psychological reactance. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(4), 389-405. https://doi.org/10.1086/208782

Frankl, V. E. (1960). Paradoxical intention: A logotherapeutic technique. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 14(3), 520-535. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1960.14.3.520

Fransen, M. L., Smit, E. G., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2015). Strategies and motives for resistance to persuasion: An integrative framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01201

Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942-958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.942

Li, Z., & Shi, J. (2026). Message effects on psychological reactance: Meta-analyses. Human Communication Research, 52(1), 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaf016

MacDonald, G., Nail, P. R., & Harper, J. R. (2011). Do people use reverse psychology? An exploration of strategic self-anticonformity. Social Influence, 6(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2010.517282

Nail, P. R., Di Domenico, S. I., & MacDonald, G. (2013). Proposal of a double diamond model of social response. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030997

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

Rice, A. (2021, September 27). All about Reverse Psychology. PsychCentral. https://psychcentral.com/health/reverse-psychology

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091

Shatz, I. (n.d.). Reverse Psychology: Getting People to Do Something By Asking for the Opposite. Effectiviology. Retrieved 2023, March 14, from: https://effectiviology.com/reverse-psychology/

Sinha, I., & Foscht, T. (2007). Reverse psychology marketing: The death of traditional marketing and the rise of the new “pull” game. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sprengholz, P., Tannert, S., & Betsch, C. (2023). Explaining boomerang effects in persuasive health communication: How psychological reactance to healthy eating messages elevates attention to unhealthy food. Journal of Health Communication, 28(6), 384-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2217098

Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(4), 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222