Reverse psychology, or strategic self-anticonformity, is a common manipulation technique that involves advocating for a behavior or belief that is different from the one desired in order to get what you want or convince someone to do what is actually desired.
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.
By suggesting the opposite of what is genuinely desired, the subject will typically choose the option that is being advocated against.
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.
Reverse psychology is also referred to as strategic self-anticonformity because you are advocating for a result that goes directly against what you actually want.
The official definition of reverse psychology, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, is: “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.
Key Takeaways
- Definition: Reverse psychology (strategic self-anticonformity) means advocating for the opposite of what you want, so the other person’s resistance delivers your real goal.
- Mechanism: It works by triggering reactance, the discomfort people feel when they sense a threat to their freedom to choose (Brehm, 1966).
- Real-World Use: About two in three people report genuinely using the tactic, more than once a month on average (MacDonald et al., 2011).
- Narcissists: People high in narcissistic traits are especially susceptible, because they place a high value on staying in control of their own choices.
- Risks: It can backfire, and it can erode trust if the other person realizes they are being manipulated.
- Evidence Caveat: Most support comes from self-report rather than controlled experiments, so claims about its effectiveness should be read with some caution.
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.
In sales
Sales strategies use similar techniques. One common tactic is the “door in the face” technique. A salesperson opens with an outrageously high pitch to pressure the customer into buying.
The salesperson is not actually trying to make that sale, though. That is not really the goal. They want the customer to push back and counter with something smaller, while still buying.
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.
That now looks like the reasonable choice.
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.
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.
Evidence From Real-World Use
MacDonald, Nail, and Harper (2011) tested whether people actually use reverse psychology, and how often. 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.
A majority, 105 of 159 people (66%), reported a genuine example that two independent raters judged valid. On average, they said they used the tactic more than once a month.
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 the tactic against three well-established influence techniques: door-in-the-face, foot-in-the-door, and disrupt-then-reframe. Reverse psychology held its own alongside all three.
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.
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
People with easygoing, flexible personalities are less susceptible, because they are less likely to feel reactance in the first place. People who are irritable, stubborn, and emotional tend to be considerably more prone to it.
Teenagers, children, narcissists, sociopaths, and people with type-A personalities are among the populations most susceptible. Grounded, compliant, easygoing people are typically the least susceptible.
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. If someone feels you are intentionally trying to manipulate them, they tend to lose trust in you and start questioning your honesty more broadly.
This can undermine a relationship, since neither person can be fully confident about the other’s true motives. The tactic can also simply backfire outright.
Used on someone who is naturally low-maintenance or agreeable, the target may just go along with the suggestion at face value. That leaves the influencer with the opposite outcome.
Reverse psychology also denies the other person a genuine voice in a decision that may matter to them. Even when it succeeds, that can come at the cost of a less 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.
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 as opposed to manipulative and sneaky.
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.
Relying heavily on reverse psychology also has a cost. You risk losing the chance to communicate directly, and to share your life authentically.
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.
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
Which types of people are more susceptible to reverse psychology?
The populations most susceptible to reverse psychology are teenagers, children, narcissists, sociopaths, and those with type A personalities. People who are stubborn and contentious tend to be more prone to reactance. Those who are grounded, compliant, and easygoing are typically less susceptible to reverse psychology.
Can you use reverse psychology on yourself?
Yes. You can tell yourself that you cannot do something, and then you will be more motivated to challenge yourself and prove that you can. For example, I will tell myself that I can’t run a 5k. I will then use this criticism as internal motivation to prove myself wrong and run the 5k.
Does reverse psychology work on a narcissist?
Yes, reverse psychology is very likely to work on those with narcissistic personalities because these individuals like to be in control and make decisions for themselves.
How can you deal with someone who is using reverse psychology on you?
If you think that someone else is trying to use reverse psychology on you, there are a few things you can do. Once you realize someone is attempting to use reverse psychology on you, one option is to ask them to explain why they suggested the choice they are arguing for.
This can create an opportunity for the other person to mess up and possibly expose that they are trying to manipulate you.
You might decide to go with the originally selected plan and pretend that you didn’t notice the attempted manipulation, or you could pick the option they clearly don’t want you to pick.
Either way, you should focus on which option is best for you rather than on what the other person is trying to get you to do.
Lastly, you should not be afraid to call out the other person on their use of reverse psychology so they will be less likely to try the same tactic on you again in the future.
What is ‘reverse reverse’ psychology?
‘Reverse reverse’ psychology is another manipulation technique that involves prompting people to do what you want them to do in situations where the other person might be expecting you to try and use reverse psychology on them.
Essentially, when using reverse reverse psychology, you want the target person to think that you’re using reverse psychology on them in order to get them to challenge your efforts and do what you originally prompted them to do, which is what you wanted them to do all along.
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. What makes a message provoke reactance?
Freedom-threatening language, wording that reads as controlling or insistent, reliably increased anger, negative thoughts about the message, and reactance itself. This held regardless of repetition.
Message framing, whether the same content was presented as a gain or a loss, made almost no difference by comparison. Framing did not matter much.
The same meta-analysis found that both anger and negative thoughts about a message reduced its persuasive success. It is usually counterproductive for anyone trying to persuade someone in a straightforward way.
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.
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, the mechanism behind the well-known boomerang effect.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
