Reactance and the Addictive Phenomenon of (Doom) Scrolling

Teaser

When even our phone tells us to “take a break,” why do we so often keep scrolling? This essay connects psychological reactance—the backlash we feel when our freedom seems constrained—to the design logic of infinite feeds and the special case of doomscrolling (compulsively consuming negative news). I sketch what the science says and what we can redesign—in ourselves, in services, and in platforms.

1) What reactance adds to the story of scrolling

Psychological reactance is the motivational state that arises when people perceive a threat to their freedom (“Don’t scroll”; “Time’s up”). It pushes us to restore that freedom—often by doing the very thing we’re warned not to do (Brehm, 1966). Classic and updated formulations show that reactance intensifies with

a) the importance of the threatened behavior,

b) the magnitude of restriction, and

c) the tone of the message (controlling vs. autonomy-supportive).

Measures that blend anger and negative cognitions reliably capture the state (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Miron & Brehm, 2006). (Google Bücher)

On today’s platforms, infinite scroll removes natural stopping cues. When interventions do appear (timers, pop-ups), users often habituate—or push past them—depending on context (place, mood, fatigue). A recent week-long field study of infinite scrolling found that sleepiness lowered reactance (greater acceptance of interventions), while negative mood slowed responsiveness—useful nuance for time- and context-aware breaks (Meinhardt et al., 2025). (Universität Ulm)

2) Why doomscrolling is sticky

Doomscrolling couples the feed mechanics of infinite scroll with an affective bias toward negative content. Emerging studies link doomscrolling with existential anxiety and pessimism, across different cultural contexts, and researchers have begun to validate doomscrolling scales (Shabahang et al., 2024; Satici et al., 2022). When distress rises, people look for certainty and control; the feed promises both—one more swipe might bring the update that resolves uncertainty—while simultaneously deepening the sense of threat. (ScienceDirect)

Reactance compounds this: heavy-handed warnings (“Stop now!”) can feel like a freedom threat, especially when the phone is a primary self-regulation tool (work, care, social ties). The result is a loop—restriction → reactance → more scrolling—that the interface can inadvertently amplify.

3) Designing for autonomy, not backlash

Message framing

Use autonomy-supportive language (“Choose a pause that fits you”) and choice sets (30 sec / 2 min / 10 min) rather than imperatives; this lowers the perceived threat to freedom and the anger + counterarguing blend that defines reactance (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Frontiers review, 2019). (ResearchGate)

Timing and context

Trigger break prompts when reactance is likely lower (e.g., late-evening sleepiness) and escalate gently in low-valence states, where acceptance is slower (Meinhardt et al., 2025). (Universität Ulm)

Restore natural stopping points

Reintroduce pagination or soft “chapter ends” after N cards; let users opt-in to the next segment. (Design implication derived from the same line of work on infinite scroll effectiveness and intervention fatigue.) (ACM Digital Library)

Personal rules with public commitment

A classic dissonance tactic: ask users to author their own rules (“No doomscrolling in bed”) and sign them; if a prompt later reflects their words, it threatens freedom less and evokes consistency, not backlash (reactance). (Applied from reactance/dissonance literatures summarized above.) (Frontiers)

4) Self-tools that reduce the need to rationalize “just one more swipe”

Implementation intentions: “If I hit a disaster headline after 22:00, then I switch to my saved long-read.” (My favorites are Squirell News)
Mindful noticing (urge surfing): label the urge (“seeking certainty”) and watch it crest; craving and dissonance typically decay within minutes unless fed.
Positive replacement: build a micro-menu of non-feed actions that answer the same need (quick check-in with a friend; short breathing drill; save-for-tomorrow).

These align with a broader evidence base showing that acceptance-based and brief, autonomy-supportive moves often outperform forceful control for sticky habits.

Method note (Grounded Theory)

I treat this piece as a public memo. I’ll code interview excerpts and diary notes against reactance and doomscrolling categories, then iterate on the design implications as new field material accumulates.

AI co-author disclosure

I collaborate with an AI co-author for outlining, synthesis, and draft polishing. I remain responsible for selection, verification, and argument. Hypothetical vignettes will be marked [HYPOTHESIS].

Literature & Links (APA)

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press. (overview) Google Books. (Google Bücher)
Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. PDF. (ResearchGate)
Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory—40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 3–13. PDF. (ResearchGate)
Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 47–73. (context via review) Frontiers review. (Frontiers)
Meinhardt, L.-M., et al. (2025). Scrolling in the Deep: Analysing Contextual Influences on Intervention Effectiveness during Infinite Scrolling on Social Media. CHI ’25. ACM PDF · Author PDF. (ACM Digital Library)
Satici, S. A., et al. (2022). Doomscrolling Scale: Its association with personality traits and well-being indicators. Applied Research in Quality of Life. Publisher page. (SpringerLink)
Shabahang, R., et al. (2024). Doomscrolling evokes existential anxiety and fosters pessimism about the world. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 13, 100356. Publisher page. (ScienceDirect)
(Review) Psychological Reactance and Persuasive Health Communication. Frontiers in Communication (2019). Open-access review. (Frontiers)

Check

Status: v1.0 (WordPress-ready).
Checks: Core claims backed by reactance sources (1966, 2005/2006) and recent HCI/doomscrolling studies (2022–2025).

Sociology of Addiction