An Insight into Resistance to Recovery

A SCARS Institute Scam Victim Recovery Insight

Why Do Survivors Resist Recovery?

The psychological “Theory of Reactance” is a powerful concept in human motivation that explains how people respond to threats to their freedom. Developed by psychologist Jack Brehm in 1966, reactance theory proposes that individuals have an innate motivation to protect their sense of autonomy and control. When people perceive that their freedom to choose or behave in a certain way is being threatened or eliminated, they experience an uncomfortable state of motivational arousal called “reactance”.

This reactance manifests as a strong urge to resist the threat and reestablish the threatened freedom. The response often involves doing the opposite of what is being demanded or expected, even if the original request was reasonable or beneficial. For example, when someone tells you explicitly that you “must” do something, you might feel an immediate impulse to do the opposite simply to reassert your independence.

Reactance is particularly relevant in contexts involving persuasion, control, or authority. It explains why well-intentioned advice can sometimes backfire, why prohibitions can make forbidden behaviors more attractive, and why people might resist helpful guidance if it feels controlling. The strength of reactance tends to increase with the importance of the threatened freedom and with the perception that the threat is illegitimate or unreasonable.

In therapeutic and educational settings, understanding reactance is crucial for effective communication. When supporting scam victims, for instance, using directives like “You must cut off all contact with the scammer” might trigger reactance and lead to resistance. A more effective approach would involve presenting options and allowing the person to maintain a sense of agency in their recovery process.

Reactance diminishes when people feel their autonomy is respected, when they understand the rationale behind requests, and when they participate in decision-making rather than having decisions imposed upon them. This theory highlights the fundamental human need for self-determination and explains why freedom of choice matters so deeply in human psychology.

How Does This Apply In Recovery

Reactance theory applies profoundly to scam survivors in recovery, often creating significant challenges in their healing journey if not properly understood. The experience of being scammed fundamentally violates a person’s autonomy and judgment, leaving them feeling controlled and manipulated. When these survivors then encounter well-meaning advice from family, friends, or even professionals, they can experience powerful reactance responses that seem counterproductive to their own recovery.

After being deceived, scam survivors often develop heightened sensitivity to any perceived attempts to control their decisions or behaviors. When a family member says, “You must block this person immediately,” or a therapist suggests, “You need to stop sending money,” the survivor might experience an immediate urge to resist. This reactance stems not from disagreement with the advice itself, but from a deep-seated need to reassert autonomy that was stripped away during the scam experience. The survivor might think, “No one is going to tell me what to do again,” even while recognizing intellectually that the advice is sound.

The irony is that this is another manifestation of flawed decision-making. Does that sound like victim blaming?

This reactance can manifest in several ways during recovery. Some survivors might continue contact with their scammers despite knowing its harmful effects, simply to prove they are making their own choices. Others might resist helpful resources or support systems because accepting help feels like admitting incompetence. Many become defensive when questioned about their decisions, even by those trying to protect them from further harm.

The paradox of reactance in scam recovery is that it often leads survivors to repeat behaviors that initially made them vulnerable. In an effort to prove their autonomy, they might make impulsive decisions without consultation, essentially overcorrecting from the controlled feeling of being manipulated during the scam. This can create a cycle where well-intentioned advice triggers reactance, which leads to poor decisions, which then prompts more advice, creating even stronger reactance.

This is but one example of why there is such high recidivism in scam victimization and why there is such a low recovery rate in survivors.

Understanding reactance is crucial for anyone supporting scam survivors.

Unfortunately, many suggest that rather than using directive language that triggers resistance, effective supporters present information and options while allowing survivors to maintain decision-making power. Phrases like “You might consider…” or “Some survivors have found helpful…” respect autonomy while still offering guidance.

The argument is that recovery progresses most quickly when survivors feel empowered to make their own choices rather than feeling controlled by others, even when those others have their best interests at heart.

Except for one small thing. Here we get back to the feeling of victim-blaming. Scam victims/survivors make bad decisions. The original scam, and all those that follow, are based on bad decisions. Recognizing this truth is not blaming; it is recognition of truth. Support must help survivors to understand this fact in direct and unambiguous terms. For a significant period of time, a survivor’s decision-making is going to be flawed.

At first it was due to vulnerabilities that were exploited by the criminals. This was not their fault. But then after discovery, it happens because of cognitive impairment, hypervigilance, reactance, and other forms of resistance or avoidance.

The mind will chose the easiest path and make the easiest reactive decisions impulsively. This places the survivor in immediate danger of being rescammed over and over. In our view, it is better to give the survivor the facts, even if it triggers reactance and resistance. Without the truth, no one can make informed decisions.

The ultimate goal is helping survivors find a balance between healthy independence and appropriate reliance on trusted guidance through truth and education. By recognizing and working with reactance rather than against it, survivors can gradually rebuild their sense of agency without sabotaging their recovery process.

Prof. (Emeritus) Tim McGuinness, Ph.D.
June 2026