Type of resistance: meaning and application

You want people to make a choice or accept a change, but very different reasons can lie behind their hesitation. That is why Neurofactor uses the working concept type of resistance. You will read what the seven types involve, how to recognise them, which approach usually fits and where the limits of the classification lie.

A type of resistance is a Neurofactor working concept for the kind of resistance a group of people shows towards a choice or change: functional, conditional, identity-based, emotional, cognitive-emotional, selective or principled.

The classification helps you order reactions and choose a suitable approach. It is a working classification, not a validated diagnosis. One person can show several types at once, and a type is a hypothesis about a group, not a label for an individual.

Type of resistance is not a term from the scientific literature. It is a working concept Neurofactor uses to order the results of target group research. The seven types have not been validated as a measurement instrument. The idea behind them does connect with several lines of research.

Resistance as an attitude with several dimensions. Sandy Piderit proposed viewing responses to organisational change as attitudes with a cognitive, an emotional and an intentional dimension (Piderit, 2000). She pointed out that these dimensions can conflict, which she calls ambivalence, and that what is seen as unfounded opposition may also stem from ethical principles or a wish to protect the organisation. Shaul Oreg developed resistance into an affective, a cognitive and a behavioural component; in a study of 177 employees, both personality and context were associated with their attitude towards a large change (Oreg, 2006). A review of 79 quantitative studies likewise describes reactions to change as attitudes with three dimensions (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011).

Resistance as a personal tendency. Oreg also developed a scale for dispositional resistance: a person's general tendency to avoid change, with four factors (routine seeking, emotional reaction to imposed change, short-term focus and cognitive rigidity) (Oreg, 2003).

Resistance to persuasion. Eric Knowles and Jay Linn distinguish alpha strategies, which increase the reasons for change, and omega strategies, which reduce the resistance itself (Knowles & Linn, 2004). They describe four "faces" of resistance: reactance, distrust, scrutiny and inertia.

Resistance to innovations. Ram and Sheth distinguish functional barriers (usage, value and risk) and psychological barriers (tradition and image) (Ram & Sheth, 1989).

Resistance as information. Ford, Ford and D'Amelio argue that the prevailing view is one-sided, that change agents themselves contribute to resistance and that resistance can be a resource for change (Ford, Ford & D'Amelio, 2008).

The seven Neurofactor types overlap with these classifications but do not map onto them one to one.

Below, for each type: what it is, how to recognise it and which approach usually fits. These are working definitions and editorial advice, not tested interventions.

Functional

What: the choice does not work or does not fit someone's situation in practical terms. Recognising it: statements about hassle, time, equipment, skills or processes that do not fit ("where do I find it then?"). Approach: remove the practical obstacle or explain better how something works, and test the solution in use. This type overlaps with Ram and Sheth's functional barriers.

Conditional

What: someone is open to the choice, but only under a condition: "yes, provided that …". Recognising it: sentences with "if", "provided that" or "as long as". Approach: name the condition precisely, check whether it can be met and be honest about it. A condition that is not met can turn into another type.

Identity-based

What: the choice does not fit who someone is or wants to be. Recognising it: "that's not me", "that's not for people like me". Approach: do not challenge the identity, but show how the choice can connect with the self-image, or offer a route that fits it better. There is overlap with Ram and Sheth's tradition and image barriers.

Emotional

What: the choice evokes insecurity, uncertainty or a sense of loss. Recognising it: words such as "scary", "unsure", "losing", even without a concrete argument. Approach: acknowledge the feeling, reduce uncertainty with clear information and a safety net, and allow time. This type connects with Oreg's affective component.

Cognitive-emotional

What: a belief with a strong emotional charge, for example "that is unsafe". Recognising it: a firm assertion that does not change in response to facts and comes with emotion. Approach: acknowledge the feeling first, then provide verifiable information through a source the target group trusts. Avoid opening with a head-on rebuttal.

Selective

What: resistance to one component, not to the whole. Recognising it: agreement with the goal, but an objection to one step, channel or condition. Approach: isolate that component and adjust it or offer an alternative. Do not treat it as total rejection.

Principled

What: a fundamental objection based on values, such as freedom of choice or accessibility. Recognising it: arguments about what is "right" or "fair", regardless of personal convenience. Approach: take the objection seriously as information about the change, enter into dialogue and offer an alternative where needed. Persuasion is not always appropriate here. Piderit already pointed out that opposition can stem from ethical principles.

In Knowles and Linn's terms, most types mainly call for an omega strategy: reducing the specific resistance rather than listing more benefits. That is an interpretation, not a tested rule.

An objection is a doubt or question the target group expresses. The type of resistance describes what kind of resistance lies behind objections. The same objection ("I want to keep my paper policy") can be functional, emotional or principled.

The greatest fear is a concrete unwanted scenario. That fear can feed emotional resistance, but the type says something about the kind of resistance, not about the scenario.

Psychological reactance is the reaction to a perceived threat to one's own freedom; the theory goes back to Jack Brehm (1966) (Steindl et al., 2015). Reactance can occur with any type, especially when pressure is applied. It will get its own article, as will soft no and hard no and defensive behaviour.

Dispositional resistance (Oreg, 2003) is a personality characteristic. A type of resistance concerns a specific choice or change and a group.

1. Describe the choice or change. What exactly changes, for whom, and what is fixed?
2. Collect reactions in people's own words. Use open questions, interviews or free associations; see How do you measure associations?.
3. Code with a predefined coding guide. Describe the signals for each type and preferably have two people code independently.
4. Allow several types. Record every type that appears in a reaction and which type seems to weigh most.
5. Formulate hypotheses at group level. Which types occur frequently in this group, and how certain are you?
6. Choose and test an approach. Compare variants per type on predefined outcomes and record how you address the objections in the target group profile.

This example is fictional and intended as an illustration.

Situation. An insurer wants customers to switch from paper to digital policy documents. Some customers respond negatively to the first announcement.

Choice question. What kinds of resistance are at play, and which approach suits which group?

Available information. Open responses reveal a range of reasons: customers do not know where to find the document online (functional), only want to switch if they can keep a paper copy on request (conditional), "just keep their affairs in a binder" (identity-based), are afraid they will not be able to prove they are insured (emotional), are convinced that digital data always leaks (cognitive-emotional), only object to logging in via an app (selective) or feel that nobody should be forced to go digital (principled).

Suitable approach. The insurer sets up a coding guide and has two researchers independently code the responses from a sample. For each common type, the team develops a variant: a short explanation with screen examples, a commitment on paper copies, an alternative to the app login, and a paper route for those who want to keep it on principle. The team decides in advance which outcomes count.

Possible interpretation. Frequent types are a hypothesis about where the switch causes friction, not a judgement about individual customers.

Next step. Compare the variants in a limited trial on switching behaviour and customer queries. No outcomes are known in this example.

• Labelling people. A type describes a pattern in a group for a particular choice, not a fixed characteristic of a person.
• Forcing one type per person. Reactions often contain several types at once; Piderit speaks of ambivalence when dimensions conflict.
• Presenting the classification as a validated instrument. The seven types are a working classification. Literature on resistance is context, not evidence for this typology.
• Only counteracting resistance. Principled and selective resistance can point to a weak spot in the change itself.
• Increasing pressure in the face of emotional or principled resistance. This can trigger reactance. With influence techniques such as Cialdini's principles, also check whether they suit the type.
• Reading association as effect. Much research on resistance is correlational; test your approach in your own context.

Types of resistance help you order reactions to a choice or change: functional, conditional, identity-based, emotional, cognitive-emotional, selective or principled. This lets you choose a suitable approach for each kind of resistance instead of one message for everyone. The classification is a Neurofactor working concept, not a validated diagnosis. Use it as a hypothesis at group level, substantiate it with research among the target group and test the approach before drawing conclusions.