what they want, then they do not have to do what they do not want. In this case, when the freedom is in question, that person alone is the director of their own behaviour. When considering the direct re-establishment of freedom, the greater the magnitude of reactance, the more the individual will try to re-establish the freedom that has been lost or threatened. When a freedom is threatened by a social pressure, then reactance will lead a person to resist that pressure. Also, when there are restraints against a direct re-establishment of freedom, there can be attempts at re-establishment by implication whenever possible. Freedom can and may be reestablished by a social implication. When an individual has lost free behavior because of a social threat, then the participation in a free-like behavior by a similar person will allow one to re-establish one's freedom. Reactance is a motivational state that is aimed at re-establishment of a threatened or eliminated freedom. In short, the level of reactance has a direct relationship with the importance of the eliminated or threatened freedom, and the proportion of free behaviours eliminated or threatened. Empirical evidence A number of studies have looked at psychological reactance, providing empirical evidence for the behaviour; some key studies are discussed below. Brehm's 1981 study, "Psychological reactance and the attractiveness of unobtainable objects: sex differences in children's responses to an elimination of freedom", examined the differences in sex and age in a child's view of the attractiveness of obtained and unobtainable objects. The study reviewed how well children respond in these situations and determined if the children being observed thought the "grass was greener on the other side". It also determined how well the child made peace with the world if they devalued what they could not have. This work concluded that when a child cannot have what they want, they experience emotional consequences of not getting it. In this study the results were duplicated from a previous study by Hammock and (1966). The male subjects wanted what they could not obtain, however the female subjects did not conform to the theory of reactance. Although their freedom to choose was taken away, it had no overall effect on them. Silvia's 2005 study "Deflecting reactance: The role of similarity in increasing compliance and reducing resistance" concluded that one way to increase the activity of a threatened freedom is to censor it, or provide