Outrage Is Short-Lived: People More Likely To Resist New Rules Before They Come Into Effect

Political changes are not all equal. Some are focused on changing individuals’ thoughts or behaviors around a topic – for example, using information interventions to educate people on a problem – while others use system changes – such as banning cars or making vaccines mandatory – to more directly shift the situation. This latter method may achieve quicker, wider-scale changes within society, but it is also the one politicians are more reluctant to use. This is because they anticipate public opposition.

For instance, the introduction of mandatory seatbelt legislation provoked initial resistance from the public, as did the introduction of stricter smoking restrictions in public spaces in England. However, the resistance to these system changes appears to have been short-lived, and there is complimenting psychological research suggesting that people actually underestimate their ability to emotionally adapt to big changes like these.

But while this psychological reaction has relevance to policymakers faced with critical decision-making, the subject has received very little empirical research to back it up. With the ongoing challenges posed by climate change and the threats of future pandemics, large-scale system changes may well be necessary again.

So, to explore this phenomenon further, researchers from the Technical University of Munich and the University of Vienna conducted seven individual studies to see whether psychological reactance is indeed as short-lived as is supposed. They also wanted to identify its underlying psychological mechanisms.

The team started by conducting representative surveys on the introduction of multiple system changes in different contexts: the introduction of workplace smoking bans in European countries, seatbelt laws in the US, and stricter speed limits in the Netherlands. Following this, they conducted several experiments to test reactance to regulatory policies where UK and Germany-based participants were asked about their views on mandatory vaccines, speed limits, and new taxes on alcohol and meat, among others.

Half of the participants were asked for their views on these measures before they were implemented, while the other half were told the new rules had already been implemented.

The results for both real surveys and the experiments showed that reactance was strongest before new policies were introduced. This result was consistent regardless of the participants’ attitudes to specific issues (such as vaccines).

“Reactance is often only temporary and declines substantially after the introduction of restrictive measures,” study lead Dr Armin Granulo, from the Technical University of Munich, said in a statement.

“Resistance is less robust than many politicians fear.”

Granulo and colleagues believe the reason for this behavior is based on a known psychological mechanism concerning our perception. When we are faced with potential change, our focus can often fall on the change itself, rather than on the prevailing state of things before and after the change. However, once the change has come into effect, we can judge the new conditions more impartially.

“When a new rule is announced, people initially focus on what they will lose: freedom, habitual behavior, comfort. After the introduction, these personal losses recede into the background. We are then much more conscious of the societal gains, for example for public health or climate protection,” study author Professor Robert Böhm, from the University of Vienna, explained.

The team’s experiments demonstrate that this psychological mechanism is an important factor driving reactance. For instance, participants were asked how much they felt the new measures would restrict their personal freedom and whether they were more focused on the personal rather than the societal consequences of these changes. The results showed that participants who were told the measures were already in effect appeared to focus less on individual concerns and more on the societal ones. In contrast, those who believed the measures were yet to be implemented tended to focus on the personal implications of these changes.

These results indicate that there may be better ways to communicate new measures to the public that limit reactance.

“In one experiment we stressed the societal benefits of a systemic measure before it was introduced. The study participants who learned about the benefits at the beginning were much less inclined to reject a measure prior to its introduction.”

The team believes these insights offer an important basis for society debates and policymakers. They recommend further research to explore other psychological factors that may generate reactance in people.

“Regulatory measures are not the only way of overcoming societal challenges. But they are an important component,” Granulo added.

“Those who are aware of the psychological mechanisms will have a better understanding of how people react, the course of public debate and the prospects of new laws succeeding. They can then be guided by these insights.”

The study is published in PNAS.