Summary: A new study reveals that resistance to policies like smoking bans or speed limits drops significantly after they are implemented. Known as “reactance,” this initial pushback stems from perceived threats to personal freedom, but tends to subside as people adapt and begin recognizing societal benefits.
Researchers confirmed this through real-world surveys and experiments involving measures like vaccine mandates and taxes on alcohol. The findings suggest policymakers often overestimate long-term opposition and could improve acceptance by communicating collective gains early on.
Key Facts:
- Reactance Declines Over Time: People resist new restrictions less once they’ve been implemented.
- Shift in Focus: Initial focus on personal loss gives way to awareness of societal benefits.
- Strategic Framing Helps: Emphasizing public health or climate benefits early can reduce resistance.
Source: TUM
From smoking bans to new speed limits – many people soon stop resisting policy changes that restrict their personal freedom once the new rules come into force.
This conclusion was reached in a study conducted by the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the University of Vienna.
The researchers also identified the underlying psychological mechanism to gain important insights for possible communication strategies when introducing such measures.
Policy measures that ban or restrict an activity frequently meet with resistance. In psychology, the resistance to restrictions on personal freedom is known as reactance.
The resulting emotional debates can make politicians hesitant to make decisions that they actually consider necessary for achieving important goals such as climate targets or public health objectives.
In many cases, however, reactance appeared to decline significantly after measures are implemented. This phenomenon has not yet been adequately studied. Armin Granulo (Technical University of Munich), and Christoph Fuchs and Robert Böhm (both at the University of Vienna) have now conducted seven individual studies to investigate whether this observation is true and also to identify the underlying psychological mechanism.
The researchers began by conducting representative surveys on the introduction of workplace smoking bans in several European countries, seatbelt laws in the USA and stricter speed limits in the Netherlands. They then conducted several experiments to test reactance to regulatory policies.
Respondents in the UK and Germany were asked about their attitudes to a vaccine mandate, a speed limit, new taxes on alcohol and meat and other measures.
Half of the participants were asked for their view on measures about to be implemented, while the other half were told that the new regulations had already been in place for a year.
Resistance is often less robust than feared by policymakers
Both the real surveys and the experiments show that reactance to restrictive measures is much stronger prior to their introduction than afterwards. This is true regardless of test subjects’ attitudes to the specific issue, for example to vaccines.
“Reactance is often only temporary and declines substantially after the introduction of restrictive measures,” says study leader Dr. Armin Granulo. “Resistance is less robust than many politicians fear.”
What causes this effect? The researchers suspected that a known mechanism of our perception was involved: When confronted by change, people focus more on the change itself than on the prevailing state before and after the change.
But once the transitional process is complete, they can view the new condition more impartially.
Psychologist Prof. Robert Böhm explains: “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.”
With their experiments the researchers were able to confirm that this mechanism is an important cause of reactance. Among other questions, they asked the test subjects how much they felt the measures would restrict their personal freedom and whether they were more focused on the personal or societal consequences.
The test subjects who were told that measures were already in place showed attitudes that were dominated less by individual concerns and more by the societal situation as compared to the subjects in the experiment based on an impending measure.
Emphasizing societal benefits
The study also points to ways of communicating new measures more effectively. Prof. Christoph Fuchs says: “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 researchers see these insights as an important basis for societal debates and for policy makers and recommend research into further psychological factors that might influence reactance.
“Regulatory measures are not the only way of overcoming societal challenges. But they are an important component,” says Armin Granulo.
“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.”
About this social neuroscience research news
Author: Klaus Becker
Source: TUM
Contact: Klaus Becker – TUM
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access.
“Psychological reactance to system-level policies before and after their implementation” by Armin Granulo et al. PNAS
Abstract
Psychological reactance to system-level policies before and after their implementation
Governments need to develop and implement effective policies to address pressing societal problems of our time, such as climate change and global pandemics.
While some policies focus on changing individual thoughts and behaviors (e.g., informational interventions, behavioral nudges), others involve systemic changes (e.g., car bans, vaccination mandates).
Policymakers may use system-level policies to achieve socially desirable outcomes, yet often refrain from doing so because they anticipate public opposition.
In this article, we propose that people’s psychological reactance driving this opposition is a transient phenomenon that dissipates once system-level policies are in place.
Using secondary survey data (N = 49,674) and experimental data (six studies; N = 4,629; all preregistered), we document that psychological reactance to system-level policies is greater when they are planned (ex ante implementation) than when they are already implemented (ex post implementation).
We further demonstrate that this effect can be observed across various intervention contexts and provide insights into its underlying psychological mechanisms.
Specifically, ex ante vs. ex post the system-level policy’s implementation, individuals focus more on the transition-induced personal losses than on the prospective societal outcome gains.
In line with this perspective, we show that the decline in reactance to system-level policies after their implementation is mediated and moderated by the salience of personal losses, and that the initial reactance to such policies is mitigated by the salience of societal gains.
These findings suggest that the public’s negative reactions to system-level policies are more transient than previously thought and can help policymakers design effective interventions.
