We've all had a boss make decisions that limit our freedom, even if it is something simple like banning a certain website from the workplace or certain clothing requirements. And these make us feel a tinge of rebellion or resentment, at least at first. Heck, the entire basis of society is mutually agreed upon freedom restrictions; they call them laws last I checked. So basically, the entire foundation of society rests to an extent on people accepting freedom restrictions.
So when do people "fight" against freedom restrictions, and when do they accept them? Recent research by Kristin Laurin (University of Waterloo) and colleagues tested this very question.
It turns out, according to this research, that when a change is going to restrict our freedoms, we accept it when it is unavoidable and certain to happen. But when we feel like it could change, we rebel against it, and come to value that which we have been prohibited from doing more strongly.
In one study for instance, participants read either that a new traffic law was certain to come into effect or would probably come into effect. When they thought the rule would definitely come into effect, they rated it as less annoying than when they were told it would probably be enacted. This occured only for people who drive a lot, suggesting that a freedom restriction only causes these effects when it is self-relevant.
This research suggests some pretty powerful implications. For instance, something like gay marriage would conceivably gain more favor just by being enacted for certain, with no chance of change. However, if people felt the law was only likely to come into effect, this would not occur.
The fact that we probably think that many of our laws are close to impossible to change aids in the coninuance of society. In a strange way then, a reduction in democracy and disconnection from the whole process could help the continuance of a democracy.
That is pretty interesting stuff, even if it is an extrapolation from this research.