Toronto, Nov 2 (IANS) People stuck with a rule are more likely to tolerate it than people who think the rule isn’t definite. And this could explain many things, from unrequited love to the uprisings in the Arab world.
When people were living under dictatorships in the Arab world with power that appeared to be absolute, they may have been comfortable with it, said Kristin Laurin of the University of Waterloo who led the study, the journal Psychological Science reports.
But once Tunisia’s president fled, citizens of neighbouring countries realised that their governments weren’t as absolute as they seemed – and they could have dropped whatever rationalisations they were using to make it possible to live under an authoritarian regime.
‘If it’s a restriction that I can’t really do anything about, then there’s really no point in hitting my head against the wall and trying to fight against it,’ added Laurin, according to a Waterloo statement.
‘I’m better off if I just give up. But if there’s a chance I can beat it, then it makes sense for my brain to make me want the restricted thing even more, to motivate me to fight,’ said Laurin, who co-authored the paper with Aaron Kay and Gavan Fitzsimons of Duke University.
Some researchers have found that when there are new restrictions, you rationalise them; your brain comes up with a way to believe the restriction is a good idea.
But other researchers have found that people react negatively to new restrictions, wanting the restricted thing more than ever.
In an experiment, participants read that lowering speed limits in cities would make people safer. Some read that government leaders had decided to reduce speed limits.
Of those people, some were told that this legislation would definitely come into effect, and others read that it would probably happen, but that there was still a small chance government officials could vote it down.
People who thought the speed limit was definitely being lowered supported the change more than control subjects, but people who thought there was still a chance it wouldn’t happen supported it less than these control subjects.
