A new study found that how people to react to new laws depended on how inevitable or absolute the law appeared:
Across two studies, participants responded to absolute restrictions (i.e., restrictions that were sure to come into effect) with rationalization: They viewed the restrictions more favorably, and valued the restricted freedoms less, compared with control participants. Participants responded in the opposite way to identical restrictions that were described as nonabsolute (i.e., as having a small chance of not coming into effect).
Sarah Kliff looks ahead:
The Supreme Court won’t rule on the law’s constitutionality until this summer and, even after that, the law’s fate still hangs on the 2012 election. The uncertainty around the individual mandate’s fate may explain why its consistently the least popular part of the law, being met with resistance rather than rationalization.
The Dish 