Individuals can make lifestyle changes to align with their values — for instance, by eating less meat or using less plastic. However, large-scale societal problems are nearly impossible to tackle without systemic policy interventions.

Policymakers often hesitate to implement systemic changes because they worry about public backlash. After all, people tend to resist change, especially when they feel as though the government is restricting their freedom. Are all systemic policies that could benefit society therefore doomed to fail? Of course not! Clearly some systemic changes can work: the mandatory use of seatbelts in cars was once fiercely debated, yet it’s now generally accepted. This series of studies from a group of social scientists in Europe provides a more dynamic view of public backlash, showing how and when it weakens.

Study 1 analyzed responses to a large-scale survey that was conducted in 2005 and again in 2006. The survey represented 26 European countries and included a total of 49,674 individuals. Respondents were asked to rate their opposition to smoking bans in their country on a scale of one to four, with four representing the greatest opposition.

The authors paid special attention to Belgium, Scotland, and Spain. These three countries went from planning for smoking bans in indoor workplaces at the time of the 2005 survey to implementing such bans at the time of the 2006 survey.

In Belgium, the average opposition rating dropped by 6%, while in Scotland, the average opposition rating dropped by 17%. Spain didn’t experience a significant decrease in opposition ratings. The authors speculate that public debate and resistance remained in Spain because its indoor smoking ban was partial and more permissive compared to the stricter and more comprehensive bans in Belgium and Scotland.

Studies 2, 3, and 4 each used experimental survey designs in which participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: reading about a policy change planned for one year in the future versus reading about a policy change implemented one year ago in the past. Participants were then asked to rate their anger at the government on a scale of one to six, with six representing the highest anger rating.

Study 2 involved 719 U.K. participants who were randomly assigned to read about one of three (past or future) policies: additional taxes on either cars, alcohol, or meat. In all three cases, anger ratings were lower for participants who read about past policies compared to future policies. The difference was greater for car and alcohol taxes than for meat taxes.

In Study 3A, 244 U.K. participants were asked about their general support for vaccines. They then read about a (past or future) mandatory vaccine policy. In Study 3B, 809 German participants were asked about their general support for speed limits on German motorways. They then read about a (past or future) speed limit on German motorways. In both studies, participants who read about past policy changes reported lower anger ratings than those who read about future policy changes, regardless of their general level of support for vaccinations or speed limits. The difference was greater for the mandatory vaccine than for the speed limit.

In Study 4, participants read about a (past or future) ban on using cars to commute to work. In addition to rating their anger at the government, they also rated two other measures of policy resistance, each on a scale of one to six: their frustration at the government and their level of feeling that their personal freedom was being restricted by the government.

• Study 4A (600 U.K. participants) also asked about how much participants focused on personal losses versus societal gains when thinking about the policy.
• Study 4B (1,635 U.K. participants) also asked half of the participants to write about the potential personal losses associated with the policy.
• Study 4C (622 U.K. participants) also asked half of the participants to read about the potential societal gains that the government hoped to achieve through the new policy.

Studies 4A, 4B, and 4C revealed that:

• Participants tended to focus on personal losses more when considering a future versus a past policy change.
• Participants who were asked to write about personal losses reported greater resistance.
• Participants who read about the policy’s intended societal benefits reported lower resistance.

Taken together, participants in studies 2, 3, and 4 who were assigned to read about recently implemented policy changes had 16% lower resistance ratings compared to those who were assigned to read about future policy changes.

The take-away from this series of studies is that public resistance to a proposed systemic policy change may decrease after the policy goes into effect. Furthermore, highlighting the societal benefits of a policy change may decrease resistance.

Since the findings of this study are consistent across several policies, advocates can use these findings to strengthen their case when approaching policymakers about animal-friendly policies. Such policies may include reducing the consumption of animal products, banning the sale of animal skins and furs, restricting animal testing in cosmetics, and more. In addition to approaching public figures, advocates can contact policymakers at their schools, workplaces, or other community organizations. They can encourage policymakers to look at the bigger picture, armed with the knowledge that public reaction is likely to improve once a planned policy actually goes into effect. They can also urge policymakers to clearly communicate about the intended benefits of the policy in order to shift attention away from personal losses and towards societal gains. Like any opportunities for growth, systemic changes come with their own growing pains. Yet, they may be humanity’s best hope for large-scale, positive societal transformations.