It seems that studying the concept of Psychological Reactance might be useful in understanding why we react differently to this type of societal catalysts.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/
Psychological reactance due to threat to freedom is perfectly normal human behavior.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/
Quote:...Further evidence illustrating the motivational character of reactance comes from Laurin, Kay, and Fitzsimons (2012). They explained the contradictory effect that some people may endorse a decision even though they are not in favor of it. Two factors determining the reaction to restrictions are the absoluteness of a restriction and self-relevance. If the threat is absolute, that is, sure to come into effect, people rationalize it. If it is nonabsolute, that is, it may not come into effect, people respond with reactance. Both effects, rationalization and reactance, were strongest if the restriction was self-relevant.
The differences in reactance processes that are due to one’s self being involved in the threat raise the issue of vicarious reactance, in which a person experiences reactance to a threat to another individual or group, even if the threat does not have any implications for the person’s own freedom of choice (Miron & Brehm, 2006). Is it possible to experience reactance on behalf of another person? What happens when people observe the restriction of another person?...
Psychological reactance due to threat to freedom is perfectly normal human behavior.