Not only can new ways of thinking lead to new behaviors, but changes often occur the other way around: new behavior enables new experiences; these new experiences reshape our mental models and values, which in turn make new behaviors “thinkable.” At first glance, this may sound like a theoretical subtlety, but it is highly relevant in practice when considering how change can be initiated—especially in the field of sustainability.
The common belief is that people must first be informed (e.g., about CO₂ emissions, climate change) to encourage a shift in thinking and influence their value systems so that they become willing to change their behavior (e.g., to act more environmentally friendly). This approach is, of course, valid and meaningful: our mental models about “how the world is” and our values (“how the world should be,” what is right and wrong, etc.) strongly influence our daily decisions and actions (e.g., whom we vote for, how we travel, what we eat) and the conditions and structures we create as individuals, businesses, or entire societies (e.g., democratic systems, supermarkets, public transport). If our mental models and values change, we may also begin to question our actions and wish to modify our behavior. For example, valuing “sustainability” might lead us to drive less and source our food locally and organically. However, adopting these new, value-aligned, sustainable behaviors often requires adjustments to existing structures—whether through government initiatives (e.g., expanding public transport, improving local supply chains), social movements (e.g., community carpooling, food cooperatives), or entrepreneurial solutions (e.g., car-sharing services, online organic farmers’ markets). The problem is that existing structures are often so entrenched that even when new information leads to new mental models and values, these values remain difficult to live out in everyday life.
At the same time, policymakers often argue that changes to existing structures (such as a CO₂ tax or stricter environmental regulations) cannot be implemented because they are “unpopular” and do not align with people’s existing mental models (e.g., regarding which trips public transport is suitable for or how much meat should cost) and values (e.g., flexibility in mobility, spontaneity in shopping). But what actually happens when new structures “force” behavioral changes that do not (fully) align with people’s mental models or value systems?
The COVID-19 crisis provided a clear example: when we are forced to try new things (e.g., online meetings, working from home, domestic vacations, meeting friends while walking, cooking for ourselves), we initially resist, but over time, our perceptions of what is “normal” and “self-evident” change. Many experiences that initially feel inconvenient or uncomfortable later reveal positive aspects and benefits. Without glorifying the crisis or downplaying the hardships and challenges it brought, COVID-19 demonstrated how structural changes lead to behavioral changes, which in turn can reshape our mental models and values.
An example from the sustainability sector is discussed in an article by Crivits & Paredis (2013), which examines shifts in attitudes among participants of “Food Teams.” Food Teams are groups of individuals who establish structures for collectively purchasing food directly from farmers (similar to buying cooperatives). These groups typically have fixed times for ordering and picking up food (usually weekly). One of the article’s key findings is that participants’ attitudes toward flexibility and “convenience” change significantly over time: initially, it is often perceived as inconvenient and burdensome to plan meals for the entire week, receive unknown vegetables in a “surprise box,” or pick up groceries at a set time (e.g., Friday afternoon). However, over time, many participants begin to see these aspects as advantages: meal planning becomes a once-a-week task, the surprise factor expands their diet, and the fixed pickup time becomes a routine event that requires no further thought.
The takeaway? Sometimes, implementing changes first and observing what happens can be beneficial. “Creating facts” often leads to initial resistance, but behavioral changes can ultimately drive a “normalization” process—a shift in the mental models and values of those affected—making what once seemed “unthinkable” feel entirely ordinary today.
References:
Engelmann, A., Kump, B., & Schweiger, C. (2020). Clarifying the dominant logic construct by disentangling and reassembling its dimensions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 22(4), 323–355.
Crivits, M., & Paredis, E. (2013). Designing an explanatory practice framework: Local food systems as a case. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 306–336.
Dr. Barbara Kump 