{"id":4793,"date":"2026-03-30T13:07:37","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T13:07:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/?p=4793"},"modified":"2026-04-13T16:17:14","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T16:17:14","slug":"changing-minds-about-changing-behaviour","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/2026\/03\/changing-minds-about-changing-behaviour\/","title":{"rendered":"Changing minds about changing behaviour"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Theresa Marteau, University of Cambridge, UK<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many of us struggle to eat more healthily, drink less alcohol, quit smoking, or walk instead of driving. This is true even when we know these changes would benefit our health and the planet. It applies to psychologists and behavioural scientists as well as the people we’re trying to help.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This struggle isn’t a failure of willpower. The problem is we consistently underestimate how much our everyday environments shape our behaviour, and overestimate the power of our values and intentions.<\/p>\n

Why knowing isn’t enough<\/strong><\/p>\n

Consider personalised health predictions. Surely telling someone their exact risk of developing type 2 diabetes or heart disease would motivate change? The evidence says otherwise. Five systematic reviews including dozens of randomised controlled trials show that giving people personalised risk estimates\u2014including genetic risk scores<\/a>\u2014has little or no impact on their behaviour. Rates of physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and unhealthy eating remain unchanged.<\/p>\n

Similarly, climate scientists<\/a> possess detailed knowledge about climate change yet often fly as much as other academics. Knowledge alone rarely drives sustained behaviour change.<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s the environment<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dual Process Models<\/a> from behavioural science help explain this. Our behaviour is regulated by two interacting systems. One is slow, reflective, and goal-directed. We use it to read, learn new skills, and resist temptation. The other is fast, automatic, and cue-driven\u2014when we see cake, we take it. When our limited reflective capacity is fully occupied, our automatic system responds directly to environmental cues<\/a>. This is why changing the cues around us is more powerful than trying to change what’s in our heads.<\/p>\n

The most powerful environmental cues fall under the 3 As: Affordability, Availability, and Appeal.<\/p>\n

Affordability: Price changes behaviour<\/strong><\/p>\n

Increasing tobacco prices is the single most effective policy to reduce smoking. A 10% price increase reduces tobacco use<\/a> by around 4 %. Soda taxes<\/a> reduce consumption of sugary drinks. Fruit and vegetable consumption increases with subsidies<\/a> to lower their price.<\/p>\n

Availability: What’s accessible gets chosen<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a study with 20,000 employees across 19 workplace cafeterias, my research team increased the proportion of lower-calorie lunches offered and reduced portion sizes of higher-calorie meals. The result? Employees purchased 11.5% fewer calories<\/a> as healthier options became easier to choose.<\/p>\n

Appeal: Advertising works<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stopping advertising and sponsorships by the tobacco<\/a>, alcohol<\/a>, unhealthy food<\/a> industries reduces the appeal and purchasing of their products. Similar effects are expected for fossil fuel<\/a> products. Adding clear warning labels and removing branding from products also reduces their appeal. Labels on alcohol in Yukon, Canada, clearly warning of cancer from drinking, reduced alcohol sales<\/a> by around 6 %. Plain packaging of tobacco renders warning labels more visible<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Why regulation matters<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most interventions that alter cues in our everyday environments to change behaviour require regulation<\/a> because they conflict with commercial interests. Four industries\u2014tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy food, and fossil fuels\u2014generate products that cause at least one in four deaths globally<\/a> each year, and the majority of greenhouse gas emissions<\/a> warming the climate.<\/p>\n

Yet information campaigns and voluntary industry self-regulation remain the favoured approaches. These industries actively promote this preference through lobbying, funding research that questions regulation, and framing government intervention as restricting freedom.<\/p>\n

What needs to change<\/strong><\/p>\n

We need to shield evidence and policymaking from corporate interference. Tobacco control provides a model. Countries that have adopted Article 5.3 from the international treaty<\/a> on tobacco control protected policymaking from industry interference, implemented more evidence-based policies, and have the lower rates of smoking. We need to extend this protection to cover all corporations generating products that ruin our health and wreck our planet. Citizen Assemblies<\/a> and other forms of deliberative democracy in which citizens work collaboratively with our local or national governments also show much promise both in increasing citizens influence on policymaking and the influence of evidence.<\/p>\n

Practical Recommendations<\/strong><\/p>\n

For healthcare practitioners<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Start with environments, not education. <\/strong>When working with clients or patients, identify the environmental cues triggering unwanted behaviours. Rather than focusing solely on motivation or knowledge, help people redesign their immediate surroundings. For example: keep fruit visible and processed snacks out of sight; place bikes in hallways rather than basements; use smaller plates and glasses.<\/li>\n
  2. Advocate for workplace changes. <\/strong>Work with your institution to increase the availability and reduce the cost of healthier options in cafeterias. Simple changes like making plant-based meals the default with easy opt-outs can significantly shift behaviour.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    For public health teams<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Make the invisible visible. <\/strong>Use your platforms to communicate how environments shape behaviour. Challenge the dominant narrative that behaviour change is primarily about individual willpower or knowledge. The evidence shows it’s about changing contexts, not just mindsets.<\/li>\n
    2. Engage policymakers. <\/strong>Identify gaps between evidence and policies both locally and nationally. Write to policymakers with specific recommendations backed by evidence. Many are receptive to expert input, particularly when it includes practical solutions. My letter to a UK Health Minister, for example, led to an evidence synthesis on changing behaviour to increase healthy life expectancy<\/a>.<\/li>\n
    3. Build coalitions for regulation. <\/strong>Connect with organisations advocating for evidence-based policies on tobacco, alcohol, food, and transport. Collective advocacy is essential for countering industry influence. Look for opportunities to provide evidence summaries that support stronger regulation, similar to how tobacco control succeeded through coordinated expert engagement with policymakers.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      By Theresa Marteau, University of Cambridge, UK Many of us struggle to eat more healthily, drink less alcohol, quit smoking, or walk instead of driving. This is true even when we know these changes would benefit our health and the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":4797,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"By Theresa Marteau, University of Cambridge, UK<\/strong>\n\nMany of us struggle to eat more healthily, drink less alcohol, quit smoking, or walk instead of driving. This is true even when we know these changes would benefit our health and the planet. It applies to psychologists and behavioural scientists as well as the people we're trying to help.\n\n\n\nThis struggle isn't a failure of willpower. The problem is we consistently underestimate how much our everyday environments shape our behaviour, and overestimate the power of our values and intentions.\n\nWhy knowing isn't enough<\/strong>\n\nConsider personalised health predictions. Surely telling someone their exact risk of developing type 2 diabetes or heart disease would motivate change? The evidence says otherwise. Five systematic reviews including dozens of randomised controlled trials show that giving people personalised risk estimates\u2014including genetic risk scores<\/a>\u2014has little or no impact on their behaviour. Rates of physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and unhealthy eating remain unchanged.\n\nSimilarly, climate scientists<\/a> possess detailed knowledge about climate change yet often fly as much as other academics. Knowledge alone rarely drives sustained behaviour change.<\/a>\n\nIt\u2019s the environment<\/strong>\n\nDual Process Models<\/a> from behavioural science help explain this. Our behaviour is regulated by two interacting systems. One is slow, reflective, and goal-directed. We use it to read, learn new skills, and resist temptation. The other is fast, automatic, and cue-driven\u2014when we see cake, we take it. When our limited reflective capacity is fully occupied, our automatic system responds directly to environmental cues<\/a>. This is why changing the cues around us is more powerful than trying to change what's in our heads.\n\nThe most powerful environmental cues fall under the 3 As: Affordability, Availability, and Appeal.\n\nAffordability: Price changes behaviour<\/strong>\n\nIncreasing tobacco prices is the single most effective policy to reduce smoking. A 10% price increase reduces tobacco use<\/a> by around 4 %. Soda taxes<\/a> reduce consumption of sugary drinks. Fruit and vegetable consumption increases with subsidies<\/a> to lower their price.\n\nAvailability: What's accessible gets chosen<\/strong>\n\nIn a study with 20,000 employees across 19 workplace cafeterias, my research team increased the proportion of lower-calorie lunches offered and reduced portion sizes of higher-calorie meals. The result? Employees purchased 11.5% fewer calories<\/a> as healthier options became easier to choose.\n\nAppeal: Advertising works<\/strong>\n\nStopping advertising and sponsorships by the tobacco<\/a>, alcohol<\/a>, unhealthy food<\/a> industries reduces the appeal and purchasing of their products. Similar effects are expected for fossil fuel<\/a> products. Adding clear warning labels and removing branding from products also reduces their appeal. Labels on alcohol in Yukon, Canada, clearly warning of cancer from drinking, reduced alcohol sales<\/a> by around 6 %. Plain packaging of tobacco renders warning labels more visible<\/a>.\n\nWhy regulation matters<\/strong>\n\nMost interventions that alter cues in our everyday environments to change behaviour require regulation<\/a> because they conflict with commercial interests. Four industries\u2014tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy food, and fossil fuels\u2014generate products that cause at least one in four deaths globally<\/a> each year, and the majority of greenhouse gas emissions<\/a> warming the climate.\n\nYet information campaigns and voluntary industry self-regulation remain the favoured approaches. These industries actively promote this preference through lobbying, funding research that questions regulation, and framing government intervention as restricting freedom.\n\nWhat needs to change<\/strong>\n\nWe need to shield evidence and policymaking from corporate interference. Tobacco control provides a model. Countries that have adopted Article 5.3 from the international treaty<\/a> on tobacco control protected policymaking from industry interference, implemented more evidence-based policies, and have the lower rates of smoking. We need to extend this protection to cover all corporations generating products that ruin our health and wreck our planet. Citizen Assemblies<\/a> and other forms of deliberative democracy in which citizens work collaboratively with our local or national governments also show much promise both in increasing citizens influence on policymaking and the influence of evidence.\n\nPractical Recommendations<\/strong>\n\nFor healthcare practitioners<\/strong>\n

        \n \t
      1. Start with environments, not education. <\/strong>When working with clients or patients, identify the environmental cues triggering unwanted behaviours. Rather than focusing solely on motivation or knowledge, help people redesign their immediate surroundings. For example: keep fruit visible and processed snacks out of sight; place bikes in hallways rather than basements; use smaller plates and glasses.<\/li>\n \t
      2. Advocate for workplace changes. <\/strong>Work with your institution to increase the availability and reduce the cost of healthier options in cafeterias. Simple changes like making plant-based meals the default with easy opt-outs can significantly shift behaviour.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nFor public health teams<\/strong>\n
          \n \t
        1. Make the invisible visible. <\/strong>Use your platforms to communicate how environments shape behaviour. Challenge the dominant narrative that behaviour change is primarily about individual willpower or knowledge. The evidence shows it's about changing contexts, not just mindsets.<\/li>\n \t
        2. Engage policymakers. <\/strong>Identify gaps between evidence and policies both locally and nationally. Write to policymakers with specific recommendations backed by evidence. Many are receptive to expert input, particularly when it includes practical solutions. My letter to a UK Health Minister, for example, led to an evidence synthesis on changing behaviour to increase healthy life expectancy<\/a>.<\/li>\n \t
        3. Build coalitions for regulation. <\/strong>Connect with organisations advocating for evidence-based policies on tobacco, alcohol, food, and transport. Collective advocacy is essential for countering industry influence. Look for opportunities to provide evidence summaries that support stronger regulation, similar to how tobacco control succeeded through coordinated expert engagement with policymakers.<\/li>\n<\/ol>","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,9,13,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-behavioural-theory","category-habit","category-interventions","category-public-health"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"3.0.2","language":"kr","enabled_languages":["en","id","my","bg","zh","hr","cz","da","de","es","fr","gr","he","it","ja","kr","lv","lt","hu","nl","no","pl","pt","ro","ru","sk","fi","sv","tr","uk"],"languages":{"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"id":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"my":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"bg":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"zh":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"hr":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"cz":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"da":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"de":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"es":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"fr":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"gr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"he":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"it":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"ja":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"kr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"lv":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"lt":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"hu":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"nl":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"no":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"pl":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"pt":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"ro":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"ru":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"sk":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"fi":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"sv":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"tr":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"uk":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false}}},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4793","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4793"}],"version-history":[{"count":32,"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4793\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4853,"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4793\/revisions\/4853"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4797"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/practicalhealthpsychology.com\/kr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}