Article
Blocks to change
The value-action gap has multiple other names: attitude-behavior gap, intention-behavior gap, KAP-gap (knowledge-attitudes-practice gap) or belief-behavior gap.
It refers to the gap between what people often say they value and their subsequent actions or willingness to meaningfully contribute to this value. The value-action gap is often seen in the environmental space whereby people say they have environmental (often grave) concerns but fail to support initiatives to protect the environment or engage in behaviours that will protect the environment. Or rather the data shows there is a mismatch between the number of people who express concerns and the number of people who engage in actions to counteract this.
In many areas, such as environmentalism, this is of particular importance. Government policies can take years to change and even longer before they “bite”. In contrast market forces i.e. consumer behaviour can stimulate rapid change which will further guide investment but also policy decisions.
So why is this? Why do people say they are concerned but fail to do anything?
It appears to be a complex phenomenon and there are multiple reasons for this:
Ease, comfort, and effort
The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that of ease, comfort, and effort. It is easy to express concern but it is often difficult and effortful to engage in the aspired action. Consider a recent trip I had to the UK with my family where I discussed with my partner whether we could, or should, take the train, to be more environmentally supportive.
However, the train would have taken longer, meant changing multiple times (lugging our luggage with us). It would therefore have been much longer to get there, more effortful, and then we would lose flexibility, be dependent on train times, not to mention risk of delays, missed connections or strikes (which had been planned in the UK).
So plane and rental car it was – quicker, easier, more comfortable, more flexible, and not to mention cheaper (see resources below).
Overload
Overload is similar in some ways to the above because it is how we can become overloaded with information or actions that will require cognitive effort or time to complete. If we are overloaded we will revert to simpler habitual patterns. Overload may also mean we become overwhelmed and shut down.
Habit
We all know that breaking a habit requires willingness, time, and effort. Daily habits and routines will take priority over new effortful actions. In the case of climate change there are simply so many habits that are related to this that will need to be changed. Therefore combatting climate change is not about breaking one habit but multiple habits that are interrelated.
Norms
Norms are behaviours that are socially acceptable or even expected. It is a behaviour that is normal. This also means that we feel comfort because it is the norm – we are the normal. Breaking from a norm may feel uncomfortable.
Resources / structures
One obvious reason that behaviours may not change in value-action contexts is because of resources. The most obvious of which is money. Many changes require paying more money or exerting more effort. Therefore actions that require losing resources will be much harder to push through or may simply be not possible. If it is more expensive to take the train to the UK than a flight most, if not all, will take the flight. Even with a guilty conscience.
This is also a structural problem we also need to have the structures in place to do this. Going from Paris to London by train has a quick efficient structure and is therefore popular.
Identity
An underestimated one in many change contexts is that of identity. We all have some form of social identity and this may fall into certain expectations and norms. Some research has shown that those who do not identify as activists are likely to have larger value-action gaps. Your identity gives you permission to engage in what may be considered more extreme behaviours or go against society norms.
Similarly, there are also many “negative” identities that can be used against positive behaviours: in climate change this may be “tree hugger” which is often used derogatively, as is “hippie” and may go against our personal identities.
Compensation
Another interesting aspect of behaviour is that of compensating for good behaviours. For example if we have done a good deed for the environment we may feel good with ourselves and smug, but then in our next action blow all the goodness we have done.
I take the bus in my hometown so feel less guilty about flying to the UK! This can also be where carbon offsetting can also backfire. Not that paying for carbon offsetting is a bad thing. It is a good thing. But it can be that paying for carbon offsetting makes us feel less guilty but doesn’t change our behaviour. Or even make it worse, “Great I can fly all the time if I offset my carbon”.
Similar effects have been experimentally seen in altruistic behaviour – donating to a charity may make you less social because you feel you have done your good deed and are a good person.
All things come back to SCOAP
You may have noticed that the above can also be nicely matched to the SCOAP framework:
S – How does the action(s) impact my identity or status?
C – Do I need to exert control? Will I lose resources (e.g. time or money)? Can I do the action(s) easily?
O – Do I know what to do? Is it easily understandable? Am I orientated to my effectiveness?
A – Will it help my relationships? What is the social influence? Will I be rejected or accepted with my actions?
P – Are the actions pleasurable? Are they easy? Do they make life more comfortable or less?
Summary
So we can see that value-action gaps are common but the reasons can be, and normally are, complex and multi-fold. However, with analysis and our decision-making framework we can analyse and design interventions that are much more likely to succeed.
Simple Takeaways
- Think of the simple actions people can take
- Be careful of identity and status
- Create structures to make it easy
- Avoid big diffuse goals
© leading brains 2022
References
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the “value-action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 4. doi:10.1080/13549839908725599.
Kollmuss, A., and Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
Godin, G., Conner, M., and Sheeran, P. (2005). Bridging the intention-behaviour “gap”: The role of moral norm. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 44. doi:10.1348/014466604X17452.
Pham, L., and Blanke, J. (2008). Tackling the Value-Action-Gap: Improving Civic Participation Using a Holistic Behavioral Model Approach. 19th Int. Conf. Democr. Polit. Civ. Particip.
Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G., and Ginieis, M. (2011). Towards a Holistic Approach of the Attitude Behaviour Gap in Ethical Consumer Behaviours: Empirical Evidence from Spain. Int. Adv. Econ. Res. 17. doi:10.1007/s11294-010-9288-6.
Moghavvemi, S., Salleh, N. A. M., Sulaiman, A., and Abessi, M. (2015). Effect of external factors on intention-behaviour gap. Behav. Inf. Technol. 34. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2015.1055801.
Faries, M. D. (2016). Why We Don’t “Just Do It”: Understanding the Intention-Behavior Gap in Lifestyle Medicine. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 10. doi:10.1177/1559827616638017.
Croteau, J. (2019). Mind the gap: The Value-Action Gap, Nudges, and and ecosocial vision. Pap. Knowl. . Towar. a Media Hist. Doc.
van Riper, C. J., Lum, C., Kyle, G. T., Wallen, K. E., Absher, J., and Landon, A. C. (2020). Values, Motivations, and Intentions to Engage in Proenvironmental Behavior. Environ. Behav. 52. doi:10.1177/0013916518807963.
Renz, E., and Böhm, K. L. (2020). Using Behavioral Economics to Reduce the Value-Action Gap. Ökologisches Wirtschaften – Fachzeitschrift. doi:10.14512/oew350445.
Williams, A., and Hodges, N. J. (2021). Generation Z and Socially Responsible Fashion Consumption: Exploring the Value-Action Gap. in doi:10.31274/itaa.11930.
Tavri, P. (2021). Value action gap: a major barrier in sustaining behaviour change. Acad. Lett. doi:10.20935/al501.
More Level 2 Articles
The Nine Interventions
There have been multiple models of behaviour and behavioural change proposed over the years. These have taken different viewpoints of behaviour.
Don’t Try to Change Minds – Change Behaviour
Don’t try to change minds but simply change behaviour is the result a group of researchers have come to with regard to vaccinations.
Introduction to SCOAP
SCOAP is a complete model of human motivation, behaviour, and wellbeing, summarising over a century of research into the human brain, human psychology, and human behaviour in all contexts.
SCOAP Needs
These are basic human needs which means fulfilling them is essential for human wellbeing and therefore also that having them unfulfilled or violated lowers human wellbeing. These also direct human motivation and subsequently human behaviours.
SCOAP Motivation
Much has been written about motivation and there are many (false) assumptions to motivation also. So let’s start with a simple definition of motivation.
SCOAP Behaviour
Behaviour is about doing things, actions. That is obvious, but there are many grey zones to behaviour. For example do we class breathing as behaviour, or heartbeat, or sweating?
SCOAP Change
As you will have seen with SCOAP, this gives a comprehensive model of human needs, motivation, and behaviour. We can therefore use this to guide behavioural change interventions.
The Undermining Effect
Rewards sound like a good way to instigate behaviour you want. In our world we often think of financial rewards. Good idea, right?
Well, no, rewards can actually lower motivation.
Limits to Scalability – Voltage Drops
Voltage Drop is a useful term and analogy to the problems of scaling ideas or change in any environment. Voltage drop refers to how electrical current can decrease across distance it travels.