Often, both governments and private actors attempt to influence our choices by focusing on the individual. But our decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are shaped by context, which is determined by a larger system – one set by government policies or by private organizations. So what if the system itself helped you skip buying that chocolate at the checkout or encouraged you to leave the car at home? 

Individuals Within a System

Researchers Nick Charter and George Loewenstein have looked at this difference between focusing on the individual and focusing on the system. They argue that both society and the researchers studying it tend to propose and test interventions aimed at solving social challenges by influencing or trying to change individual behavior.

They call these types of interventions i-frame strategies, short for individual-focused. In contrast, they refer to s-frame interventions, meaning those that aim at systemic change.

Their research shows that i-frame interventions in areas such as food, health, pensions, sustainability, and education often have small and short-lived effects. System-level changes, on the other hand, tend to lead to larger and longer-lasting outcomes.

One example they highlight is an experiment carried out in Copenhagen in 2011, which aimed to reduce littering in the city. The intervention involved placing footsteps on the pavement, leading people to garbage bins in certain areas. The result was a short-term reduction in littering by 46%. However, the intervention was never scaled up, and the effect faded over time. In comparison, the city of San Jose implemented a policy banning plastic bags. The result was a drop in weekly bag use from 3 to 0.3 per person, an 89% reduction in plastic bags in stormwater systems, and a 60% reduction in rivers and residential areas. These effects have lasted.

Your Car Versus BP’s Gasoline

Beyond the issue of limited impact, Chater and Loewenstein argue that an excessive focus on individuals has allowed powerful corporations to avoid regulation, restrictions, and higher taxes.

One example is British Petroleum (BP), which until the early 2000s was known for both directly and indirectly supporting academics who denied climate change. BP ran PR campaigns aimed at discrediting legitimate climate scientists who argued that climate change is human-caused. In 2004, however, BP changed its strategy. It began acknowledging climate change and shifted its messaging to focus on your personal “carbon footprint” (Safire, 2008). This included developing a carbon calculator that was used by nearly 300,000 people.

Individuals, media outlets, and public agencies promoted the carbon calculator as a useful tool to help people reduce their personal CO2 emissions.

Chater and Loewenstein’s point is that by shifting the focus away from the system – in this case, BP and its massive emissions – and onto individuals, we lose sight of where the real problem lies. Instead of BP being held accountable for reducing its emissions, it uses its power and wealth to put the responsibility on you and what you need to do to save the planet.

Cheap Cake Also Fills You Up

Another example highlighted in the article is the global obesity crisis. Much of it can be explained by the increasingly obesogenic environment we live in. It now takes far more willpower to maintain a healthy caloric intake (Nestel and Jacobsen, 2000). In short, it is about access, price, and how easy it is to get ready-to-eat food – which often means unhealthy options.

Many individual-level interventions have been studied and tested, but few have resulted in long-term weight loss. Removing trays in cafeterias so people only take what they can carry (Downs & Loewenstein, 2011), incentives for physical activity (Charness & Gneezy, 2009), or step-counting programs (Patel et al., 2017) have not shown sustained results in weight reduction.

In Norway, recent research shows that 7 out of 10 adults are now overweight. In response, HUNT study director and researcher Steinar Krokstad suggested that we should "simply" change the BMI standard to redefine what counts as normal weight.

Looking at this in connection with data from the Norwegian Food Research Institute, we see that 50% of food available in Norwegian grocery stores is ultra-processed. This means food that is not in its raw form but has been partially or fully broken down and combined with additives. These products are often significantly cheaper than raw ingredients like fresh meat, fish, fruits, and grains.

What is often the cheapest, easiest, and most available choice is also the least healthy. So, what is the alternative to shifting the national BMI scale and pushing the responsibility onto individuals like you and me?

Systemagic

The simple answer, followed by the hard work, is to change systems on a larger scale. This does not mean that all the research and efforts aimed at understanding and influencing individual behavior have been wasted. On the contrary, such insights are valuable, especially when implementing public policies like carbon taxes.

But if the goal is for Norwegians to eat healthier food, consume less meat, and more plants, then the price of healthy foods should be lowered. The availability of “yes” foods should improve, and the availability of “no” foods should decrease and become more expensive. For instance, Kiwi’s temporary removal of VAT on fruits and vegetables led to a 23% increase in fruit and vegetable sales.

And if we truly want Norwegians to choose public transport over cars, it must become the most affordable and convenient option. If we want to reduce the number of flights per capita, flying must become more expensive and less attractive, while alternative modes of travel like trains must become easier and cheaper.

Ultimately, it all comes down to choices – what we choose to do or not do – and the fact that the sum of our collective choices will determine the success of the major societal changes we need. But it is not people who should change when the system is rigged.