Does knowledge change behaviour?
Squared Away is changing to Thinking About Behaviour! You can continue to follow the newsletter here, and also subscribe on Substack to get new posts delivered directly into your inbox if you use don't use LinkedIn frequently.
Last week, a new study on calorie labelling in England revealed an important finding: while the policy increased awareness of calorie content, it didn’t lead to measurable reductions in caloric intake. This result has reignited debate over the effectiveness of knowledge-based interventions in changing behaviour.
On the surface, this might seem like proof that knowledge fails to drive meaningful change but behaviour is rarely that simple. Knowledge is an essential ingredient, but rarely enough on its own. For it to translate into action, it must work within a supportive system—one that considers context, competing motivations, and structural barriers. This study offers critical lessons for policymakers and behavioural scientists alike, prompting us to ask a better question: how can we use knowledge more effectively to support real-world behaviour change?
The study at a glance
Published this week, the study examined the impact of mandatory calorie labelling in England’s out-of-home food sector, introduced in April 2022. Researchers collected data from over 6,500 customers across 330 food outlets, comparing caloric consumption before and after the policy was implemented.
The findings revealed:
The researchers concluded that while calorie labelling may increase awareness, it doesn’t directly reduce caloric intake.
What knowledge can (and can’t) do
领英推荐
Knowledge is the foundation of behaviour change, but it is rarely sufficient on its own. Awareness sparks the process, but meaningful change requires more than information—it needs supportive systems to turn knowledge into action.
A common reaction to studies like this is to dismiss knowledge-based interventions as ineffective. The results—no significant change in caloric intake—might seem to confirm this view. However, such a conclusion oversimplifies the reality that behaviour change is rarely immediate or linear. Instead, it often begins with awareness.
The study’s finding that calorie labelling increased awareness shows that information isn’t irrelevant—it’s a stepping stone. Noticing and understanding calorie counts might not lead to immediate behavioural shifts, but it opens the door for complementary strategies. For example, pairing labels with structural interventions like default healthy options or price incentives could nudge people toward healthier decisions over time. Behavioural change often requires layers, and labelling may be one small but necessary piece of a bigger puzzle.
Frameworks like the COM-B model and the Transtheoretical Model position awareness as an early stage in the behaviour change process. For example, people need to recognise that calorie counts are relevant to their decisions before they can integrate this knowledge into actions. By increasing awareness, calorie labelling lays the groundwork for other interventions (e.g., defaults or incentives) to drive behavioural shifts.
Immediate behaviour changes aren’t always realistic for interventions like calorie labelling, which rely on habit formation and repeated exposure. Over time, greater awareness could contribute to a gradual shift in norms or decision patterns.
While the study supports the idea that awareness is important, it doesn’t inherently validate calorie labelling as a behaviour change tool. People may notice calorie labels but still prioritise other goals—such as indulgence or social bonding—over health-related decisions. Without addressing contextual factors, labelling alone is unlikely to have a substantial impact.
It’s also worth considering the potential ceiling for awareness. Some groups, like frequent diners or health-conscious individuals, might already engage with calorie information, limiting the marginal benefit of labelling. For others, barriers beyond awareness—such as affordability or taste preferences—may prevent them from acting on the information.
The key takeaway is that awareness isn’t sufficient, but it’s not irrelevant either. It is a critical early step that requires complementary interventions to translate knowledge into sustained behaviour change.
Read the rest on Substack:
The real issue here is that… lowering calorie intake is really not the right intervention from a metabolic health standpoint. The priority should be to improve people fat burning abilities that have become dramatically low. Slow and steady exercise (zone 1) and less sedentary being the way to do.
Editor-in-Chief Green Nudges // Behavioural Strategist // Freelance Marketing Strategist
2 个月Laura Sommer, PhD
Chief Behavioral Officer at Lirio & Author of Engaged: Designing for Behavior Change
3 个月This old post of mine is kind of related - not only is education not enough, we can't hyperfocus on getting people to change for *our* reasons. There are many roads to a desired outcome and if we get fixated on a particular route, we may miss the destination. https://medium.com/@amybphd/do-we-need-persuasion-for-behavior-change-bb8aedd37241
Behavior Scientist ? Award-Winning Author ?Speaker ? Innovator ? Trainer ? Board-Certified Psychologist
3 个月Thanks for sharing this. I feel like this is something I get sick of saying "Knowledge is not enough to change behavior!" You can't convince or persuade someone with data alone. Behavior change is so nuanced and complicated. Humans are so complicated!
This is a rule of thumb we've used for a while in lots of categories - makes sense if you don't assume that human beings are individual, rational, optimising agents, like my friend, Robbie the Robot....