Discover 6 powerful, research-backed truths that challenge common beliefs about change-making. From failed training programs to the myth of awareness, learn what really drives social and environmental impact.
Introduction: Why Our Common Sense About "Doing Good" Is Often Wrong
We all want to make a positive difference—whether it's for the environment, in our communities, or at our jobs. When we set out to change things for the better, we tend to rely on a set of common-sense tools. We think more training, more information, or simply paying for good behavior should work, right?
But what if our most basic assumptions about how change happens are wrong? Cutting-edge research into human behavior is revealing that our intuitions often lead us astray. The strategies we think are obvious can be ineffective or even backfire, while the real drivers of change are often hiding in plain sight, completely overlooked. Understanding these counter-intuitive truths is the key to making a real impact. This article explores six of the most surprising findings from recent studies that challenge everything we thought we knew about changing the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Why Highly 'Pro-Social' Employees Can Be Less Efficient
It seems logical: if you want better performance, hire "good" people. We assume that personality traits like honesty and a desire to help others (pro-socialness) should naturally lead to better, more efficient employees. However, a fascinating study of public sector bus drivers in Karnataka, India, turns this assumption on its head.
The research, part of a dissertation by Janhavi Nilekani, measured drivers' personality traits and compared them against concrete job performance metrics like attendance and fuel efficiency. The core finding was that most personality traits had minimal effect on job performance. While traits like dishonesty, risk aversion, and time preference showed no correlation with performance, one trait stood out for its unexpected result: higher pro-socialness was the only one that showed a surprising negative correlation, predicting lower fuel efficiency.
How could this be? The researcher's hypothesis points not to the individuals, but to the system. The public-sector bus company, KSRTC, pays its drivers a very high wage (Rs. 30,000-50,000 per month) compared to the private sector (Rs. 10,000-20,000). This wage premium created a huge applicant pool, allowing management to be incredibly selective. As a result, the company had indirectly filtered for an unusually pro-social workforce—for example, 60% of drivers donated the maximum possible amount in a game designed to measure the trait. In behavioral science terms, the company's hiring practices had created a "ceiling effect" for pro-socialness; with almost everyone scoring high on the trait, it lost its power to predict who would perform better.
This finding challenges our fundamental beliefs about hiring. It suggests that in certain systems, structural factors like high wages and selective recruitment can be far more impactful than the individual personality differences we assume are critical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Surprisingly Short Shelf-Life of Training Programs
Training is one of the most common tools for improving skills and performance. We invest billions in it globally, assuming that a well-designed program will lead to lasting change. But what if the effects of training vanish almost as soon as the program ends?
The same study of KSRTC bus drivers examined this very question. Researchers implemented a randomized training program designed to teach drivers techniques for improving fuel efficiency. The results were stark: the training program only increased fuel efficiency for the four months while the training sessions were actively ongoing, and had no measurable effect thereafter.
The analysis revealed that the training didn't impart a new, lasting skill or change long-term habits. Instead, it worked by temporarily increasing the salience of fuel efficiency—it made the topic top-of-mind for the drivers. As soon as the training sessions ended and the reminders disappeared, the drivers' behavior reverted to the baseline.
This was in sharp contrast to a financial incentives program run concurrently, which produced a sustained improvement in fuel efficiency over a twelve-month period. The ongoing possibility of a reward encouraged sustained effort in a way the one-off training could not. This reveals a critical truth about many well-intentioned interventions.
The study suggests that an immediate, short-run effect of training can rapidly fade away. The intervention worked not by building lasting habits, but by briefly increasing the salience of the desired behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Why the 'Modern' Solution Isn't Always the Best One
There is a powerful narrative of progress that suggests organized, modern, and technologically advanced systems are inherently superior to informal, traditional, or "messy" ones. A study of Bogotá's recycling system, however, shows that this narrative can be dangerously misleading.
In her dissertation research, Stacy Jackson compared two competing systems in the city: a municipally-planned, regulated pilot project using trucks and sorting facilities, and the long-standing informal system of individual collectors who use handcarts and horse-drawn carts to gather and sort recyclables.
The findings were counter-intuitive. The informal system, despite its lack of modern infrastructure, outperformed the regulated pilot project in three critical areas:
- Social Inclusion: It employs far more people, providing a livelihood for some of the poorest and most marginalized members of society.
- Economic Sustainability: Its revenue is higher than the regulated system, making it more competitive and self-sufficient without public subsidies.
- Environmental Sustainability: It achieves a higher sorting efficiency, meaning more of what's collected is actually recycled. Because it is less mechanized, it results in fewer vehicle-kilometers traveled and, consequently, lower greenhouse gas emissions.
So why did the municipal government still favor the formal, less-effective system? Because it was "legible, aesthetic, planned, and it helps the government build a clean, modern city." This teaches us a vital lesson: the allure of "modernity" and control can blind us to the real-world effectiveness of existing, community-based systems. True progress must be measured by outcomes, not just by how tidy and planned things appear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Hidden Danger of Paying People to Do the Right Thing
It seems like the most straightforward logic in the world: if you want people to do more of something good, reward them. If you want them to do less of something bad, fine them. But human psychology is more complex than a simple cost-benefit analysis, and financial incentives can backfire in spectacular ways.
A classic study mentioned in the Handbook on Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change illustrates this perfectly. A daycare, frustrated with parents arriving late to pick up their children, introduced a small fine for tardiness. The shocking outcome? After the fine was introduced, parents were more likely to arrive late to pick up their children.
The fine completely changed the meaning of the action. What was once a moral or social transgression—inconveniencing the staff and inducing guilt—became a simple economic transaction. Parents were no longer violating a social norm; they were now paying for a service (extra childcare). The guilt was gone, and the undesirable behavior increased.
This phenomenon is not an outlier. The Handbook also cites a 2015 study by Asensio and Delmas, which found that when residents received feedback on their electricity use framed in terms of financial savings, they increased their energy consumption by 8% on average. Meanwhile, residents who received feedback focused on public health benefits reduced their consumption.
These examples are classic illustrations of "motivation crowding-out," a principle where external rewards or penalties can undermine—or "crowd out"—the intrinsic, moral, or social motivations that were originally driving behavior. Relying on purely economic incentives is a risky strategy that can make the problem worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. When Knowing More Doesn't Lead to Doing Better
A core belief behind countless public service announcements and awareness campaigns is the "information-deficit model": the idea that if people just knew the facts about a problem, they would naturally change their behavior. If we just tell people about the dangers of e-waste or the harm of pollution, they'll surely act. But a growing body of evidence shows this is often wishful thinking.
A study on e-waste management among young consumers put this model to the test. Researchers extended the well-known Theory of Planned Behavior by adding several factors to see what truly influenced people's intention to manage their electronic waste responsibly.
The key result was a direct blow to the information-deficit model. Factors like government policy, the prospect of financial benefits, and a person's underlying environmental concern all significantly influenced their intention to manage e-waste. The one factor that had no significant effect? Awareness.
"All of the variables except awareness have been proven to impose significant effects on behavioural intention of e-waste management."
This finding is echoed in the Handbook on Pro-Environmental Behaviour Change, which notes that education-only campaigns may succeed in changing knowledge but rarely succeed in changing actual behavior. To drive real change, we must move beyond simply providing information. We need to focus on changing the context—through smarter policies, better incentives, and making the right choice the easy and socially normative choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Astonishingly Low Cost of Cleaner Air
One of the most persistent arguments against strong environmental regulation is cost. We often assume there is an unavoidable trade-off between economic growth and clean air, and that forcing industries to clean up their act would be prohibitively expensive. Groundbreaking research on industrial pollution in Surat, India, reveals this may be one of the most consequential misunderstandings in public policy.
The study, from Nilekani's dissertation, estimated the actual cost for industrial plants to comply with existing air pollution standards. The central finding is stunning: fully enforcing the existing emissions standard would lead to a 66% reduction in average annual emissions, at a moderate average abatement cost of just Rs. 36,150 per year ($556 in 2018 dollars) per plant.
To put that number in perspective, the entire annual cost to dramatically cut a factory's pollution is barely more than one month's salary for a single public-sector bus driver in the same country. This cost is so low because the problem isn't a lack of technology. The research found that nearly all plants already have pollution control devices installed; they just don't operate them correctly or consistently, likely to save on operational costs.
This reframes the entire problem. The barrier to cleaner air isn't technological impossibility or unbearable costs; it's a failure of monitoring and enforcement of laws already on the books. The research presents a stark conclusion: for an annual cost per plant that is trivial for most industrial operations, India could achieve public health gains measured in millions of years of human life. Improving the nation's air quality to meet national standards could increase average life expectancy by 3.2 years. The obstacle to cleaner air isn't cost; it's the political and administrative will to enforce existing laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Rethinking How We Make a Difference
Across these six truths, a single powerful theme emerges: our common-sense intuitions about what drives human behavior are often deeply flawed. We overestimate the power of individual personality and knowledge, while underestimating the profound influence of the surrounding context—the policies, incentives, social norms, and physical infrastructure that shape our choices every day.
Effective change rarely comes from asking people to simply try harder with the same old assumptions. It comes from a deeper, evidence-based understanding of what truly motivates and enables human action. It requires designing systems and changing contexts, not just appealing to individual conscience.
Knowing that our common sense can lead us astray, what is one core assumption you hold about "making a difference" that you're now willing to question?
0 Comments