How the need to eat liver, kidney and other organs led to a better understanding of change

In January 1943 just a year into the United States involvement in World War II, former President Herbert Hoover wrote with a significant ask for support for the war effort on the home front.  Hoover asked Americans to reduce their consumption of meat and fats, because food “are as much munitions in this war as are tanks and aeroplanes.”  Hoover framed the change he was asking for as a sense of patriotism and duty so that soldiers overseas would be well fed. Hoover predicted that meat might be soon be rationed, which it was only two months later. Americans felt the sudden impact of not having access to meat, food that had been considered a staple. 

The American government began sending the majority of the preferred meat cuts overseas to the soldiers, but they believed it was important that people at home still have access to high-quality animal protein.  The government had a solution: organ meat (e.g. liver, kidney, tripe).  This protein is highly nutritious and would provide a good alternative to more traditional cuts.  However, organ meats were also considered low-quality and a marker of low social status.  Even during this time when the country was pulling together to support the war effort, it was going to take a lot of convincing to get people to start including organ meat in their menu instead of preferred cuts. 

So, the government hired social scientists and social psychologists to help them find ways to encourage people to eat organ meat.   Among the scientists, the government was Kurt Lewin, one of the founders of social psychology. One of Lewin’s contributions to social psychology was that all behaviors were determined by a balance of encouraging forces and discouraging forces (barriers and incentives) that were in balance. Most of the efforts to change eating habits to include more organ meat focused on consumption incentives (eat nutritiously and be patriotic), but Lewin believed that the focus instead needed to be on systematically determining what barriers prevented someone from eating organ meats in the first place. If the barriers that discouraged the consumption of organ meats could be mitigated, Lewin believed that the people in charge of preparing meals would choose organ meat more often.  In short, the question needed to be reframed from “What would convince you to eat organ meats?” to “Why don’t you eat them in the first place?”  Sure, incentives might be useful, but reducing barriers proved to be a much more effective first step.  In fact, by the end of World War II, one study found that organ meat consumption rose by 33 percent during the war. By 1955, it was up 50 percent. So, how did they accomplish this? 

Lewin started by researching what approach to learning about new food was most effective.  He divided a group of housewives into two groups to learn about the benefits of organ meat including how it would help the war effort and improve nutrition for their family. One group received the information via a lecture.  The second group learned about the benefits via a lecture and discussion-decision process where they actively participated in a discussion about how to change Americans’ eating habits to cope with wartime food shortages. When they offered their own personal objections, such as a personal dislike of organ meats, the nutritionist offered persuasive counterarguments, such as cooking tips for making organ meats taste better At the end of the meeting, the nutritionist asked the women to raise their hands if they were willing to try organ meats in the upcoming week.

One week later, researchers interviewed each housewife. They discovered that 23 out of 44 participants (52%) in the group decision condition had served organ meats, while only 4 out of 41 participants (10%) in the lecture condition had given organ meat a try. The group decision technique was even more effective among participants who had never served organ meats. 29% of these first-timers in the group decision condition served organ meat, compared to 0% in the lecture condition.

This story offers us in education a lesson about how we can improve the adoption of new ideas.  As we adopt new approaches in schools we often focus on the incentives and ask little why people are not doing something in the first place. When we do a barrier analysis, we are likely to come up with solutions to move solutions along, versus focusing on incentives.  One tool we can use to analyze the barriers to successful implementation is a Force-Field Analysis, a tool that came directly from Lewin’s work. 

The idea behind Force-Field Analysis is that situations are maintained by an equilibrium between forces that drive change and others that resist change.  As described above, for change to happen, the forces that are resisting change must be weakened and the driving forces strengthened.  By naming the forces at play and giving them weight, you are prioritizing your efforts. 

To start, define your goal or vision for change, and write it down in a box in the middle of a piece of landscape-oriented paper (or on a whiteboard).  Brainstorm the forces that are driving the change toward this goal.  Positive forces of change might include efficiency, improved outcomes for students, more opportunity for teachers, accountability pressure.  Typically, these forces are written on the left side of the goal with arrows pointing toward the goal (forces pushing towards the outcome). 

Now brainstorm the forces that resist or are unfavorable to this change.  These forces might include staff capability, complexity, staff opinion of what they are hired to do, cost, time.  The restraining forces are typically written on the right side of the goal.  These forces are pushing back against the goal. 

The ideal number of forces on each side of the goal is 3-7.  Once these forces have been agreed to, weight the forces from 1-5 (1 is a weak force and 5 is a strong force).  The outcome should be a prioritization of forces that must be addressed and a plan to overcome restraining forces and enhance positive forces.  Based on what Lewin learned, it makes the most sense to focus on the restraining forces and learn what is restraining the change.  Make the right thing easy to do and the wrong thing difficult.