Why Technology Won’t Save Us Unless We Change Our Behavior
By Frenk van Harreveld | July 14, 2025
In our modern world, technology is often heralded as the solution to some of the most pressing challenges we face—climate change, stretched healthcare systems, and the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, to name a few. Innovations such as greener technology, smarter AI, and more efficient health solutions abound. Yet, despite these promising advances, technology alone cannot bring about the change we seek. As social psychologist Frenk van Harreveld explains in his recent perspective for TechPolicy.Press, the crucial missing ingredient is human behavior.
The Limits of Technology Without Behavior Change
Technological breakthroughs—from renewable energy devices to AI-powered diagnostics—hold great promise. But they remain ineffective unless people choose to use, trust, and maintain them over time. Simply inventing green products, for example, is not enough; these products must be purchased and integrated into everyday life to make a meaningful impact. Preventive health tools rely on changes in behavior to be effective, and AI can enhance efficiency only if users engage with it critically and responsibly.
Van Harreveld cites two familiar examples. Google Glass, once hailed as a revolutionary wearable, failed commercially not because the technology was flawed but because users found it intrusive and socially uncomfortable. Similarly, meat alternatives, though environmentally sustainable and technologically innovative, have been slow to replace traditional meat consumption due to entrenched habits, social norms, and cost factors.
Understanding Why Good Intentions Often Fall Short
Behavioral science sheds light on why people struggle to act in alignment with their long-term values. While many express a desire to live healthier and more sustainably, immediate desires often override these intentions. When standing in a supermarket aisle, consumers may opt for convenience, taste, or price over sustainability or health benefits.
Van Harreveld’s research highlights how “hot” emotional states—such as hunger, fatigue, or emotional arousal—reduce people’s capacity to act on long-term goals. This phenomenon, known as the “hot-cold empathy gap,” causes individuals to prioritize immediate rewards and impulses over distant benefits, undermining consistent behavior change. He emphasizes that this is not hypocrisy but rather a function of how our brains prioritize the present moment.
Designing Environments That Support Sustainable Choices
Given these behavioral challenges, van Harreveld stresses that solutions must go beyond urging people to try harder. Instead, environments and systems should be designed to actively support better choices. For example, behavior shifts when the positive outcomes of good decisions feel immediate, and the costs of poor ones are made tangible.
In one study on reducing plastic use, participants were encouraged to make sustainable choices by evoking momentary feelings of guilt—not to shame them but to bring the issue emotionally into the present moment. Another study showed that people were more inclined to buy green products when these products visibly signaled sustainability, turning “green” behavior into a social statement. This approach leverages social norms—the understanding that people are influenced heavily by what their peers do and value.
Lessons from Public Health and Electric Vehicles
The pandemic revealed how vital behavioral adoption is to the success of technological or medical interventions like vaccinations and mask-wearing. Success varied greatly depending on cultural factors such as trust, identity, and emotional framing rather than technology availability alone. Messaging that appealed to community solidarity proved effective in some regions, while politicization bred resistance elsewhere.
The adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) offers another example. In Norway, generous incentives, visible infrastructure, and social desirability helped EVs become not just environmentally sound but aspirational symbols. Conversely, in places where EVs remain rare or are perceived as elitist, uptake falls behind.
Van Harreveld underscores that policymakers can do more than implement bans or subsidies. By incorporating behavioral insights—such as default options that take advantage of human inertia or reframed messaging—they can nudge citizens toward better outcomes. An example is opt-out organ donation systems, which dramatically increase participation due to the power of default choices.
Bridging Short-Term Rewards with Long-Term Goals
The challenge remains to reconcile immediate gratification with future responsibility. Systems must be built so that ease and enjoyment in the short term do not undermine long-term wellbeing.
Public communication often relies heavily on fear—melting glaciers, health warnings, data breaches—to motivate action. However, fear can paralyze rather than empower people. Van Harreveld advocates for positive motivation: making desirable choices easy, visible, and rewarding.
In a recent international study on sustainable smartphones, the most significant drivers for purchase intentions were joy, excitement, and hope rather than technical specifications or brand loyalty. This highlights the need to make sustainable choices feel good, not just right.
Towards a Human-Centered Transition
Ultimately, behavioral change is less about individual willpower and more about the design of physical, social, digital, and policy environments. While technological laws are fixed, human behavior is flexible and responsive to context.
The key is making the path toward healthier, greener, and more responsible living natural and rewarding. This requires inviting people to join in a collective movement—not through guilt or fear alone, but by fostering social visibility, positive reinforcement, and shared identity.
As Emma Goldman famously expressed (paraphrased), “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.” For meaningful transformation, the journey itself must feel vibrant and worthwhile.
About the Author:
Frenk van Harreveld is Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Psychological Research Institute at the University of Amsterdam. He is a founder of SEVEN, the interdisciplinary institute focusing on climate research and policy innovation at the university. His research centers on decision-making, behavioral change, and sustainable policy design.
Related Reads:
- Power and Responsibility: Investors at the Crossroads of Tech Accountability (July 1, 2025)
- Tech Power and the Crisis of Democracy (June 3, 2025)
- Let’s Make Privacy Easy (August 21, 2023)
TechPolicy.Press is a nonprofit media venture dedicated to thoughtful discussion at the intersection of technology and democracy.
Subscribe to their newsletter for more insights.
