Behavioral research has disproportionately focused on i-frame solutions, likely inadvertently contributing to institutional agendas to maintain the status quo. Nonetheless, Chater & Loewenstein (C&L) may not have fully addressed who else the i-frame approach may be appealing to: Individuals who voluntarily seek support to reduce their alcohol consumption, quit smoking, or change their eating habits are also likely attracted to, and benefit from, the availability of these solutions. Although many people feel the relative ineffectuality of individual efforts to generate change at scale, they also desire agency over their choices and are uncertain that systemic change will come. This can generate ambivalence from simultaneously experiencing detachment from personal responsibility, desire for choice, and skepticism toward corporations or governments perceived as resisting change for financial or political reasons. Attempts to support behavioral change should bear these apparent contradictions in mind and reflect what we understand about behavior as well as possible.

Within the field of health behaviors, behavior is understood through social-cognitive theories as the outcome of both internal and external factors. Our success in changing our behavioral patterns is affected by our environment, intentions, motivations, self-efficacy, knowledge, perceived behavioral control, and their interplay. This suggests that interactions between s-frame and i-frame thinking best reflect our understanding of how behavior works. With this framing, we explore two examples: alcohol consumption and meat consumption.

Alcohol consumption is culturally embedded in many societies, and here it is not clear that s-frame interventions are the only option to effect change. Sweden is often lifted as an example of strong s-frame solutions for alcohol consumption: high taxes and a sales monopoly. Nonetheless, the prevalence of harmful drinking has remained at ~30% over the past decade (Guttormsson, Reference Guttormsson2022). That is not to say that these policies did not have an effect – they certainly did – but their impact seems to have largely plateaued. With little-to-no noticeable shift in the average rate of harmful drinking attributable to s-frame policy in recent years, what is a citizen to do? An individual seeking help should be able to get that help instead of waiting for the next wave of policy reform. The availability of i-frame interventions is particularly important if s-frame changes risk inadvertently leaving at-risk groups behind or not fully accounting for health inequalities. For example, introducing minimum unit pricing (an s-frame intervention) on alcohol in Scotland may have increased financial pressure for economically vulnerable groups, whereas no clear evidence that alcohol consumption or dependence decreased among individuals drinking at harmful levels was found (Holmes et al., Reference Holmes, Angus, Boyd, Buykx, Brennan, Gardiner and Yannoulis2022).

Interestingly, younger people in Sweden are drinking less, whereas older individuals seem to be drinking more (Guttormsson, Reference Guttormsson2022). This trend among younger individuals is difficult to ascribe to changes in policy (Törrönen, Roumeliotis, Samuelsson, Kraus, & Room, Reference Törrönen, Roumeliotis, Samuelsson, Kraus and Room2019) as, if anything, the availability of alcohol has increased since 1995 because of a series of changes in national alcohol policy to align Sweden more closely with European standards (Källmén, Wennberg, Leifman, Bergman, & Berman, Reference Källmén, Wennberg, Leifman, Bergman and Berman2011). Rather, a shift in social norms among young people appears to have occurred, such that it is no longer taken for granted that drinking is normal or necessary in social environments. These influences are instead superseded by increased focus on personal safety and health as well as prioritization of other recreational activities. Taken together, this may have created a social landscape among younger people where there is less pressure to drink and abstinence is more socially acceptable than before (Törrönen et al., Reference Törrönen, Roumeliotis, Samuelsson, Kraus and Room2019).

From the viewpoint of individuals, reducing alcohol consumption can generate personal, tangible benefits in health and wellbeing within a comprehendible timeframe. Engaging with behaviors related to environmental sustainability though requires individuals to change their behavior to influence something seemingly less personal and tangible that occurs on a longer timescale: climate change. Reducing our consumption of red meat, especially beef, can improve the environmental sustainability of our diets. A slow but steady decline in red meat consumption has occurred in Sweden since 2016. This has been attributed to an increase in public awareness of the environmental impact of meat, as well as issues of animal welfare, price, and health (Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2022). Although it does not specifically set targets for reducing red meat consumption, the National Food Strategy for Sweden (Swedish Government Prop, 2017) does highlight the importance of consumers’ ability to make informed sustainable food choices, providing an s-frame backdrop. The trend of decreasing red meat consumption may therefore represent an indirect effect on behavior whereby increasing general awareness about the (un)sustainability of the food industry among more individuals influences subjective norms and increases social pressure to make behavioral changes. Similar effects have been discussed for behavioral intentions regarding waste separation (Wang, Wang, Zhao, & Yang, Reference Wang, Wang, Zhao and Yang2019).

The environmental toll of the food industry has been part of the public consciousness in Sweden since before the National Food Strategy, and external factors aside from policy also play a role. For example, the popularity and availability of alternative proteins and meat-free products mimicking the functional and sensory aspects of meat has increased dramatically in European markets. This makes it easier to accommodate the needs of meat-avoiding friends and family in social situations, and in turn word-of-mouth and social exposure increase awareness of such alternatives (Collier, Normann, Harris, Oberrauter, & Bergman, Reference Collier, Normann, Harris, Oberrauter and Bergman2022; White, Ballantine, & Ozanne, Reference White, Ballantine and Ozanne2022). In other words, individual actions support change in the s-frame, which in turn can enhance social inclusion effects. It remains likely that a carbon tax or specific meat tax would impact meat consumption behavior (e.g., Säll & Gren, Reference Säll and Gren2015), and that individuals would adapt to such s-frame changes more quickly than they expect – as C&L describe. However, indirect s-frame approaches may help effect measurable behavioral change via shifts in awareness and norms among individuals while such reforms are debated, designed, and drafted.

Very few would argue that i-frame interventions alone are sufficient, but they are relevant in concert with s-frame reforms - the impact of which can plateau. Exploration of the examples discussed here suggests that i-frame and s-frame approaches exist on a continuum, and that interactions between them reflect what we understand about behavior and how change can be created and sustained.