She Didn’t Give Me Her Name by Cade Roster on flickr.

There are some classic models of change. How do they stand up at the moment and what light can they shed on our response to the virus?

We'll look at three models of change:

Change Curve or Grief Curve (Kübler-Ross)
Diffusion of Innovations (Everett Rogers)
Barriers to Change (Ballard, drawing on Wilber)

Change Curve

Diagram by U3173699 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross developed this model while working with people facing terminal illness. Her classic book, On Death and Dying, was published in 1969. It has become widely known as a model of how individuals respond to an unwelcome change which has been imposed on them.

You may have noticed your own emotions and those of people around you - including people you've only seen via media - traveling through this cycle, and perhaps looping back through some of the stages.

A few observations:

Denial can relate to different aspects of the situation: how contagious is the virus? how deadly? who is more at risk? what do the policy and legal responses say? what does this mean for me? what does this mean for shops/communities/businesses that matter to me?
We look to others to confirm the severity or otherwise of the situation. When a fire alarm goes off, we check with others about whether it's 'real' or not.
The bargains we strike can be irrational, especially when we are not in control of our own destiny.
We can think that we - or others around us - are OK, and then suddenly find that what felt like acceptance whizzes back to depression or anger.
We may look to others to provide the support shown in the blue row at the bottom of this diagram. With something like the virus, everyone is experiencing the same unwelcome imposed change and so those who normally provide support may be less available or capable. (For some, providing support to others will be a way of being useful, finding purpose and meaning. It may also increase their risk of catching or passing on the virus. Not everyone's situation is the same.)

Diffusion of Innovations

Everett Rogers' book was also first published in the 1960s. It has been used by marketers and those who want to bring about change, to help understand their target audiences better. Its starting point is understanding how to get people to adopt an innovation, than about whether the innovation is a good thing or not, or how innovators might best do the right thing for people and society.

There are quite a few useful frameworks and models in the book. The one I want to focus on here is the typology of people who may (or may not) adopt the innovative product, service or behaviour. It's summarised here.

Innovators - risk takers, high social status (or care little for others' opinions), connected to the world of tech, financially well-resourced. Not afraid to adopt things which may fail.
Early adopter - opinion leaders, a bit more choosy about what they adopt than the innovators, although they share their high social status, financial resources and educational level.
Early majority - high social status but not opinion leaders.
Later majority - adopt innovations later than others. Typically sceptical about innovation and change, lower social status fewer financial resources.
Laggards - do not lead opinion. They have an aversion to change, and tend to be of lower social status and older.

How does this model help us make sense of social isolation behaviours?

(What follows is my own speculation. I will be very interested to see any analysis based on actual research of the adoption of these behaviours, as well as things like professional-level handwashing and the wearing of face masks.)

Staying home is quite a lacklustre, dull behaviour. It's not obviously heroic or dangerous. You wouldn't make a blockbuster film with a brave hero whose main contribution is social distancing. (This brilliant thread by Gabrielle Blair looks at macho responses to disease.) Because of its framing in the early days as 'giving in' to the virus (as opposed to 'keeping calm and carrying on'), this behaviour change was in tension with the boldness and risk-taking attitude which characterises innovators and early adopters.

It was important for visible leaders and influencers to be seen to be keeping their distance from each other, for the majorities to accept that this behaviour was actually needed. Conversely, if you are someone who is generally risk-averse (e.g. a member of the later majority or a laggard), then perhaps this particular behaviour is more attractive and more easily adopted.

I'm also curious about how we should interpret 'social status' in this model. I speculate that this perceived and felt sense of status exists at different scales and overlapping domains - family, peers, profession, colleagues, friends, community, society...

Barriers to Change

This model is one I've often used to help environmentalists and climate campaigners understand what might be missing, when they are trying to get behaviours or policies adopted. Ballard based it on work by Wilber. I first came across the model in this paper. This version is taken from Change Management for Sustainable Development, second edition.

It's helpful in understanding the take-up of virtual alternatives to what would have been in-person get-togethers. These might be doing your camera club, pub quiz or WI meeting on Zoom (other video conferencing platforms are available). It might be work or professional meetings. Or it might be more personal, confidential things like consulting your GP or joining an AA or NA support group.

Individual subjective: I can't do online, it's too much for me. It will be a horrible experience.
Individual objective: My internet is poor, and I do not have a camera on my computer.
Collective subjective: Online is a poor cousin to physical meeting. Online is for dating and gaming, not 'ordinary' activities.
Collective objective: Our organisation blocks access to Zoom. Online systems get overloaded when unexpectedly large numbers of people use them.

When the barriers are laid out in this systematic way, it is easy to see how they may be overcome.

Patient family members, colleagues and friends have been building confidence and skills for many people who didn't believe they could make a video call. Using these calls for social purposes like multi-generational family calls, quizzes or low-risk work events like virtual coffee has been a gentle introduction. Mistakes can be made and IT-related problems solved in the company of people you trust.

People have finally got round to unboxing hardware they already had but not used, or working out how to use it, or upgrading. Employers have been helping with purchases and community organisations redistributing equipment to those without it.

There is now a much larger critical mass of people who are confident and have good experiences of virtual meetings. Organised online events have been springing up, and it's become the new normal for many people.

Organisations and telecoms providers have been getting their act together, upgrading and expanding their ability to service the upsurge in demand.

Making the Path by Walking

This post was first published in the April 2020 edition of my Making the Path by Walking newsletter. Scroll right down to subscribe.