habits

why does so much research focus on planned behaviour if most behaviour is automatic + habitual

researchers are susceptible to bias towards agentic accounts of behaviour → we prefer explanations of behaviour that give intentions/reasons to behaviour, when in actuality most actions are habitual

what is the definition of habits (Wood + Runger, 2016)

strong associations (in memory) between contexts + responses that have developed by repetition, that result in relatively automatic responses to contexts that are insensitive to changes in the value/intensity of response outcomes

• context can be an environmental or internal (if i feel _ I will _)

• habits can be behavioural or cognitive (e.g. pessimistic thinking patterns)

• habits build due to being functional for us → behaviour is reinforced then persists even when it is no longer rewarding

what does Verplanken (2006) believe habits should not be associated with

frequency of occurrence → it is not enough to classify it as a habit based on how often/for how long someone has done something; we can habitually not perform an action

• habits are specifically about associations between contexts + responses

how did Adriaanse et al. (2011) study whether habits are represented by strong associations between contexts + responses

assessed whether people who habitually snack do it context dependently

• participants were asked what they would usually snack on at home (habitual response based on context), then were asked what it would be if this wasn’t available (alternative, non-habitual response)

• performed a lexical decision task → primed with ‘home’ then presented their responses + filler items; if participants had a representation of these two concepts, ‘home’ would activate associated foods by spreading activation

what were Adriaanse et al. (2011)’s findings

mean response latency for habitual response was much faster than the alternative response when priming the relevant context → confirms association between context + habitual response

how did Wood et al. (2002) study whether habitual associations develop through repetition

studied the proportion of which what we do is habitual → participants recorded what they were doing at the moment of a watch chime, as well as:

• the frequency with which they had performed the behaviour in the last month

• the extent to which they performed the behaviour in the same physical location each time

• the involvement of other people in the behaviour (whether there are)

found around 43% of actions were performed almost daily + usually in the same context → lots of what we do is habitual due to instrumental learning

what are 4 criteria for establishing automaticity

• does not require deliberation/cognitive resources → efficient

• occur outside conscious awareness

• insensitive to changes in the value of the response → not dependent on goals/rewards)

• are difficult to control

through what 4 stages did Aarts et al. (1997) study whether strong habits remove the need for deliberation

• measured the strength of cycling habits for students by deciding mode of transport for 9 trips (frequency of cycling mentions measured)

• participants were given 16 possible descriptions of travel situations, each with 4 attributes:

  • weather conditions (rain/no rain)

  • weight of luggage (4/20kg)

  • departure time (9am/2pm)

  • distance to destination (2.5/5km)

• measured favourability of using the bicycle in each travel situation (on 1-10 scale)

• DV measured the number of attributes used to make a decision → operationalised how predictive attributes were of decision (depending on whether cycling is habitual)

what were Aarts et al. (1997)’s results + what does this imply

measured the number of predictors of choice for travel mode + found that those with strong cycling habits took into account 1.8 (in comparison to 2.2)

• shows while there is some deliberation, having stronger habits means a smaller amount of deliberation is required

how did Wood et al. (2002)’s study extend to whether habitual responses occur without people being aware of them + what did they find

along with the watch chime, also asked participants what they were thinking about during this activity (if thinking about something else, more likely habitual) + whether they considered it a habit

• found with non-habitual behaviours, thoughts didn’t correspond around 70% of the time + did around 40%, and this effect was flipped in non-habitual behaviours

• suggests that the majority of habitual actions occur outside of conscious awareness

with what 3 variables did Neal et al. (2011) study whether habits are insensitive to changes in the value of the response

participants were told they were evaluating movie trailers or music videos → researchers manipulated 3 variables consistent/inconsistent with eating popcorn + gave each participant a bag to snack on:

• habit strength → asked how frequently they eat popcorn in movie theatres

• context → either in cinema room (movies → contextual cues of popcorn) or meeting room (music videos → not associated)

• value of the response → whether popcorn was fresh or stale (should not reinforce eating)

what were Neal et al. (2011)’s results + what did this suggest

• meeting room context → generally were less likely to eat popcorn, more likely to if it’s fresh (less cue dependent)

• cinema context → behaviour more dependent on strength of habit; high habit were likely to eat the popcorn regardless

shows habitual behaviour = insensitive to value of response

what is a non-behavioural example + measure of habit (Verplanken et al., 2007)

mental (cognitive) habits, e.g. pessimistic thinking patterns → measured using the Habit Index of Negative Thinking (HINT)

what index can be used to assess whether habits are part of one’s identity (Verplanken + Orbell, 2003)

the self-report habit index → measures whether thought processes can have the same properties as behavioural responses

• to what extent we are defined/we define ourselves by our habits, and how consistently do these behaviours need to be performed for it to become ‘who you are’

what did Martagh et al. (2012) find regarding whether habits are part of our self-concept

found a weak correlation (between .02-.07) between being a driver as part of who participants are + frequency with which they use other modes of transport → evidence against habits being part of who we are

what did Albini et al. (2018) find regarding whether habits are part of our self-concept

found a moderate correlation (.49) between participants seeing themselves as habitual vegetable eaters + eating them frequently, but not for fruit (.06) → provides some, but not clear evidence that habits are part of who we are

what did Verplanken + Sui (2018) find regarding whether habits are part of our self-concept

found a moderate correlation (.46) between general behaviours being part of one’s self concept + frequency they are performed → gives fairly strong evidence that habits are part of who we are

in summary, which of the following features characterise habits

• strong associations between contexts + response → yes

• develop through repetition → yes (though not as much as William James suggested)

• are automatic → depends

  • don’t require deliberation → to some extent, have less deliberation

  • outside conscious awareness → mostly

  • insensitive to changes in response value → yes

• are part of our self-concept → conflicting findings

what do Verplanken + Orbell (2022) state about the negative perception of habits

habits are often seen as negatives that must be overcome in order to create healthier, more sustainable societies, but this overlooks the important role habits have in regulating desirable everyday behaviour + consolidation long-term behavioural change

• majority of habits = very functional + even beneficial

are motivations alone enough to break habits (Webb + Sheeran, 2006)

through a mega-analysis on effects of intentions to change behaviour on behavioural outcome, changes in intentions lead to larger changes (d = .74) in behaviours performed sporadically than behaviours that could be repeated into habits (d = .22) → shows limited efficacy of motivations alone

what are 3 reasons why do people fail to act on their intentions (Sheeran et al., 2005)

• intention viability → it is impossible for some decisions to find expression

• lack of resources/outside personal control

• counter-intentional habits → intentions have smaller effects on behaviours performed frequently in similar situations (habits); key to understanding why habits are so hard to break

for what 5 reasons is it difficult to break habits

people may not be aware:

• that habits drive behaviour

• of the cues (environmental + internal) that trigger habits

• of the habitual responses themselves

• habits are insensitive to changes in the value of the response

• habits may be part of one’s self-concept

what are 3 possible strategies for breaking habits

• changing circumstances

• vigilant monitoring

• planning behaviour

what is the theory behind changing circumstances for breaking habits

if habits are cued by recurring stimuli, then changes in circumstances that remove these stimuli should disrupt habits

what method + at what timepoints did Wood et al. (2005) study whether changing circumstances could break habits

sampled young adults who were moving to a new university, so experienced naturally-occurring context (+ cue) change

• 4 weeks before moving → indicated the frequency of performance of exercising, reading newspapers + watching TV, and indicated whether this was performed at same location, with same people + whether others perform these behaviours (assessed stability of context)

• 4 weeks after moving → indicated frequency of performance of the behaviourism as well as the extent to which the context they perform each behaviour in was similar/different

tracked which behaviours persistent + whether the associated cues did also

what were Wood et al. (2005)’s findings regarding whether change in location affected the frequency of the habit being performed

found when assessing frequency of exercising behaviour:

• those with stronger habits were much more disrupted by changes in external (location) cues, so were much less frequently exercising on average → strength of habit associated with lack of flexibility + stronger ties to contextual cues

  • also perceived more change on average than those with weak habits

• those with weaker habits were less disrupted by location change, so were more adaptable to new circumstances → habit less likely to be broken

what were Wood et al. (2005)’s findings regarding whether change in presence of others affected the frequency of the habit being performed + what do these findings suggest overall

• found for those with strong habits, more change in the presence of others (social external cue) lead to less frequently performing the behaviour, whether those with weak habits were slightly more likely to perform the behaviour with increased change

overall, changing contextual cues = an effective method to changing habits, especially if they are strongly held, but this isn’t always viable

what is vigilant monitoring

because habits are often below conscious awareness, this strategy involves effortfully paying attention to habits

using what 4 conditions did Quinn et al. (2010) study the efficacy of vigilant monitoring in breaking habits

instructed participants to identify behaviours that they tried to inhibit/change during a typical day + measured the strength of these habits (how often they were performed in the past + extent to which they were performed in the same location each time). at follow up, reported the strategy they used, which included:

• vigilant monitoring, e.g. thinking ‘don’t do it’, watching carefully for mistakes

• distraction

• stimulus control (removing opportunity)

• nothing

what were Quinn et al. (2010)’s findings + what does this suggest

data suggests vigilant monitoring is most effective for breaking strong habits (over and above stimulus control + distraction)

• at odds with Woods’ findings of changing circumstances → means if changing context isn’t viable, vigilant monitoring = effective strategy as people may not be able to identify cues that underlie habits

in what 2 main stages did Adriaanse et al. (2011) assess whether planning = an effective strategy of breaking habits

• initially measured RT of habitual + non-habitual snack eating → found RT for habitual response was much shorter

• formed an implementation intention → participants plan what they would snack on if at home + reinforce the non-habitual snack

what was Adriaanse et al. (2011)’s hypothesis behind forming implementation intentions to break habits

believed forming an implementation intention would create a new association with the critical cue (e.g. being at home) that is pitted against the habitual response

• once the cue is activated, speed + strength of spreading activation of the habitual + alternative response (snack) will determine which response is activated first/more strongly

what were Adriaanse et al. (2011)’s findings + what does this suggest

found that participants who formed intention implementations were much faster at responding to the alternative snack + slower to respond to the habitual one

• suggests that a new association had been formed, which partially inhibited the old association → suggests this is an effective strategy of breaking habits as it forges alternative associations

how did Holland et al. (2006) assess the efficacy of forming plans in order to break habits

company installed recycling boxes for old paperwork + plastic cups, but the amount binned did not reduce (suggesting strong waste habits)

• researchers instructed one group of employees to plan when, where + how they would recycle their paper/plastic cups

• DV = weight of paper + cups in each participants’ dustbin at the end of the day (objective measure)

what were Holland et al. (2006)’s results

planning overall disrupted waste habits, resulting in less waste behaviour

how did Webb et al. (2009) study whether the physiological strength of the habit affects the effectiveness of planning reducing habitual behaviour

recruited regular smokers from high schools that wanted to quit → measured strength of smoking habits using test for nicotine dependence, number of months as a smoker + number of attempts to give up. assigned them to either:

• implementation intentions condition → when I am stressed, instead of smoking I will _

• control condition → completed control exercises concerning seatbelt use

measured smoking behaviour on 1 month’s follow up (no. of cigarettes a day)

what were Webb et al. (2009)’s findings + what does this suggest

found strength of habit moderated implementation intention efficacy in reducing smoking → heavy smokers found implementation intentions less effective

• shows some strategies, e.g. changing environmental cues, may be more effective for stronger habits than weaker ones

overall if changing circumstances to reduce exposure to cues that trigger habits is not possible, what methods are effective at reducing habits

• vigilant monitoring of behaviour → more useful for strong habits than other strategies

• implementation intentions → linking cue with a new, alternative response