2.2.5 SOCIAL: Habits

1- 10: Define the features that characterise habits 11-44: Critically evaluate the empirical evidence that these features characterise habits. 44-55: Identify ways to break – or overcome – habits. 56-76: Critically evaluate the extent to which each strategy is effective. 77-80: Summary

William James (1899) quote

ninety-nine hundredths or, possibly, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths of our activity is purely automatic and habitual, from our rising in the morning to our lying down each night.

if habits make up most of our behaviour, why study anything else?

• researchers may be biased towards ‘agentic’ accounts of behaviour- like Mazar and Wood (2022) suggest people are

• people tend to prefet to explain behaviour in a way that gives them agency- give a reason, implying intention choice. yet when investigate in more detail, it is bc the behaviour is habitually done- repeated action

habits: what are they and how do they develop (in brief)

strong associations (in memory) between contexts and responses that have developed through repetition

habits: definition

relatively automatic responses to contexts that are insensitive to changes in the value or contingency of response outcomes

what domain do habits come under?

• not necessarily behavioural- e.g. habitual pessimistic thinking. behavioural but cognition can be habitual too.

what are habits triggered by?

• context

• does not have to be environmental context, can also be internal feeling e.g. when i feel depressed i do x

• trigger associated w behaviour

why do habits build?

• they are functional for us

• behaviour is reinforced due to factors e.g. reward, convenience

what style of response do habits take?

becomes automatic → persist even when no longer rewarding

Verplanken: habits should not be equated with…

frequency of occurence

habits = doing something frequently

yes or no, and why

• no, more than that

• key indicator is how often/ for how long someone does smth, but not enough → is also possible to habitually not do something (as opposed to just not doing smth)

• habits = strong associations in memory between contexts + responses

• there are different routines for activities, e.g. lunches depend on diff settings

evidence that habits are represented by strong associations between contexts and responses: study

Adriaanse et al., (2011, Study 1)

Adriaanse et al., (2011, Study 1): procedure

• identify habits

• asked what they would usually snack on at home? (habitual response)

• asked what snack would they eat if this was not available (alternative response)

• primed lexical decision task

• decide if letter string word or no word

• prime: home

• targets: responses that the Ps had generated + filler items (e.g. stairs, clock, saddle, wheels)

Adriaanse et al., (2011, Study 1): reasoning behind procedure

• investigating if ppl who habitually snack do so context dependently or independently

• gave context → at home → to q what usually snack on/ what usually eat in that situation

• alternative response = non habitual response

• tried to tap into associations via primed lexical decision task, that used the context prime ‘home’ outside of conscious awareness → reasoning: if have mental representation between two things, if activate one thing, it primes association to the other via spreading activation

• if activate home → some activation associated with things at home, e.g. what u habitually snack on, meaning u wld response quicker if those were presenting

• mixed in with non-critical filler words

what was Adriaanse et al., (2011, Study 1) investigating

• do ppl who habitually snack do it context dependently or independently

• if habits are represented by strong associations between contexts and responses

Adriaanse et al., (2011, Study 1): results

• mean response latency of the habitual response = 620

• mean response latency of the alternative response = 675

response latency

time delay between when a stimulus is presented + individual responds

Adriaanse et al., (2011, Study 1): findings

• habitual responses faster than non-habitual

• if prime word home + present snack → takes shorter amount of time to respond to a habitual snack than alternative response, which is not as associated w home

• evidence that there is association between context and response

• first part of habit definition- strong associations

evidence for whether the associations in habits develop through repetition: study

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002)

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002): beliefs/rationale + aims of study

beliefs/rationale:

• re second part of habit definition

• believes strong associations occur thru instrumental learning → behaviour either reinforced or not

• daily life full of repetition/learning , tho do not often try novel things

aim:

• to estimate the proportion of what we do that is habitual

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002): procedure

• experience sampling

• Ps recorded what they were doing at the moment of the watch chime

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

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

• the involvement of other ppl in the behaviour (others involved vs others not involved)

also:

• what they were thinking about during the activity

• and whether they considered each behaviour to be a habit

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002): results

• about 43% of actions were performed almost daily and usually in the same context

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002) vs William James(1899)

• WJ- habits account for 99% or 99.9% of what we do

• WQK- habits account for 43% of what we do

→ WQK lower estimate than WJ → possibly due to reporting more agentic accounts (drawn to differences rather than similarities)

(some) criteria for establishing automaticity

1. do not require deliberation (i.e. are efficient)

2. occur outside conscious awareness

3. insensitive to changes in the values of the response (i.e. not dependent on ppls goals)

4. are difficult to control

to what extent are habitual responses automatic? rationale + intuitive

• habits = assoc in memory that develop thru repetition

• dont require cog resources → done without deliberation

• even when behaviour no longer rewarded, habit persists → perhaps due to being difficult to control or occuring outside conscious awareness

• ppl often have ‘bad habits’ e.g. nail biting, mindless eating, staying up late that they wish to stop but cannot- difficult to control, insensitive to changes in the value, occur outside conscious awareness, no delibration

intuitively suggests habitual responses are very automatic

do habits remove the need for deliberation? study

Aarts et al., (1997)

Aarts et al., (1997): procedure

• do habits remove need for deliberation?

1. measure strength of cycling habits for 82 students

• decide, as quickly as poss, how to travel for nine trips

• freq of mentioning bike → measure of habit

2. 16 descriptions of travel situations, each with four attributes:

1) weather conditions (rain, no rain)

2) weight of luggage (4kg, 20kg)

3) departure time (9am, 2pm)

4) distance to destination (2.5km, 5km)

3. favourability of using the bicycle in each travel situation (1-10 scale)

3. the number of attributes used to make decision

• operationalised as how predictive attributes were of decision

what was the measure of habit in Aarts et al., (1997)

frequency of mentioning the bicycle

why was number of attributes used to make decision measured in Aarts et al., (1997)?

• bc examining deliberation

• to what extent ppl take into account the attributes of the event

• if u are a habitual cyclist → do not consider the attributes of the trip as much (how rewarding it is)

• operationalised as how predictive attributes were of decision

Aarts et al., (1997): results + findings

• number of statistically significant predictors of choice of travel mode (out of possible 4: weather, weight, distance, departure time) by strength of cycling habits (weak vs strong)

• ppl w weak habits took into account 2.2 attributes

• habitual cyclists (strong habit) took into account 1.8

• habitual cyclists took less attributes into account

• does not show no deliberation, but considerably smaller proportion of deliberation for strong habits

do habitual responses occur without ppl being aware of them? study

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002)

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002) study is evidence for

• whether the associations in habits develop through repetition

• whether habitual responses occur without people being aware of them

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002): do habitual responses occur w/o ppl being aware of them: relevant study parts + hypothesis

• experience sampling watch chime study

• part of study relevant to this: asked what they were thinking abt during the activity recorded when watch went off, asked whether they considered each behaviour to be a habit (yes/no)

→ are you thinking abt activity being done or smth else? if w/o conscious awareness, ppl wld be less likely to be thinking about habitual behaviour when it is being performed

Wood, Quinn, and Kashy (2002): what % of the time do thoughts correspond with behaviour? results Part 2

non-habitual behaviours

• thoughts correspond 70% of the time

habitual behaviours

• thoughts correspond 40% of the time

→ thought less likely to correspond with habitual behaviour

are habits insensitive to changes in the value of the response? study

Neal et al., (2011)

Neal et al., (2011): procedure

• examining if habits are insensitive to changes in value of response

• Ps thought they either evaluating movie trailers (wld be assoc w eating popcorn) or music videos

• manipulated three variables through contexts consistent or inconsistent with eating popcorn + gave Ps a bag of popcorn to snack on:

1. habit strength

• how frequently do you eat popcorn in movie theatres?

→ habitual popcorn eaters + non habitual

2. context

• cinema or meeting room

→ cinema- contextual cues associated

3. value of response

• popcorn either fresh or stale

→ stale shld not reinforce eating as lower quality; if not a habitual eater then behaviour shld cease

Neal et al., (2011): findings

cinema context

• contextual cues support habit

• behaviour depends more on strength of habit- habitual popcorn eaters eat it regardless (of if stale or fresh) whilst low habit eat less if stale and more if fresh, same for moderate habit but for a much lesser degree (cld say no effect), compared to high habit where freshness does not matter at all

meeting room context

• generally popcorn not eaten in meeting room, even less if its state - not dependent on contextual cues

• congruent responses between different habit types, slightly more in each condition has habit strengthens

• overall prefer fresh to stale

cinema vs meeting room

• even low habit eat the same amount of stale popcorn in cinema as high habit do fresh popcorn in meeting room

Verplanken et al., (2007)

• habits not just about behaviour

• mental habits

• aka habitual patterns of thought

• assessed with HINT

HINT

Habit Index of Negative Thinking

HINT assesses…

mental habits

what is this question from?:

Thinking negatively about myself is something . . . .

1. I do frequently.

2. I do automatically.

3. I do unintentionally.

4. that feels sort of natural to me.

5. I do without further thinking.

6. that would require mental effort to leave.

7. I do every day.

8. I start doing before I realize I’m doing it.

9. I would find hard not to do.

10. I don’t do on purpose.

11. that’s typically “me.”

12. I have been doing for a long time.

HINT, Habit Index of Negative Thinking

Verplanken et al., (2007)

are habits part of who we are? how is this assessed

Self-Report Habit Index (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003)

Self-Report Habit Index (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003)

• measures whether thought responses can have same properties as behavioural responses

• “doing X is something that is typically me”

how does Self-Report Habit Index (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003) assess if habits are part of who we are?

• one item on screen → opens broader question as to what extent we are defined/define ourselves by our habits

• how consistently do you need to be a pessimist before this comes ‘who you are’- until other ppl perceive u as this

• debate about extent to which habits become part of self identity

are habits part of who we are? studies

• Self-Report Habit Index (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003)- debated, especially about self/concept self identity- evidence in both directions

• Murtagh et al., (2012)- being a driver vs transport type- no/ very weak correlation (but didnt measure actual driving)

• Albini et al. (2018)- habitual veg/fruit eater + acc eating them: moderate for veg, no/very weak for fruit- unclear

• Verplanken and Sui (2019)- median moderate correlation between general behaviours being part of one’s self-concept/identity + frequency of performance (large size effects)

Verplanken & Orbell quote on breaking habits (2022)

“habits are often seen as ills of society that need to be overcome … in order to create healthier, safer, or more sustainable societies. However, this narrow view of habits overlooks the important role habits play in regulating desirable everyday behaviour or in consolidating long-term behaviour change”

motivation + habit breaking

• motivation alone unlikely to be enough to change/break habits

• need to be supplemented with smth more substansive

why is it hard to change/break habits?

• people may not be aware that habits drive behaviour (links to Mazaar + Wood’s coffee study 2022)

• may not be aware of the cues that trigger habits, e.g. the context of being at home in snacking (Adriaanse et al. 2011)

• may not be aware of the habitual responses themselves (Wood et al. 2002)

• habits also insensitive to changes in value of response (Neal et al. 2011)

• habits may come to define us + how others see us (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003)

is it possible to change/break habits? study

Webb & Sheeran (2006)

Webb & Sheeran (2006)

• is it poss to change/break habits?

• motivation unlikely to be enough

• meta analysis of 47 studies that changed Ps’ intentions to do things

• changes in intentions → larger changes in behaviours that Ps performed sporadically (d = 0.74)

• than in behaviours that cld be repeated into habits (d = 0.22)

why do people fail to act on their intentions? (Sheeran et al., 2005)

1. intention viability (impossible for some decisions to find expression in the absence of particular abilities, resources, or opportunites)

2. counter-intentional habits (intentions have smaller effects on behaviours performed frequently in similar situations (Quellette & Wood, 1998)

3. lack of resources/ outside personal control (need supportive environment)

which of the reasons why people fail to act on their intentions highlighted by Sheeran et al., (2005) links to breaking/changing habits?

counter-intentional habits

• (intentions have smaller effects on behaviours performed frequently in similar situations (Quellette & Wood, 1998)

• reducing intention viability

strategies to break/change/overcome habits

1. change circumstances

2. vigilant monitoring

3. make a plan

strategy one - idea

change circumstances

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

strategy two- idea

vigilant monitoring

• habits often below conscious awareness, so trying to pay attention to things you usually wouldn’t/ effortfully paying attention to habits → may mitigate habit performance

strategy three- idea

make a plan

• implementation intentions

• forming an implementation intention → creates a new association with critical cue that is then pitted against the habitual association

• idea of spreading activation; if creating multiple associations with a single cue, which one determines our responses depends o which is activated more strongly/first

study on strategy one: change circumstances

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005)

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005): rationale, predictions, theory etc

• students moving to new uni → bound to experience naturally changing contexts → so cues likely to prompt habitual behaviour will change

• tracked whether habits persisted → predicted would persist if cues that prompted these habits remained the same

• if things stay relatively unchanged → contextual cues remain → habit more likely to persist

• if cues change → more likely to be change in behaviour

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005): procedure

reported at two times

• time 1: 4 weeks before moving (measured stability of context also)

• time 2: 4 weeks after moving (measured changes in context also)

Ps reported at time 1 + time 2:

• frequency of performance

• how often they:

  1. exercised

  2. read the newspaper

  3. watched tv

• also reported:

• Ps indicated whether they typically performed each behaviour in the same location, with the same ppl/alone, and whether those around them performed the behaviour

time 2: Ps also reported:

• the extent to which the context in which they performed each behaviour at the two unis was similar/different

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005): findings (1): frequency of activities x degree of change (less, more) x strong vs weak habits

• freq of activity as a function of strength of activity habits at old uni, intentions at new uni, and change in performance location/ perceived change in performance circumstances

• found those w strong habits very disrupted by changes in cues, whilst those with weaker are less disrupted + therefore more flexible (can adapt to new circumstances)

• if characteristics underpinning habit changes, this breaks the habit

• those with strong habits also perceived more change

• found pattern of findings = exactly the same across different activities for PERCEIVED CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND/OR CHANGE IN LOCATION

→ different for change in others’s presence

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005): results (1): frequency of exercise x degree of change in location (less, more) x strong vs weak habits

strong habits + less change in location = freq of 0.9

strong habits + more change in location = freq of -0.35

weak habits + less change in location = freq of 0.5

weak habits + more change in location = freq of 0.1

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005): results (2): frequency of TV watching x degree of perceived change in performance circumstances (less, more) x strong vs weak habits

strong habits + less perceived change = freq of 0.8

strong habits + more perceived change = freq of 0.1

weak habits + less perceived change = freq of 0.48

weak habits + more perceived change = freq of 0.38

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005): results (3): frequency of reading paper x change in others’ presence (less, more) x strong vs weak habits

strong habits + less ppl change = freq of 1.2

strong habits + more ppl change = freq of 0.65

weak habits + less ppl change = freq of 0.6

weak habits + more ppl change = freq of 0.8

only one where more change produces higher freq, specific to weak habits + peoples’ presence

Wood, Tam, & Guerrero Witt (2005): interpretation of results (3): frequency of reading paper x change in others’ presence (less, more) x strong vs weak habits

• presence/absence of other ppl = a cue that can change freq at which behaviour is performed

• therefore changing contextual cues = effective method to change habits, but not always viable

strategy two: vigilant monitoring: study

Quinn et al (2010)

Quinn et al., (2010: procedure

• vigilant monitoring for habit changing/breaking

• Ps asked to ID behaviours that they tried to inhibit or change during a typical day

• measured strength of Ps’ habits (how often performed in past, extent to which performed unwanted act in same location each time)

• at follow up:

• reported strategies used

1. vigilant monitoring- e.g. thinking “dont do it”, watching carefully for mistakes, monitoring behaviour (trying to gage how much time spent doing that habit)

2. distraction

3. stimulus control- i.e. removing opportunity

4. nothing

• rated overall sucess of each attempt to change their behaviour

Quinn et al., (2010: results

• weak habits: similar results for monitoring strategy, distraction, and stimulus control. participant rated success of self control 4.1, 4, 4.2

• strong habits: monitoring strategy most effective, followed by distraction, then stimulus control (ineffective). P rated success of self control: 3.9, 3.3, 2.9

Quinn et al., (2010: findings + interpretation

• data suggested vigilant monitoring reported as most effective

• more successful at changing things that are less habitual, but strong habits were most effected by vig mon

• seems contradictive against Woods et al, where changing circumstances = effective

• means if changing context not viable, this may be effective strategy

• people may not often be able to identify contextual cues that underlie habits

strategy three, make a plan: Adriaanse et al., (2011) hypothesis

• forming implementation intention creates new association w critical cue that is then pitted against habitual association in a race

• occurs like a horse race between associations

• spreading activiation- multiple activations, which one determines responses depends on which is activated strongly/first

strategy three, make a plan: Adriaanse et al., (2011) procedure

• mean response latencies of the habitual and nonhabitual responses study 1

• got people to form implementation intentions “if i am at home and i want a snack then i will take.. alternative”

strategy three, make a plan: Adriaanse et al., (2011) findings

• those who formed implementation intentions responded more quickly to alternative food and slower to habitual response

• suggests new association had been formed which partially inhibited old association

• suggest implementation intentions/making a plan is an effective strategy → forges alternative associations

Holland, Aarts, & Langendam (2006): procedure

• telecom company installed recycling boxes for old paperwork and plastic cups but amount binned did not seem to be reduced

• one group of employees- plan when, where, and how, wld recycle their paper and plastic cups

• recycling behaviour measured by weight of paper and cups in each Ps dustbin at end of working day

→ initially strong waste habits due to performing this behaviour for years

→ assessed whether specifying plans changed waste habits

Holland, Aarts, & Langendam (2006): findings

• were other conditions- control, control questionnaire, facility, facility questionnaire, implementation-intention, implementation-intention-facility

• overall, planning seems to have disrupted the habits, resulting in less waste behaviour

what may the effectiveness of planning depend on?

• strength of the habit

• habit strength often unaccounted for

Webb, Sheeran, & Luszczynska (2009, Exp 2): procedure

• assessed strong habit as it has physiological response

• two strategies- implementation intentions + planning alternative response

• recruited regular smokers who wanted to quit from high schools

• measured strength of smoking habits- Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence, number of months as smoker, number of attempts to give up smoking

• one half formed implementation intentions “when… i will…”

• control condition completed one of three control exercises concerning seat belt use

• one month later, smoking behaviour followed up- no of cigs a day

does the effectiveness of planning depend on habit strength? study

Webb, Sheeran, & Luszczynska (2009, Exp 2)

Webb, Sheeran, & Luszczynska (2009, Exp 2): findings

• found strength of smoking habit moderated implementation intentions

• some strategies may be more effective for stronger habits than for weaker ones

what features characterise habits?

1. underpinned by strong associations between contexts and responses

2. develop through repetition

3. insensitive to changes in the value of the outcome

4. require few cognitive resources

5. relatively automatic

• do not require deliberation (4)

• occur outside conscious awareness

• (3)

• difficult to control

habits are generally _____, but when they become ______ they are ____ __ ______

helpful, unwanted, hard to change

changes in ______ that ____ _____ to the ____ that trigger the _____ response can _____ habits

circumstances, reduce exposure, cue, habitual, disrupt

if changes in _______ are not possible, then ______ _____ or _____ _____ that link the cue with a ___ _____ _____ may help

circumstances; vigilant monitoring; forming plans; new, alternative response