habits Flashcards
why do some researchers not study habits
bias towards agentic accounts of behaviour
people want to think they are in control
study showed people thought they decided to drink coffee, in reality it is habit - caused by cue response (Mazar and Wood, 2022)
define habits
Strong associations (in memory) between contexts and responses that have developed through repetition
Relatively automatic responses to contexts that are insensitive to changes in the value or contingency of response outcomes
can not doing something be a habit
depends on circumstance and opportunity
e.g. someone how never runs - is it habit to not run
a) never plans to run = not habit
b) plans to run but never goes = habit = avoid the activity when the time to run comes around, this is a habit
should habits only be equated with frequency of occurrence
no
instead consider as mental construct involving features of automaticity, such as lack of awareness, mental efficiency, and being difficult to control
evidence of habits: strong associations between contexts and responses - habitual food study
Adriaanse et al (2011)
Identify habits:
- What would you usually snack on at home? (habitual response)
- What snack would you eat if this was not available? (alternative response)
Primed lexical decision task:
- Decide if a letter string is a word or non-word
- Prime: being at home
- Targets: Responses that the participants had generated + filler items (e.g., stairs, clock, saddle, wheels)
- so then you should respond quicker to habitual food - priming with the cue of home should speed it up to
results:
* habitual response much quicker than alternative
how do we know associations develop through repetition - watch study
Wood et al (2002)
experience sampling
questions asked to participants when a watch would chimes:
- participants 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
- involvement of other people in the behaviour (others involved vs. others not involved)
results:
about 43% of actions were performed almost daily and usually in the same context
criteria for establishing automaticity of habits (4)
- no deliberation (efficient)
- occur outside conscious awareness
- insensitive to changes in the value of the response (not dependent on people’s goals)
- difficult to control
strong habits removing the need for deliberation - cycling study
Aarts et al (1997)
measure strength of cycling habits for 82 students
- decide, as quickly as possible, how to travel for nine trips
- measured habit through frequency of mentioning the bicycle
16 descriptions of travel situations, each with 4 attributes:
- weather conditions (rain, no rain)
- weight of luggage (4kg, 20kg)
- departure time (9:00am, 2:00pm)
- distance to the destination (2.5 km, 5 km)
some of these lend themselves to going by bike, others do not - sensible judgements - but depends as some people would always cycle regardless
favourability of using the bicycle in each travel situation (1-10 scale)
number of attributes used to make decision = operationalised as how predictive attributes were of decision
results:
- strong habits = use fewer of the attributes (scenario factors) to make their decision on whether to cycle
- non-habitual = more deliberation, use of context more when deciding whether to go by bike
awareness of habits - do people not think about habitual behaviours - study
Wood et al (2002)
watch study - record what you’re doing at time of watch chime
also asked them:
- what were you thinking about during this activity?
- whether they considered each behaviour to be a habit (yes / no)
to see whether people do think about it as they do their habits
results:
- non-habitual = 70% thoughts correspond with behaviour
- habitual = 40% thoughts correspond with behaviour
habits - insensitivity to changes in value of the response - popcorn study
Neal et al (2011)
3 variables:
- habit strength ( e.g. how frequently do you eat popcorn at cinema )
- context (e.g. cinema or in a meeting room)
- value of response (e.g. popcorn was either fresh or stale)
for half of the participants, popcorn was fresh, other half stale
DV = how much of the popcorn participants ate
results:
in meeting room:
- all ate not much popcorn
- all ate more fresh than stale
- slightly higher for habitual than others
in cinema:
- high habit ate similar amount of stale or fresh
- low and moderate habit at more fresh than stale - bigger difference in lower habit
discussion:
high habit, don’t stop even when behaviour is not rewarding as it is habitual so they just do it regardless
are habits just about behaviour
no - can have mental habits
mental habits study
Verplanken et al (2007)
Habit Index of Negative Thinking (HINT)
–> like a measure of pessimistic people and whether this just happens or if it is a habitual thing
are habits part of who we are - measure and studies (3)
measure:
self-report habit index (SRHI) (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003)
- e.g. “doing X is something that is typically me”
- question of if we want to be defined by our habits e.g. being a cyclist rather than someone who cycles
Murtagh et al (2012)
- if being a driver is an important part of who they are; and how often do they cycle/bus/walk/train for local journeys
- rs vary between 0.02 and 0.07
Albini et al. (2018)
- how important eating fruit/veg is; and frequency of eating fruit/veg (SRHI)
- correlation for vegetables (r = 0.49), but not fruit (r = 0.06)
Verplanken and Sui (2019)
- how much does this activity reflects who you really are as a person (“true self”); and frequency of doing activity
- median correlation between these two measures was r = 0.46
are habits good or bad
mostly they are functional - no deliberation, efficient
often though used to mean bad or unwanted instead
can motivation alone change/break habits
Webb and Sheeran (2006)
- meta-analysis of 47 studies that changed participants’ intentions to do things
- changes in intentions led to larger changes in behaviours that participants performed sporadically (d+ = 0.74) than in behaviours that could be repeated into habits (d+ = 0.22)
