Reading Notes on Habits

for Handwashing Determinants Session at the Handwashing Behavior Change Think Tank February 2014

Reflective vs automatic behaviors In reflective behavior theories, deliberation about the behavior is the crucial determinant of subsequent behavioral performance . . . In this instance, deliberation refers to weighing the desirability and the feasibility of taking an action. Attitudes, social norms, self-efficacy and intentions are all concepts associated with reflective behavior theories. (Rothman, Sheeran, Wood, 2009). Yet, deliberation may be necessary but insufficient to generate behavior. Informed consumers do not act any differently necessarily than uninformed consumers. Levels of change in determinants proposed by reflective models may generate only certain levels of change in practice. So, to increase performance one may need to increase the magnitude of change in reflective determinants. (Sheeran et. al. 2008) And finally, although the predictive and causal impact of attitudes, norms, self-efficacy and intentions is quite well established, it is not yet clear what strategies are effective in changing these predictors. (Rothman, Sheeran and Wood, 2009). There are factors that may bypass reflective action control and initiate action automatically; these are implicit attitudes and behavior primes. Implicit attitudes are those for which individuals ignore their causal origin (no source awareness), ignore the content of the attitude itself (no content awareness), and have no conscious awareness of its influence (no impact awareness). (Gawronski et.al., 2006.) Behavior primes hot affective cues that engender automatic action initiation. For example, large food packaging portions prime larger food consumption, the height of drinking glasses activate consumption (Rothman, Sheeran and Wood, 2009).

Definitions Habits are: response dispositions that are activated automatically by the context cues that co-occurred with responses during past performance (Neal, Wood & Quinn; 2006). repetition develops cognitive associations between context and response (Neal, Wood and Rolet, 2013) a specific form of automaticity in which responses are directly cued by the contextsthat consistently covaried with past performance (Wood & Neal, 2009). habits are not goal dependent (I want to be fit), but are cue dependent (I sit on the couch in front of the TV and I eat chips) (Neal, Wood, Drolet, 2009)

habits may be congruent or incongruent with our goals (Neal, Wood, Drolet, 2009) enacted in parallel with other modes of behavior regulation they represent a default or baseline response. (Ouellette & Wood)

Formation Occurs due to repetition in a stable environment & reinforcement (reward) which promotes future repetition. habit learning is a cognitive and motivational process in which the control of action is outsourced to the environment so that sequences of prior actions are triggered automatically by the appropriate circumstances (Verplanken & Wood, 2006) Formation is associated with an expectation (can be repeatedly receiving a reward). Incentives maintain habits. Therefore, changing habits is difficult. (Verplanken & Wood, 2006)

Performance Cues to execute the habit are environmental, require relatively low cognition, and are not necessarily associated with goals (after initial formation) (Verplanken & Wood, 2006) reflects the routine repetition of past acts that is cued by stable features of the environment Attention is able to be diverted from the performance of a habitual behavior, thus making the habit easier to execute. (Wood, Quinn & Kashy) People rely on habits in daily life when they have limited cognitive capacity for thoughtful deliberation and effortul self-control. (Rothman,Sheeran and Wood, 2009) Self controls kick in to fight bad habits. But when self control is low, habits kick back in. (Neal and Wood, 2013). Habit strength will make habits kick (more easily) when self control levels are depleted. So, habits have strength. Study participants with lowered willpower increased their performance of habits that served their goals as well as habits that undermined their goals. (Neal, Wood and Drolet, 2013).

Changing Habits successful habit change interventions involve disrupting the environmental factors that automatically cue habit performance. (Verplanken & Wood, 2006) Change performance context helpful for modifying everyday habits (Neal, Wood & Quinn; 2006)

Habit change can be promoted through downstream (targeting BC to times when habits are vulnerable i.e. a new routine or location) or upstream (which involves disrupting and then establishing new cues ) methodologies. (Verplanken & Wood, 2006) Downstream interventions: Attempt to fix negative outcomes Particularly useful for non-habitual BC Upstream interventions Attempt to prevent negative outcomes Intentions and behavior are separate. (Verplanken & Wood, 2006) Changing minds does not necessarily mean changing behavior (Neal, Wood & Quinn; 2006). Behavior can be guided by automatic processes outside of conscious awareness as well as through more thoughtful processing modes. (Wood, Quinn & Kashy)