Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

L2 Social S2 > habits / breaking habits > Flashcards

habits / breaking habits Flashcards

1
Q

what did William James say about habits?

A
  • most of our behaviour (about 99%) is habitual
  • product of habits and becomes routine
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

why study anything else?

A
  • maybe researchers are biased towards ‘agentic’ accounts of behaviour
  • Mazar and Wood (2022) suggest people are
  • we like to believe we act on conscious decision making
  • but really a lot behaviour could be due to habits (more automatic than conscious)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what are habits?

A
  • strong associations (in memory) between contexts and response
  • have developed through repetition
  • don’t just appear
    –> build up and are created over time
  • and by consequence:
    –> relatively automatic responses to contexts that are insensitive to changes in the value or contingency of response outcomes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what are habits? (Verplanken, 2006)

A
  • habit should not be equated with frequency of occurrence
  • but rather should be considered as a mental construct involving features of automaticity
    –> such as lack of awareness, mental efficiency, and being difficult to control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

evidence for habits being strong associations between contexts and responses (Adriaanse et al., 2011)

A
  • 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 = home
    –> targets = responses that the participants had generated + filler items (e.g., stairs, clock, saddle, wheels)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

results of Adriaanse et al. (2011)

A
  • faster response time when habitual snack good was presented, compared to alternative snack food
  • cue/prime word was ‘home’
  • the prime word ‘home’ was associated with the habitual snack foods and so time to respond was quicker
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

do associations develop through repetition? (Wood, Quinn and Kashy, 2002)

A
  • experience sampling
    –> participants recorded what they were doing at the moment of the watch chime
    –> the frequency with which they had performed the behavior in the past month
    –> the extent to which they performed the behavior in the same physical location each time
    –> the involvement of other people in the behavior (others involved vs. others not involved)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

results of Wood, Quinn and Kashy (2002) - results

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

to what extent are habitual responses ‘automatic’?

A
  • (some) criteria for establishing automaticity:
    –> do not require deliberation
    (i.e. are efficient)
    –> occur outside conscious awareness
    –> insensitive to changes in the value of the response
    (i.e. are not dependent on people’s goals
    –> are difficult to control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Aarts et a. (1997) - methods

A
  • so strong habits remove the need for deliberation?
    1. measure strength of cycling habits for 82 students
    –> decide, as quickly as possible, how to travel for nine trips
    –> the frequency of mentioning the bicycle served as a measure of habit
    2. 16 descriptions of travel situations, each with 4 attributes:
    –> weather conditions
    –> weight of luggage
    –> departure time
    –> distance to the destination
    3. favourability of using the bicycle in each travel situation
    –> 1-10 scale
    4. the number of attributes used to make decision were recorded
    –> operationalised as how predictive attributes were of decision
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

results of Aarts et al. (1997)

A
  • when cycling was a strong habit, less attributes are used
  • more attributes used for weaker habits
    –> people who aren’t habitual cyclists deliberate more, use available info and evaluate the specific context/scenario
  • less deliberation for stronger habits
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Wood, Quinn and Kashy (2002)

A
  • same study as before but with A NEW QUESTIONS
  • what were you thinking about during this activity?
  • whether they considered each behavior to be a habit
    –> yes / no
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

results of Wood, Quinn and Kashy (2002) - new Qs

A
  • for non-habitual behaviours = 70% of the time people are thinking of the behaviour
  • for habitual behaviour, a lot less thinking of the behaviour is done
    –> more likely to think of something else
    –> 40% of the time we think of the habitual behaviour
  • think more for non-habitual behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Neal et al. (2011) - are habits insensitive changes in the value of the response?

A
  1. ask about habit strength
    - how frequently do you eat popcorn in the cinema?
  2. study context
    - cinema or meeting room
    - either rate movie trailers in a fake theatre
    OR
    - rate adverts in a meeting room (bright lights etc…)
    - EVERYONE gets a bag of popcorn
  3. value of the response was manipulated
    - popcorn was either fresh or stale (7 days old)
  4. DV = how much popcorn do Ps eat?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

results of Neal et al. (2011) - adverts

A
  • don’t really eat the popcorn
    –> doesn’t match the context
  • habits doesn’t really matter
  • little bit more for the nicer popcorn
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

results of Neal et al. (2011) - trailers

A
  • eat more than adverts group
  • when the popcorn is nice more people eat it
    –> habits aren’t really a factor
  • when it’s stale habits matter
    –> habitual eaters eat more (taste doesn’t matter, just carry on as usual)
    –> non-habitual eaters eat less for stale popcorn
    (taste matters, more conscious, context matters)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

habits aren’t just behaviour

A
  • we also have mental habits
    –> e.g. HINT (Habit Index of Negative Thinking)
  • ‘thinking negatively about myself is something…’
    1. i do frequently
    2. i do automatically
    etc…
  • way of measuring HINT
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

are habits part of who we are?

A
  • the Self-Report Habit Index
    –> doing X is something that is typically me
19
Q

Murtagh et al (2012) - self-report habit index

A
  • “Being a driver is an important part of defining who I am”
  • “In general, how often do you do the following for local journeys?”
    –> cycle/Use local bus/Walk/Take a train, tube or tram?’
  • rs vary between 0.02 and 0.07
20
Q

Albini et al (2018) - self-report habit index

A
  • “How important is it to you to eat two or more portions of fruit a day / vegetables a day?”
  • “Eating fruit every day is something…”
    –> e.g. I do frequently = self-report habit index
  • “Eating vegetables every day is something…”
    –> e.g. I do frequently = self-report habit index
  • correlation found for vegetables (r = 0.49), but not fruit (r = 0.06)
    –> correlation between self-reported habits and actual behaviour
    –> those who report eating more veg, eat more veg
21
Q

Verplanken and Sui (2019) - self-report habit index

A
  • how much does this activity reflects who you really are as a person
    –> i.e. your “true self”?
  • how frequently do you do this activity?
  • the median correlation between these two measures was r = 0.46.
22
Q

are habits always bad?

A
  • for the most part habits are functional
    –> they mean that we do not have to deliberate about what to do
    –> e.g. getting up and brushing our teeth
  • but people often use the term habits to refer to “bad” or unwanted habits
    –> e.g. biting nails
23
Q

Webb & Sheeran (2006) - possible to break/change habits?

A
  • 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 behaviors that could be repeated into habits (d+ = 0.22)
  • harder to break/change habits
  • not enough to intend to do something
24
Q

why do people fail to act on their intentions?

A
  • counter intentional habits
    –> Intentions have smaller effects on behaviours performed frequently in similar situations (Ouellette & Wood, 1998)
25
Q

why are habits so hard to break?

A
  1. people may not be aware:
    - that habits drive behaviour
    - of the cues that trigger habits
    - of the habitual responses themselves
  2. habits are also:
    - insensitive to changes in the value of the response
    - may come to define us
26
Q

3 strategies to break habits

A
  1. change circumstances
  2. vigilant monitoring
  3. make a plan
27
Q

changing circumstances to break habits

A
  • if habits are cued by recurring stimuli, then changes in circumstances that remove these stimuli should disrupt habits
28
Q

Wood, Tam & Guerrero Witt (2005) - 1 to 4 weeks pre moving

A
  • uni students before moving away asked about:
    1. frequency of performance
  • participants reported how often they:
    –> exercised
    –> read the newspaper
    –> watched TV
    2. stability of context
    –> Ps indicated whether they typically performed each behaviour in the same location, with the same people (or alone), and whether those around them perform the behaviour
29
Q

Wood, Tam & Guerrero Witt (2005) - 2 to 4 weeks AFTER moving

A
  • uni students after moving away asked about:
    1. frequency of performance
  • participants reported how often they:
    –> exercised
    –> read the newspaper
    –> watched TV
    2. changes in context
    –> Ps indicated whether they typically performed each behaviour in the same location, with the same people (or alone), and whether those around them perform the behaviour
  • Ps also reported the extent to which the context in which they performed each behaviour at the two universities was similar / different
30
Q

Wood, Tam & Guerrero Witt (2005) - results

A
  • watching tv
    –> more perceived change (different cues), behaviour changes
    –> less perceived change, behaviour is maintained
  • exercise
    –> -> more perceived change (different cues), behaviour changes
    –> less perceived change, behaviour is maintained
  • always a steeper line for strong habits
    –> change in context is more disruptive for strong habits
  • newspaper reading:
    –> same results as the other two
31
Q

vigilant monitoring

A
  • have to actively try and consciously measure behaviour to break habits
  • thinking to yourself ‘don’t do it’
  • watching carefully for mistakes
  • monitor behaviour in detail
32
Q

Quinn et al (2010) - vigilant monitoring

A
  • Ps asked to identify behaviors that they tried to inhibit or change during a typical day
  • measure strength of participants’ habits
    –> how often they had performed the unwanted behavior in the past
    –> the extent to which they performed the unwanted act in the same location each time
33
Q

Quinn et al (2010) - follow up methods

A
  • asked to keep a diary for 2 weeks
  • reported the strategies they used:
    –> vigilant monitoring (e.g. thinking “don’t do it”, watching carefully for mistakes, monitoring behavior)
    –> distraction
    –> stimulus control (e.g., removing opportunity)
    –> nothing
  • rated the overall success of each attempt to change their behavior
34
Q

Quinn et al (2010) - results

A
  • monitoring strategy (vigilant monitoring) was affective in breaking both strong and weak habits
  • distraction was less effective in strong habits
  • stimulus control (removing access to cues that drive behaviour)
    –> not very effective in strong habits
    –> could be because people don’t know the cues (so can’t control for them)
35
Q

make a plan

A
  • use the implementation intention
  • if-then contingent plans
  • trying to break an association can involve forming a new intention to replace it
    –> i.e. an implementation intention
36
Q

Adriaanse et al (2011) - implementation condition

A
  • when asked about their alternative snack choice, half of the Ps were asked to make a plan
    –> “if I am at home, and I want to snack then I will take [alternative]”
  • will they respond quicker to alternative snack in the lexical decision task?
37
Q

Adriaanse et al (2011) - implementation condition (rationale/hypothesis)

A
  • forming an implementation intention creates a new association with the critical cue that is then pitted against the habitual association in a ‘horse race
38
Q

results for Adriaanse et al (2011) - implementation condition

A
  • if they form a plan, they perform quicker for alternative behaviour
    –> e.g. responding to banana
  • but also slightly slower for habitual response
  • more similar response times
    –> almost even/level out
  • could be because prime word ‘home’ now triggers two things when a plan has formed
    –> not one thing and so response is slower for habitual, faster for non-habitual
39
Q

Holland, Aarts, & Langendam (2006) - methods

A
  • a telecom-company installed recycling boxes for old paperwork and plastic cups, but the amount binned did not seem to be reduced (boxes made it easier)
  • one group of employees asked to plan when, where and how they would recycle their paper and plastic cups
  • recycling behavior
    –> weight of paper and cups in each participant’s dustbin at the end of a working day was measured
40
Q

Holland, Aarts, & Langendam (2006) - results

A
  • looked at behaviour pre-measure, 1 week later, 2 weeks later, 2 months later
  • no change in control group
  • recycled more a week later in the implementation intention
    –> this also persisted over time
    –> forming plans can break habits
41
Q

Webb, Sheeran, & Luszczynska (2009, Exp. 2) - breaking stronger habits

A
  • recruited regular smokers who wanted to quit from high schools
  • measured strength of smoking habits:
    –> Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence
    – >number of months as a smoker
    –> number of attempts to give up smoking
  • one half form implementation intentions to plan what to do when presented with usual cues
  • control condition completed one of three control exercises concerning seat belt use
  • one month later, participants’ smoking behaviour was followed up
    –> recorded number of cigarettes per day
42
Q

resutls of Webb, Sheeran, & Luszczynska (2009)

A
  • planning helped those with weak habit to smoke less cigarettes
  • no effects of planning found in those who had a much stronger habits
  • there are boundaries
    –> perhaps those with stronger habits need multiple strategies
43
Q

summary

A
  • habits are generally helpful, but when they become unwanted they are hard to change
  • changes in circumstances that reduce exposure to the cues that trigger the habitual response can disrupt habits
  • if changes in circumstances are not possible, then vigilant monitoring or forming plans that link the cue with a new, alternative, response may help

L2 Social S2 (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions