Cited by 1,028Behavioral Health and InterventionsEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action.

Wood, Wendy, Quinn, Jeffrey M., Kashy, Deborah A.·2002·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

To illustrate the differing thoughts and emotions involved in guiding habitual and nonhabitual behavior, 2 diary studies were conducted in which participants provided hourly reports of their ongoing experiences. When participants were engaged in habitual behavior, defined as behavior that had been performed almost daily in stable contexts, they were likely to think about issues unrelated to their behavior, presumably because they did not have to consciously guide their actions. When engaged in nonhabitual behavior, or actions performed less often or in shifting contexts, participants' thoughts tended to correspond to their behavior, suggesting that thought was necessary to guide action. Furthermore, the self-regulatory benefits of habits were apparent in the lesser feelings of stress associated with habitual than nonhabitual behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1281

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wood et al. (2002) found that complex tasks were associated with more thoughts about the task during its performance than simple tasks, indicating they may be less automatic.

    “Nevertheless, Wood et al. (2002) found that complex tasks were associated with more thoughts about the task during its performance than simple tasks, indicating they may be less automatic.”

    From How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world (2010) · cites this paper as Wood et al., 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wood, W., Quinn, J. M., & Kashy, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2002
Volume
83
Issue
6
Pages
1281-1297
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2099800158
Cited by
1,028
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 149 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 49
FWCI
11.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (1R01MH619000-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
habit, habitual behavior, automaticity, conscious thought, emotions, self-regulation, stress, everyday life, diary study
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Behavior, Emotions, Female, Habits, Humans, Male, Self Disclosure, Students, Thinking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review