Cited by 298Behavioral Health and InterventionsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

The Pull of the Past: When Do Habits Persist Despite Conflict With Motives?

Neal, David T., Wood, Wendy, Wu, Mengju, Kurlander, David·2011·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

To identify the factors that disrupt and maintain habit performance, two field experiments tested the conditions under which people eat out of habit, leading them to resist motivational influences. Habitual popcorn eaters at a cinema were minimally influenced by their hunger or how much they liked the food, and they ate equal amounts of stale and fresh popcorn. Yet, mechanisms of automaticity influenced habit performance: Participants ate out of habit, regardless of freshness, only when currently in the context associated with past performance (i.e., a cinema; Study 1) and only when eating in a way that allowed them to automatically execute the response cued by that context (i.e., eating with their dominant hand; Study 2). Across all conditions, participants with weaker cinema-popcorn-eating habits ate because of motivations such as liking for the popcorn. The findings reveal how habits resist conflicting motives and provide insight into promising mechanisms of habit change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167211419863

Cites

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?

  • If the behavior is repeated in stable contexts over time, control gradually shifts to automaticity, which is accompanied by an increasing resistance to outcome devaluation.

    “If the behavior is then repeated in stable contexts over time, control gradually shifts to automaticity, which is accompanied by an increasing resistance to outcome devaluation (Neal et al., 2011; Lattarulo et al., 2019).”

    From Context Stability in Habit Building Increases Automaticity and Goal Attainment (2022) · cites this paper as Neal et al., 2011

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 298

Authors
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Wu, M., & Kurlander, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Neal, David T.
  • Wood, Wendy
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2011-08-22
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
1428-1437
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W2122722000
Cited by
298
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
18.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
habit formation, automaticity, context-dependent behavior, motivational conflict, habit change, dietary intake, popcorn, hunger, liking, dominant hand
MeSH terms
Attitude, Conflict, Psychological, Cues, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food, Habits, Humans, Hunger, Internal-External Control, Functional Laterality, Male, Motivation

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