The Pull of the Past: When Do Habits Persist Despite Conflict With Motives?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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