Advertisement

The Automaticity of Habitual Behaviours: Inconvenient Questions

  • David TrafimowEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

It is widely accepted that habits are automatic. In turn, automaticity often has been taken as implying (a) a lack of use of resources, (b) inevitability, and (c) a lack of intentions. All three characteristics of automaticity create conceptual difficulties, at least in the context of habits. Inconvenient questions arise from a careful consideration of each of the implied characteristics habits are said to have, based on an acceptance of the basic premise that habits are automatic. Also of importance, there are underappreciated limitations of research that ostensibly supports the automaticity of habits. These pertain to dissociations, the measurement of behavioural intentions, a dependence on null hypothesis significance testing to draw conclusions, and the lack of validity of mediation analyses for testing real mediation.

Keywords

Habit Automaticity Intentions Efficiency Inevitability 

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of social psychology (pp. 789–844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asimov, I. (1976). Asimov on physics. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543–554.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Churchland, P. (1988). Matter and consciousness (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson, A. R., & Jaccard, J. J. (1979). Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1364–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunn, J., & Kirsner, K. (1988). Discovering functionally independent mental processes: The principle of reversed association. Psychological Review, 95, 91–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Einstein, A. (1961). Relativity: The special and the general theory (Robert W. Lawson, Trans.). New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics: From early concepts to relativity and quanta. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  12. Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. E. Howe (Ed.), 1979 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 65–116). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  15. Grice, J. W. (2017). Comment on Locascio’s results blind manuscript evaluation proposal. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 254–255.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1352505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grice, J. W., Cohn, A., Ramsey, R. R., & Chaney, J. M. (2015). On muddled reasoning and mediation modeling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 214–225.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckhausen, H., & Beckmann, J. (1990). Intentional action and action slips. Psychological Review, 97(1), 36–48.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hubbard, R. (2016). Corrupt research: The case for reconceptualizing empirical management and social science. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Hyman, M. (2017). Can ‘results blind manuscript evaluation’ assuage ‘publication bias’? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 247–251.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1350581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, J. (1995). Mind–body problem. In T. Honderich (Ed.), Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kline, R. B. (2015). The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 202–213.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kline, R. (2017). Comment on Locascio, results blind science publishing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 256–257.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1355308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lapiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13(2), 230–237. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2570339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Locascio, J. (2017a). Results blind publishing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 239–246.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1336093CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Locascio, J. (2017b). Rejoinder to responses to “results blind publishing”. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 258–261.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1356305CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Marks, M. J. (2017). Commentary on Locascio 2017. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(5), 252–253.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1350580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michelson, A. A., & Morley, E. W. (1887). On the relative motion of earth and luminiferous ether. American Journal of Science, Third Series, 34(203), 233–245. http://history.aip.org/exhibits/gap/PDF/michelson.pdfGoogle Scholar
  30. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paul, L. A. (2009). Counterfactual theories. In H. Beebee, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 158–184). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tate, C. U. (2015). On the overuse and misuse of mediation analysis: It may be a matter of timing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 235–246.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1062380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thoemmes, F. (2015). Reversing arrows in mediation models does not distinguish plausible models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 226–234.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trafimow, D. (2014). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.865505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trafimow, D. (2015). Introduction to special issue: What if planetary scientists used mediation analysis to infer causation? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 197–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1064290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trafimow, D. (2017). The probability of simple versus complex causal models in causal analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 739–746. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0731-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trafimow, D., & Earp, B. D. (2017). Null hypothesis significance testing and Type I error: The domain problem. New Ideas in Psychology, 45(1), 19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2017.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trafimow, D., & de Boer, M. (2018). Measuring the strength of the evidence. Under submission.Google Scholar
  41. Trafimow, D., & Marks, M. (2015). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1012991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Trafimow, D., & Marks, M. (2016). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1141030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trafimow, D., & Uhalt, J. (in press). Do p-values measure anything? American Journal of Social Science Research.Google Scholar
  44. Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003). Reflections on past behaviour: A self-report index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1313–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. VIII, pp. 239–257). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41–78. https://www.thecre.com/tpsac/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Appendix1_AttitudevsAction_ByWicker1969.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woodside, A. (2016). The good practices manifesto: Overcoming bad practices pervasive in current research in business. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 365–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  49. Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. (2016). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations