|
|
The Reviews and Prospects of Studies on Habits
2012, 35(3):
745-753.
The psychologist defines habits as learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues, and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end states. It is highlighted that habits are a history of behavioral repetition, automaticity, a stable situation, the match between stimulation and behavior and the identity. The measurement of habit mostly uses self-reported (e.g., frequency of past behavior, habit frequency, the self-report habit index) and the response frequency measures. The direct-context-cuing, attitudes cuing, goal-directed, habits-goals interface are used to explain habit formation. Future research should continue to clarify the nature of habits, to integrate the theory of habit formation, and to explore more reliable of measures and more convenient to use.
Verplanken and Aarts (1999) defined habits as learned sequences of acts that have become automatic responses to specific cues, and are functional in obtaining certain goals or end states. Some features in this definition should be highlighted. First, habits are learned, goal-directed acts. This refers to the fact that habits do not develop randomly, but are formed first and foremost because they serve us. Another important feature in the definition of habit is that habit is a form of automaticity, which is triggered by specific cues. This conceptualization thus suggests that habits are executed without much awareness or deliberation, which comes close to how the habit construct appears in everyday language.
The measurement of habit mostly uses self-reported (e.g., frequency of past behavior, habit frequency, the self-report habit index) and the response frequency measures. Most measures consist of some kind of self-report of past behavioral frequency. Because a history of repetition forms the basis of a habit, using past behavioral frequency as a measure of habit does not seem unreasonable (Verplanken, Myrbakk, & Rudi, 2005). Verplanken and Orbell (2003) took a different approach and constructed a 12-item self-report instrument to measure habit strength, which was named the Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI). The reasoning behind this measure was that whereas it might be difficult to report on habit strength as such, a more valid measure might ask to report on a number of qualities of habitual behavior that are easier to conceptualize. The habit concept was thus broken down into a number of components that characterize habits (i.e., a history of repetition, lack of awareness, lack of control, mental efficiency, and expressing self-identity).The Response Frequency (RF) measure was developed and used in a research program on traffic mode choices. To measure travel mode choice habits, this measure presented participants with a number (e.g., 15) of travel destinations. For each destination, participants were requested to respond as quickly as possible to which transportation mode they would use. The idea behind the RF measure was that general habits (e.g., taking the car) are represented as behavioral schemas. When such a schema is activated, in this case by the travel destination vignettes (e.g., visiting a friend in town), it is supposed to elicit the dominant travel mode response of that schema—for instance, using the car (Verplanken, Myrbakk, & Rudi, 2005).
There are four theories model such as the direct-context-cuing, attitudes cuing, goal-directed and habits-goals interface are used to explain habit formation. Theory of direct-context-cuing (e.g., Neal, Wood, & Quinn, 2006) holds a view that habits are learned dispositions to repeat past responses, they are triggered by features of the context that have covaried frequently with past performance, including performance locations, preceding actions in a sequence, and particular people. Contexts activate habitual responses directly, without the mediation of goal states. Theory of attitudes cuing such as the theory of planned behaviour (e.g., Ajzen, 1991) believes that intentions to perform behaviors of different kinds can be predicted with high accuracy from attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control; and these intentions, together with perceptions of behavioral control, account for considerable variance in actual behavior. Theory of goal-directed (e.g., Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994; Verplanken & Aarts, 1999; Verplanken & Orbell, 2003) thinks habits are a form of goal-directed automatic behavior, when habits are established, the very activation of the goal to act automatically evokes the habitual response. Theory of habits-goals interface (e.g., Wood & Neal, 2007) points out a differential view, this theory believes once a habit is formed, perception of contexts triggers the associated response without a mediating goal. Nonetheless, habits interface with goals.
Related Articles |
Metrics
|
