Habit vs. Routine: Differences in Automaticity and Intention

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 10, 2026 · Editorial Policy

A habit is a learned tendency for a familiar cue to activate a response with relatively little conscious deliberation. A routine is an organized, repeated sequence of activities that may be chosen and managed deliberately. The practical difference between habit and routine is therefore the role of automaticity and intention in producing an action. A routine may contain several habits, and a habit may be one small part of a deliberately designed routine.

For example, someone might deliberately follow a morning routine of preparing breakfast, reviewing a calendar, and leaving for work. Putting a mug under the coffee machine whenever they enter the kitchen may already be a habit. The overall sequence still requires planning and adjustment, while one component is strongly cued by its familiar setting. Contemporary habit research supports this distinction while emphasizing that intention, context, and automatic processes often work together rather than taking turns in a rigid either-or system (Gardner et al., 2024; Wood & Rünger, 2016).

For a broader perspective on the psychology of this topic, see How Habits Form: Cues, Repetition, and Automaticity.

What Is the Difference Between a Habit and a Routine?

In everyday language, habit and routine both describe something a person does repeatedly. Psychology asks a more precise question: what makes the behavior happen on a particular occasion? A habitual response is influenced by a learned association between a situation or cue and a response. A routine describes the structured organization and recurrence of activities, whether those activities are automatic, deliberate, or a mixture.

A routine is usually recognizable by its sequence or schedule: after waking, a person washes, eats, checks a bag, and travels to work. The person may deliberately start that sequence, remember an appointment, and alter the order when circumstances change. In contrast, automaticity is central to the scientific analysis of habit. A cue can prompt a familiar action rapidly and with reduced need for conscious initiation, although the person can still notice, interrupt, or redirect it.

This distinction is about psychological processes, not how valuable or healthy an activity is. An automatic behavior can be helpful, unwanted, neutral, or inconvenient. A planned routine can be beneficial, exhausting, unnecessary, or poorly matched to someone's life. Habit strength and routine quality are different questions.

Habit vs. routine at a glance

Definition: A habit refers to a learned cue-response tendency. A routine refers to a recurring, organized sequence of actions. Automaticity: Central to the habit construct; variable within a routine. Intention: A person can intend to develop or perform a habit, while a routine often involves deliberate organization or initiation. Structure: A habit may be one response or a familiar component of action; a routine can coordinate many responses. Flexibility: Habitual responses tend to be sensitive to learned cues, while routines can be consciously reordered, although entrenched routines can also become rigid. Measurement: Researchers often measure the automaticity of specific actions; identifying a routine generally requires describing the repeated pattern and its organization.

The comparison concerns tendencies rather than absolute categories. In a real morning, preparation can begin with a decision, continue through automatic actions, and return to conscious choice when an unexpected problem arises. The scientifically useful question is which parts are cued automatically, which are controlled deliberately, and how the parts are connected.

What Is a Habit in Psychology?

Psychological habit theory generally describes habit as a learned association through which encountering a particular context increases the likelihood that a familiar response will be activated. Repeating an action in stable circumstances can strengthen the association, so that the cue increasingly prompts the response without needing to reconstruct the original goal each time. The response may be a simple act, a component of a larger activity, or the initiation of a behavior sequence (Wood & Neal, 2007; Wood & Rünger, 2016).

The word automatic does not mean unconscious in every respect, impossible to resist, or performed without any attention. Automaticity can involve rapid activation, reduced deliberate control, limited awareness of initiation, or a subjective sense of doing something without thinking. These features may vary across activities and situations. Researchers also distinguish an underlying habit process from the visible behavior that occurs, because the same observed action can be produced for different reasons (Gardner et al., 2024).

Consider fastening a seat belt. A person might deliberately remember a safety recommendation the first few times. After repeated entry into the same car, sitting down may begin to cue reaching for the belt. The action remains compatible with a safety goal, but repeated explicit reasoning is no longer required at each occurrence. Conversely, a person who buckles up only after consciously deciding to follow a rule is performing the same behavior with less evidence of automatic cueing.

What Is a Routine in Psychology?

A routine is a relatively stable and recognizable pattern of activity: a set of actions performed regularly, often in an established order, place, or time. The term is widely used in research on daily life, families, health behavior, work, and behavioral organization, but it is not a single, universally standardized psychological mechanism equivalent to the habit construct. The relevant scientific questions may concern predictability, sequencing, timing, social coordination, or the amount of deliberate control involved.

A bedtime routine, for example, could include dimming lights, washing, setting an alarm, and reading. The person might choose the sequence to reduce decisions at night. Individual components can become increasingly automatic. Yet the whole routine may still require remembering the intended bedtime, responding to a child's needs, or deciding to end an activity. Calling it a routine says that it is regularly organized; it does not establish the strength of the habits within it.

Routines can be individual or shared. A family dinner routine coordinates several people; a workplace handoff routine involves institutional expectations; a rehabilitation routine can involve externally supported steps. This breadth is precisely why routine and habit should be assessed at the appropriate level. An organized sequence can rely on instructions, schedules, environmental prompts, other people, and learned automatic responses at the same time.

The Core Mechanism: Automaticity Versus Deliberate Organization

Automaticity concerns how a response is activated and carried out. Deliberate organization concerns how a person selects, orders, and manages activities in light of goals or circumstances. The two can coexist. Someone may intentionally plan to take a walk after lunch and, through repetition, become more likely to put on walking shoes when clearing the lunch dishes.

Context is crucial. A habit is typically learned in connection with recurring cues: a location, a preceding action, an object, a time-related situation, or a distinctive social setting. A schedule can be part of a routine, but merely writing “walk at 1 p.m.” on a calendar does not prove that walking has become habitual. The evidence of habit concerns the degree to which the context itself prompts action (Gardner et al., 2024).

Deliberate control also varies from one day to another. On an unfamiliar morning, a person may consciously follow a checklist that reproduces their normal routine. After months of repetition, reaching for keys as they approach the door might be strongly automatic. When travel disrupts the usual surroundings, conscious attention may again be needed. This variation reveals why frequency alone cannot define automaticity.

Can a Routine Become a Habit?

Components of a routine can become habitual as they are repeated in recognizable contexts. The routine's initiation can also acquire automatic qualities. For instance, the end of a workday might eventually cue opening a workout app or changing into exercise clothes. Once started, the exercise session may still require conscious pacing, decision-making, and adjustment.

Researchers distinguish the automatic initiation of an action from the automatic performance of its constituent steps. In studies of exercise behavior, habitual instigation—the tendency for a familiar cue to trigger starting exercise—has been investigated separately from habitual execution, the automaticity of how exercise is performed. These distinctions help explain how a complex activity can become easier to start while remaining cognitively demanding to carry out (Gardner, Phillips, & Judah, 2016; Phillips & Gardner, 2016).

Accordingly, a routine does not have to become completely automatic to be sustainable. A planned sequence can reduce ambiguity, while acquired habits make particular steps easier to initiate. Many complex routines remain partly goal-directed throughout their lifespan. The idea that an entire multi-step activity becomes effortless and unconscious is an overextension of what habit research generally establishes.

Can a Habit Exist Without a Routine?

Yes. An action can be cued habitually even when there is no elaborate or named routine surrounding it. Reaching for a phone when a notification arrives, checking a particular shelf after entering the kitchen, or choosing the familiar route at a junction may reflect cue-dependent patterns without belonging to a formal daily schedule.

The reverse is also possible. A person can deliberately repeat a structured routine for weeks while continuing to rely on reminders or effort to start it. Regular performance offers an opportunity for learning; it does not automatically demonstrate strong cue-response associations. Researchers distinguish how often behavior occurs from how automatically it is initiated (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003; Gardner, Abraham, Lally, & de Bruijn, 2012).

Habit, Routine, Ritual, and Schedule: Related Concepts

A schedule states when something is intended to happen. A routine describes a recurrent pattern of activity. A habit concerns the learned activation of a response by familiar cues. These distinctions can be used together: a schedule provides a time, a routine provides a sequence, and automaticity may develop for some responses within that sequence.

A ritual is often distinguished by its symbolic or prescribed form, the meaning participants attach to it, and the way a repeated sequence is performed. Rituals can also involve automatic components, but the psychology of ritual includes questions about emotion, group connection, meaning, and perceived order that extend beyond habit learning. An integrative review by Hobson and colleagues (2018) examines these wider processes.

Consistency and discipline are further everyday terms that should be interpreted carefully. Consistency describes repeated performance over time, while discipline usually refers to efforts to sustain behavior in accordance with goals or rules. Neither word is a validated measure of habit automaticity. A person can consistently use deliberate strategies without having developed a strong habit for the action itself.

Intention and Habit Can Work Together

A common oversimplification treats habits as actions performed against intention and routines as actions performed by intention. Intentions are often involved in selecting which behavior to repeat, arranging environmental cues, or deciding when to change a response. Once a cue-response association strengthens, the familiar context can contribute to action even when the original goal is not actively rehearsed.

Intentions may also compete with habitual tendencies. A person may plan to put away a phone during dinner yet repeatedly reach for it after a familiar alert. In another situation, a strongly held intention may override the cue and interrupt the response. A 2024 state-of-the-field review explicitly cautions that habit and intention can dominate at different moments and that habit formation is neither a guaranteed nor a necessary condition for lasting behavior change (Gardner et al., 2024).

This interaction matters for intervention design. Helping someone decide what they want to do, clarifying the context for action, and reducing the number of competing demands can support a routine. Repeating a chosen response after an identifiable cue may gradually increase automaticity. It is useful to ask separately whether the person knows the intended sequence, is able to start it, and experiences individual steps as increasingly automatic.

How Habits Form Inside Routines

Habits are often studied by asking people to repeat a particular behavior in a stable situation and then assessing changes in perceived automaticity. One early longitudinal field study asked participants to adopt daily eating, drinking, or activity behaviors in a consistent context. Automaticity generally increased with repetition and tended toward an asymptote, although trajectories and timelines differed considerably (Lally et al., 2010).

This evidence supports three practical ideas. First, repetition gives cue-response learning an opportunity to occur. Second, recognizable cues help connect occasions of performance. Third, the degree of automaticity should be assessed over time rather than inferred from the mere existence of a checklist or schedule. The same routine may contain a fast-forming habit such as placing a water bottle on a desk and a demanding task that remains deliberate.

One exploratory flossing study examined the role of situational cues and reported findings consistent with the relevance of the preceding behavior for habit formation. Its exploratory design and limited sample call for appropriate caution about generalization (Judah et al., 2013). This is a useful illustration of cue placement, not proof that one specific cue arrangement works universally.

How long does automaticity take?

There is no scientifically established universal number of days that turns a routine into a habit. The frequently repeated “21 days” formula is not a general empirical law. Lally and colleagues found large differences between individuals and behaviors, with estimated time to approach an automaticity plateau varying widely among participants for whom the model could be fitted (Lally et al., 2010).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of health-related habit formation published in 2024 likewise reported substantial variation in measured timelines and limitations in the available studies. Across the studies that estimated time to automaticity, values varied according to the analytic measure, behavior, and participants. The authors emphasized methodological heterogeneity and risk-of-bias concerns (Singh et al., 2024). For readers, the implication is to track whether an action becomes easier to initiate under its cue rather than treating a calendar milestone as a guarantee.

How Do Researchers Measure Habit Rather Than Routine?

A routine can be documented by asking what actions occur, when they occur, how often they recur, and in what order. Habit research also needs an assessment of automaticity. One influential instrument, the Self-Report Habit Index, includes items reflecting repeated performance, a sense of automaticity, and aspects of identity. Later work developed and tested a shorter automaticity-focused subscale to address the conceptual problem of treating mere frequency as equivalent to habit strength (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003; Gardner et al., 2012).

Self-report measures ask whether a response feels automatic, requires little thought, or tends to occur before conscious awareness of choosing it. They do not directly reveal every underlying brain process. Diary studies, behavioral observations, experimental cue manipulations, and changes in the behavior's relationship to goals can provide complementary information. Each method has limitations, particularly when an action is complex or when people have difficulty recalling what prompted it.

A practical illustration: doing a stretching session every evening establishes regularity, but it does not by itself show that starting the session is automatic. If finishing dinner increasingly prompts laying out a mat without a separate reminder, that suggests a strengthening cue-response link. A person might still deliberately choose which stretches to perform. The distinction prevents a routine's regularity from being mistaken for its psychological mechanism.

Everyday Examples: Where Habit and Routine Overlap

Morning preparation

A morning routine might include opening curtains, preparing breakfast, reviewing appointments, and leaving home. Opening the curtains on entering a familiar room may occur automatically, while reviewing appointments requires reading and interpretation. A change in the day's schedule can alter the routine without erasing the familiar action tendencies that operate inside it.

Studying and focused work

A student can arrange a recurring study routine by selecting a place, laying out materials, and reserving time. Sitting at the desk and opening a notebook may gradually become cued by the location, even though understanding difficult material remains effortful. The routine organizes opportunities for work; any resulting habit may assist with initiation rather than automatically supplying comprehension or sustained concentration.

Exercise and physical activity

A workout routine coordinates decisions about timing, equipment, exercises, intensity, and recovery. Getting changed when a particular cue occurs might become habitual. Choosing exercises, adapting for an injury, or responding to fatigue still calls for judgment. Studies distinguishing habit of initiation from habit of execution show why exercise frequency and effortless performance should not be treated as identical (Phillips & Gardner, 2016).

Cooking and food decisions

A person can intentionally plan weekday meals while automatically reaching for a familiar ingredient or utensil when standing in a familiar kitchen. A new home, grocery arrangement, or work schedule may disrupt these cues. The routine can survive through planning, while some individual automatic actions weaken or shift as contexts change.

Phone use and digital environments

Someone may have an intentional evening routine that includes reading messages at a chosen time. Separate from that routine, unlocking a phone or opening an app may become an automatic response to boredom, a notification, or a pause between activities. Digital interfaces are designed around repeated encounters with cues, but repeated use should not be treated as evidence of a clinical disorder. Questions about persuasive design and attention belong in a more specialized analysis of digital behavior; the general habit mechanism is the focus here.

Why a Routine Can Feel Difficult Even When It Is Repeated

Repeating a sequence can make its steps more familiar without eliminating effort, conflict, complexity, or external demands. A routine may contain activities that demand ongoing concentration, physical exertion, planning, emotional regulation, or cooperation from other people. Greater familiarity may lower some decision demands while leaving other costs intact.

Initiation is a separate bottleneck. Someone may know every step of a weekly administrative routine but still need a reminder to begin it. A task can also be highly automatic after its first step while the first step remains difficult to initiate. The distinction between habitual instigation and execution provides one scientific way to frame this difference without assuming a deficit in willpower or character (Gardner, Phillips, & Judah, 2016).

Context changes add another complication. Travel, caregiving demands, illness, rotating shifts, changes in workplace structure, and unpredictable schedules can remove established cues. A previously easy behavior may temporarily require renewed planning. This is consistent with the context-sensitive nature of habit rather than proof that previous learning never occurred.

When an Automatic Habit Is Helpful—and When It Creates Problems

Automaticity can make useful responses more likely to occur in familiar settings with less active deliberation. Reaching for a reusable shopping bag when approaching the door, washing hands after a relevant cue, and packing essential items in a stable order illustrate how learned responses can complement larger deliberate goals.

The same cue sensitivity can preserve an unwanted response. A familiar notification can prompt checking a device even when someone planned to focus. Entering a particular environment may increase the likelihood of following an old action sequence. This is why changing surroundings or cues may matter alongside motivation, although no single environmental adjustment guarantees a behavior change (Wood & Rünger, 2016).

It is also possible to overvalue automaticity. Some activities require active attention precisely because safety, accuracy, ethical judgment, or changing conditions matter. Professional decisions, medication management, unfamiliar road conditions, and complex interpersonal conversations often benefit from review and deliberate flexibility. A successful routine can intentionally preserve decision points instead of trying to automate everything.

How to Build a Routine That Supports Habit Formation

The most useful starting point is a specific repeatable action rather than the ambition to make an entire lifestyle effortless. Choose an action small enough to fit a realistic recurring situation, identify the cue that could precede it, and decide what will happen if the normal context changes. The goal is to create reliable opportunities for a response to occur after a recognizable signal.

For example, “read more” describes an aspiration. “After I put my lunch dishes away, I open my book and read one page” specifies a possible cue and response. The rest of a reading routine can remain flexible. This approach is compatible with research on context-consistent repetition, but its outcome will depend on the person, behavior, and environment (Lally et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2024).

A routine may also make space for nonautomatic components. A study routine can provide a familiar starting cue and a checklist while requiring intentional choice about which material to review. An exercise routine can simplify preparation yet preserve flexibility about intensity. Designing the sequence this way treats automatic initiation as useful support rather than as a replacement for judgment.

Choose cues that actually recur

A useful cue occurs frequently enough and consistently enough to give repetition an opportunity. Anchoring a response to finishing a meal, entering a room, or closing a work application may be more concrete than relying solely on a vague intention. Yet cues can become unreliable under shift work, travel, unstable housing, or changing family demands; in those contexts, adaptable prompts may be more practical than a fixed daily schedule.

Make the first action feasible

A response that regularly exceeds available time, energy, or resources will be difficult to repeat even if the cue is obvious. A small first action can reduce initiation demands, while a structured routine can leave room for later steps. This is a practical application of the broader habit evidence, not a claim that a universal micro-habit formula has been proven for every domain.

Review what is becoming automatic

It helps to distinguish completing the action from starting it without a reminder. If the goal is automatic initiation, examine whether the cue increasingly prompts the first response. If the goal is a reliable routine, assess whether the sequence remains useful, manageable, and appropriate. Neither outcome requires flawless daily performance.

How to Change an Unwanted Habit Within a Routine

Start by locating the specific response and its context. An entire evening routine may be worthwhile even if opening a distracting app during a break is unwanted. Identifying the trigger and the particular action allows a more precise change than abandoning the whole routine.

Options may include changing the cue, adjusting the environment, making the unwanted response less convenient, or practicing a more useful alternative when the same situation occurs. These approaches are consistent with cue-response accounts of habit and their application to behavior change. However, habitual tendencies can persist even when behavior is temporarily suppressed; the intervention literature cautions against assuming that one replacement episode erases an established association (Gardner et al., 2024).

Preserve useful structure where possible. If a morning routine provides predictability, it may be better to replace one automatic distraction than to discard the entire sequence. If a routine itself is too rigid or mismatched to current responsibilities, deliberately changing its timing or steps may be more helpful than trying to strengthen each individual habit. The intervention should match the source of difficulty.

Do Habit Tracking and Habit Stacking Make a Routine Automatic?

Tracking records whether an action occurred. It can help people notice patterns, monitor progress, and maintain awareness of their goals. A record of daily completion, however, cannot establish that action is automatic. The distinction matters because the same checkbox might be completed through strong cue-driven initiation or through a fresh conscious effort every day.

Habit stacking is a popular description for linking a new action to a familiar preceding activity: “After I finish X, I do Y.” The proposed mechanism involves stable contextual or action cues and repetition. Its scientific justification comes from wider research on cue-dependent behavior rather than from proof that the branded phrase defines a separate psychological mechanism. The effectiveness of a specific stack depends on how dependable the cue and feasible the response are.

A person can use a tracker to monitor a routine while noticing whether individual steps begin to feel increasingly automatic. Such monitoring may support follow-through, but the scientific questions about progress monitoring and automaticity are distinct. Relevant published English articles on habit stacking and habit tracking are linked below.

Individual Differences, Accessibility, and Clinical Context

People vary in executive demands, energy, sensory preferences, social responsibilities, environmental stability, and the supports available to them. A highly structured routine can be useful for one person and burdensome for another. The amount of deliberate scaffolding an activity requires also changes with sleep, illness, stress, and situational complexity. Broad habit findings should be applied with these differences in mind.

Difficulty starting or maintaining a routine is not, by itself, a diagnosis of ADHD, depression, an anxiety disorder, or another clinical condition. Symptoms such as persistent low mood, anhedonia, marked attention difficulties, intrusive thoughts, or clinically significant impairment require assessment in their own context. Routine-building advice does not replace professional evaluation when functioning or well-being is substantially affected.

In obsessive-compulsive presentations, repeated behavior can involve anxiety, intrusive thoughts, and efforts to reduce distress; such patterns should not be explained away as ordinary habits. Likewise, substance-use and gambling-related behaviors involve specialized reward, learning, and clinical processes beyond a general habit-versus-routine comparison. The English Hub assigns those clinical questions to their dedicated subject areas.

Scientific Limits: What the Evidence Can and Cannot Tell Us

The definition of habit as cue-response automaticity has a substantial theoretical and empirical foundation. Evidence also supports the value of distinguishing automatic initiation from performance, and laboratory and field studies provide complementary perspectives on context and repetition. At the same time, research uses differing operational definitions and measures, and complex real-world behaviors remain difficult to classify conclusively (Wood & Rünger, 2016; Gardner et al., 2024).

Many studies rely on self-reported automaticity and behavior frequency. These measures can be informative, but they cannot establish that all components of an activity run independently of goals or awareness. Health-related studies may not transfer directly to learning, parenting, skilled professional work, or digital interactions. Long-term maintenance depends on multiple factors besides habit strength.

Research on routines is also heterogeneous because the word covers different levels of organization. A household routine, a therapeutic routine, and a single person's morning sequence can have different purposes and constraints. Comparing them to a narrow automaticity construct requires clear specification of what is being measured. The key scientific improvement is to identify processes in the specific activity rather than assign one label to every instance of repetition.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a habit the same as a routine?

No. A habit is defined in contemporary psychology by learned cue-response automaticity, whereas a routine is a repeated pattern or organized sequence of activities. A routine can contain habitual and deliberately controlled steps, and a habit can occur outside a named routine.

Are routines always intentional?

Routines can be deliberately designed, but the components and even the initiation of a familiar routine may become automatic. Social expectations, reminders, and environmental structures can also maintain a routine. Intention is often involved without controlling every action equally.

Can you have a routine without forming a habit?

Yes. Following a repeated checklist or schedule can remain effortful and deliberate. Repetition creates opportunities for automaticity, but repeated performance alone does not demonstrate that a cue has acquired strong control over initiation.

Does repeating something every day make it a habit?

Daily repetition can contribute to habit learning when the action is repeated in a recognizable context. Automaticity develops to varying degrees and on different timelines. A daily action still may depend primarily on conscious intention, reminders, or external requirements (Lally et al., 2010).

Does a routine take 21 or 66 days to become a habit?

Neither number is a universal threshold. The “66 days” figure is often taken out of context from a study showing wide variation in estimated habit-formation trajectories. A more recent systematic review also reports heterogeneous timelines and methodological limitations (Singh et al., 2024).

Is brushing your teeth a habit or a routine?

It can be both, depending on the level of analysis. A person may include toothbrushing in a deliberate bedtime routine while beginning the action automatically after a familiar cue. The order of brushing, flossing, and preparing for bed is a sequence; how automatically individual responses begin is a separate question.

Is working out a habit or a routine?

A workout routine can organize time, exercises, and recovery. Putting on workout clothes or beginning the session after a reliable cue can be habitual, while the workout itself continues to involve deliberate decisions. Research specifically separates habitual instigation from habitual execution.

Are good habits always better than routines?

They serve different functions. Automatic actions can reduce some initiation demands, while a consciously organized routine can accommodate changing goals, safety considerations, and context. Effective behavior may rely on both, and some activities are best kept deliberately adjustable.

Can breaking a routine remove an unwanted habit?

Changing a routine can remove or alter cues associated with an unwanted response, which may reduce its occurrence. It does not necessarily erase the learned association. When a familiar cue returns, the old tendency may also reappear, so durable change can require context management and repeated alternative behavior.

What matters most when deciding what to change?

Identify whether the difficulty concerns starting the action, performing its steps, arranging a workable sequence, or responding to a recurring cue. A starting problem may call for a clearer first action or prompt; a sequencing problem may require simplifying the routine; a cue-driven unwanted response may require modifying the context. That is more precise than treating every difficulty as lack of discipline.

Related Articles

For the broader psychology of behavior change, read Motivation, Habits, and Self-Control: Psychology of Behavior Change. For the parent explanation of cue-response learning, see How Habits Form: Cues, Repetition, and Automaticity. For the strengths and limitations of a common popular framework, see The Habit Loop: Cue, Routine, Reward, and Scientific Limits.

To explore applied approaches, see Habit Stacking: How to Attach New Behaviors to Existing Routines and Habit Tracking: Does Monitoring Help Make Behavior Automatic?. Context-specific extensions include Sleep Hygiene: Evidence-Based Habits and Their Limits and Persuasive Design and Habit-Forming Apps.

For a practical evidence-informed return to an interrupted behavioral routine, read How to Restart a Habit After Missing Days or Losing Momentum.

References

Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Lally, P., & de Bruijn, G.-J. (2012). Towards parsimony in habit measurement: Testing the convergent and predictive validity of an automaticity subscale of the Self-Report Habit Index. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-102.

Gardner, B., Phillips, L. A., & Judah, G. (2016). Habitual instigation and habitual execution: Definition, measurement, and effects on behaviour frequency. British Journal of Health Psychology, 21(3), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12189.

Gardner, B., Rebar, A. L., de Wit, S., & Lally, P. (2024). What is habit and how can it be used to change real-world behaviour? Narrowing the theory–reality gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(6), e12975. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12975.

Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(3), 260–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734944.

Judah, G., Gardner, B., & Aunger, R. (2013). Forming a flossing habit: An exploratory study of the psychological determinants of habit formation. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18(2), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02086.x.

Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674.

Phillips, L. A., & Gardner, B. (2016). Habitual exercise instigation (vs. execution) predicts healthy adults’ exercise frequency. Health Psychology, 35(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000249.

Singh, B., Murphy, A., Maher, C., & Smith, A. E. (2024). Time to form a habit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of health behaviour habit formation and its determinants. Healthcare, 12(23), 2488. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12232488.

Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003). Reflections on past behavior: A self-report index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1313–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01951.x.

Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit–goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843.

Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417.